Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon ''challenges''

[_Daniel Peterson]

Narcissism is almost certainly the least of my many disreputable qualities.

Look, do I think that Mormon apologetics is a central topic of discussion at Trinity College, Cambridge, or in Harvard Yard? No, I don't.

Does this fact, as such, discredit either Mormonism or Mormon apologetics? Not that I can see.

I would imagine that you could knock on thousands of doors throughout the American Midwest without encountering a single soul who is gripped by quantum theory. And you could probably call on the vast majority of the faculty of Princeton before finding anybody that you would trust to work on your transmission. A couple of years ago, I attended a conference on the Shakespearean authorship question at Concordia College, in Portland, Oregon. So far as I could tell, though, daily life for hundrends of thousands of people went on in Portland and its environs precisely the same during that conference as it does on every other day.

Had you been centrally involved in the academies of Athens, Alexandria, and Rome between 150 and 200 AD, you would likely (and, in a sense, reasonably) have dismissed Christianity as a marginal movement of no interest, with no worthy intellectual tradition.

[_harmony]

Look, do I think that Mormon apologetics is a central topic of discussion at Trinity College, Cambridge, or in Harvard Yard? No, I don't.

Why not? Isn't God's own true church of sufficient importance to be discussed in those hallowed halls of academia? Surely Mormonism should rank at the top of the list, with law, government, and the rising cost of tuition.

[_Chap]

Hamblin says he won't join in a discussion here. Then:

Did you tell Prof. Hamblin that his stature as an apologist is crumbling on a daily basis thanks to our criticism?

Followed by a bit of cutting irony:

The Scratch Board: Center of the Universe.

To which I responded, really quite straighforwardly

If this board was at the centre of the universe, it would be a decidedly inappropriate place for any discussion of LDS apologetics, a subject whose marginality in intellectual terms and almost total irrelevance to normal academic discourse (at least outside Provo) is one of the reasons why some of us find discussion of its intricacies so intriguing, and indeed diverting.

Missing the chance to dialogue with Hamblin on LDS apologetic topics is as much a lost opportunity for those of us who feel that way as a missed opportunity to observe the mating habits of the curelom and cumom would be for a mammalian zoologist.

And (since we now seem to have got past the "this is all about me" stuff):

Look, do I think that Mormon apologetics is a central topic of discussion at Trinity College, Cambridge, or in Harvard Yard? No, I don't.

Glad to hear our experience matches up. Speculating a bit about places we know less well, I shouldn't think it it a central topic of discussion - or rather I shouldn't think it is a topic of discussion at all - pretty well anywhere except BYU, whether in Utah or Idaho, or possibly in the new UK campus we read about on Amazon recently.

Does this fact, as such, discredit either Mormonism or Mormon apologetics? Not that I can see.

We are not talking about the LDS faith here, but about apologetic writing on behalf of that faith, and the discussion thereof. And we are not talking - or at least I wasn't- about whether LDS apologetic activity was discredited, but whether it could be said to be characterised by "marginality in intellectual terms and almost total irrelevance to normal academic discourse (at least outside Provo)". We don't seem to disagree on that.

That would seem to imply that any suggestion that an LDS apologist can reasonably consider it below him to join in a discussion forum on the sole grounds that the forum in question is not "the centre of the Universe" might not be wholly appropriate. Of course he might have other grounds for refusing, but we are not talking about what those might be.

That was the point of my post. Seems pretty obvious to me, and I can't see what all the fuss has been about.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Look, do I think that Mormon apologetics is a central topic of discussion at Trinity College, Cambridge, or in Harvard Yard? No, I don't.

Why not? Isn't God's own true church of sufficient importance to be discussed in those hallowed halls of academia? Surely Mormonism should rank at the top of the list, with law, government, and the rising cost of tuition.

Whether it should or not is an entirely separate question.

See my post above.

Even if you don't accept its doctrinal claims, Christianity has proved to be extraordinarily important as a historical phenomenon. Yet I think it pretty clear that, had you surveyed Greek and Roman intellectuals and "academics" in AD 150 or AD 200, few if any would have deemed it worth serious attention (except, perhaps, as a regional political matter). I choose those dates quite deliberately: Mormonism will be 200 years old in 2030.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We are not talking about the LDS faith here, but about apologetic writing on behalf of that faith, and the discussion thereof.

