A Newly Re-Energized Hamblin Pinches Off Another One

[_Sethbag]

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.

I disagree with your argument on the basis that you have misrepresented Hamblin's claims. I don't think he cannot understand how someone can have a different opinion from him. What he doesn't agree with is their argument itself. That is, that God taught Joseph, and Joseph taught the rest of us, that the Book of Mormon stuff really happened, but that it really didn't happen - God was just using the story as a useful metaphor, parable, etc. In Hamblin's view, Mormon God doesn't work this way, and I happen to agree with him (not that Mormon God exists, but that in Mormon theology, God doesn't work this way).

[_ludwigm]

... Mormon intelligentsia ...

Fából vaskarika.

As banned from [ img ] feature, I can only quote.
Can quote feature banned? This is a check...

See one of "750 magyar közmondás" (750 Hungarian proverbs):

171. Fából vaskarika.
An iron ring made of wood.
(ring as a round circle-shape, not in the jewelry sense)

My helping explanation:
An essential contradiction, as alcohol-free beer...

[ban]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjaBl2387_miaYrLv5zBG3JAKT3A_A5zKFlzWUHygqe77mLBfA[/ban]

[_Darth J]

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.

I disagree with your argument on the basis that you have misrepresented Hamblin's claims. I don't think he cannot understand how someone can have a different opinion from him. What he doesn't agree with is their argument itself. That is, that God taught Joseph, and Joseph taught the rest of us, that the Book of Mormon stuff really happened, but that it really didn't happen - God was just using the story as a useful metaphor, parable, etc. In Hamblin's view, Mormon God doesn't work this way, and I happen to agree with him (not that Mormon God exists, but that in Mormon theology, God doesn't work this way).

Sethbag, Hamblin's exact words in his blog post are: "I simply can’t understand people who say none of this matters."

And I take him at his word that he simply can't understand anything other than a fundamentalist, literal approach to religion.

[_Darth J]

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?

It's established LDS doctrine that as far as the vast majority of the human race is concerned, God follows the methodology to which Hamblin objects:

http://www.LDS.org/library/display/0,49 ... -1,00.html

The First Presidency has stated: "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. . . . We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation" ("Statement of the First Presidency regarding God's Love for All Mankind," 15 Feb. 1978).

So, per the First Presidency, God brought moral truths and a higher level of understanding to a billion Muslims by inspiring Mohammed to invent the Koran and make up a fictitious visitation from the angel Gabriel. And God followed a similar scheme with other religious leaders, and even philosophers. This brings people the message God wants them to have, but still allows for these inspired people to teach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

But when members of the Community of Christ or NOM's in the LDS Church apply the same principle to Joseph Smith, then, "It's irrational! It befuddles me! I can't understand the meaning of these words people are saying!"

[_Kishkumen]

To Kish: I have no problem with Homer. I acknowledge that whatever wisdom, or moral, social, or cultural informational content in that book, of whatever merit, originated from the mind of a human being. If we all agree that the Book of Mormon originated in Joseph's mind (or his associates, whatever), I'd have no problem treating its contents in exactly the same way that we'd treat The Illiad, or The Lord of the Rings, or whatever.

You have no problem with it because it has been centuries since anyone took this seriously, but, the thing is, people did.

[_beastie]

LDS scripture itself should explain this adequately to Hamblin. We learn in the D&C that sometimes God allows people to be misled just a bit for the greater good. (see: explanation for "eternal damnation" - if I have time later I'll provide the quotes, getting ready for work now)

[_Analytics]

Can the Book of Mormon be inspired fiction and still be considered scripture? On this one, there really is a slippery slope. If one concludes that the Book of Mormon is “fiction”, they’ll likely conclude that it is modern fiction, not ancient fiction. At that point you lose the literal visitation of the resurrected being Moroni. If you lose that, then it isn’t likely you’ll hang on to literal visitations from John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John. So the priesthood isn’t a literal power or authority. At that point, what literal truth-claims are there to hang onto?

On the other hand, if somebody sees inherent value in Mormonism as a culture, heritage, lifestyle, and community, then one can embrace those things while quietly rejecting the literal truthfulness of the mythology.

