In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

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.

So I'm "Doctor Scratch"?

Yes, that would be "stunningly, pathetic." Though significantly less "stunningly, pathetic" than the mammoth hubris it must take to equate my questioning your memory with an "obsessive but seemingly unmotivated drive for vengeance."

No, I'm not "Doctor Scratch."

Clear enough?

Let's move on to some semblance of rationality...

I only have a few minutes tonight, so I'll first address the broader issue of what the 23 April 1993 document is. For argument's sake, let's assume that how you and Bill Hamblin have described events surrounding the document is accurate. Still, the document's content has marginal significance at best because it simply repurposes an existing publication.

• 
  The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.
  [Carla Ogden to Brent Hall, fax, 23 April 1993.]
  

• 
  Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.
  [Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), s.v. CUMORAH.]
  

Bill wasn't the honored beneficiary of some kind of 1993 papal bull from the Office of the First Presidency, he was the proud recipient of a courtesy quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published the previous year.

More to come...

My best,

</brent>

Edit: Added a comma.

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Greg Smith]

Bill wasn't the honored beneficiary of some kind of 1993 papal bull from the Office of the First Presidency, he was the proud recipient of a courtesy quote from the <i>Encyclopedia of Mormonism</i>, published the previous year.

This might be a trifle hasty. It seems to me that there are at least two options:

Metcalfe model: Encyclopedia of Mormonism [A] --> Text --> First Pres Office Fax --> Hamblin --> FARMS Review [C]

Again, though, I am somewhat skeptical that the two supervising apostles (Elders Oaks and Maxwell, IIRC) would let the Encyclopedia of Mormonism simply set policy/doctrine on this matter. Another viable model must include, it seems to me:

GLS model:

1) First Presidency boilerplate text [D] --> Encyclopedia of Mormonism author(s)/editors for Cumorah entry [E]

2) First Presidency boilerplate text [D] --> Hamblin --> FARMS Review [C]

Or, more simply, close similarity of texts means either one text is dependent upon the other OR they are dependent upon a common precursor text. (Other variants of these models could also be possibilities, e.g., Boilerplate to EoM, which is then cited in future correspondence such as that to Hamblin.)

Of course, if the Metcalfe transmission model is correct, this would seem to provide some fairly high-level endorsement of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article, given that a reported conversation with F. Michael Watson indicated that the First Presidency wished to quiet a lack of clarity on this point. Unless, of course, the theory is still that Hall lied about the conversation he had and with whom he had it. And, the memory of those involved of a letter on letterhead also does need accounting for. Memory is fallible, true. But, there may be an explanation that accounts for all the recollections and the textual evidence.

But, that explanation wouldn't be much fun for CKS and Brett, so I doubt it will get much play. Perhaps time will tell.

I would call this a tempest in a teapot, but that seems rather prejudicial to any teapots feeling sensitive about their weight......

GLS

[Daniel Peterson]

So I'm "Doctor Scratch"?

It's not likely. But it's possible.

Do you know who Scratch is? If so, you could simply identify him. That way we'd know for sure. (Hey! Maybe I'm getting into the spirit of the Compound!) Do you know who Scratch is?

Though significantly less "stunningly, pathetic" than the mammoth hubris it must take to equate my questioning your memory with an "obsessive but seemingly unmotivated drive for vengeance."

I didn't do such a thing, of course. But, even if I had, there wouldn't be any clear connection with ?????. Be sure, when you use a technical term such as ?????, that you use it correctly.

No, I'm not "Doctor Scratch."

Who is Scratch? Do you know? Do you two exchange off-board messages? What is the nature of your connection with Scratch, if any?

I can certainly understand, if you're really not Scratch, why you would be very, very upset if somebody thought you were. Any normal person would be absolutely horrified at the thought.

Let's move on to some semblance of rationality...

You're already there. You've been there for quite a long time.

Bill wasn't the honored beneficiary of some kind of 1993 papal bull from the Office of the First Presidency, he was the proud recipient of a courtesy quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published the previous year.

And it came directly addressed to him, from the Office of the First Presidency.

And now, thanks to your diligent efforts, readers learn that the very same thing that was told to Professor Hamblin in the letter that Michael Watson sent to him on First Presidency letterhead was also faxed to others from the Office of the First Presidency and, in addition to that, had been included, though not quite in precisely the same words, in the semi-official Encyclopedia of Mormonism (supervised by Elders Oaks and Maxwell) during the previous year. Plainly, this was no mere fluke. This was a very intentional statement, approved by leaders of the Church -- two members of the Twelve and the Office of the First Presidency, at last count. Thank you for helping to establish that even more clearly.