And yet the marginality of the LDS faith surely contributes to the fact that LDS apologetic writing is not part of the core curriculum at Yale, Stanford, Oxford, and the Sorbonne.

That would seem to imply that any suggestion that an LDS apologist can reasonably consider it below him to join in a discussion forum on the sole grounds that the forum in question is not "the centre of the Universe" might not be wholly appropriate.

Don't let the irony of my response mislead you into magnifying the importance of this place. It's scarcely a pimple on the periphery of the universe.

Professor Hamblin believes that his time is better spent elsewhere. He is almost certainly right. What's the active posting population here? Ten? Twenty? Not much more than that, in any case. How serious and substantive is the discourse here? Not very. Once you factor out poor antishock8 and Some Schmo and Mercury and collegeterrace/PP and their ilk, along with Mister Scratch and the other Scratches and their never-ending crusades of gossip and personal attack, there isn't really a whole lot left. And even that is so skewed toward the critical side that participation here seems rather pointless.

So why do I participate? Plainly because I'm nuts. Not as nuts as Scratch, but nuts nonetheless.

I notice, incidentally, that Trevor -- a serious academic -- appears to have stopped posting here. If that's true, I can only express my admiration for him. I should do likewise.

[_Chap]

Surely DCP is not saying that he prefers RfM?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Surely DCP is not saying that he prefers RfM?

Unbelievably, there's even less substantive conversation over there. And more bile.

[_Chap]

Surely DCP is not saying that he prefers RfM?

Unbelievably, there's even less substantive conversation over there. And more bile.

Yup. This board is where you have a chance to talk to the nice guys who don't agree with you.

[_The Nehor]

Yup. This board is where you have a chance to talk to the nice guys who don't agree with you.

Mussolini and Tojo are so much more reasonable then Hitler.

[_harmony]

Professor Hamblin believes that his time is better spent elsewhere. He is almost certainly right.

His loss. I can't say I'd trust his judgment much, if that is indeed true.

What's the active posting population here? Ten? Twenty? Not much more than that, in any case.

So now because we are relatively few, we are less? That surely works against the church then, since as far as global population goes, we are very small... does that make the church then... less?

How serious and substantive is the discourse here? Not very.

In case you haven't been keeping track, there's a quite serious and substantive thread going on 90 pages, tacked up at the top of this forum. Many posters have and still are participating in what is likely the most interesting online discussion of the S/R theory that's ever taken place. Just because you aren't interested in that particular subject doesn't mean it's not serious and substantive.

There have been others also... the discussion of Turley's MMM book is a prime example. Rough Stone Rolling also had a few substantial threads. There are several threads about plural marriage that also contain much useful and pertinent information. Any any thread about Mesoamerica that Beastie posted on is chock full of information, both serious and substantial. Just because you didn't like the subject or like the way the discussion went doesn't mean they lacked substance and seriousness.

As for the lack of substance and seriousness, you contribute your share of the irrelevant and immaterial here, Daniel. To be quite honest, I have no idea what would interest you enough to actually judge the thread as serious and substantial. You have a remarkable ability to avoid those threads entirely. One would think it was deliberate.

Once you factor out poor antishock8 and Some Schmo and Mercury and collegeterrace/PP and their ilk, along with Mister Scratch and the other Scratches and their never-ending crusades of gossip and personal attack, there isn't really a whole lot left.

Of course. The Dude, Jersey, marg, Tarski, GoodK (when he's discussing his experience at the ranch), Jason Bourne, Truth Dancer, Beastie/Trixie, bcspace, Gazelem, Shades, myself, Ray, and others... we add nothing.

And even that is so skewed toward the critical side that participation here seems rather pointless.

The board is made up of those who choose to be here. We accept all points of view with the same magnifying glass. Perhaps you missed the threads on issue with atheism and evolution, running at the same time as threads on issues with Christianity and the Mormon church.

But I forgot... there is no substance or seriousness here.

Just what would you like to discuss, Daniel?

So why do I participate? Plainly because I'm nuts. Not as nuts as Scratch, but nuts nonetheless.

Plainly because this place fills a need within you. Maybe you need to sharpen your claws? wipe your boots? laugh at yourself? see what some of your old internet opponents are up to now?

I notice, incidentally, that Trevor -- a serious academic -- appears to have stopped posting here. If that's true, I can only express my admiration for him. I should do likewise.

Trevor will be back. He always is. Someone will no doubt tell him you admire him.