Bill Hamblin and his "Focussed Discussion"

[Hawkeye]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/545 ... he-temple/

Bill Hamblin: A common belief espoused by many critics is that there were no biblical endowment-like secret traditions or rituals. [Hamblin posts a link to his blog post related to "Biblical Esoterica and the Temple"]

Me: Interesting. So who are these "many critics" and what exactly are they saying? I am not denying that such people exist. I am just interested in finding out who your worthy adversaries are. CFR.

And why do you avoid tracing the migration path of these esoteric elements and explaining how they got to Joseph Smith? By neglecting to establish a genetic link, are you not guilty of the same sort of parallelomania that you accused secularists of being involved in?

Reposting comment above, since it suddenly disappeared. What gives? Did you delete this post, Bill? If so, why?

Bill Hamblin: This is the "Focused Discussion" Forum. That means we need to have a "focused discussion." You're comment was off topic, so I deleted it (which I can do because I started this topic... Any thread deemed by me to be off-topic will be deleted.

Me: I responded directly to your post. So what is the topic then? Are you just looking for people to pat you on the back and say good job?

Besides... Doesn't the CFR rule apply to the "Focused Discussions" forum too? If it does, then it would seem to me that you are abusing your post-moderation powers.

Bill Hamblin previously wrote in his opening post: Discussion can occur on this forum.

Me: Unless your name happens to be Mike Reed, right?

Bill Hamblin: Mods,
Can you either ban Mike Reed from this thread or shut it down. He has reposted the same post half a dozen times after I have disapproved it because it is off topic. I have absolutely no desire to waste my time with this type of pointless harassment.
Thanks
Bill Hamblin

Me: I have reported this thread because it seems you are abusing your post-moderation powers. I gave a CFR, and according to the rules, you must honor it.

Moreover, you have not explained how my post is off topic. I responded directly to your post. If it is off topic, then you need to clarify.

Bill Hamblin: I had immediate reference to comments by Rob Bowman and CoolRok7 on a couple of recent threads. Its a very common anti-Mormon claim. You know that don't you?

Me: Thanks for *finally* honoring the CFR.

Bill Hamblin: Thanks for wasting my time.

Me: Don't blame me for the forum rules. I didn't write them.

Next. What is off topic about these questions?

And why do you avoid tracing the migration path of these esoteric elements and explaining how they got to Joseph Smith? By neglecting to establish a genetic link, are you not guilty of the same sort of parallelomania that you accused secularists of being involved in?

Bill Hamblin: I just answered the question.
But its fine with me. Mods, feel free to shut it down.

Me: Yes. You did. Now what about the other questions?

Bill Hamblin: This type of nonsense from people like Mike is precisely the reason I started this topic on the "Focused Discussion" forum. Since he refuses to abide by my wishes on my thread, and he is intent on reposting deleted threads over and over and over, could please shut down the thread.
Thanks
Bill Hamblin

Me: Nonsense. I responded directly to your opening post. What is the focus? If my posts are off topic, then explain more clearly what the topic is.

Nemesis: His thread his rules. From the forum description.
"This section is for posters who have been invited to post on a specific topic. The poster will have complete control over the direction of their thread so that the discussion remains on topic and disruptions are minimized for all participants."
Nemesis

Me: So then he has "control" to break other rules, such as swearing and personal attacks?

Besides... Hamblin hasn't clearly defined what the "focus" is.

[Moderators eventually decided to delete most of my posts and close the thread]

[_Chap]

But ... but ... you took part in a discussion on the MAD board?

And you are surprised and puzzled when the moderation turned out to be capricious and biased?

Don't get me wrong: even under their rules you were probably mistreated. And I would have liked to have seen your discussion continue.

[_Kevin Graham]

Me: Interesting. So who are these "many critics" and what exactly are they saying? I am not denying that such people exist. I am just interested in finding out who your worthy adversaries are. CFR.

Nice job calling him out for what is most certainly a straw man. Dan Peterson does this crap all the time, too. I called him out on it when he started his Mormon Scholars Testify website. He said it was in response to "many critics" who claim something ridiculous like, "educated people couldn't possibly believe in Mormonism." I didn't believe it, so I kept pressing him to provide an example, which he finally did. I forget the name, but he referenced some obscure "critic" in some obscure book, who didn't exactly say what Dan chose to infer from him anyway.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I would like, however, to move one step further and suggest that we should understand the LDS Endowment as a ritual and dramatic participation in the sôd/divine council of God

I don't see the connection myself.

[_Kishkumen]

It wouldn't be the first time that Hamblin refused to engage people who disagree with him. His meltdown in a Masonic discussion in which he was clearly out of his league was a great example.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Or how about that stimulating discussion about early Christian veneration of the cross?

[_Kishkumen]

Or how about that stimulating discussion about early Christian veneration of the cross?

Another great example.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I would like, however, to move one step further and suggest that we should understand the LDS Endowment as a ritual and dramatic participation in the sôd/divine council of God

I don't see the connection myself.

It's the same as always, ignore the blatant contemporary connection so you can go back and make all sorts of wild ass connections to dubiously documented practices in ancient times.

King Benjamin's speech looks like a Methodist camp meeting which Joseph Smith admits to participating in on several occassions? Nah, that can't be, so we'll canvas every square inch of the ancient world in search of some pattern of coronation rituals.

Mormon endowment looks like a Masonic ritual into which Joseph Smith had been recently inducted? Nah, that can't be, so we'll scour bits and pieces of the Old Testament in search of ANYTHING which looks even remotely similar to an endowment.

Book of Abraham gets all of the translation of the facsimiles incorrect which looks like Joseph Smith was wildly making stuff up? Nah, that can't be, we'll scour every phoneme in Egyptian, Hebrew, Hittite, Assyrian, and several obscure West Semitic dialects, put them together like 6 years spell things with their alphabet soup, and declare it a perfectly fine translation.

[Hawkeye]

Kishkumen: It wouldn't be the first time that Hamblin refused to engage people who disagree with him. His meltdown in a Masonic discussion in which he was clearly out of his league was a great example.

MrStakhanovite: Or how about that stimulating discussion about early Christian veneration of the cross?

Kishkumen: Another great example.

Or the thread on the notion of ancient Metal records in Joseph's day. Three for three. Should I start scratching notches into my belt? ;)

[_Mike Reed]

Moderator is now pointing out that I broke the cross-posting rule.

Oops! Forgot that one.