In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Greg Smith]

CKS quoth:

Do you have the ability, then, to correct the FAIRMormon page

I have many abilities. It does not seem necessary in this instance, since someone beat me to it.

The FAIR wiki motto is "don't ask for permission to fix something, just do it. We can always revert." So, people just fix stuff if they notice it. Some stuff is incomplete. It works relatively well, though, for a small, all-volunteer group.

Hi Greg,

You're a brave fellow.

Not really. What, exactly, am I supposed to be afraid of?

I couldn't care less what any other author has written.

Probably wise, especially in this instance. You brought it up, not me.

What I find astonishingly inept are the several rudimentary errors on the FAIR wiki here, here, and here as of PST 11:30 p.m. 18 December 2009 (all of which I've saved)

"Saved"? Horrors! Wait, why didn't anyone tell me that anything put on the web might persist later? If only I had known. Curses. Foiled again. And, I'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids. Except, I didn't have anything to do with edits here, save initially posting the fax docs.

Since you and I don't always seem to have the same idea of what constitutes an "error," if you can point out what you think problematic, it would probably get changed if folks agreed (if it hasn't been already--I haven't been following the edits there, though it looks like there has been work done since I uploaded the file).

Of course, if there was an error, and we fixed it, what would happen to the myth that no one at FAIR changes their mind or views about things? Best not to reflect too long on such things, I suppose.

You may well find them inept. I will fret about this to the degree it deserves.

If you think I think I'm infallible, you're mistaken. And, unlike some, I'm quite happy to admit and fix my errors and b

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Dan,

Contrary to what others may think, I'm not of the opinion that you or Bill have brazenly "lied," but you are most certainly mistaken on Bill's source. (Honestly, Dan, I've tried to give you an out on this.)

How is it that he is "most certainly mistaken" on the source? Why is it so implausible that two communications were sent to different receivers from the First Presidency's office, each containing a standard, boilerplate response?

This cloak-and-dagger stuff is ridiculous. If you have evidence, let's see it. Otherwise, spare us the vacuous insinuations.

[Daniel Peterson]

This cloak-and-dagger stuff is ridiculous. If you have evidence, let's see it. Otherwise, spare us the vacuous insinuations.

Quite.

I had never, ever, not even once, thought of Brent Metcalfe and my Malevolent Stalker at the same time, until last night.

I wouldn't have imagined, previously, that they inhabited the same bizarro alternative reality.

[cksalmon]

I'm disappointed, by the way, to see how easily you accuse others of lying and deceit. That may be significant.

I'm not surprised that you've left out the material that contradicts your point here, but it seems a tad silly.

I wrote:

That certainly appears to be the case. And, yet, DCP has averred that such a conclusion would be false and would necessarily indicate duplicity on his part. That latter is a red herring, of course.

You responded:

Nope. It's not.

But, of course it is, since no one in this thread, least of all me, has suggested that anything discussed so far necessitates duplicity on your part. Do you see that, since what is being discussed is the provenance of the Second Watson Letter, and you want to change the issue to a referendum on your honesty, you've introduced a red herring?

As for the latter, I don't recall ever having seen you retract or significantly modify any claim you've ever made on this board or elsewhere. That was my point. It may just be that you've never misspoken, misremembered, or (unintentionally) misrepresented anything at all. If so, my apologies.

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not surprised that you've left out the material that contradicts your point here, but it seems a tad silly.

Feel free to supply it, cks.

no one in this thread, least of all me, has suggested that anything discussed so far necessitates duplicity on your part.

Then what are you suggesting?

Spell it out.

Do you see that, since what is being discussed is the provenance of the Second Watson Letter, and you want to change the issue to a referendum on your honesty, you've introduced a red herring?

Spell it out, cks. I saw a letter from Michael Watson. The JBMS cites a letter from Michael Watson: "Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993." Nobody at FARMS misattributed that. Nobody substituted Michael Watson for Carla Ogden. (I've never heard of Carla Ogden.)

As for the latter, I don't recall ever having seen you retract or significantly modify any claim you've ever made on this board or elsewhere. That was my point. It may just be that you've never misspoken, misremembered, or (unintentionally) misrepresented anything at all. If so, my apologies.

But only if I've never misspoken, misremembered, or (unintentionally) misrepresented anything at all. Unless I'm perfect, your insulting falsehood stands without apology. Right?

What a disappointment you've suddenly become.

First of all, cks, I have corrected errors of mine on this very board. You're a Calvinist, but not (I trust) a solipsist, so you'll perhaps allow for the possibility that something might exist even if it's beyond your limited experience? And, once you've granted that, you might perhaps admit the improbable but still possible idea that I have a life beyond this board?

