Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of the MI

[Guest]

Yet another vindication for Scratch and the critics. Amazing to see the pure hardball politics of "Babylon" that have been at work at the Lard's University all this time. These folks are every bit as tenaciously political and prone to forming divisive factions as anyone outside the church, yet they cover their naked ambition and personal agendas in the cloak of saintly robes, pretending to be above all of it and castigating folks such as Scratch who have repeatedly shined a light on their activities. Now we have confirmation from Hamblin that the critics' view of what has been happening at FARMS was spot-on. In their efforts to take down Bradford, DCP and Hamblin have been forced to concede that Scratch was right all along (at least concerning the overall atmosphere and general goings-on behind the scenes at FARMS/MI, if not in every single particular detail, although it is clear his track record is far better than DCP had ever acknowledged prior to his unceremonious sacking). DCP and Hamblin are acting like cornered cats. Get out your popcorn; the show is just beginning.

Edited to add: I didn't see before I posted this the thread that beastie had started, essentially making the same point: that the apologists have been lying all these years and deliberately and knowingly stating falsehoods with respect to Scratch's intel. See the thread on it over here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24477

[_Doctor Scratch]

It seems to me that Hamblin is tiptoeing around some facts that need to be brought to light.

First, this:

So, why am I so vehemently opposed to Bradford’s dismissal of Dan and proposed change of direction for the Mormon Studies Review? Here we come to the crux of the problem. If the University does not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University?

I should explain that when the University first approached FARMS requesting that they join the University it was in the form of a hostile takeover. I was on the Board of FARMS at the time, and the Board initially voted unanimously to reject the proposal. Most of the Board members at the time were BYU faculty, and subsequently all sorts of pressure was exerted by the University to force the members of Board to accept the proposal. When, after months of negotiations the Board of FARMS finally agreed to the proposed takeover, I still voted against the merger and resigned from the Board in protest. I believed at the time–and it is clear that subsequent events have proved me correct–that such a merger would be bad for both FARMS and the University. I love BYU, and love teaching here. But if FARMS became part of the University it would begin to be perceived as part of the Church, and what it said would then be viewed as somehow “official.” This would've course lead to correlation. No one in the original FARMS group wanted to speak for the Church. We wanted to engage in standard academic discourse, writing books, articles and reviews. If we were right in our interpretations, great. If we were wrong in our interpretations, that would be our personal problem. It would have nothing to do with anything “official” for the Church.

The University at the time gave all sorts of assurances that they wanted FARMS to continue doing exactly what it was doing. And it was perfectly clear to the University what they were getting by absorbing FARMS: we were publishing scholarly books and articles on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures, and we were publishing responses to anti-Mormon claims–that is, apologetics. Dan had been publishing the Review for years when the University absorbed FARMS. It was perfectly obvious what the Review was all about. So I ask again: If the University did not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University? (I believe I actually know why they did it, and their motives had absolutely nothing to do with FARMS or its scholarship; but that is another story.)

Well, I believe I "know" too. It's pretty simply, really: around the time that FARMS was invited to formally join BYU, they were in the midst of a massive fundraiser that aimed to draw in something like 7 million dollars. (See my old thread "Building the FARMS Ziggurat" for background on this.) With that kind of money changing hands, you can bet that the Church--and by extension, BYU--would want to exert some control over this. It's one thing for these rogue apologists to contradict doctrine and trash TR-holding members in the pages of the Review; but when they are also doing this by soliciting massive donations from wealthy Latter-day Saints, you better believe that the Church is going to want to be part of the discussions, as it were. That's why the FARMS board was dissolved; that's why FARMS was brought into the administrative structure of BYU: it's about control, and it's about money, and this is precisely the reason why Hamblin won't go into details. It's why DCP used donations as his main counterargument in his email response to Bradford.

The Mopologists on MDD are asking dumb questions like, "Why would BYU invite FARMS to join the university if they didn't want the apologists to keep writing hit pieces?" The answer is obvious: they wanted tighter control over what had become a multi-million dollar operation. The fact that there was a lot of ad hominem attack and viciousness in the Review was, at the time, I'm sure, a subsidiary issue. Church/BYU admin may have approved of that sort of thing at the time, or (as may very well be the case) they may have assumed that they could put a damper on the more vicious stuff by pulling FARMS into the university. I.e., the brought them on board precisely so that they *could* stifle the nastiness. If you have a troublesome teenager who's causing havok out in the town, you don't let him continue to run ramapant. You ground him for a month so that you can keep a closer eye on him.

