Hamblin?????s Unmodulated Blog

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Brent Metcalfe
_Emeritus
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:37 am

Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _Brent Metcalfe »

As I noted in another thread, Bill Hamblin censored my post on his blog...

********************
Begin
********************


For you, Bill, Bradford isn’t “a bad person,” but he is “a less than competent administrator” (“a view shared,” you tell us, “by MANY other people”).

You don’t merely “disagree” with Bradford you “disagree RADICALLY.” Bradford’s inability to contain all leaks within the Maxwell Institute doesn’t merely evince “negligence” but “DISASTROUS negligence.” His behavior in firing Dan Peterson isn’t just “shameful” it’s “ABSOLUTELY shameful.” Bradford’s initiation of a new vision isn’t just “immoral” it’s “FUNDAMENTALLY immoral,” not just “wrong” but “FUNDAMENTALLY wrong.”

“[A] less than competent administrator” who exhibits “disastrous negligence” and engages in “fundamentally immoral” behavior sounds like “a bad person” to me.

At what point does the “classic-FARMS” guard recognize that such acrimonious rhetoric has contributed to their now-official marginalization?

********************
End
********************


But it appears that Hamblin has now tucked himself firmly into bed with Will Schryver...

********************
Begin
********************


William Schryver says:

June 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Ed,

I want people to know that my article that was censored by Jerry Bradford (The Interminable Roll — Determining the Original Length of the Scroll of Hor) was effectively co-authored by YOU, and when it is published somewhere in the near future, I would like to add your name to mine under the title. I know you have resisted this idea in the past, but the fact is that your contribution to the article was equivalent to that of Andrew Cook’s in the related article published (by Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith) in Dialogue in 2010.

As you well know, our article has been completed for almost two years now, and has only been kept from publication as a result of this ongoing struggle within the Maxwell Institute. As you also well know, our article contains not a single paragraph that could be construed as “ad hominem attacks”, but is, rather, a historical and scientific examination of the Joseph Smith Papyri, including precision measurements of the physical papyri themselves, conducted by professionals, while Professor Gee and I assisted and logged their measurements.

I have since learned that this important paper was censored by Dr. Bradford for reasons unrelated to the ostensible one which was ALSO revealed in an intentionally leaked report that originated from within the Maxwell Institute. This supposedly private editorial decision was secretly communicated to anti-Mormon elements at the Mormon Discussions message board, who published it as follows (in part):

“I have received a very brief note informing me that my case as laid out in this thread has been heard and William Schryver’s work will not be published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. I am sharing this information with permission, and … will not reveal my source …”

(viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18091)

It is quite apparent that Dr. Bradford and his cohorts suffer from no compunction to utilize underhanded methods to undermine their opponents and advance their agenda—which agenda, if publicly known, would no doubt arouse significant opposition from those whose discernment of the adversary’s modus operandi is much more refined than those whose decisions have now resulted in the recently accomplished putsch.

********************
End
********************


We’ve heard various thoughts on how employment termination (though note that Dan resigned and wasn’t fired) should be conducted in the “real world.” Having actually worked in that employment sector for decades, if I were Bill or Dan, I’d be updating my curriculum vitae right about now.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _Shulem »

It makes sense that the church doesn't want to get in bed with someone like William Schryver, someone who has a past history using hallucinative drugs such as LSD 25 when he was a youth seeing his mind was fried on acid. His ventures into drugs and long hair were out of bounds and against the kind of standards the church seeks to maintain.

I respectively submit that former hard drug users not be considered for publication within official LDS church media because it's worse than having men who have been divorced performing sealing ordinances in the holy temples.

Paul O
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _Kishkumen »

I'd be the first person to say that I don't much care for Will Schryver, as he knows, but I take no pleasure in the fact that his work on the Book of Abraham was suppressed for these reasons. Let me be clear: I find his behavior and online persona to be largely boorish and repugnant. Having said that, his scholarship should sink or swim on its own merits, just as Brent's or anyone else's scholarship should.

