William Hamblin is a Pathetic Coward

[_Kevin Graham]

But then again, any apologist that makes a difference got a bashing here. It is just the way it is.

This is easily refuted by a cursory examination of those we do and do not criticize.

Don't you ever wonder why Robert F, or Ben M, or Kevin B, or any number of LDS apologists (who are far more scholarly) at MAD/Maxwell are never criticized over here? It is because they do not go on the offensive and attack us first. It is really that simple.

The one thing Will, Dan, Bill, Pahoran, etc have in common is their infatuation with bashing apostates. They love to attack us publicly on a forum where they know we won't be able to respond. They lie. They deceive. And they need to be exposed, especially when they are targeting specific individuals who have the right to defend themselves by telling their side. I can't name how many times I had to post a response to Dan over at MAD because he started a thread about me totally misrepresenting what I said. And when I did that, I was always respectful towards him, and then the moderators would come shut down the thread and/or ban me in the process, because they can't have their precious scholars being made out to be fools. This rat pack of misfit apologists you love to defend so much, if they're not singling us out individually, they're referring to this forum in a broad sense, as the cesspool, the apostate forum, the spacious trailer park, etc.

So that is the common denominator these guys all share. It isn't that they've "made a difference." Just what in the hell has Will Schryver done for apologetics besides like and make a mockery of Mormonism? His sole claim to fame is his well refuted cipher nonsense. That didn't last long now did it.

You have to be a real piece of Samsonite to sit there and insist William Schryver has done nothing to bring this on himself.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The will bashing here was extreme to say the least. But then again, any apologist that makes a difference got a bashing here. It is just the way it is.

In what way has Schryver made a difference in LDS apologetics? He's drawn a lot of attention to himself, made a lot of boastful promises and come up with a whole lot of nothing. He embarrassed himself with his stupid cipher key theory and posted disgusting and hateful stuff here and elsewhere.

Is that what you call making a difference?

[_RockSlider]

Seems to me that our own beloved Trevor was just recently threatened/attacked via personal email by a well known apologist, maybe even this very one highlighted in the OP?

[_Yoda]

Seems to me that our own beloved Trevor was just recently threatened/attacked via personal email by a well known apologist, maybe even this very one highlighted in the OP?

Do tell!

[_Cicero]

Wow. Now I feel kind of bad for sharing that example re: Blake and Perry.

Blake is somebody that I like and respect. He can be a hard person to like. He can be bullish and condescending. But when we've been able to sit down and have a conversation (metaphorically speaking---we've only ever interacted on blogs and briefly in e-mail), it's been very enlightening, at least for me. He said things years ago which I sometimes still mull over today.

He's had a few outbursts online which left me with jaw dropped when I read about them. The Perry Robinson thing was one of them. I'm not even going to link to the others, out of respect for him. It's something that I decided was worth living with and not dwelling on in order to be on friendly terms with him.

You may be saying that one could say the same thing about Dan Peterson, so what's the difference? Why is Blake still on my "like" list, while Dan is someone I prefer to avoid? The difference, for me at least, is that in our conversations, Blake has made me feel like he actually cares about my opinion. He's been dismissive of opinions that were naïve and uninformed (and looking back, even I see how naïve they were), but he usually did it in a way that encouraged me to dig deeper and try harder. Dan never made me feel like he cared about my opinions, except for when I was supporting and defending Mormonism and Mormon apologetics, and when we disagreed, he quickly turned derisive. (For example, read Blake's interactions with the Faith-Promoting Rumor bloggers on this thread. He engages their concerns respectfully. I don't see him as coming off as particularly dismissive or condescending, even as he disagrees with a lot of what they say. Contrast that to Dan's response to Faith-Promoting Rumor blogger smallaxe.)

As for Kevin Barney: I've known that man for over ten years, I live one stake over from him now, he's visited my church with me, and I've never seen him be anything but respectful and polite to people.

Jack: Thanks for this. I know that Blake has a huge ego (you kinda need that to be a successful litigator), and I have always found his writings interesting. I actually believed in his "Expansion theory" for a long time in order to sustain my testimony of the Book of Mormon. Having said all of that, he crossed the line by going after after Robinson like that. I understand that politics and back-biting are par for the course in academia, but complaining to someone's department head over a disagreement in an on-line discussion group is crazy. The thought would never even cross my mind.

I completely agree about Kevin Barney.

[_MsJack]

Cicero ~ I agree that Blake crossed a line. I was disappointed when I first found out about the exchange. I'm not sure that he actually carried out his threat to contact regents, but even threatening it was inappropriate.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Hamblin is pathetic....

William admitted on MAD that he did not read the letters. He also admitted that he had not clue who sent the letters.

William rents his garment and put on sackclothe and ashes because of "defamation". Yet he shows his hypocrisy in his blog post. He want to know who sent the letters so he can say "Well, that individual is an apostate".

Hamblin wants to defame, but can not pin point the target.

IF, Hamblin, willie schryber, Russell the Kiwi, Juliann "fork tongue" reynolds, did not want to defame others, they all would cease immediately with the "anti-mormon", "critic", liberal, and all other similar terminology.

Labels are meant to defame. Defamation is essentially poisoning the well. What is interesting is those people will claim "well what I say is true so it is not defamation", wrong assholes.

Those people can hardly post without defaming.....one day they will have to face the smell of their own crap.

[_aussieguy55]

Once knew a Mormon lawyer who comes accross like Blake. Debated the First Vision with him and he was good on his feet. When we printed both our presentations I sent both to Wes P Walters. He found lots of holes in our "lawyer" Mormons arguments.
I also notice that Perry locks horns with a variety of nonlds people. The orthodox/catholic tradtion seems to be attracting former evangelicals like the late Jaroslav Pelikin (church historian) to its ranks. When I was a member of a conservative (Missouri synod like) i was told thaat Pelikin was a liberal (he was teaching I think at Concordia Seminary (St Louise).
Unless youi are immerse in early church history you find the arguments hard to follow. Msjack how did you find the Perry/Blake debate?

[_MsJack]

Msjack how did you find the Perry/Blake debate?

I did a post on deification at LDS & Evangelical Conversations back in 2009. Blake Ostler showed up and began commenting on it. Perry Robinson showed up and began commenting on it. Then Perry mentioned what Blake has threatened to do to him, and someone found me the link.

[_aussieguy55]

Can you give us the link to that discussion please? ty