THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"WILLIAM HAMBLIN".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
WILLIAM HAMBLIN
Total Articles:
11
William Hamblin is a Mormon Apologist.
|
|
The "Metcalfe Is Butthead" Affair: Why Farms Is In Absolutely No Position To Criticize The Allegedly Immature And Non-Substantive Claims Of Mormonism's Critics
Tuesday, Jan 24, 2006, at 07:29 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: WILLIAM HAMBLIN -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | FARMS apologists, reviewers and "researchers" are infamous for savaging critics of the Mormon Church for supposedly being puerile and unsophisticated in the conclusions these skeptics reach about LDS doctrine, practice and history.
Case in point: FARMS premiere offensive lineman (and we do mean "offensive") William Hamblin--in ridiculing Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work, Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon--pompously declared:
"[T]hey [the Tanners] simply refuse to deal with recent serious Latter-day Saint arguments . . . a perfect picture of the Tanners at the height of their ineptitude . . . completely fails to deal with [current LDS scholarly] interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography and archaeology . . . incapable of seriously dealing with academic studies and issues surrounding questions of archaeology and geography of either the New or old World. . . . [they should] stick to their . . . .facile, ad nauseum demonstrations that Latter-day Saint doctrine bears little relationship to fundamentalist Protestant doctrine." (emphasis added)
Hamblin is the last person to be chiding others for not being serious.
Hamblin himself is about as serious as a whoopie cushion in a church pew.
John Weldon, writing for the "Apologetics Index," points to the stupidly childish FARMS case of "Metcalfe Is Butthead," which exposed Hamblin's breathtaking immaturity in dealing with Mormonism's critics:
"FARMS is, as we know, an acronym for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
"Unfortunately, after reading their reviews, etc., and examining their methods, an acronym equally suited for FARMS would often be: 'Frequent Artless Ridicule Made Simple.'
"This is particularly so in light of the 'Metcalfe is Butthead' acronym fiasco, and similar matters. We mean no disrespect toward the more balanced FARMS writers, but FARMS style and antics are often less than scholarly."
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint10-4.html
_____
Just what, exactly, was this "fiasco" and how was Hamblin involved in it?
An answer to that question exposes the FARMS boys as engaging (and eventually being caught in) some of the most infantile, imbecilic antics imaginable.
Lecturer John Hatch, in an address at a Sunstone symposium entitled "Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books," detailed this extremely unprofessional and embarrassing moment in the history of FARMS's juvenile and scurrilous attacks on Mormonism's critics:
"Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology.
"The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages.
"However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym.
"In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, 'Metcalfe is Butthead' was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.
"It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of 'why' springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?
"Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out 'Metcalfe is Butthead' rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review.
"Why?
"That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?" (emphasis added)
http://www.signaturebooks.com/sigstories2.htm
_____
As Hamblin the Hypocrite so amply demonstrates, walking through a FARMS review is like attempting to cross through a farm's barnyard.
You're quite likely to get some unwelcome material on the bottom of your boots.
| Hamblin The "Butthead-Calling" Hypocrite: Calling Out Mormon Apologists On Their Childish Tantrums Against Ex-Mormon Critics
Wednesday, Mar 14, 2007, at 06:47 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: WILLIAM HAMBLIN -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Recent reference has been made on the Recovery from Mormonism board to LDS Cult apologist William Hamblin's assaults on those who post here.
In this regard--and in a stunningly hypocritical hit piece entitled, "Their 'Little Corner of Cyberspace,'"--pro-Mo apologists on the so-called "FAIR" board have attacked "the vehemence with which its detractors approach anything having to do with the [Mormon] Church'. . . [on the] the popular Recovery from Mormonism message board, which receives up to 1,000 posts per day by a disgruntled collection of Mormon dissidents."
How is this known by the faithful?
Hamblin, his FAIR supporters confess, acknowledges "lurking on the 'Recovery' board for a while," where he claims to "have really been astonished by what I've seen [t]here."
Among other complaints, Humpty Grumpty Hamblin waxes whiny about the "arrogance" he says exists on RfM, as so declared in his following observation:
"For many on this board, it seems that once your mind is freed from the shackles of Mormonism you are suddenly capable of being absolutely right about absolutely everything.