In any event, perhaps unlike you?, I tend very strongly toward posting things that I believe to be correct, and toward defending things in which I believe. Which means that I also don't tend to retract them. But in that latter regard, I think, you're not so very different.

P.S. For the residents of the Compound, who are hyperventilating with conspiracy theories and demanding of Brent Hall why he hasn't responded, and of Bill Hamblin why he's remaining silent, and of FARMS (better, nowadays, the Maxwell Institute) why it hasn't been able to track down other versions of the Watson letter, etc. --

Brent Hall no longer works for FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, and has never, to the best of my knowledge, ever appeared in one of our publications, posted on a message board, or paid any attention to any of this. He was our office manager.

Bill Hamblin is in Jerusalem, teaching; hasn't posted on a message board in many, many months; and, thus far at least, seems to be entirely unaware of this latest hysteria (lucky Bill!).

Nobody at the Maxwell Institute has ever looked for a corroborating copy of the Watson letter, because nobody at the Maxwell Institute doubts the existence of the one cited in the JBMS -- why should they? they don't even think about it at all these days -- and because nobody at the Maxwell Institute other than myself pays much attention to this board, nor any attention whatever to the Compound. Jerry Bradford, Paul Hoskisson, Alison Coutts, Stephen Ricks, Shirley Ricks, Elin Roberts, Kristian Heal -- to the best of my knowledge, none of them even knows that this message board exists, let alone hangs on every word of every conspiratorial fantasy hatched by the fertile and malignant brain of my Malevolent Stalker (who, by the way, has been subjected to a small but entertaining taste of his own toxic medicine over the past few days by this board's own The Nehor).

.

[cksalmon]

Feel free to supply it, cks.

See above where I re-supplied it.

Then what are you suggesting?

Spell it out.

What I'm suggesting is that you are (1) not a liar and that you are either (2) honestly mistaken or (3) correctly narrating the events in question. (1) I believe, (2) I suspect, (3) I hold out as a distinct possibility.

I hope that is clear enough.

Spell it out, cks. I saw a letter from Michael Watson. The JBMS cites a letter from Michael Watson: "Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993." Nobody at FARMS misattributed that. Nobody substituted Michael Watson for Carla Ogden. (I've never heard of Carla Ogden.)

Okay.

But only if I've never misspoken, misremembered, or (unintentionally) misrepresented anything at all. Unless I'm perfect, your insulting falsehood stands without apology. Right?

Right. Lighten up. I intended it more as a humorous observation. Your own brand of humor is quite often biting, and I don't consider mine untoward.

What a disappointment you've suddenly become.

Goodness, I can only "become" a disappointment to you once. And that happened long ago, didn't it?

cks

[Calm]

When was the first Watson letter publically circulated? Was this the same time it was published on the internet; if not, when was it first published on the Internet?

[Calm]

I take it the issue is not the content--it is hardly surprising that two people get the identical letter if an office is sending out a form letter. Happens all the time with government offices, for example.

I take it the issue is not that it's two different people responding---it is hardly surprising that if there is an agreed upon standard response, that two people in the same office would use it. Happens all the time with government offices, for example.

I take it there is no real problem that one responded by fax and another by snail mail---it is hardly surprising that individuals would respond using the same format as the letter of enquiry was received, by one fax with the usual brevity, by the other snail mail with a more standard salutation, etc. Happens all the time in the university and store offices that I have frequented.

So what is exactly the issue that leads someone to believe that the fax is a forgery--that the two responses were sent out the same day?

[Calm]

Aother thing---if the fax is a forgery, then isn't Brent in on it as he claims it's been circulating in some circles for ages. Or is the suggestion that the fax is an old forgery...though one that's apparently not been appealed to as support by any of the major actors involved in Dr. Hamblin's article...so for what purpose was it forged?

So is it the fax that's a forgery or some other issue?

Please be specific in your accusations.

[cksalmon]

So what is exactly the issue that leads someone to believe that the fax is a forgery--that the two responses were sent out the same day?

Who here said it was a forgery?

[Calm]

Who here said it was a forgery?

It's being said elsewhere.

What specifically is your issue with either Dr. Hamblin's article or the FAIR Wiki posting?

Do you have an issue with the two letters (one having been sent snail mail, the other faxed) being sent out on the same exact date or something else?

If so, why is this a problem?

PS: I believe I understand your reasoning, but don't want to proceed in discussing them in case my assumptions are incorrect.

[Daniel Peterson]

Alright.

It's been more than sixteen years.

