A "Duh!" Moment for Bill Hamblin

[_guy sajer]

I was faculty at Marriott School at BYU from 1991-1994 (or was it until '95--I honestly can't recall off hand in which year I resigned). I resigned due to loss of belief (I couldn't fake it anymore) and started my own development consulting firm.

Well, I certainly don't hold that against you. Sadly, one of my favorite people in the world was fired from my alma mater for unorthodox religious beliefs.

I like to think that my decision was in some sense "noble" (I have so few of these moments, sadly) in that I could have stayed ab BYU and faked it, but I felt that the university and students deserved someone who actually supported the goals of the university and its sponsoring religion, whereas I'd be tickled pink to see Mormonism (the religion, not its members) drop off the face of the earth tomorrow (though I'm doing nothing to hasten this event, nor do I plan to). Plus from a less noble perspective, my facade was cracking, and people were beginning to suspect. I don't think I could have made it undetected over the long-haul even if I tried.

Finally, I hated, absolutely HATED, going to Church. I was prepared to do just about anything to avoid a life-time of that brain cell killing torture. (Now I ski on Sundays in the winter or go for long runs during good weather.) Nor was there anyway I was going to pay 10% of my income to a billion dollar corporation anymore.

So I had a mixture of motives, some more noble, others less so.

I hope you sill don't hold it against me.

[_Chap]

Sadly, even really smart people can be extraordinarily stupid-- and even dishonest-- when religion enters the equation.

If I wanted a signature line, I'd use that. In my experience, there is NO academic field expertise in which is worth a pitcher of warm spit as a guarantee that a given scholar will continue to talk sensibly when the subject is his or her religion. I know because I have been there.

[_Enuma Elish]

I hope you sill don't hold it against me.

Not at all, Guy. That was clearly a very difficult decision and I would agree that given your sentiments that it was quite a noble move.

[_CaliforniaKid]

a pitcher of warm spit

Gross!

[_Mister Scratch]

He's digging himself in deeper:

It's true that an anachronism in the Bible does not prove Israelites did not exist, but I don't think 'secularists' hang their hat solely on a similar anachronism in the Book of Mormon in disbelieving in the existence of Nephites. Could it be that there is evidence supporting the existence of the Israelites where there is none for the Nephites?

Thanks for making my point. If it is a faulty argument to reject the existence of the Israelites because they had legendary beliefs about antediluvian metallurgy, it should be equally faulty to reject the existence of the Nephites on this ground.

(The question here, I should note, is not whether the Nephites really existed or not. The question is whether the Jaredite metal-working issue is a valid argument against the existence of Nephites. Please keep this distinction in mind. If it is not valid in the case of Israel, it cannot be valid in the case of the Book of Mormon.)

What on earth is he doing?

[_Gadianton]

By the way, what's this stuff about 'He will be visiting OXFORD"?

LOL. Well, you know there is this Joseph Smith thing this summer at BYU, I can't remember what it's called, and participants receive 3,000 dollars for showing up and writing essays about how Joseph Smith's banging of other men's wives proves he's a prophet.

In noting the money invovled, somehow across the divide on the other forum, Hamblin and DCP rushed out to brag about Hamblins upcoming participation in a similar event at Oxford, the point half being to show to all of us critics that receiving a stipend for participation in such a seminar is customary, as Dr. Hamblin will be doing the same this summer. And half to make us all aware of Hamblin's projected participation at some Oxford event where he'll be paid 4,000 dollars or so for his time. DCP and Hamblin like to take any chance they get -- and David is learning well from them -- to brag about their scholarly endeavors. It just drives them nuts that we aren't impressed enough to simply take their word on apologetic matters and expect them to put forward a reasonable argument.

Scratch's post here proves once again, as soon as anything Book of Mormon resonates in the brain of Dr. Hamblin, he becomes incapable of sound thinking. Some of these arguments of his approach the most ridiculous Mormon apologetics in history.

[_EAllusion]

Scratch's post here proves once again, as soon as anything Book of Mormon resonates in the brain of Dr. Hamblin, he becomes incapable of sound thinking. Some of these arguments of his approach the most ridiculous Mormon apologetics in history.

This is my personal favorite example of Hamblin being a complete idiot:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=12015

It's also one of the single dumbest arguments in support of Book of Mormon historicity I've seen. And that's saying a lot. What's interesting is how many of the posters there choose to back him, including DCP.

(They erased my replies on the thread.)

[_Dr. Shades]

My favorite Hamblin/bonehead moment was when he posted a thread saying (paraphrasing), "Which of you Christians can provide archaeological evidence of 1st Century Christians in Ancient Rome? If you can't, then you aren't allowed to criticize Mormons for being unable to provide archaeological evidence of Lamanites in Mesoamerica."

I tried to point out to him that, if the Book of Mormon was actually true, then finding evidence of Lamanites in Mesoamerica should be no more difficult than finding evidence of the Roman Empire in Rome.

Unfortunately, he wasn't able to comprehend what I was getting at. It went right over his head. Poor guy!

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, here comes DCP to the rescue:

You are setting up a false dichotomy and you know it.

Why the suggestion that Professor Hamblin has written in bad faith?

Disagreement is one thing, but seeking to poison the well seems another thing altogether.

"Poison the well"? I don't think so. Anyways, Prof. H. has inadvertently revealed just how tenuous his argument is by insisting on total, iron-fisted, absolutist control over the way that the initial question is phrased and understood.

Here's more DCP:

I am only speaking of his action prima facie, I know nothing of his motivation.

In that case, while it was appropriate to state your opinion that the dichotomy he set up was a false dichotomy, it was inappropriate to suggest that he was doing so in full awareness of that (alleged) fact.

Um, is this supposed to be effective damage control? It seems pretty obvious that Prof. Peterson has been over to this board, and has been reading our remarks. Probably, he feels rather embarrassed for Prof. Hamblin. But I have to ask: Are these kinds of remarks really helping? Think about it: In this last comment, isn't DCP basically saying that Hamblin is too dense / stupid to realize that he'd set up his own false dichotomy? It raises the question of which is worse: To knowingly employ a logical fallacy, or to be too blind / dumb to realize you're doing it?

All of this just reinforces the fact that Bill Hamblin isn't quite up to snuff as an apologist. He will always be overshadowed by his good ol' pal, DCP. Hamblin isn't anywhere near as good of a writer; he doesn't seem to be as intelligent or quick-witted as DCP; and, he has a more difficult time controlling his rather volatile temper. When Hamblin gets mad, he has a tendency to really fly off the handle, as evidenced by his many temper tantrums: e.g., his "k-word" rant on RfM; his insanely angry rant against Quinn in FROB; his "Metcalfe is Butthead" gaffe, etc. I bet that DCP keeps Hamblin around as a kind of "side-kick."

[_karl61]

I would love to email Robin Lane Fox - an Oxford scholar and author of the unauthorized version: truth and fiction in the Bible - and ask him to attend the seminar and give some critical thought to the issues. By the way the book got great reviews in the New York times.