FAIR Conference Highlights: DCP & Hamblin Slam B. Hodges

[_Abaddon]

Hahaha.

This is why I keep reading and staying up to date on Mormon happenings: it's just so dang entertaining.

To think, otherwise extremely intelligent individuals duking it out over a myth that serves as their foundation of life.

"Maxwell likes us more!"
"Nuh uh! He liked us more!"
"My testimony of the myth is more pure than yours!"
"You go to hell!"

You truly can't make this stuff up.

To their credit though, at least they aren't chopping anyone's heads off for not believing in their myth.

[_Kishkumen]

To their credit though, at least they aren't chopping anyone's heads off for not believing in their myth.

Not yet, thank goodness.

[_Markk]

I'm sure the brethren will be happy with this one...if they even care at this point...Bradford looks like a wise man right about now.

From a Evangelicals viewpoint, LDS apologetics is in shambles, with no leader, and no compass. While I obviously think this is great and long hoped for...there is a part of me that is saddened it happed so sophomoric.

[_Kevin Graham]

OK. Well, I eagerly await the testimony of this witness. Hopefully it is someone without an axe to grind. Hamblin is certainly no kind of reliable witness regarding this stuff.

Team Kofford includes people who have obviously had personal issues with the old guard at FARMS. We can't just ignore that fact when talking about grinding axes.

I love David Bokovoy to death, but I'd be lying if I said he was able to completely put aside his issues with these folks when writing his stuff. You don't think he felt the least bit spurned when he didn't get hired on at BYU? It seems like he's been a man on a mission ever since that happened. He's making himself a public figure, publishing more and contacting newspapers for interviews, almost always speaking on issues that these folks would disagree with.

His latest wave of apologetics/scholarship is designed to render so much of their stuff moot, and as Metcalfe recently said, these young scholars at Kofford have a legacy to create for themselves and apparently this is it; trying to get the Church and everyone in it to believe as they do. If you don't then you're just thinking in a binary world and failing to appreciate nuance.

So he is as agenda driven as any of these FARMS guys are.

And I can't speak for the Facebook tendencies on other Kofford profiles, but Bokovoy regularly posts things that would naturally rub these guys the wrong way. Like posting Ritner's refutation of Gee's and Muhlstein's scholarship, and then referring to their stuff as "apologetics" as if what he produces is strictly scholarship. I like what he says, but I'm not going to sit here and act surprised because FARMS folks are put off by it. My point is that he is very active in creating friction between the two camps the same as Hamblin and Peterson. Both sides are guilty of that, and Blair's recent antics have proven just how far they're willing to go with it. He acted no differently than Midgley did when he harassed the Tanners back in the 90's. Hell, I don't even think Midgley called them cowards.

In my view, if you have a problem with someone then take it up with them in private, don't make a scene in public like that and then threaten a lawsuit when that person posts about it online. Blair wanted attention obviously, so now he should own it.

[_Spanner]

Just when I thought things had been getting quite quiet lately!

I can't wait to see what the underlying motives for the confrontation and blog post turn out to be after Bob Bobberson incorporates this into one of his excellent chapters.

[Guest]

Team Kofford includes people who have obviously had personal issues with the old guard at FARMS. We can't just ignore that fact when talking about grinding axes.

True enough. And, I don't think I said otherwise.

I love David Bokovoy to death, but I'd be lying if I said he was able to completely put aside his issues with these folks when writing his stuff. You don't think he felt the least bit spurned when he didn't get hired on at BYU? It seems like he's been a man on a mission ever since that happened. He's making himself a public figure, publishing more and contacting newspapers for interviews, almost always speaking on issues that these folks would disagree with.

Yes, he probably hasn't. That said, Bill Hamblin was the person who misrepresented the Kofford Books panel on the relevance on scripture. That was the most recent source of disagreement between David and Bill. And, in my view Bill is clearly at fault. Anyone can watch the youtube video of the panel and see that Bill's description of it is wildly inaccurate.

His latest wave of apologetics/scholarship is designed to render so much of their stuff moot, and as Metcalfe recently said, these young scholars at Kofford have a legacy to create for themselves and apparently this is it; trying to get the Church and everyone in it to believe as they do. If you don't then you're just thinking in a binary world and failing to appreciate nuance.

So he is as agenda driven as any of these FARMS guys are.

Yes, and I don't really have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with the classic-FARMS agenda of arguing for a more fundamentalist understanding of scripture. It is when things get nasty that I have a problem. And, Bill Hamblin has gotten plenty nasty.