I'm not infallible.

Maybe my memory is unbelievably faulty.

Maybe I'm losing my mind.

Maybe (as one of the more charitable residents of the Compound -- these things are all relative -- has suggested earlier today), I'm suffering from age-related dementia.

My Malevolent Stalker and his three or four fevered disciples notwithstanding, I do try to get things right. So I send a note to Professor Hamblin in Jerusalem a few hours ago. (Or, anyway, to wherever he may be in the Mediterranean area right now, the Jerusalem Center being between academic terms). My note to him reads as follows:

Okay, Bill. Serious question. Brent Metcalfe has jumped into the fray, the volume has gone way, way up, and we

[Calm]

Let the accusations continue.

And if they could be specific and detailed, it would be helpful.

[Calm]

So I send a note to Professor Hamblin in Jerusalem a few hours ago. (Or, anyway, to wherever he may be in the Mediterranean area right now, the Jerusalem Center being between academic terms). My note to him reads as follows.....

I stand by my story.

It was a letter. Not a fax. From Michael Watson. Not from Carla Ogden.

If possible, next time you and he have more ability to talk than a text message, if you could ask him if he remembers what prompted him to send the letter (looking for material for his article, a discussion he had with someone, a lightening bolt from the sky, etc.), it might be helpful in resolving the dating issue...of course, this will not satisfy critics even if he does remember as they can simply claim it is yet another deception trying to cover the other deception.

I still can't see what the problem is...why would Dr. Hamblin lie about where his reference came from? What difference does it make to his use of the reference that the sendee was a Carla Ogden working in the office of Michael Watson and therefore under his direction or Michael Watson himself?

[Daniel Peterson]

If possible, next time you and he have more ability to talk than a text message, if you could ask him if he remembers what prompted him to send the letter (looking for material for his article, a discussion he had with someone, a lightening bolt from the sky, etc.), it might be helpful in resolving the dating issue...of course, this will not satisfy critics even if he does remember as they can simply claim it is yet another deception trying to cover the other deception.

Which, as surely as the sun sets in the evening, is precisely what they'll do.

I still can't see what the problem is...why would Dr. Hamblin lie about where his reference came from? What difference does it make to his use of the reference that the sendee was a Carla Ogden working in the office of Michael Watson and therefore under his direction or Michael Watson himself?

Content-wise, manifestly and (I think) significantly, there's no difference at all.

Which, if (as seems likely) it indicates the use of a standard-language response on this issue by the Office of the First Presidency at that point in 1993, certainly doesn't lessen the force of the letter that Professor Hamblin cited in his excellent JBMS article, but, if anything, strengthens it. And, moreover, the apparent fact that this was a standard-language response seems to render the claim, by some of the more fevered residents of the Compound, that Bill somehow "bullied" the First Presidency into caving in to the FARMS position, rather less plausible.

If I understand what the small handful of the crazier conspiracy theorists are currently claiming -- and I'll admit that I just skim their effusions, without reading them very carefully, let alone trying to parse them as if they were actually important documents -- it seems to be that Bill Hamblin or Brent Hall or somebody received this fax from Carla Ogden, and then, in a deliberate effort to exaggerate its significance, misrepresented it as a letter, on letterhead, from the far higher-ranked Michael Watson. (We should, I suppose, have gone for Ezra Taft Benson himself while we were at it.) The most radical position of my Malevolent Stalker's merry little band appears to have morphed from the earlier claim that we flatly made the thing up ex nihilo -- a position that they have apparently quietly recognized as untenable, in view of the surfacing of an identically-worded fax from the Office of the First Presidency (though at least one die-hard loon apparently believes that we may have forged it) -- to the somewhat more nuanced claim that we've simply lied about the nature of the communication and about the name of its author.

I unequivocally deny this. Neither Matt Roper, nor William Hamblin, nor Brent Hall, nor Dan Peterson, nor anybody else with whom I work or ever have worked at BYU or in FARMS is so brazenly dishonest and so unbelievably foolish as to have attempted such a stunt.

[Calm]

I unequivocally deny this. Neither Matt Roper, nor William Hamblin, nor Brent Hall, nor Dan Peterson, nor anybody else with whom I work or ever have worked at BYU or in FARMS is so brazenly dishonest and so unbelievably foolish as to have attempted such a stunt.

And it would be definitely foolish to have done so with the SMCC on patrol (or whatever the committee is called that involves an apparently extensive spy network for keeping track of any public follies of LDS members).