I was hoping that these fellows would submit their piece for publication elsewhere. If it is a competent estimation of the original length of the scroll, then it would seem to me to be suitable for any number of non-LDS publications. I would recommend that they pursue publication in an Egyptological journal. Perhaps their friend John Gee can recommend an appropriate venue.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _MsJack »

William Schryver wrote:This supposedly private editorial decision was secretly communicated to anti-Mormon elements at the Mormon Discussions message board, who published it as follows (in part):

“I have received a very brief note informing me that my case as laid out in this thread has been heard and William Schryver’s work will not be published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. I am sharing this information with permission, and … will not reveal my source …”

(viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18091)

I am not an anti-Mormon in any way, shape or form. I am an alumna of Brigham Young University (a school that I loved), a former employee of both L. Tom Perry Special Collections and the BYU Religion Department, and the wife of a faithful member of the LDS church. I write a tithe check to the LDS church (on behalf of my husband---I'm the one who manages the family finances), I visit the LDS church at least once a month, and I am allowing my daughter to be raised both Mormon and evangelical. I do these things without protest because I respect the LDS church enough to believe those investments are worth making.

I take issue with being called an "anti-Mormon" simply because I took to task a man who had called Emma Smith a "champion bitch."

And if William and William are going to keep on calling me an "anti-Mormon," then I am going to out some private information about my blog and my involvement in LDS apologetics in recent years that is going to make them look very, very bad for attempting to smear me as such.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (?????????) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Joe Geisner
_Emeritus
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _Joe Geisner »

Kishkumen wrote:I'd be he first person to say hat I don't much care for Will Schryver, as he knows, but I take no pleasure in the act that his work on the Book of Abraham was suppressed for these reasons. Let me be clear: I find his behavior and online persona to be largely boorish and repugnant. Having said that, his scholarship should sink or swim on its own merits, just as Brent's or anyone else's scholarship should.

I was hoping that these fellows would submit their piece for publication elsewhere. If it is a competent estimation of the original length of the scroll, then it would seem to me to be suitable for any number of non-LDS publications. I would recommend that they pursue publication in an Egyptological journal. Perhaps their friend John Gee can recommend an appropriate venue.


Schryver's comments sound like someone who is angry that their work was not appreciated. He seems to be diverting attention away from his actual paper and placing the blame for non-publication on others. I find this peculiar in today's world. Just maybe Bradford has an eye for well written work and this paper is not well written.

At this point, unless Schryver did the article as "work for hire" he owns the copyright and can publish the paper anywhere he wants. He can post the article on a blog is he so desires. For very little money he can make a kindle version and sell it on Amazon. It seems complete nonsense for Schryver to claim suppression in today's world where publication is a key stroke away.

Lastly, why does his buddy Edwin Slack not want his name attached to the article? Could it be that Bradford's rejection was purely academic and Slack is well aware of the reasons?

I am just thinking out loud. Just making noise! :smile:
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _EAllusion »

Prior to his latest arguments, William Schryver had a lengthy, lengthy history of trying out various Book of Abraham apologetics, getting taken to the woodshed on them, abandoning the effort, then attempting to scrub from posterity any reference to those arguments. This includes getting caught in blatantly disingenuous behavior on multiple occasions. While I agree completely with Kish that his arguments should be published on their merits regardless of how contemptible he might personally be, I also want to see them in an enduring source simply so I can see this cycle stopped. As far as I know, no one has compiled his prior behavior into a record. People who have seen this know, but Schryver is a relentlessly dishonest person. He will deny this history and use the fact that he is LDS and his critics are not to get over on his intended audience.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _EAllusion »

EAllusion wrote:While I agree completely with Kish that his arguments should be published on their merits...
I should add that I am deeply skeptical that good scholarship that has meaningful apologetic value is even possible on this front. The idea that aliens built the Great Pyramids has more prior probability to me. So I don't think anyone is submitting meritorious material insofar as it serves as a sound apologetic. Any value it might have I see either non-apologetic or more cynically as pacifying an audience hungry to believe that evidence countervailing to their religious beliefs can be answered. When it comes to that kind of persuasion, illicit as I might see it, I fully understand why the character of the author matters.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _Kishkumen »

MsJack wrote:I take issue with being called an "anti-Mormon" simply because I took to task a man who had called Emma Smith a "champion bitch."

