DiscussMormonism.com

Looks as if Bill finally took the advice of several folks here (including me), who have suggested on several occasions, when Hamblin's deep holes were involved, that it would be a good idea for him to just stop digging.

Bill Hamblin Blog wrote:When examining the Book of Abraham facsimiles, we need to realize that all scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, agree that Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the facsimiles are iconotropic–that is to say they are reinterpretations of ancient Egyptian symbols transformed into a new cultural-religious context. The point where the critics and believers disagree is the cultural context in which the iconotropy occurs. Is it an ancient, Abrahamic/Jewish iconotropic reinterpretation of Egyptian symbolism? Or is it purely early nineteenth century American iconotropy invented by Joseph Smith?

1. There is not an Egyptian king's name in the writing and the person identified by the Polygamist Joseph Smith is not the king, it's a female goddess. Pinning hopes on Jewish iconotropic ideas will not turn the hieroglyphs into something they are not. Joseph Smith was known to point his finger directly at certain characters on his papyri and claim they were a specific name or autograph. He did the same thing with Facismile No. 3 when he said the writing contained the name of the king or the name Shulem was above the person in which he incorrectely identified.

2. No amount of cultural-religious context, reinterpretation, or icontropy can turn the mighty Egyptian god into a slave. And the king of Egypt is not about to get off his throne for heathen Abraham who dispised the gods of Egypt and whose god was an enemy to the Egyptian crown.

etc.

Hamblin is a goddman liar and a man of bad character. I hope they fire him and I hope he loses his church membership someday.

Paul O

Shulem wrote:
Hamblin is a goddman liar and a man of bad character. I hope they fire him and I hope he loses his church membership someday.

Paul O

Nope. He's a good man who passionately believes in the avocation of defense of the Church, and he has done a pretty credible job of it over the years. He's a good Christian and Latter-day Saint and no coward. He doesn't like me much because I disagree with him at times, but I admire him.

You're not in any position to criticize him or his character. You're a poster child of the apostate to whom the counter-critic will likely point for reasons I have previously given you, and which I can give again.

I hope that someday you'll return to the Church; you were a good man before you left. I know of several gay men (not practicing, of course) who are active in the Church, faithful and committed Christians. That can be you.

Yahoo Bot wrote:He's a good man who passionately believes in the avocation of defense of the Church, and he has done a pretty credible job of it over the years.

Whatever Hamblin once was as an apologist, he's become a caricature and an embarrassment in the past few years (and this doesn't even include the "Metcalfe Is Butthead" debacle). I just hope he really has stopped for good.

Intriguing. I notice that, in contrast to his resignation from Mormon Interpreter, he doesn't give an explanation for this "decision." Last time, he said that he was "ordered" to resign by his Department at BYU, so I guess it's probably safe to assume that the same explanation applies this time, too.

Frankly, I think that material on the other Mopologists' blogs has been just as bad--if not worse --so you have to wonder a bit what's going on. It also makes me wonder if Prof. Gee's rather sinister and Rasputinish musings on "administrators" has actually been aimed at Hamblin's dept. chair, rather than at M. Gerald Bradford and the MI (or both). If Church leaders--at any level--are intending to send a message, then they're going to need to do much more than simply tell Hamblin to "Stop blogging!"

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Yahoo Bot wrote:He's a good man who passionately believes in the avocation of defense of the Church, and he has done a pretty credible job of it over the years.

Whatever Hamblin once was as an apologist, he's become a caricature and an embarrassment in the past few years (and this doesn't even include the "Metcalfe Is Butthead" debacle). I just hope he really has stopped for good.

I certainly disagree with the way Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin left the MI organization, but that disagreement is not based upon perception of a character flaw. They just shouldn't play academic politics in public, it is unseemly. But, they are free to challenge MI's current scheme, to lobby against it, to criticize it and point out that a secular approach to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham is going nowhere (and it won't, I predict).

I don't think that justifies the abuse being heaped upon him by you and others -- excommunication, loss of position and employment and such other abuse. I don't get you and your pals here on this board; you seem to think it appropriate to seek the loss of your adversary's employment as a means of revenge for saying things you don't like. I don't get that at all.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Intriguing. I notice that, in contrast to his resignation from Mormon Interpreter, he doesn't give an explanation for this "decision." Last time, he said that he was "ordered" to resign by his Department at BYU, so I guess it's probably safe to assume that the same explanation applies this time, too.

Frankly, I think that material on the other Mopologists' blogs has been just as bad--if not worse --so you have to wonder a bit what's going on. It also makes me wonder if Prof. Gee's rather sinister and Rasputinish musings on "administrators" has actually been aimed at Hamblin's dept. chair, rather than at M. Gerald Bradford and the MI (or both). If Church leaders--at any level--are intending to send a message, then they're going to need to do much more than simply tell Hamblin to "Stop blogging!"

Yeah, sure. I think they probably told Blair Hodges to shut the hell up. Blair needs to find other outlets than being an MI defensive dog for Hamblin's criticisms. That is unseemly.

That is unseemly.

Why?

Yahoo Bot wrote:I hope that someday you'll return to the Church; you were a good man before you left.

That tells me everything I need to know about Yahoo Bot. Ass.

I know of several gay men (not practicing, of course) who are active in the Church, faithful and committed Christians. That can be you.

I know some well-adjusted Mormons (not practicing, of course) who are decent people. That could be you.

Bob Loblaw wrote:

Yahoo Bot wrote:I hope that someday you'll return to the Church; you were a good man before you left.

That tells me everything I need to know about Yahoo Bot. Ass.

I know of several gay men (not practicing, of course) who are active in the Church, faithful and committed Christians. That can be you.

I know some well-adjusted Mormons (not practicing, of course) who are decent people. That could be you.

Or perhaps not.