PS: this summary of claims that you give above is what I've assumed those not arguing for a forgery were getting at. Perhaps cksalmon and Brent can confirm this is their theory and if not, give us what they imagine the scenario to be.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hi Wiki Wonka,

If you'd like a substantive response, please PM your real-world identity. I try to avoid protracted exchanges with folks I don't know.

That is precisely the response that my Malevolent Stalker would give.

Uncanny.

Intriguing, in its own insignificant way.

(

[Wiki Wonka]

Hi Wiki Wonka,

If you'd like a substantive response, please PM your real-world identity. I try to avoid protracted exchanges with folks I don't know.

But don't expect a response toni... er,... this morning. Bedtime.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Calm]

Hi Wiki Wonka,

If you'd like a substantive response, please PM your real-world identity. I try to avoid protracted exchanges with folks I don't know.

I'm assuming this means you are okay with responding to WW's here in public as soon as you know who you are talking to (which you are willing to learn privately if WW does not want his identity made public for some reason).

[Daniel Peterson]

The obsessive but seemingly unmotivated drive for vengeance, the weird and unremitting personal hostility, the bizarre multiyear campaign, the faux-civility, the desperate need for anonymity . . .

Wow.

It all begins to come into focus.

Could it be true?

If so, how truly, stunningly, pathetic.

[Calm]

The obsessive but seemingly unmotivated drive for vengeance, the weird and unremitting personal hostility, the bizarre multiyear campaign, the faux-civility, the desperate need for anonymity . . .

Wow.

It all begins to come into focus.

Could it be true?

If so, how truly, stunningly, pathetic.

I don't know....Brent is always pretty careful about taking credit for what he writes (even has an "all rights reserved" on his posts). Doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would go in for anonymity.

PS: Just got called into work, can't play anymore. Will check in later though I'm sure, my addiction being what it is.

[cksalmon]

What specifically is your issue with either Dr. Hamblin's article or the FAIR Wiki posting?

What specifically is your issue with either Dr. Hamblin's article or the FAIR Wiki posting?

My problem with the FAIR Wiki posting is quite straightforward. Let

[mfbukowski]

I take it there is no real problem that one responded by fax and another by snail mail---it is hardly surprising that individuals would respond using the same format as the letter of enquiry was received, by one fax with the usual brevity, by the other snail mail with a more standard salutation, etc. Happens all the time in the university and store offices that I have frequented.

And since I am old, I recall that that was the usual procedure in the "olden days" when fax was new. Faxes lacked credibility. The were fine for quick communication, but anything important was always followed up by a "real" letter with a "real" ink signature.

A faxed signature was never taken to be a legal signature at first. The fax might confirm that the deal was at least preliminarily agreed to, but it wasn't legal until you had the signature in your hand.

[cksalmon]

The obsessive but seemingly unmotivated drive for vengeance, the weird and unremitting personal hostility, the bizarre multiyear campaign, the faux-civility, the desperate need for anonymity . . .

Wow.

It all begins to come into focus.

Could it be true?

If so, how truly, stunningly, pathetic.

If you're serious, this counts as probably the lamest, stupidest insinuation I've seen you post on MADB, DCP.

I do wonder, however: Is this one of the statements that you might be willing to correct at some future point, or is this going to stand, as a digital monument, in perpetuity?

cks

Really?

Things get perceptibly less serious here as the calendar rolls on. On another thread, Mordecai has now announced that John Gee has provided to the world the definitive translation of Rom 10.8-15 since Gee, in a perhaps unique fit of late-night scholarship, decided to translate directly from the Koine.

[Daniel Peterson]

If you're serious, this counts as probably the lamest, stupidest insinuation I've seen you post on MADB, DCP.

If I were you, cks, I would immediately withdraw from the charm school you're attending and demand an instant refund. You were a far more pleasant fellow before you enrolled.

I do wonder, however: Is this one of the statements that you might be willing to correct at some future point, or is this going to stand, as a digital monument, in perpetuity?

Since I've drawn no conclusion, there is no conclusion for me to withdraw.

I had never, until yesterday, even thought of the possibility that Brent might be connected with my Malevolent Stalker, let alone seriously considered it. It hadn't occurred to me. I don't say that he is my Malevolent Stalker (though, of course, I can't rule that out), but they now seem to me linked in some interesting way that I hadn't recognized before. That seems pretty obvious, even beyond reasonable dispute, and I see no reason to withdraw the observation.

It's rather funny to see you react so strongly to my musings. Unless I'm mistaken, you've watched far, far rougher things -- accusations of brazenly unethical acts, for instance, including fraud -- be posted about me and my associates over at the Compound, where you're participating on the relevant thread, without protest. Yet, here, you're hypersensitive.