It seems undeniably obvious, by the way, that the insinuation that's been made against Professor Hamblin and myself over the past several years by several residents of the Compound, that we invented the text of the Watson letter ex nihilo, has been definitively laid to rest. That's progress! And, plainly too, the First Presidency doesn't appear to have been intimidated into adopting that position by a 1993 communication from Brent Hall, the FARMS office manager. Perhaps, now, the scales will begin to fall from the eyes of some in the Compound?

More to come...

Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay! I chortle in my joy. How exciting!

My best,

</brent>

Oh, I sincerely hope not.

(

[mfbukowski]

So ultimately this is all about a form letter from a secretary who looked it up in the encyclopedia.

I think I said that around 300 posts ago.

[ed2276]

Ironically, you are one of the few people on this thread who doesn't know my real identity (which is fairly easy to deduce).

You are Gene Wilder!?

[Brent Metcalfe]

Frankly, Dan, you sound unhinged. You're clearly not in a position to discuss Ms. Ogden's fax in a meaningful way.

I wish you the best in your studies.

Regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[jmordecai]

Not familiar with this episode, so I

[Scott Lloyd]

Now, answer for yourself the following questions, cal, making reference to the above letter:

(1) Was Watson providing merely a personal response, or was he specifically asked to make a response?

[He states that, indeed, he was asked to forward the enclosed copy of the letter

[Scott Lloyd]

The criticisms:

1. If the objective was to quell the hoopla generated by the 1990 letter, an unsigned response on a fax coversheet by an unknown Carla Ogden would be woefully inadequate in light of the signed statement by the Secretary himself on official letterhead.

2. Bill Hamblin seems to endorse the superiority of the formal letter by citing it instead of Brent

[Scott Lloyd]

Frankly, Dan, you sound unhinged. You're clearly not in a position to discuss Ms. Ogden's fax in a meaningful way.

I wish you the best in your studies.

Regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[DanGB]

Too much good football this time of year to spend time here. But looks like my thread morphed into a platform for defending personal credibility. Don't know enough about the history of this "supposed" 2nd Watson Letter but seems to rival in importance with the existance of the gold plates here for most.

Frankly I think this is absolutely much ado about absolutely nothing! The cited phrase included in this Hamblin aricle cited all over this topic is so irrelevant to what was stated in the letter from the First Presidency's Office (which we know exists!). Almost makes me think everyone needs to go back to and take "English Comprehension, Sentence Structuring 101"!

Whatever or Whoever the source from this supposed 2nd Watson letter is not important. It would not matter had it (if it ever existed) was signed by President Hinckley at that time. It's language is mutually exclusive from the First Presidency's letter to Brother Brooks. It takes away nothing, nor negates anything that was communicated to Bro Brooks on behalf of the bretheren.

I can only surmise there must be some big stakes impact for Farms that have little to nothing to do with us members. Since most members I know have never heard of Farms, I suspect this "huge scandal, controversy, debate, claim of lies and deceipt" will never be heard or known about by 95%+ of general membership!

Now if someone would provide an answer to my original question, that would be applicable to my original post here!

Otherwise, let's focus on my "Boys"! Can they make/survive in the playoffs! If only Watson could answer that question!

[volgadon]

Now if someone would provide an answer to my original question, that would be applicable to my original post here!

Dan, I provided you with just that. Stop ignoring it.

[Uncle Dale]

...

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.

...

Hey there, Homie -- how about having Bart and Lisa gather together

about 10,000 words each, from Itchy and Scratchy...

And, I know this fellow at Stanford who uses Delta and Nearest Shrunken

Centroid Classifications to, ah ... er...

Well, maybe not, then ---

.

Uncle "Dough-nuts! hmmmmm.... d-oo-nnn-uuu-ttttt-sssssss!" Dale

[DanGB]

Dan, I provided you with just that. Stop ignoring it.

It was not on topic and totally irrelevant (and that was my bishop's comment!)

perhaps that's why it's ignored!

[volgadon]

I completely forgot that the late Rafael Patai of the hebrew University included a bit on Nephi in his book on ancient Hebrew seafarers.

This was not on topic and completely irrelevant?????????

Are you trying to say that for some odd reason you actually don't want your question answered?

[Calm]

Now, answer for yourself the following questions, cal, making reference to the above letter:

PS. If you missed the point (it was a long post), DCP and Hamblin maintain that the above image is in no way at all connected to the Second Watson Letter, albeit identically dated. So, why does FAIR Wiki present the Ogden-to-Hall fax as documentary evidence for the Second Watson Letter? Again, you tell me?!

cks, I have promised my daughter that I will limit myself to 'goodbyes' today as we've promised each other we will swear off the computer till after Christmas. I will slip in a few comments of generalities before I do my fade away though.