Should the Church embrace people like Joanna Brooks and John Dehlin because they love the culture, heritage, lifestyle, and community? Or should the Church kick them out because they don’t have a literal belief in the mythology?

The Church seems to be moving towards a place where it will embrace cultural members. Hamblin seems to be resisting this and pushing for an inquisition where only orthodox members are tolerated.

[_Doctor Scratch]

One of the problems with Hamblin's comments is that it underscores a basic Mopologetic hypocrisy. These guys are more than happy to emphasize the strangeness, illogic, or incomprehensibility of God's actions when it suits them: e.g., Why did God move the Gold Plates from Latin America clear up to New York? Why did He change the Lamanites' skin color? Why did He prohibit Blacks from having the priesthood? Does Hamblin genuinely think that these things constitute logical behavior? Or is he going to shrug and say some variation on, "God works in mysterious ways"?

Hamblin's post has been set up to craft a (false) dichotomy, and he's making this argument in order to be divisive.

On a sidenote: what is up with Ben McGuire these days? Practically every Hamblin thread these days features a wall of text from McGuire, followed up with ol' Billy patting him on the head and telling him what a good boy he is. Ben is turning into little more than a lackey for "The Hutt." It's awfully disappointing.

[_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.

I disagree with your argument on the basis that you have misrepresented Hamblin's claims. I don't think he cannot understand how someone can have a different opinion from him. What he doesn't agree with is their argument itself. That is, that God taught Joseph, and Joseph taught the rest of us, that the Book of Mormon stuff really happened, but that it really didn't happen - God was just using the story as a useful metaphor, parable, etc. In Hamblin's view, Mormon God doesn't work this way, and I happen to agree with him (not that Mormon God exists, but that in Mormon theology, God doesn't work this way).

Sethbag, Hamblin's exact words in his blog post are: "I simply can’t understand people who say none of this matters."

And I take him at his word that he simply can't understand anything other than a fundamentalist, literal approach to religion.

Thanks Darth J.

Sethbag, you could at least have given me the benefit of the doubt by saying that I appeared to have misunderstood Hamblin's claims rather than that I misrepresented Hamblin's claims.
However, I admit that I'm experiencing only faux outrage over your misrepresentation of my misunderstanding. (;=)

[_Sethbag]

To Kish: I have no problem with Homer. I acknowledge that whatever wisdom, or moral, social, or cultural informational content in that book, of whatever merit, originated from the mind of a human being. If we all agree that the Book of Mormon originated in Joseph's mind (or his associates, whatever), I'd have no problem treating its contents in exactly the same way that we'd treat The Illiad, or The Lord of the Rings, or whatever.

You have no problem with it because it has been centuries since anyone took this seriously, but, the thing is, people did.

I don't know (as in, I am insufficiently informed, not as in I disagree with you) if Homer's works were really regarded as divinely revealed or inspired in his day, but regardless, today they are studied and admired, yet acknowledged to be the work product of the human mind. Perhaps we will see the day when Joseph Smith's writings are acknowledged likewise to be the work product of the human mind, and admired, or not, on their own merits, rather than their borrowed authority from God.

**************************************************************

The bottom line is that the LDS church has always taught that the events in the Book of Mormon really happened. As Analytics just brought out, these claims are interwoven with all other Mormon truth claims in fantastically complicated and comprehensive ways. Trying to sever those claims while leaving the rest intact would be like trying to operate on stage 4 brain cancer to remove all the cancer while not harming anything else. In most cases, it can't be done and the focus of treatment becomes the alleviation of suffering while waiting for the end.

Along come these new apologists who want to try to cut out the cancer to save the church. Hamblin recognizes that you just can't do that - at best you will lose a lot of what has made the church what it is today, and at worst you will hasten its death. He doesn't like the prospects (ie: "doesn't understand" why they think this is a good idea) and circles the wagons to defend against it.

I can relate to Hamblin in this because what he's defending is, in many ways, the same Mormon church that I used to believe in. This new Mormon church of fictional-but-true scriptures and the like is an imposition to him, and quite the oddity to me. I can't relate to it because, though it claims to be Mormon, it is foreign to me as a former TBM.