"When I find a cartoonist pontificating with absolute certitude about the history of religion, for example–on topics where mere mortals with PhDs have spent lifetimes of study and still are unable to resolve disputed issues–you will have to forgive me for being dubious about the intellectual rigor required by many on this board."
http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/T...
Oh, pleeeeeze.
People like Hamblin are in no position to point fingers at the supposed lack of credibility of ex-Mormon critics when, in fact, Hamblin himself has been guilty of astonishingly juvenile antics in blasting those critics in ways that cause adult students of Mormon studies to drop their jaws in utter disbelief.
Mormon apologists, reviewers and "researchers" in Hamblin's backwater bush league are notorious for savaging critics of the Mormon Church for supposedly being puerile and unsophisticated in the conclusions these skeptics reach about LDS doctrine, practice and history.
Case in point: FARMS premiere offensive lineman (and we do mean "offensive") Hamblin--in ridiculing Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work, "Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon"--pompously asserted:
"[T]hey [the Tanners] simply refuse to deal with recent serious Latter-day Saint arguments . . . a perfect picture of the Tanners at the height of their ineptitude . . . completely fails to deal with [current LDS scholarly] interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography and archaeology . . . incapable of seriously dealing with academic studies and issues surrounding questions of archaeology and geography of either the New or old World. . . . [they should] stick to their . . . facile, ad nauseum demonstrations that Latter-day Saint doctrine bears little relationship to fundamentalist Protestant doctrine."
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=1...
Hamblin is the last person to be chiding others for not being serious.
Hamblin himself is about as serious as a whoopie cushion in a church pew.
John Weldon, writing for the "Apologetics Index," points to the stupidly childish FARMS case of "Metcalfe Is Butthead," which exposed Hamblin's breathtaking immaturity in dealing with Mormonism's critics:
"FARMS is, as we know, an acronym for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
"Unfortunately, after reading their reviews, etc., and examining their methods, an acronym equally suited for FARMS would often be: 'Frequent Artless Ridicule Made Simple.'
"This is particularly so in light of the 'Metcalfe is Butthead' acronym fiasco, and similar matters. We mean no disrespect toward the more balanced FARMS writers, but FARMS style and antics are often less than scholarly."
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoin...
Just what, exactly, was this "fiasco" and how was Hamblin involved in it?
An answer to that question exposes the FARMS boys as engaging (and eventually being caught in) some of the most infantile, imbecilic antics imaginable.
Lecturer John Hatch, in an address at a Sunstone symposium entitled "Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books," detailed this extremely unprofessional and embarrassing moment in the history of FARMS's juvenile and scurrilous attacks on Mormonism's critics:
"Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, 'New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology.'
"The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages.
"However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym.
"In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, 'Metcalfe is Butthead' was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.
"It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of 'why' springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?
"Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out 'Metcalfe is Butthead' rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review.
"Why?
"That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?"
http://www.signaturebooks.com/sigstor...
As Hamblin the Hypocrite so amply demonstrates, walking through a FARMS review is like attempting to cross through a farm's barnyard.
You're quite likely to get some unwelcome material on the bottom of your boots.
| Why FARMS' William Hamblin Became The Butt(head) Of Well-Deserved Pokes After An Infamous Toilet Joke Against Critics Of Mormonism Blew Up In His Face
Tuesday, Oct 11, 2011, at 09:03 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: WILLIAM HAMBLIN -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | LDS Cult apologist William Hamblin has had a history of assaults on those who post here on RfM.
In this regard--and in a stunningly hypocritical hit piece entitled, "Their 'Little Corner of Cyberspace,'"--pro-Mo apologists on the so-called "FAIR" board have attacked "the vehemence with which its detractors approach anything having to do with the [Mormon] Church' . . . [on the] the popular 'Recovery from Mormonism' message board, which receives up to 1,000 posts per day by a disgruntled collection of Mormon dissidents."
How is this known by the faithful?
Hamblin, his FAIR supporters confess, acknowledges "lurking on the 'Recovery' board for a while," where he claims to "have really been astonished by what I've seen [t]here."