And I can't speak for the Facebook tendencies on other Kofford profiles, but Bokovoy regularly posts things that would naturally rub these guys the wrong way. Like posting Ritner's refutation of Gee's and Muhlstein's scholarship, and then referring to their stuff as "apologetics" as if what he produces is strictly scholarship. I like what he says, but I'm not going to sit here and act surprised because FARMS folks are put off by it. My point is that he is very active in creating friction between the two camps the same as Hamblin and Peterson. Both sides are guilty of that, and Blair's recent antics have proven just how far they're willing to go with it. He acted no differently than Midgley did when he harassed the Tanners back in the 90's. Hell, I don't even think Midgley called them cowards.

Well, we don't know that Blair called them all cowards. According to Kramer, Blair called DCP a coward for not answering his query about the Kirk Caudle post forthrightly.

As for Bokovoy's post on Muhlstein, I applaud it. I think it's great.

In my view, if you have a problem with someone then take it up with them in private, don't make a scene in public like that and then threaten a lawsuit when that person posts about it online. Blair wanted attention obviously, so now he should own it.

Agreed, to a point. I am not sure that DCP and Hamblin's reports of Blair making a scene are accurate. Frankly, I don't trust either one of them. If they say someone else made a scene, my first impulse would be to question their accuracy. I have so infrequently agreed with their assessment of anything.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Both sides are guilty of that, and Blair's recent antics have proven just how far they're willing to go with it. He acted no differently than Midgley did when he harassed the Tanners back in the 90's. Hell, I don't even think Midgley called them cowards.

In my view, if you have a problem with someone then take it up with them in private, don't make a scene in public like that and then threaten a lawsuit when that person posts about it online. Blair wanted attention obviously, so now he should own it.

I think there are some significant differences between this latest conflict and Midgley's visit to the Tanners'. For one thing, Midgley didn't go alone: he brought Matt Roper and at least one other person along with him, and their actual intention was to harass and bother the Tanners. Here, it seemed more that Hodges was simply taking DCP to task for the blog posting; I doubt very much that he went in hoping to get Prof. P. to blow a valve. At minimum, it was just him--he didn't bring a "gang" of people along with him like Midgley did. Plus, the main person "publicizing" this, as far as I can tell, is Hamblin, who was (apparently) doing it at the behest of DCP. So, in essence, you get Dr. Peterson "apologizing" to Blair, only to then turn around and give the whole story to Hamblin, who then proceeds to post the whole story on his blog. My point, in any case, is that I think Hodges intended this to be between him and DCP only. Certainly, there wasn't a whole set-up, with photos taken and then posted to SHIELDS. And it just doesn't seem likely to me that the motives were anything close to being similar.

As for the accounts of the incident itself: it seems that the main disagreement has to do with when, exactly, Hodges called DCP a "coward." According to Hodges & his eye-witness, this came after Peterson told him to "Go to hell," though according to DCP, he only said this *after* Hodges called him a "coward." So DCP is intent on trying to paint a picture where he blows up and says "Go to hell!" only after being provoked.

[_Kishkumen]

I think there are some significant differences between this latest conflict and Midgley's visit to the Tanners'. For one thing, Midgley didn't go alone: he brought Matt Roper and at least one other person along with him, and their actual intention was to harass and bother the Tanners. Here, it seemed more that Hodges was simply taking DCP to task for the blog posting; I doubt very much that he went in hoping to get Prof. P. to blow a valve. At minimum, it was just him--he didn't bring a "gang" of people along with him like Midgley did. Plus, the main person "publicizing" this, as far as I can tell, is Hamblin, who was (apparently) doing it at the behest of DCP. So, in essence, you get Dr. Peterson "apologizing" to Blair, only to then turn around and give the whole story to Hamblin, who then proceeds to post the whole story on his blog. My point, in any case, is that I think Hodges intended this to be between him and DCP only. Certainly, there wasn't a whole set-up, with photos taken and then posted to SHIELDS. And it just doesn't seem likely to me that the motives were anything close to being similar.

As for the accounts of the incident itself: it seems that the main disagreement has to do with when, exactly, Hodges called DCP a "coward." According to Hodges & his eye-witness, this came after Peterson told him to "Go to hell," though according to DCP, he only said this *after* Hodges called him a "coward." So DCP is intent on trying to paint a picture where he blows up and says "Go to hell!" only after being provoked.

Exactly. Excellent points all, Doctor.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Note: the latest spin from Blair's supporters is that I am trying to get Blair fired because I expressed my views on the appropriateness of Blair's behavior. This is NONSENSE. At any rate, I have changed the offending phrase in green below. Also, Dan did not request, approve, or know anything about my post.
P.S. Many of Blair’s supporters believe that Blair’s behavior is an entirely appropriate way for a junior staff member to treat a full professor at BYU.

For context the original phrase was:

P.S. I know of some universities where a junior staff member would be reprimanded, and possibly even fired for treating a full professor like this.

[_Kishkumen]

LOL. Yes, I have received similar messages from classic-FARMS scholars. One emailed me to ask me to consider what it would feel like to have one of them contact my department chairman or dean about my activities on this board. Of course, he assured me, this was not a threat.