Sound familiar? If so, it's because that was one of Hamblin's basic complaints to Philip Jenkins: i.e., that Jenkins refused to look at "Ancient Book of Mormon Studies" publications. Jenkins rightly dismissed such a thing as nonsense--as being on a par with "Bigfoot Studies" or "Alien Abduction Studies." Interestingly, Lindsay is far more politic in his approach here:Lindsay wrote:While he claims to use an objective approach, he instead weaves a polemical agenda that ignores some of the most important scholarship in favor of the Book of Abraham. He ignores crucial evidence and relies on assumptions and hypotheses as if they were established facts. The arguments of apologists, which he claims to be reviewing and critiquing, are often overlooked or, when treated, attacked without letting readers know the substance of the apologetic argument.
But Lindsay also once again takes up one of "Interpreter's" favorite targets: the JSPP edition that was co-edited by Brian Hauglid:J. Lindsay wrote:In spite of knowing what the conclusions would be, the journey could be valuable for students of the Book of Abraham to understand the weaknesses in evidences and arguments.
Again: if this is a flaw in one of the Church's major publications, why hasn't it been redacted? Are the Brethren dumb? As usual, this comes across as insubordination and/or ark-steadying. If something is "wrong" with one of the Brethren's projects, the Mopologists ought to leave it alone. Kudos to Lindsay, though, for at least saying that the "volume is remarkably valuable," rather than the work of a conniving apostate.For example, understanding Vogel’s polemical arguments and methodology can help [Page 109]readers discern the nature of the unfortunate and now openly admitted influence of Vogel on an important volume from the Joseph Smith Papers Project (Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts,2 hereafter JSPRT4). The volume is remarkably valuable, but readers need to understand the subtle but pervasive bias in the many choices and statements made therein. After publication, Brian Hauglid, one of the volume editors of JSPRT4, praised Vogel’s approach to the Book of Abraham, noting that it had influenced his work as an editor. Vogel discusses this and praises Hauglid for that in his book (xvi, also citing Hauglid’s public acceptance of critical approaches to the Book of Abraham, on Facebook, in footnote 20). That influence can be seen in many ways that have been pointed out elsewhere.3
In any case, the bulk of Lindsay's analysis is little more than petty nitpicking, such as complaining that Vogel refuses to acknowledge that "Shinehah" *might* be evidence of prophetic power on Joseph Smith's part:
Maybe so. And maybe Anthony Fauci should also publicly acknowledge that "some people" believe that Covid can be cured by injecting bleach? That'll be sure to raise a few eyebrows! In essence, Lindsey's entire argument boils down to one long complaint that Vogel won't lend any credence to all their stupid arguments. Look: the Book of Abraham is not an authentic translation. The end. The whole debate has been dead in the water for decades, and this isn't helping anyone. Perhaps the best line in the whole piece comes towards the end:Lindsay wrote:Perhaps this was a lucky guess, but one that should at least raise an eyebrow.
Indeed. I doubt that truer words have ever been posted to the "Mormon Interpreter" blog.In the end, Vogel stands victorious on a strangely quiet and empty battlefield.