Among other complaints, Humpty Grumpty Hamblin waxes whiny about the "arrogance" he says exists on RfM, as so declared in his following observation:
"For many on this board, it seems that once your mind is freed from the shackles of Mormonism you are suddenly capable of being absolutely right about absolutely everything.
"When I find a cartoonist pontificating with absolute certitude about the history of religion, for example--on topics where mere mortals with PhDs have spent lifetimes of study and still are unable to resolve disputed issues--you will have to forgive me for being dubious about the intellectual rigor required by many on this board."
(William Hamblin, "Their Little Corner of Cybperspace," August 2003, at: http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/T...)
Snort!
People like Hamblin are in no position to point fingers at the supposed lack of credibility of ex-Mormon critics when, in fact, Hamblin himself has been guilty of astonishingly juvenile antics in blasting those critics in ways that cause adult students of Mormon studies to drop their jaws in utter disbelief.
Mormon apologists, reviewers and "researchers" in Hamblin's backwater bush league are notorious for savaging critics of the Mormon Church for supposedly being puerile and unsophisticated in the conclusions these skeptics reach about LDS doctrine, practice and history.
Case in point: FARMS offensive lineman (and we do mean "offensive") Hamblin--in ridiculing Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work, "Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon"--pompously asserted:
"[T]hey [the Tanners] simply refuse to deal with recent serious Latter-day Saint arguments . . . a perfect picture of the Tanners at the height of their ineptitude . . . completely fails to deal with [current LDS scholarly] interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography and archaeology . . . incapable of seriously dealing with academic studies and issues surrounding questions of archaeology and geography of either the New or old World. . . . [they should] stick to their . . . facile, ad nauseum demonstrations that Latter-day Saint doctrine bears little relationship to fundamentalist Protestant doctrine."
(Hamblin, "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon: "A Review of 'Archaeology and the Book of Mormon' by Jerald and Sandra Tanner," reprinted from "FARMS Review," vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 258-72, Maxwell Institute, Provo, Utah, 1993, at: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publi...)
Hamblin is the last person to be chiding others for not being serious.
Hamblin himself is about as serious as a whoopie cushion in a church pew.
John Weldon, writing for the "Apologetics Index," points to the stupidly childish FARMS case of "Metcalfe Is Butthead," which exposed Hamblin's breathtaking immaturity in dealing with Mormonism's critics:
"FARMS is, as we know, an acronym for the 'Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.'
"Unfortunately, after reading their reviews, etc., and examining their methods, an acronym equally suited for FARMS would often be: 'Frequent Artless Ridicule Made Simple.'
"This is particularly so in light of the 'Metcalfe is Butthead' acronym fiasco, and similar matters. We mean no disrespect toward the more balanced FARMS writers, but FARMS style and antics are often less than scholarly."
(John Weldon, "Appendix 2: FARMS Review of Books," at: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoin...)
Just what, exactly, was this "fiasco" and how was Hamblin involved in it?
An answer to that question exposes the FARMS boys as engaging (and eventually being caught in) some of the most infantile, imbecilic antics imaginable.
Lecturer John Hatch, in an address at a "Sunstone" symposium entitled "Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books," detailed this extremely unprofessional and embarrassing moment in the history of FARMS's juvenile and scurrilous attacks on Mormonism's critics:
"Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, 'New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology.'
"The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages.
"However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym.
"In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, 'Metcalfe is Butthead' was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.
"It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of 'why' springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?
"Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out 'Metcalfe is Butthead' rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review.
"Why?
"That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?"
Below is another account of Hamblin's back-firing butt approach to Mormon "academics," entitled "Metcalfe is Butthead":
"William J. Hamblin published an essay in a FARMS publication entitled, 'Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,' criticizing an essay by Brent Metcalfe, a writer who criticized the Book of Mormon. The point of Hamblin's essay was that Metcalfe criticized the Book of Mormon using circular arguments and by applying uneven standards.
"Hamblin's review included an [acrostic' spelling out 'Metcalfe is Butthead,' a reference to one of the two title characters in the popular cartoon Beavis and Butt-head that aired during the mid-1990s. (The acrostic was made up of the first letters of paragraphs spanning nine pages of the essay.)
"After the 1994 publication went to press and a few early issues were distributed, it was caught by a FARMS editor who stopped the press run, recalled the issues, and edited part of the acrostic out.