The other thing I found weird is that Hamblin is basically attacking not only Bradford, but also Morgan Davis and Kristian Heal. Perhaps what's most laughable about Hamblin's rant is that he's saying, in effect, that he doesn't like legitimate scholarship because it's "stodgy" and "boring." LOL! Uh, yeah, Prof. H.: we always knew that you preferred juvenile potty humor to cutting-edge academic work.

[_bcspace]

The solution then is, especially if "classic FARMS" people still have any control of some funding, to recreate the old organization. The problem is that, as noted by Hamblin's blog, is many of the people who could do this are employed by BYU and might therefore be subject to pressure again.

Therefore, a better solution might be to find someone loyal to front and control the new organization but will allow them editorial control. Always difficult as people can be co-opted and BYU could still pressure those who contribute.

Therefore, the ULTIMATE solution is to stop working for BYU or become even smaller potatoes and just post personal blogs and threads to obscure discussion boards.

John Dehlin has shown bravery and struck out on his own. Perhaps it would be best for "classic FARMS" to do the same. Always risky when employment is involved but it's how things get started.

[_Equality]

So, bc, do you acknowledge that the emails were real? Have you apologized to Scratch yet? Do you feel betrayed by the lying liar Peterson? Do you feel like a dupe for defending him?

[_Shulem]

So, bc, do you acknowledge that the emails were real? Have you apologized to Scratch yet? Do you feel betrayed by the lying liar Peterson? Do you feel like a dupe for defending him?

Yeah, bcspace. Dr. Scratch was right all this time and he really does have an informant.

Now, consider king Theoden (DCP) defending Helms Deep -- and the wall comes crashing down when DCP gets canned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnhj68Jt2sg

Paul O

[_bcspace]

So, bc, do you acknowledge that the emails were real?

No. I haven't seen verification yet, not enough to satisfy true journalistic standards. The PFS article in the SLC referred to some emails with similar wording is a good indication that they might be.

Have you apologized to Scratch yet?

Why? Stratch claimed the emails were "alleged". I merely agreed.

Do you feel betrayed by the lying liar Peterson?

What goes on at MI is usually mostly meaningless to me. However, the problem is now that Dehlin has gained more public notoriety, those of us who might actually be able to convince the powers that be to excommunicate him have our work cut out for us. That he's being protected by a GA helps and we can probably now figure out who that is and apply the appropriate pressure.

The Church is keeping a low low profile on these kinds of things because of the Romney campaign and perhaps nothing will be able to be done until it and/or his presidency are over. As I've said before, it's wheat with the tares and the Church's internal critics have realized this and declared open season on the Church. However, there is pressure building to do something soon......

What should have been done with Dehlin is to merely to answer him point by point with the answers already provided by FAIR and could have been provided in the future. Perhaps someone could have gone toe to toe with him in a local debate.

I've warned these people before and they didn't listen. Of course my self-imposed anonymity doesn't help me be convincing but I think my words and been proven time and time again, enough to show that I know what I am talking about.

Do you feel like a dupe for defending him?

When did I defend him?

[_bcspace]

Now, consider king Theoden (DCP) defending Helms Deep -- and the wall comes crashing down when DCP gets canned.

Saruman lost that battle as I recall......

[_Shulem]

Uh, yeah, Prof. H.: we always knew that you preferred juvenile potty humor to cutting-edge academic work.

This is a gem:

"Quit farting around and give a specific example." (Bill Hamblin)

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58117-the-apostate-myth-of-mormon-apologetics/#entry1209135309

Paul O

[_bcspace]

The Force was strong in J Golden Kimball.

[_Kevin Graham]

Uh, yeah, Prof. H.: we always knew that you preferred juvenile potty humor to cutting-edge academic work.

This is a gem:

"Quit farting around and give a specific example." (Bill Hamblin)

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58117-the-apostate-myth-of-mormon-apologetics/#entry1209135309

Paul O

And when examples were given, they were deleted.


bcspace, there is no more "alleged" about the emails. Dan has already conceded that they were legit. Scratch was right all along.