Bill Hamblin: Angry Over New Bushman Chair?

[_Yoda]

Hambone is consistent in one regard. He thinks a non-Mormon (or to him, by definition an anti-Mormon) cannot explain Mormonism as well as a believing Mormon. (Does he not get that such an assertion is itself an indictment against the efficacy of Mormonism? I guess not.) And Hambone thinks that only a Ph.D. can understand peer review and spot articles that do not have the badges of having survived vigorous peer review. Hambone rests on his laurels: he's an expert on Mormonism because he's a Mormon; he's an expert on peer review because he holds a Ph.D. Well, in his own mind, on both accounts.

I will say, just as someone who has taught in the Higher Education system for 12 years with a Masters Degree that the PhD's in general tend to make a habit out of dismissing anyone who does not hold a Doctorate as someone with less knowledge, or someone not as worthy of any type of leadership appointment. That is just kind of "par for the course" in University politics at most places, unfortunately. I would say that Hamblin's attitude is rather typical, in that regard.

[_sock puppet]

Hambone is consistent in one regard. He thinks a non-Mormon (or to him, by definition an anti-Mormon) cannot explain Mormonism as well as a believing Mormon. (Does he not get that such an assertion is itself an indictment against the efficacy of Mormonism? I guess not.) And Hambone thinks that only a Ph.D. can understand peer review and spot articles that do not have the badges of having survived vigorous peer review. Hambone rests on his laurels: he's an expert on Mormonism because he's a Mormon; he's an expert on peer review because he holds a Ph.D. Well, in his own mind, on both accounts.

I will say, just as someone who has taught in the Higher Education system for 12 years with a Masters Degree that the PhD's in general tend to make a habit out of dismissing anyone who does not hold a Doctorate as someone with less knowledge, or someone not as worthy of any type of leadership appointment. That is just kind of "par for the course" in University politics at most places, unfortunately. I would say that Hamblin's attitude is rather typical, in that regard.

Hambone and DCP for that matter do just about anything that they may to avoid addressing a matter head-on. Here, Hambone suggests that one must be Mormon in order to properly research, study and explain Mormonism--particularly in the greater context of other religions and society at large.

By this test, then all Hambone and DCP are qualified to explain are what it is like to be a long-time Mormon teaching at BYU, in Provo UT. With all the self-restraint learned from decades of Mormon self-denial, I imagine neither should have any problem restricting himself accordingly. (Well, since that shoulda didn't pan out, I guess Bradford gave them a bit of shove.)

[_Sethbag]

Hambone is consistent in one regard. He thinks a non-Mormon (or to him, by definition an anti-Mormon) cannot explain Mormonism as well as a believing Mormon. (Does he not get that such an assertion is itself an indictment against the efficacy of Mormonism? I guess not.)

I think a lot of Mormons accept by now that a certain something acquired only through faithful and rigorous membership in and following of Mormonism is required actually to believe in it. They will call it "the Spirit", but of course it's pretty obvious to everyone else that we're talking either the brainwashing, or if that's too strong a word (probably is), then at the least the conditioning.

Or, more succinctly, that Mormonism only makes sense when viewed through the lens of Mormonism, and then it not only makes sense, but perfect sense, and it's the only thing that ever actually could.

This should be a huge red flag to anyone, but we all have our blind spots.

I too am wondering why Dr. Hamblin really thinks that a state-run, public university should appoint a Mopologist to its chair of Mormon Studies. That too not only makes sense, but is the only thing that could make sense, if viewed through the lens of Mopologetics. But of course a state-run public University not in Utah hasn't got the ability (or the disability...) to peer at the world through the lens of Mopologetics, not having the gift of the Mopologetic Spirit, so how could they understand this correctly?

The obvious answer is: they couldn't. Therefor I would predict that Dr. Hamblin sees any attempt to discuss or study Mormonism that doesn't originate with either the Mopologists, or at least with the tried-and-true faithful scholars like Bushman or Givens, as inherently illegitimate.

I think his anger at UVA's new chair is simply boundary maintenance, or else impotent rage at boundary violations he is powerless to oppose.

And Hambone thinks that only a Ph.D. can understand peer review and spot articles that do not have the badges of having survived vigorous peer review. Hambone rests on his laurels: he's an expert on Mormonism because he's a Mormon; he's an expert on peer review because he holds a Ph.D. Well, in his own mind, on both accounts.

Must one have been a politician to hold an opinion on politics? Will Hamblin allow his lack of direct experience as a politician lead him to abstain from voting in November on the grounds that he cannot have sufficient expertise to make a meaningful decision either way? Somehow I doubt it.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't know what Bill Hamblin has or has not done as a Medieval historian. But, that does not really matter so much when it comes to apologetics. As far as his expertise in Medieval history is concerned, I don't see why we can't extend him the courtesy of a modicum of respect as one who has published in the field and taught the subject more than competently for decades.

His apologetics are another matter. With those I have not been at all impressed. So, I see no reason why I should kowtow to him in that area.

[_Bob Loblaw]

His apologetics are another matter. With those I have not been at all impressed. So, I see no reason why I should kowtow to him in that area.

My thoughts exactly. In my experience, Hamblin's approach seems to be like why me's, only with a few more citations: "No one can prove it isn't true, so it must be true."

[_Nomomo]

I don't know, Fence Sitter. That seems awfully unethical to me. I find it difficult to believe that people would threaten to withhold donations to a university if that university hired a professor who failed to affirm the truth value of their religious convictions.

A university is not going to put up with that.

No? The donors need not threaten, the University can take it upon themselves to not risk offending the donors and other parties. Quinn~Arizona State University.

[_lulu]

A university is not going to put up with that.

No? The donors need not threaten, the University can take it upon themselves to not risk offending the donors and other parties. Quinn~Arizona State University.

Well, I obviously can't say that never happens, but an upfront, I'll give you $10M to hirer DCP to occupy an endowed chair in Mormon Studies? No.

But I think UVA will get someone rather tame.

What happened to Quinn in AZ is shameful and a blot on the academy, and so is what happened at Clairmont and the UofU.

At the time of the Quinn/AZ article in the WJ, my professor asked why some rich Jack Mormon doesn't set something up for him.

[_Fence Sitter]

What happened to Quinn in AZ is shameful and a blot on the academy, and so is what happened at Clairmont and the UofU.[/color]

I know about the AZ thing and Quinn but what happened at Claremont and UofU?

[_lulu]

What happened to Quinn in AZ is shameful and a blot on the academy, and so is what happened at Clairmont and the UofU.[/color]

I know about the AZ thing and Quinn but what happened at Claremont and UofU?

Oh, crap, I've been spelling Claremont wrong. Serves them right.

Quinn was in the running for a UofU history post and could have been under consideration for the Hunter Chair at Claremont.

Here's the Wall Street Journal article via the Post Gazette.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/new ... rk-429428/

[_sock puppet]

Mormonism only makes sense when viewed through the lens of Mormonism, and then it not only makes sense, but perfect sense, and it's the only thing that ever actually could.

This should be a huge red flag to anyone, but we all have our blind spots.

It is claims like Hambone's in this regard that make Mormonism all the more cultish. (Yes, I dared use the dreaded word.)

If something only makes sense from the inside perspective, not also from an outside one, that's a cult!

That is precisely the sentiment that underlies Hambone's notion that only a believing Mormon can explain Mormonism.

With home-run pitches like these being tossed by Hambone, we critics can easily drive a couple of runs in passed home plate for scores.