And if William and William are going to keep on calling me an "anti-Mormon," then I am going to out some private information about my blog and my involvement in LDS apologetics in recent years that is going to make them look very, very bad for attempting to smear me as such.


You should take issue with this, Jack. I take issue with it. When Bill Hamblin addressed me as an anti-Mormon, I tried to reason with him about his use of the epithet, but he simply ignored me. If the word anti-Mormon is to have any meaning outside of a prejudicial slur, it should not be applied to people like you in particular. Anyone who uses it as badly as Schryver does in applying it to you simply shows the thinking world exactly what kind of numbskull he is.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _Kishkumen »

Joe Geisner wrote:Schryver's comments sound like someone who is angry that their work was not appreciated. He seems to be diverting attention away from his actual paper and placing the blame for non-publication on others. I find this peculiar in today's world. Just maybe Bradford has an eye for well written work and this paper is not well written.

At this point, unless Schryver did the article as "work for hire" he owns the copyright and can publish the paper anywhere he wants. He can post the article on a blog is he so desires. For very little money he can make a kindle version and sell it on Amazon. It seems complete nonsense for Schryver to claim suppression in today's world where publication is a key stroke away.

Lastly, why does his buddy Edwin Slack not want his name attached to the article? Could it be that Bradford's rejection was purely academic and Slack is well aware of the reasons?

I am just thinking out loud. Just making noise! :smile:


Most of what Will says centers on his own image and interests. And, I think you are right about this: unless the work is owned by the Institute, he can certainly submit it elsewhere for publication. If he thinks that prejudice is the only thing that prevented its publication, then publishing it would seem to me to be the best response and proof in the pudding.

Those are certainly good thoughts and questions. Why is it that Slack did not put his name on the piece? I can't say.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Hamblin’s Unmodulated Blog

Post by _Kishkumen »

EAllusion wrote:I should add that I am deeply skeptical that good scholarship that has meaningful apologetic value is even possible on this front. The idea that aliens built the Great Pyramids has more prior probability to me. So I don't think anyone is submitting meritorious material insofar as it serves as a sound apologetic. Any value it might have I see either non-apologetic or more cynically as pacifying an audience hungry to believe that evidence countervailing to their religious beliefs can be answered. When it comes to that kind of persuasion, illicit as I might see it, I fully understand why the character of the author matters.


In the the end, Book of Abraham apologetics don't amount to much. Either one believes the text to be a revelation to Joseph Smith of the substance of an ancient text written by an historical Abraham, or one does not. No one will find any real confirmation of the former in the papyri, the length of the scroll, the translation timeline, medieval Abraham traditions, or what have you. This is a fight without any real substance to it. At best it is a show of proving the critics "wrong" about some minor point in order to show that the apologists are "winning."

How can one possibly prove that the Book of Abraham is an ancient text at this point? Unless the translations of these standard Egyptian documents have been wildly misunderstood by everyone (along with the rest of the Egyptian language and ancient texts), or the allegedly missing papyri are recovered and contain Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, then the best the apologists can hope for out of this is the preservation of the possibility that the Book of Abraham could be ancient in the way they believe by faith.

Having said that, I believe that the scenario Gee and others have concocted is at least plausible on some level. And that must be what they are hoping to achieve. I have no doubt that they sincerely believe that the Book of Abraham is ancient. I believe it is ancient in the sense that it continues an ancient tradition of midrashic commentary (of the aggada variety, not halakha) on Hebraic myth, updating ancient stories to be meaningful in their present context. Personally, I don't see why such myths, when revealed to a prophet, can't be considered scripture, but some apologists insist that the word "ancient" has to have a narrow meaning that they don't even demand of Smith's use of the word "translation."
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply