Poor antishock8's allegation is, as one would expect, entirely ridiculous.
harmony wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:Hamblin said that he had heard accounts suggesting that.
That's not what he said. Hamblin said "(and which you aquired under somewhat dubious circumstances)". There is no "suggested" in that statement, it is worded as a concrete statement. Had he wanted to convey that it was suggested, he'd have said, "and which it has been suggested that you acquired under somewhat dubious circumstances".
Surely he is not as sloppy a communicator as you are trying to portray him, after the fact.
He's definitely not as sloppy a communicator as you are a reader.
Here's what he also said:
Note I said somewhat dubious circumstances. My understanding is that . . . Thus, as I understand it . . .
All of this may be wrong. If so, I apologize. But this is the story that I've heard several times from different sources. If I've got it wrong, Id love to hear the correct story. Perhaps you can clarify the record.
Since you completely missed that, it's not at all surprising that you're completely missing -- as the never-substantive Mister Scratch clearly wants you to do -- the actual substance of the conversation.
Professor Rotundia's assertion aside, this is what Mr. Hamblin posted as related to us by Mr. Scratch:
Fourth, you insist that a manuscript, which you alone possess, (and which you aquired under somewhat dubious circumstances)...
Note I said somewhat dubious circumstances. My understanding is that Steven Christensen was given permission to photograph the manuscripts by the Church. The photographs nonetheless remained the possession of the Church. They were temporarily lent to Christensen. Christensen then lent you one of two copies for research purposes, but not as your private possession. When your friend Mark Hoffman murdered Christensen, the photographs technically reverted to Christensens estate, or perhaps even the Church. You, nonetheless kept possession of them. Thus, as I understand it, you were not given permission to make the photographs. You did not make the photographs. You did not pay for the photography. You were lent the photographs on a temporary basis by your employer Christensen, but were not given possession of the photographs. They happened to be in your possession when Christensen was murdered. You kept them.
What a vile insinuation. What a vile thing Mr. Peterson is doing right now. Despicable.
I don't think Hamblin really understood why having some sense of a coherent interpretative framework is necessary to understand why something wouldn't would would count as meaningful evidence rather than just a worthless ad hoc. The "presuppositional" argument though not his worst in the history of ZLMB, was pretty ridiculous and there were people there who could see through that. In the context of receiving a pretty sound thrashing from Brent and a few peanut gallery commentors is where you get his comments about Brent's friend, Mark Hoffman and the dubious circumstances.
His main mistake is saying that in a public forum where he can be responded to in real time. He should save that kind of stuff for standalone publications, friends, and forums where moderators will protect him from critical analysis. Then, perhaps, we can all pretend that his deft skill in reasoning and reservoir of knowledge should strike fear in those who oppose him without so easily being contradicted.
EA, even though I think you're fundamentally wrong on most everything in the post above, I appreciate your partial attempt at focusing on the substance of the conversation.
His main mistake is saying that in a public forum where he can be responded to in real time. He should save that kind of stuff for standalone publications, friends, and forums where moderators will protect him from critical analysis. Then, perhaps, we can all pretend that his deft skill in reasoning and reservoir of knowledge should strike fear in those who oppose him without so easily being contradicted.
Thanks, EA. Mr. Hamblin's buffoonish attempt at "real time" apologia was foolish. It's indeed better for him to stay in his ivory tower so he's not subjected to the nastiness of people who will *gasp* take him to task over his assertions.
Thank You Very Much Mister Scratch, For bringing This Old Zion Lighthouse Discussion Thread to Light here. That Old Zion Lighthou Discussion Thread was an interesting read. I Really liked This Old Post, From that Old Discussion Thread, From our Good old Friend Paul O. Here is Part of This Old Post:
Who then will wrongfully say that this is the imagination of W.W. Phelps or the unlawful utterance given by the chosen assistants of the prophet to write by dictation as the prophet owned all rights to revelation in the Church? Was W.W. Phelps a liar? God forbid. What man ever wrote more about the glory of Kolob other than W.W. Phelps? Where did W.W. Phelps get his knowledge and authority to write in the EAG? The answer is crystal clear -- Joseph Smith Jr. at his very side. To deny this is to deny the absence of foolishness when it comes to understanding the true nature of the papyri and the translation that followed. Why have learned LDS scholars (who think they know so much) made a mockery of the EAG in front of all good LDS people? I stand by the EAG and believe it was a significant part of the process (not a byproduct) by which the Lord revealed the Book of Abraham although there are undoubtedly missing manuscripts and what we have is incomplete, left to be polished in some future day. Indeed, I propose the missing manuscript theory and am sure we are not getting the whole story whether there is more material hidden in the Church vault, I don't say-- but there was originally more than what we have and the proof of which will be unsettling to those who have pitted themselves against it. It irks me that this sacred work has been reduced to little more than the term, "paper" (Kirtland Papers) when the full name is, "Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language"; but sadly it has been disrespected by those who should have shown it greater respect. For shame! I feel sorry for those who reject the EAG because of the fear of the world and the those nasty pointing fingers of scorn! When it comes to the EAG:
I trust President Joseph Smith Jr., and Oliver Cowdery; NOT Hugh Nibley!
I trust W.W. Phelps and Warren Parrish; NOT John Gee!
I trust President Frederick G. Williams and Willard Richards; NOT Jeff Lindsay & Kerry Shirts!
Mister Scratch wrote:I wouldn't say "grossly," nor would I say "non-stop," but aside from that, you are essentially right.
Of course I'm right, and the words grossly and non-stop are precisely on target.
I note with interest that you didn't object to the word falsely. A significantly revealing slip-up on your part, I think.
No. I said "essentially right," so I think I had myself covered. As you know, I don't think that my "accusations" are "false." I *do* think you gossiped; I *do* think you have used smear tactics; I *do* think you equivocated on the issue of Mopologetic payment and financing.
Mister Scratch wrote:I do find it bizarrely fascinating that you won't simply admit that you messed up, and apologize. I imagine it's fascinating to me in much the same way that RfM is fascinating to you.
You know, I had Dr. Hamblin as a professor when I was at BYU. He taught one of my two semesters of History of Civilization. It was a really big lecture section, so I never got to know him personally, but he seemed like a genuinely nice guy. He didn't introduce any Mormon apologetic topics in class. He taught the class as I would envision it being taught at any University.
After reading the quotes attributed to him in the OP, I'm left wondering what it is about apologetics and criticism that brings out the worst in many of us. I'm guilty of being less than civil in my approach to Mormonism. It's such an emotional topic. I think the most important thing is for participants (myself included) to recognize when they cross the line and to fess up and/or apologize for their statements/actions. Dogmatism has no place on either side of the debate.