Why Does Bill Hamblin Hate Sunstone?

[_Doctor Scratch]

A very interesting thread is under way on the aptly named MADboard. In a thread parallel to the one started here, CaliforniaKid had announced the upcoming SLC Sunstone symposium:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 43284&st=0

In the fourth post on the thread, Bill Hamblin turned up to express his displeasure:

I find it rather telling that mainly non-Mormons or disaffected Mormons seem interested in Sunstone any more. It really seems to be mainly a conference about Mormonism from a non-Mormon perspective rather than a Mormon conference.

Is this an accurate assessment, though?

Who's disaffected? I sat next to Richard Bushman at Sunstone last year. I met an EQP at the Sunstone in Washington DC earlier this year. I've even seen Mike Ash there from time to time.

Yeah, there are some crappy papers at Sunstone but there are some also very good papers. A particular presentation on the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims of religious revival in Palmyra was very interesting in SLC last August. The presenter's thesis was that such revival did exist.

So, may I gently suggest Bill, that your perceptive on Sunstone may be unduly influenced by the fruitcakes -- like Paul Toscano -- who always make a Sunstone appearance.

If you decide to attend a session this year, I'll buy you lunch.

Yeeouch! Richard Bushman? That hardly sounds like a "disaffected" Mormon. Could it be that Hamblin has orders from above to dislike Sunstone?

I find it rather telling that mainly non-Mormons or disaffected Mormons seem interested in Sunstone any more. It really seems to be mainly a conference about Mormonism from a non-Mormon perspective rather than a Mormon conference.

That's the way the Church wants it though, or they wouldn't have sent out letters about CES employees not attending such events.

How intriguing! Are we to understand that the FARMS apologists (as exemplified by Hamblin's sour-apple comments here) have been directed to try and dissuade TBMs from participating in symposia such as Sunstone?

Later, Mike Reed asked a solid question:

When is the last time you've attended a Sunstone conference, Bill? I thought there was a pretty good mix at the recent one held in the Bay Area. I got to hear Todd Compton, Robert Rees, Seth Bryant (RLDS), Chris Smith, George D. Smith, and Newell Bringhurst speak.

And Hamblin's reply:

It's just obvious that Sunstone has completely marginalized itself as far faithful LDS scholars are concerned. Almost no LDS on this board seem to care in the slightest. I've attended Sunstone and presented papers there before, but haven't for a number of years. I read their program every year wondering if it's worth going this year and I always conclude that it is not. It's mostly boring and irrelevant to anything I believe or care about or am interested in. Generally you get paper after paper of apostate angst and "why I don't believe any more" and "pillars of my faithlessness." I think this should be obvious to anyone. The fact that Chris Smith and Mike Reed are the two most interested people on this entire board--which as a group would probably be much more interested than the average membership as a whole--proves my point quite nicely. But, go and have a good time.

Wow! Such biased hatred. And inaccuracy, too, apparently:

Bill, you are simply demonstrating your own ignorance.

It is my understanding -- please correct me if I am wrong -- that BYU faculty are discouraged from publishing in Sunstone or Dialogue. Levi Peterson litterally begged conservative Church scholars to come and publish, but to no avail. According to Levi, Dialogue was seen as "tainted" by some in Church leadership and so conservative scholars did not want to touch it. I don't blame them.

You mention "paper after paper" of apostate angst. You obviously don't read the sunstone programs very carefully. Last year, I heard a wonderful paper on Psychology and Social work amongst LDS. As I mentioned, I also listed to a great paper on revivalism in 1820's NY and how it related to the first vision. I myself presented a paper on ex-Mormon narratives which concluded with my thoughts on how to help struggling members stay in the Church.

For those of you who would like proof that Bill is simply talking out is ***, let me give you a sampling of the papers presented last March:

Teen Marriage Age in Mormon Polygamy and In American Culture: What was the Norm? -- Todd Compton

Strangers in Zion: Homosexuality and the Latter-day Saint Movement -- Seth L. Bryant

Panel: Confessions of a Gospel Doctrine Teacher -- This panel included both past and present GD teachers who gave thoughts on how to present meaningful lessons.

Developing Personal Spirituality -- Panel

Saturday's Werewolf: Vistiges of Premortal Romance in Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Novels

And of course, I could go on. If you want more proof, just google Sunstone programs and you find the past few years worth of papers.

But you are right, Bill. NONE of these topics have EVER come up on this board and it is so patently obvious that board participants would not want to hear from people like Todd Compton and George D. Smith -- even if for just the opportunity to ask a tough question.

Oh, and did you see the unending horde of apostate bitching?? Endless!!

Bill, you often describe other people's work as "sloppy." Well, I think it is very clear that your assessment of Sunstone is at best sloppy, and at worst -- illustrates your own irrational biases.

But hey... the offer still stands. You come to a session this August and lunch is on me. And i'm not talking McDonalds. I'm talking a full-blown lunch with fancy silverware and everything.

It seems that Hamblin's blithe dismissal has been completely obliterated. So, we are left to wonder: What motivated Hamblin's attitude? He himself said that he used to participate. So...what happened? Was it the "directive" from the Brethren, urging people to avoid "symposia"? Or, was it something more sinister?

I've attended Sunstone and presented papers there before, but haven't for a number of years.

Let me guess... you stopped around 1994/95 following the Butthead incident. Am I right?

Hoo boy. This is one that Hamblin will never live down. So shamed was he that he essentially went into hiding, limiting his interaction with the "antis" to feeble posts on the MADboard. Right? Is it true? He dodges immediately:

Oh yes, that was the defining moment in my life, as well as the intellectual history of the Church in the twentieth century.

But, to paraphrase: "I didn't leave Sunstone, Sunstone left me."

