Why Does Bill Hamblin Hate Sunstone?
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:24 pm
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:
Is this an accurate assessment, though?
Yeeouch! Richard Bushman? That hardly sounds like a "disaffected" Mormon. Could it be that Hamblin has orders from above to dislike Sunstone?
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:
And Hamblin's reply:
Wow! Such biased hatred. And inaccuracy, too, apparently:
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?
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:
And Mike Reed presses the issue:
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:
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.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 43284&st=0
In the fourth post on the thread, Bill Hamblin turned up to express his displeasure:
Bill Hamblin wrote: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?
sethpayne wrote: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?
baddonkey wrote: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:
Mike Reed wrote: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:
Dr. Hamblin wrote: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:
sethpayne wrote: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?
Mike Reed wrote:Hamblin wrote: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:
Hamblin wrote: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:
Mike Reed wrote: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:
Bill Hamblin wrote: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.