"Portions still remained, with the post-editing acrostic spelling out 'METWHSFE IA BUTAHEAT.'
"'Associated Press' writer Vern Anderson wrote an article concerning the matter which was published in the 'Deseret News':
"'The salvos contained in the 566-page "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon" come as no surprise, given the longstanding animus between scholars associated with FARMS, many of them professors at church-owned Brigham Young University, and those published by the independent Signature Books. . . .
"'Recently a review by BYU history professor William Hamblin containing an encrypted message 'Metcalfe is butthead' was hastily edited out after the "Review" had gone to press.'
"Upon learning of the acrostic, Metcalfe responded, stating:
"'When I heard rumors that William J. Hamblin, FARMS board member and BYU historian, had a caustic encryption in his review. . . . I summarily dismissed them. Surely no legitimate scholar would stoop to such an inane level. However, it seems that I underestimated Hamblin's 'scholarly' prowess. Do Hamblin and Peterson's methods typify the brand of "scholarship" FARMS, BYU Department of History, and BYU Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages cultivates and endorses? Evidently some have shifted from apologist to misologist.'
"Those critical of FARMS use the incident as primary evidence of the mean-spirited nature of what FARMS produces. Those supportive of FARMS counter that the critics seem unable to look beyond the incident to address the actual scholarship in FARMS publications."
("Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies," under "Metcalfe is Butthead," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundati...)
As Hamblin the Hypocrite so amply demonstrates, walking through a FARMS review is like attempting to cross through a farm's barnyard.
You're quite likely to get some unwelcome residue on the bottom of your boots.
| The "Butthead" Of Bad Jokes: William Hamblin Defends The So-Called "Cutting -Edge Scholarship" Of The Maxwell Institute (spawn Of Farms), In The Wake Of Danny Peterson's Firing
Friday, Jun 22, 2012, at 09:25 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: WILLIAM HAMBLIN -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | This could not have been made up any better, especially since it actually took place.
Now that Danny Peterson--bizarro apologist extraordinaire for the LDS Cult--has been summarily fired by the Maxwell Institute/FARMS, leave it to fellow Mormon propagandist William Hamblin to defend the FARMS Institute's laughighly pathetic "cutting edge scholarship."
(for Hamblin's recent admission that Peterson has been given the boot by the Maxwell FARMS Insitute, see: "Re: The Maxwell Institute Episode," posted by "Simon in Oz," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 21 June 2012, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,537019,537038#msg-537038)
At the outset, let it be noted that LDS Cult apologist Hamblin has had a history of assaults on those who post here on RfM.
In this regard--and in a stunningly hypocritical hit piece entitled, "Their 'Little Corner of Cyberspace"--pro-Mo apologists on the so-called "FAIR" board have attacked "the vehemence with which its detractors approach anything having to do with the [Mormon] Church' . . . [on the] the popular 'Recovery from Mormonism' message board, which receives up to 1,000 posts per day by a disgruntled collection of Mormon dissidents."
How is this known by the faithful?
Hamblin, his FAIR supporters confess, acknowledges "lurking on the 'Recovery' board for a while," where he claims to "have really been astonished by what I've seen [t]here."
Among other complaints, Humpty Grumpty Hamblin waxes whiny about the "arrogance" he says exists on RfM, as so declared in his following observation:
"For many on this board, it seems that once your mind is freed from the shackles of Mormonism you are suddenly capable of being absolutely right about absolutely everything.
"When I find a cartoonist pontificating with absolute certitude about the history of religion, for example--on topics where mere mortals with PhDs have spent lifetimes of study and still are unable to resolve disputed issues--you will have to forgive me for being dubious about the intellectual rigor required by many on this board."
(William Hamblin, "Their Little Corner of Cybperspace," August 2003, at: http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Their_Little_Corner_of_Cyberspace.html)
Snort!
People like Hamblin are in no position to point fingers at the supposed lack of credibility of ex-Mormon critics when, in fact, Hamblin himself has been guilty of astonishingly juvenile antics in blasting those critics in ways that cause adult students of Mormon studies to drop their jaws in utter disbelief.