I think for the most part Scott's post stated how I feel about the relationship of the various letters. As far as the PS, if you mean FAIR is using the fax as if it was the Hamblin-Watson letter itself and not just as evidence for the content, then I would suggest being patient until they get around to correcting that if they haven't already. My understanding was that the fax letter was put up quite quickly by Greg without him having the time to actually examine it (not surprising consider the demands for it), the differences were then noted by other FAIR members and they are working on the details. So if you still have a problem with the way it is presented in a week or so (though from the posting of WW here, it is likely it is already taken care of), then please bring them to my attention then and I will comment on what is on the site at that time. I am assuming you have no real problem with people who were acting on mistaken assumptions correcting their mistake once made aware of them....or do you believe that Greg and/or FAIR were trying to slip something by the reader (if so, I can attest to this being definitely not so based on my personal knowledge).

Have a great Christmas all....

[Calm]

More to come...

My best,

</brent>

Brent, Dan is not the only one you are conversing with on this thread, besides the other posters there are likely dozens of lurkers enjoying the discussion and looking forward to any additional relevant information and ideas that may come out of it. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to detail out the "more to come" you refer to here. I personally won't be reading it until after Christmas, but I would really like to understand why you think this is such an issue.

Thank you and have a great Christmas (and New Year just in case we extend our pledge)....

[Daniel Peterson]

Frankly, Dan, you sound unhinged. You're clearly not in a position to discuss Ms. Ogden's fax in a meaningful way.

LOL.

Whatever.

Regards,

</brent>

Right.

I take it that you don't intend to be forthcoming about your relationship to my Malevolent Stalker. I'm not surprised. Over at the Compound, my Malevolent Stalker, who obsessively tries to track down and spin everything he can possibly find about me, my personal finances, my associates, the identities of anybody connected with me, and etc., has declared that I don't "deserve" to know the nature of the connections between himself and Brent Metcalfe. I take his response and your response as a tacit admission that you are, in fact, in communication with each other. Which is both revealing and, in a very real sense, quite sad.

(

[Daniel Peterson]

But looks like my thread morphed into a platform for defending personal credibility.

In a sense, yes. When I'm publicly accused of being a liar and of having perpetrated a fraud, I'm typically inclined to deny it.

Don't know enough about the history of this "supposed" 2nd Watson Letter but seems to rival in importance with the existance of the gold plates here for most.

I hope you're not including me in that number.

I can only surmise there must be some big stakes impact for Farms that have little to nothing to do with us members.

???

Since most members I know have never heard of Farms, I suspect this "huge scandal, controversy, debate, claim of lies and deceipt" will never be heard or known about by 95%+ of general membership!

Which is, from my vantage point, perfectly fine. There are four or five people accusing me and/or some of my friends of gross and deliberate deception (or something to that effect) on a little-known message board. It's an irritant, obviously, but no more than that.

Now if someone would provide an answer to my original question, that would be applicable to my original post here!

It appears to me that you've been answered multiple times.

[mfbukowski]

Since Watson prepared the formal letter the same day the fax went out, why doesn

[volgadon]

It appears to me that you've been answered multiple times.

Apparently such answers are off topic and irrelevant, or so says his bishop.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Dan, you don't sound like you're in a good place

[Daniel Peterson]

If nothing else, I'm evidently quite prophetic.

Not particularly, I'm afraid. (Is that comment, perhaps, an example of what you would call "humor"?)

You weren't "prophesying," as a matter of fact. You were making a present-tense statement, on 19 April 2009, about a purported then-current state of affairs ("Dan P. et al. likely believe that you're [sic] ongoing inspection of Mopologetics [sic] has involved my personal encouragement"). And you were completely wrong. I believed nothing of the kind, and, so far as I'm aware, nobody else did at that time, either. The notion of any connection between you and Scratch had never once crossed my mind until two days ago. Not even in passing.

However, I will accept your denials. I don't blame you at all for not wishing to be closely associated with my Malevolent Stalker. And, unlike my Stalker, I don't tend to presume that those who disagree with me are dishonest and corrupt. I take you at your word.

Have an enjoyable holiday, Dan.

Have a blessed Christmas, Brent.

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

You weren't "prophesying," as a matter of fact. You were making a present-tense statement, on 19 April 2009, about a purported then-current state of affairs ... *snip!*

You're mistaken.

I was speaking in the so-called prophetic "perfect" tense (

[Daniel Peterson]

Mercifully, I can.

(