DiscussMormonism.com

Since the recent controversial thread on MAD/FAIR regarding Bill Hamblin's relationship to Sunstone, has Dr. Hamblin continued to post at MAD?

I am curious if he'll take some time off. Senior apologists are very sensitive, one of the reasons they got into apologetics in the first place. Recall from professor Scratch's discussion that this thread was closed, and Hermes commented,

Hermes wrote:parenthetically, Bill, we do discourage using the anti-semetic parallel, anything close to comparisons with Nazis etc. generally is frowned upon no matter if its similar. Thanks!~hermes the great and omnipotent messenger

Now, while a critic would have been banned permenantly for violating the MAD misinterpretation of "Godwin's Law", Bill gets off scot-free, and the thread is closed with a kind, timid, cowering suggestion to avoid making anti-Semitic comparisons. But I think this may have been enough to offend him. It has been my experience, that senior apologists believe they are always right, and deserve to say what they want whenever they want "above the law" so to speak, and if any (LDS) moderator dares to challenge them even if it's in an amiable way, the apologist repays the insult by withdrawing his/her participation.

Hello Gadianton,

Here is now Bill Hamblin's Profile on MA&D:

Bill Hamblin





Separates Water & Dry Land


Group: Pundit
Posts: 2041
Joined: 14-October 04
Member No.: 1026

He now has a total of 2,041 Posts there.

Brackite wrote:He now has a total of 2,041 Posts there.

You must bear in mind that he doesn't post that regularly. Only when he has "criticisis".

You should check Hermes' profile and see if he/she has been sacked. This could be a watershed event for MAD moderators. I mean, if Herme's gets away with this, it means MAD moderators are at the top of the pyramid, then MI apologists, then Pres. Monson and the 12, and on down to regional and local authorities.

Yes, I think that we can confidently assume that Hamblin will be "taking a breather," as it were.

I am somewhat disappointed in the decision to take the position that criticism of Mormonism is fairly compared with anti-Semitism. Looking at the MAD thread, I have to say that Hamblin's analogy does not really work. I respect the intelligence of these guys, but I do believe that this particular strategy may well backfire on them. I think it would be better to avoid it.

Trevor wrote:but I do believe that this particular strategy may well backfire on them. I think it would be better to avoid it.

I think it would be great to discuss it at this year's Sunstone. Maybe Chris should reconsider his abstract submission in light of Hamblin's anti-Semite comparison.

RE: upper-tier Mopologists fleeing the scene---we have another recent example of this in the form of DCP. He clearly felt that people were ganging up on him over the issue of his getting paid to do apologetics, and so he split. Plus, I think he probably felt he needed to scramble away as hastily as possible in light of the revelation that a number of his BYU colleagues seriously dislike FARMS.

Doctor Scratch wrote:RE: upper-tier Mopologists fleeing the scene---we have another recent example of this in the form of DCP. He clearly felt that people were ganging up on him over the issue of his getting paid to do apologetics, and so he split. Plus, I think he probably felt he needed to scramble away as hastily as possible in light of the revelation that a number of his BYU colleagues seriously dislike FARMS.

I hate to sound triumphalist about the whole thing, but really, isn't the Mopologetic cause essentially lost? If Mopologetics is defined narrowly by the attempt to defend such things as a lost Nephite civilization or a missing slip of papyrus, then it would seem to me that they have fought valiantly but failed utterly.

Of course, Mopologists are also LDS scholars, and as such they will continue to discuss intellectual matters through a Mormon lens to the rapt audience of a cabal of nerds who want their embarrassment about their religion to be ameliorated by Mormon nerd talk (and it seems to me that there is a new generation of Mopologist out there who stands to profit thereby) but isn't old-school Mopologetics dead in the water? If the only thing one can defend is the fact that one can't disprove the nonexistence of things of which there is vanishingly little proof, then hasn't Mopologetics essentially become a bizarre form of theology?

Mopologetics must change or die, and so it is changing. Gee and Schryver are the fossils of old-school Mopologetics. Bokovoy, LOAP, and even (dare I suggest it?) Peterson are looking to the future and leaving the escape hatch open on the tired old Nibleyesque approach. In fact, I would suggest they only pay lip service to it or refuse to speak ill of members of a home team who look increasingly long in the tooth.

Kishkumen wrote:Mopologetics must change or die, and so it is changing. Gee and Schryver are the fossils of old-school Mopologetics. Bokovoy, LOAP, and even (dare I suggest it?) Peterson are looking to the future and leaving the escape hatch open on the tired old Nibleyesque approach. In fact, I would suggest they only pay lip service to it or refuse to speak ill of members of a home team who look increasingly long in the tooth.

Bokovoy is probably the only hope left. JMO.