A Newly Re-Energized Hamblin Pinches Off Another One

[_Doctor Scratch]

Holy crap--the idiocy is raining down in sheets from Dr. Hamblin these days. In the wake of the MI shake-up, it seems that the pumpkin-pie-hair-cutted freak of a Mopologist feels energized to pursue more aggressive (and in his case, stupider and more pointless) apologetics. He announced it on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/586 ... of-mormon/

His post refers readers to his blog. Here is what I imagine that Hamblin imagines are the trenchant opening lines:

Some Latter-day Saints insist that the Book of Mormon can be inspired fiction and still be scripture. According to this view, God “revealed” a fictional tale of the Nephites to Joseph Smith in order to (somehow) inspire people to believe in Christ, accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and live better lives. From one perspective this may make some sense; the the [sic] parables of Jesus are obviously fiction, yet are scripture. More to the point, the allegory of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5 is itself fiction, yet Mormons believe it to be scripture.

However, I believe this fictional Book of Mormon approach is logically untenable for at least three main reasons.

What are his reasons? Well, his first reason is that the "fictional approach" is logically untenable because it's logically untenable:

Why would God inspire Joseph to lie to the Saints–implying in all sorts of ways that the Book of Mormon is authentic history–in order to inspire confidence? This seems remarkably counterproductive. Why couldn’t God have simply said, “behold the parable of the Nephites” like he does in the Doctrine and Covenants 101:43? Or why couldn’t God simply have revealed some authentic lost teachings of Jesus? Why wouldn’t God try to reveal his eternal truths by talking about real ancient prophets and prophesies rather than fictional ones? There are a lot of true authentically historical things God could reveal; why not do that instead of revealing a fictional Book of Mormon?

Indeed! And why wouldn't God microwave a burrito that was so hot that even He couldn't partake of it? It seems that Hamblin has been studying at the feet of the master: Dr. Homer Simpson himself.

His second point isn't much better, unfortunately:

The stated purpose of the Book of Mormon is “the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” If the Book of Mormon is fiction, how can it possibly accomplish this task? Why is the Book of Mormon any more efficacious in this regard than, say, the late nineteenth century novel Ben Hur? How does a fictional book about Jesus show that he is the Christ, any more than Superman comic books demonstrate that Superman is real? How does the fact that Jesus didn’t visit the New World demonstrate that he “manifests himself unto all nations”?

Does Hamblin not understand the various ways that persuasion--or "convincing"--works? It turns out that the first two points don't really matter, though, because in the final point, Hamblin shows us what he was really meaning to do all along:

If there were no Nephites, then Joseph’s entire foundational story is ontologically [sic]false. Which means he was either lying (he knew there were no plates, but told his followers he had them), or he was delusional (there were no plates, but he was hallucinating that there were). Either way, the only intellectually honest and coherent conclusion is that Joseph Smith was not an authentic prophet. The only remaining choices are liar or lunatic.

Aha! So, it was about crafting a false dichotomy. He kept us waiting, only to spring this surprise turn of events on us. Quite brilliant, no?

I have to say that I have been thoroughly enjoying Professor Hamblin's recent Mopologetics--he is really coming into his own; rather like an old Bordeaux, or a well-aged Limburger, perhaps--Hamblin is growing ever more funky and unpredictable and exciting in his senescence. If this is a foretaste of what's to come in Mormon Interpreter, then I can hardly wait.

[_3sheets2thewind]

the Book of Mormon being inspired fiction was discussed not long ago on MAD, will have to look up if hamblin responded in those discussions.

[_malkie]

At least he is "humble" enough to constantly proclaim that he "cannot understand" how someone could possibly have a different opinion from him.

I find such a lack of imagination astounding in a university professor, and I am completely unable to understand how you (any of you!!) could think otherwise.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Since the dissolution of the "classic-FARMS" stronghold at the MI, Dr. Hamblin has emerged as the most vocal, most visible Mopologist. So, as I've said, it will be important to keep an eye on him. He is a sort of bellwether, as it were.

[_MrStakhanovite]

However, I believe this fictional Book of Mormon approach is logically untenable for at least three main reasons.

None of these three "reasons" have anything to do with logic at all, there are no errors in logical reasoning and there are no fundamental inconsistencies. For someone who thinks it is a significant fact that he has 3,000 books on Hinduism, he sure as hell has no idea how to approach a text it seems.

“IF THE BOOK IZ NOT LITERAL HISTORICAL ACCOUNT, IT CANNOT BE DIVINE INSPIRATION!!!!”

Holy hell, for someone who likes to snub New Atheism, he sure does act like them. It's like he has managed to ignore the last 300 years of theological tradition.

[Anonymous]

Once again I'm going to come across as an uneducated rube to some of you, but I have to agree with Hamblin on this one too. I really cannot buy the whole "Book of Mormon as inspired fiction" thing, and for mostly the reasons that Hamblin outlines.

It makes no sense to me that a God of Truth, as Elohim is portrayed to be, would try to convince people that his Prophet, Seer, and Revelator on Earth really knows what he's talking about by letting this guy "reveal" fiction as if it were fact. The problem is, once the readership becomes educated enough, or the state of knowledge advances far enough, or whatever, that people become able to recognize the fiction as such, the jig is up; the "Prophet" loses his credibility.

And that more or less sums up my problems with the Bible too. I guess I've just never educated myself up enough to where I can buy into the whole "inspired fiction taught as fact in order to deliver some profound message" thing.

Back to Hamblin, my takeaway from this is that the Book of Mormon has to be literally true in order for it really to have come from God because it was taught as being literally true in the first place. Hamblin may not have said it in exactly this way, but that's his gist, and I agree with it. The alternative just does not make sense.

[_Sethbag]

“IF THE BOOK IZ NOT LITERAL HISTORICAL ACCOUNT, IT CANNOT BE DIVINE INSPIRATION!!!!”

Holy hell, for someone who likes to snub New Atheism, he sure does act like them. It's like he has managed to ignore the last 300 years of theological tradition.

You need to re-read what Hamblin said. He has no problem with a non-literal story being used to teach divinely inspired knowledge. His problem is with a historical account being revealed by God and taught by his Prophet as if it really were true, when in fact it is not. In other words, for God and his Prophet to lie to people, or bait and switch, whatever you prefer.

[_the narrator]

My bet is that Hamblin is partly responding to last week's Mormon Matters podcast. http://mormonmatters.org/2012/08/08/117 ... scripture/

[_Eric]

I don't follow Hamblin or read the MAD board, but I found this talk page describing how he created a Wikipedia account to delete the "Butthead Controversy" from the article somewhat entertaining.

[_Sethbag]

What's ironic about this is that the Mopologists do exactly this with the Book of Abraham when they start up with the various catalyst or mnemonic device theories. Joseph Smith was pretty clear that he was translating, in the conventional sense of the term, words originally written on the papyrus in Egyptian into words on paper in English containing the same informational content.

To try to go back and revise the claims in light of the fact that the words in Egyptian on the papyrus clearly do not contain the informational content of the Book of Abraham, is just as ridiculous to me as the "fictional Book of Mormon that's still true" approach. It's why IMHO the only mopologetic approach to the Book of Abraham that even holds the possibility, however fleeting, of being helpful is the missing scroll theory. It at least attempts to deal honestly with Joseph Smith's translation claims.