And Mike Reed presses the issue:

It is true though, right? You haven't attended Sunstone since the fallout. Right? 1993 was your last publication with them, and you haven't attended since. Right? I am not bringing this up to take a pot-shot at you (admittedly, I've made mistakes in my life much worse than this). I am just trying to understand the basis for your (to borrow Seth's words) apparent "irrational biases." It would make sense to me that your view of Sunstone would have drasticly changed shortly after this controversy.

To be honest, I'd rather not attend a conference where I'd be treated with the cold shoulder either.

Ouch. The evidence had piled up. It does indeed seem as if Hamblin was shamed out of participating in events such as these. Here is his replyt:

Yes, I've never dared show my face in public since my famous discovery. Proof of this is the fact that I hide my identity in shame on bulletin boards where any Sunstoners might appear.

Fantasize all you want. I stopped going to Sunstone and publishing with Sunstone because I found them to be increasingly dominated by apostates. I find most Sunstone presentations repetitive, derivative, predictable and boring. That's my opinion, and, believe it or not, most people who have even heard of Sunstone actually agree with me. But, be that as it may, how is my lack of desire to attend a conference that I find boring and irrelevant a manifestation of "irrational biases?" It seems to me that if you find a conference boring and irrelevant, the rational thing to do is not not attend and waste your time or money.

In other words: He is not going to answer the question. Readers can judge for themselves whether Sunstone, within the relatively short space of---what, a year? a few months?---became a bastion for "repetitive, derivative, predictable and boring" discussion of "anti-Mormon" angst, thus leading Bill Hamblin to abandon ship, or whether, instead, he was shamed out of attending due to his "Butthead" gaffe. We know, after all, that Hamblin does genuinely dislike "repetitive, derivative, predictable and boring" discussions since he participates regularly on the MADboard. So, each reader can come to his/her own conclusions.

[_Trevor]

We know, after all, that Hamblin does genuinely dislike "repetitive, derivative, predictable and boring" discussions since he participates regularly on the MADboard. So, each reader can come to his/her own conclusions.

Anyone who visits MAD or attends LDS meetings will appreciate how ironic his characterization of Sunstone is. With all due respect to Hamblin, few things are more yawn worthy than LDS meetings. Sunstone, if anything, offers a little pepper, but even pepper gets monotonous if that is the only spice you use.

[_Kevin Graham]

ROFL!

Well said Trev.

[_Tom]

Audio files of Hamblin's speaking appearances at Sunstone can be accessed here.

The 1991 Statement on Symposia seems to have brought an end to Hamblin's participation.

by the way, speaking of symposia, I just received a link to details about the 2009 FAIR Conference.

[_Dwight Frye]

Wow. Wild Bill has really gone cuckoo this time. Get a load of this crap:

Imagine a symposium on Jewish Studies in which the majority of presenters are Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, Anti-Semitic international banking conspiratorialists, and atheist Jews who regularly heap contempt upon the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Jews, etc. Even if there are a number of papers given at the conference which treat Orthodox Jewish scholars, people, beliefs, practices traditions, and scripture with respect, do you think Orthodox Jews would flock to this conference to present papers, especially given the fact that there are many venues to present papers where Jewish studies are treated with respect? Even if the conference organizers literally begged Orthodox Jews to come to their conference, do you really think it would be "irrational bias" for Orthodox Jews to stay away?

The MADerators have yet to comment on the Godwin's Law thing.

[_why me]

Sunstone has a reputation of being on the edge when it comes to Mormonism. However, I have the impression that bushman actually likes sunstone. But for the more conservative Mormons, sunstone represents a more liberal wing of Mormonism. And critics seem to like sunstone as can be seen from this thread.

But fortunately Bill is free to like or dislike sunstone. Nothing wrong with that, right?

[_Runtu]

But fortunately Bill is free to like or dislike sunstone. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Nope, nothing wrong with disliking it, but comparing Sunstone to a gathering of anti-Semites and neo-Nazis is beyond bizarre.

[_John Larsen]

Sunstone has a reputation of being on the edge when it comes to Mormonism. However, I have the impression that bushman actually likes sunstone. But for the more conservative Mormons, sunstone represents a more liberal wing of Mormonism. And critics seem to like sunstone as can be seen from this thread.

But fortunately Bill is free to like or dislike sunstone. Nothing wrong with that, right?

What is wrong is his over zealous and ill-informed opinion which is expressed in this thread with the intent of suppressing interest in the conference.

By the way, most ex-Mormons do not like Sunstone at all. I don't think you will find very many people who have resigned from the Church. The active post-Mormon community does not mix with the Sunstone crowd. The people who attend Sunstone tend to be NOM types and liberals. The only reason they are scene as unorthodox is because orthodoxy is defined so tightly. The kind of opinions expressed at Sunstone would be pretty common place at the symposia of those of other faiths.

[_Mike Reed]

most ex-Mormons do not like Sunstone at all.... The people who attend Sunstone tend to be NOM types and liberals.

I explained to Hamblin that the most anti of anti-Mormons tend to view Sunstone just the opposite of how he does--ie. as being full of apologists, and critics who are too soft on the Church. His response to this point: a mere horse laugh.

[_Runtu]

I explained to Hamblin that the most anti of anti-Mormons tend to view Sunstone just the opposite of how he does--ie. as being full of apologists, and critics who are too soft on the Church. His response to this point: a mere horse laugh.

You're exactly right, Bill's laughter notwithstanding. Most exmos I am familiar with disdain Sunstone for the very reasons you suggest. A friend of mine once called it the last crutch of the weakminded to keep them within Mormonism.

I don't have anything against Sunstone, but what Bill is describing sounds more like the Exmormon conference.