Response to Hamblin

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Response to Hamblin

Post by _Kishkumen »

Bill Hamblin wrote:Imagine if professor X wrote a book about the Roman army. I write a review of his book saying he misunderstood the nature of the Roman army, and give a list of a dozen serious errors in his book. Then imagine that professor X’s friend began to object that X is a really nice man, who volunteers at a homeless shelter each weekend, and is a loving husband and father. The friend then says I am a vile and nasty man for criticizing X, while not mentioning X’s good qualities in my review of his book on the Roman army. My reply would simply be that X’s marvelous character has precisely nothing to do with whether or not he is right about the Roman army. This is, in fact, the reverse ad hominem--to argue that because professor X has many noble and endearing qualities, we should not criticize his book on the Roman army. And it’s hogwash.


Bill, this is an inaccurate portrayal of what is going on in the exchange over Greg's work. Greg's article is intellectually incoherent. You can't write a book about Rome's first professional army and spend almost the entire time discussing Marius' personal character and belief system. Greg's article evinces no attempt whatsoever to understand or describe Mormon Stories. So, a review of Mormon Stories it is not. A discussion of some of John Dehlin's statements in podcasts and online discussions? That's what it is. As your friend David Bokovoy has shown, perhaps inadvertently, anyone can pull out some quotes from online discussions to make someone look silly. Greg sure looks silly for having exploded on David's Facebook page about a Quinn book that he hadn't read. So, by Greg's standard, his own intellectual credibility is shot to hell, and we shouldn't respect anything he has written or value anything he has contributed to the LDS community.

Unfortunately for you, your readers aren't as stupid as you have always taken them for. Sure, your fans and fellow travelers love your rhetorical bravado, but much of what you write in this vein doesn't stand up to a few moments of reflection. Still, you press on, preaching to the choir. I guess that's something. It does nothing to heal the rifts in the LDS community, but then it probably wasn't intended to do so anyway.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _Bazooka »

One would think that a small group of adult males would be able to realise when the hole they were digging had gotten too deep, down spades and try to figure out how best to clamber out. Sadly, Mopologists just keep on shovelling...
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_robuchan
_Emeritus
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _robuchan »

Hamblin's the master of the bad analogy. If you see Hamblin start with an analogy, your finger has a half second to hit page down. If you even start to read it, it will suck you in, piss you off, make you wonder if he's really that stupid or if he's just being obstinate, make you wonder why he still has a job, basically it will ruin you for the next couple hours.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _Kishkumen »

robuchan wrote:Hamblin's the master of the bad analogy.


I would agree that analogies are not Hamblin's strong suit.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _Fence Sitter »

B ill does not seem to care about scholarly discourse when it comes to defending the Church.
I n the end, it is necessary to sacrifice all else in the pursuit of spiritual truth and God's religion and
l et others more qualified to defend the Church theologically do so if they feel the need. And,
l est we forget this was the same Bill who spilled more ink than Dan, defending Dan at all costs.

S ome of us wish better things for the Church and are able to see the damage this approach does.
U nfortunately Bill, and others like like him are unable to do so and pursue their angry agenda.
C ertainly it looks like the day is coming when people like him are no longer welcome at Church.
K inder and more loving approaches are being developed by people like Smith, Wayfarer & Miller.
S o until then we have to deal with this antagonistic approach to LDS apologetics by people like Bill.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _Kishkumen »

Fence Sitter wrote:Bill does not seem to care about scholarly discourse when it comes to defending the Church.


He makes enough noise about caring, but then I have to wonder how much he actually does care when he blows it so terribly. My experience of Hamblin as a writer of apologetics is one of deep disappointment. I am not qualified to speak to the issue of his other intellectual and professional endeavors, but he is a dreadfully poor apologist.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _harmony »

Kishkumen wrote: It does nothing to heal the rifts in the LDS community, but then it probably wasn't intended to do so anyway.


I doubt anyone above the level of ward nursery leader admits there are rifts in the LDS community. There are only minor bumps, those sad individuals who just can't seem to get their heads on straight. Nothing as major as a rift.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _Kishkumen »

harmony wrote:I doubt anyone above the level of ward nursery leader admits there are rifts in the LDS community. There are only minor bumps, those sad individuals who just can't seem to get their heads on straight. Nothing as major as a rift.


I would agree that one of the ways of ignoring such problems is to redefine them. If the person one disagrees with is labeled an apostate, then they are already defined out of the community.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _DrW »

robuchan wrote:Hamblin's the master of the bad analogy.

Absolutely. And he doesn't appear all that clever, either.

Can't believe Hamblin would pick such an analogy when he knows (or should know) that one of his main adversaries in the debate is a professional in Roman history.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Response to Hamblin

Post by _Kishkumen »

DrW wrote:Can't believe Hamblin would pick such an analogy when he knows (or should know) that one of his main adversaries in the debate is a professional in Roman history.


Are you kidding? That's exactly why he chose the analogy. All of this is in the service of connecting this avatar to the in real life identity of its owner. Being correct has little or nothing to do with it.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply