FAIR Conference Highlights: DCP & Hamblin Slam B. Hodges

[_Bazooka]

DCP - "Look at me! Look at Me! Look at Me!"
Hamblin - "Look at Dan! Look at Dan! Look at Dan! Why is no one looking at me?"

[_Maxrep]

These clowns could always end their apologetic careers together with a slap fight on the Jerry Springer show.

I haven't noticed any discussion over at MADB regarding these events.

[_Kishkumen]

Oh I know, I was just saying that when it comes down to taking one person's word over another's, the "who has an ax to grind?" question shouldn't really be asked because as far as I can tell, they all have one of those. It is disturbing, though, that someone has to be lying in this situation.

Agreed. I should have made it clear that I would like to find any unbiased witness.

Did we expect this from Team Kofford?

I don't know Team Kofford all that well, so I can't say. I think that, on the whole, Loyd and Brad are probably more trustworthy and credible than DCP and Hamblin, but I am obviously biased myself.

True enough. However, one of the other Kofford Musketeers, Loyd Ericson, most certainly did.

Yes, quite some time after the incident in question, according to my recollection.

It doesn't really make much of a difference to me how many people he called a coward.

It makes a difference to Blair. Does he want a reputation for accosting people in public places and calling them cowards in some unhinged fit? I doubt it. If Brad Kramer is truthful, then Blair kept his voice down, tried to engage Daniel about his cryptic post, was rebuffed with a "go to hell," and then called DCP a coward for his unwillingness to answer forthrightly.

Big difference.

As do I, however I think David needs to be careful because I'm fairly certain Ritner would consider David's scholarship every bit the "apologetic" variety that David categorizes Muhlstein's.

Maybe so, but since David is not an Egyptologist, and Ritner was not his advisor, I think the stakes are much lower for David than they are/were for Gee.

Well, I don't trust any of them, except for Bokovoy and Hauglid.

I trust Bokovoy and Hauglid too. Good guys.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Over on his blog, "Enigmatic Mirror," Bill Hamblin is attacking Blair "LifeOnaPlate" Hodges, who was apparently concerned about DCP's public announcement of Kirk Caudle's resignation from the Church: ...

Sounds like an interesting FAIR conference for once -- even came close to fisticuffs! All kidding aside, these guys acted like they were back in junior high.

I, for one, don't have a problem with someone confronting Dan about his infamous Maxwell gravesite/Kirk Caudle resignation post. It was in VERY bad taste, compounded by Dan's refusal in the comments to explain the post. The post was such a dickless move I'm frankly surprised Dan had not been confronted about it earlier.

[_Tavares Standfield]

Over on his blog, "Enigmatic Mirror," Bill Hamblin is attacking Blair "LifeOnaPlate" Hodges, who was apparently concerned about DCP's public announcement of Kirk Caudle's resignation from the Church: ...

Sounds like an interesting FAIR conference for once -- even came close to fisticuffs! All kidding aside, these guys acted like they were back in junior high.

I, for one, don't have a problem with someone confronting Dan about his infamous Maxwell gravesite/Kirk Caudle resignation post. It was in VERY bad taste, compounded by Dan's refusal in the comments to explain the post. The post was such a dickless move I'm frankly surprised Dan had not been confronted about it earlier.

Mormon apologetics is simply a joke. Through and through.

And these guys wonder why no one takes them seriously.

[_consiglieri]

The difference with this situation is that Peterson has agreed to Hamblin's version of the retelling.

That much is only to be expected.

Where do you think Hamblin got his rendition from in the first place?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Kishkumen]

I want to state for the record that while I personally trust Brad Kramer and Blair Hodges more than I trust Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin, I am not accusing anyone of being a liar. I believe that people construct narratives that align with their interests, just as people choose to believe those whose interests align better with their own. I am biased.

I would also like to make it clear that I do not believe that Daniel Peterson is a fundamentalist who cowers in fear of Religious Studies and Mormon Studies. Daniel Peterson and his views should not be confused with others and their views on these points.

Regardless of any of this, I denounce Bill Hamblin's act of blogging on Blair Hodges' unpleasant encounter with Daniel Peterson at the FAIR conference. I also do not approve of Daniel Peterson blogging to announce the resignation of Kirk Caudle from the LDS Church and adding a picture of the tombstone of Elder Maxwell to accompany that announcement.

[_Doctor Scratch]

A postscript from Hamblin:

It angers me when my friend Dan is harassed and insulted by anti-Mormons. It angers me even more when it is done by purported LDS. And even more when done by his ex-colleagues whose salaries are largely paid by the millions of dollars Dan has been instrumental in raising for the Maxwell Institute. Blair should pause and consider the fact that he wouldn’t have a job if Dan had not spent decades raising money for the Institute that now has not only blackballed him, but has sought to denigrate his reputation, and even have him fired. It’s utterly disgraceful what the Maxwell Institute has done to Dan.

So, when Blair, the communications specialist of the Maxwell Institute, publicly harassed and insulted my friend over a silly joke Dan made in his blog, my sense of loyalty to my friend Dan created an impulse in me to call Blair out. In my opinion Blair behaved like a jerk. Period. And I’ve seen no one defend his behavior.

In response Blair could have simply said, “Yes, I was agitated, and overreacted. I apologize.” Case closed. Instead, Blair denied the veracity of my report of the event, and threatened to sue me for libel. (Really?!) As it turns out, Brad Kramer, Blair’s friend and publicist for Kofford Books, overheard part of the “conversation” and has confirmed the basic accuracy of my account, while admitting that he did not overhear all of the “conversation” and thus cannot dispute the rest of my account. Note that I repeatedly asked Blair to clarify what precisely was inaccurate in my account, offering to correct any errors. He refused.

In other words, the story I described is fundamentally accurate, though disputed in minor details. Blair’s denial was thus a classic example of a Nixonian non-denial denial. (If someone accuses you of shooting your wife with a 45-caliber revolver, you can truthfully deny the accuracy of the statement it if you in fact shot your wife with a 38-caliber revolver. But quibbling over the caliber of the pistol does not change the fact that you shot your wife.)
And thus ends the “Affair at FAIR.” I’ll allow one or two more comments, and then I’ll put this one to a well deserved oblivion.

I was under the impression that the main disagreement had to do with who "over-reacted" first--i.e., whether Hodges called DCP a "coward" first, or whether DCP told him to "Go to hell!" first. Hamblin seems to be saying that this doesn't matter, and that the real substance of the account is simply the fact that both things were said.

[_Equality]

if Dan had not spent decades raising money for the Institute that now has not only blackballed him, but has sought to denigrate his reputation, and even have him fired.

I thought Dan left of his own accord? (I thought he was relieved of his duties as editor of the Journal but remained at the Institute for a time before leaving on his own volition (while vowing to take all of his deep-pocketed contributors with him, If I recall correctly)). Maybe I am misremembering (don't feel like searching for those old threads). When did the MI seek to denigrate Dan's reputation? What does he mean when he says the MI has blackballed DCP?

[_Doctor Steuss]

...by purported LDS...