Mormon apologists, reviewers and "researchers" in Hamblin's backwater bush league are notorious for savaging critics of the Mormon Church for supposedly being puerile and unsophisticated in the conclusions these skeptics reach about LDS doctrine, practice and history.
Case in point: FARMS offensive lineman (and we do mean "offensive") Hamblin--in ridiculing Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work, "Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon"--pompously asserted:
"[T]hey [the Tanners] simply refuse to deal with recent serious Latter-day Saint arguments . . . a perfect picture of the Tanners at the height of their ineptitude . . . completely fails to deal with [current LDS scholarly] interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography and archaeology . . . incapable of seriously dealing with academic studies and issues surrounding questions of archaeology and geography of either the New or old World. . . . [they should] stick to their . . . facile, ad nauseum demonstrations that Latter-day Saint doctrine bears little relationship to fundamentalist Protestant doctrine."
(Hamblin, "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon: "A Review of 'Archaeology and the Book of Mormon' by Jerald and Sandra Tanner," reprinted from "FARMS Review," vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 258-72, Maxwell Institute, Provo, Utah, 1993, at: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=5andnum=1andid=126)
Hamblin is the last person to be chiding others for not being serious.
--THe "Metcalfe-is-Butthead" Highwater Mark for FARMS
Hamblin himself is about as serious as a whoopie cushion in a church pew.
John Weldon, writing for the "Apologetics Index," points to the stupidly childish FARMS case of "Metcalfe Is Butthead," which exposed Hamblin's breathtaking immaturity in dealing with Mormonism's critics:
"FARMS is, as we know, an acronym for the 'Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.'
"Unfortunately, after reading their reviews, etc., and examining their methods, an acronym equally suited for FARMS would often be: 'Frequent Artless Ridicule Made Simple.'
"This is particularly so in light of the 'Metcalfe is Butthead' acronym fiasco, and similar matters. We mean no disrespect toward the more balanced FARMS writers, but FARMS style and antics are often less than scholarly."
(John Weldon, "Appendix 2: FARMS Review of Books," at: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint10-6.html)
Just what, exactly, was this "fiasco" and how was Hamblin involved in it?
An answer to that question exposes the FARMS boys as engaging (and eventually being caught in) some of the most infantile, imbecilic antics imaginable.
Lecturer John Hatch, in an address at a "Sunstone" symposium entitled "Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books," detailed this extremely unprofessional and embarrassing moment in the history of FARMS's juvenile and scurrilous attacks on Mormonism's critics:
"Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, 'New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology.'
"The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages.
"However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym.
"In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, 'Metcalfe is Butthead' was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.
"It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of 'why' springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?
"Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out 'Metcalfe is Butthead' rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review.
"Why?
"That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?"
Below is another account of Hamblin's back-firing butt approach to Mormon "academics," entitled "Metcalfe is Butthead":
"William J. Hamblin published an essay in a FARMS publication entitled, 'Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,' criticizing an essay by Brent Metcalfe, a writer who criticized the Book of Mormon. The point of Hamblin's essay was that Metcalfe criticized the Book of Mormon using circular arguments and by applying uneven standards.
"Hamblin's review included an [acrostic' spelling out 'Metcalfe is Butthead,' a reference to one of the two title characters in the popular cartoon Beavis and Butt-head that aired during the mid-1990s. (The acrostic was made up of the first letters of paragraphs spanning nine pages of the essay.)
"After the 1994 publication went to press and a few early issues were distributed, it was caught by a FARMS editor who stopped the press run, recalled the issues, and edited part of the acrostic out.
"Portions still remained, with the post-editing acrostic spelling out 'METWHSFE IA BUTAHEAT.'
"'Associated Press' writer Vern Anderson wrote an article concerning the matter which was published in the 'Deseret News':
"'The salvos contained in the 566-page "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon" come as no surprise, given the longstanding animus between scholars associated with FARMS, many of them professors at church-owned Brigham Young University, and those published by the independent Signature Books. . . .
"'Recently a review by BYU history professor William Hamblin containing an encrypted message 'Metcalfe is butthead' was hastily edited out after the "Review" had gone to press.'
"Upon learning of the acrostic, Metcalfe responded, stating:
"'When I heard rumors that William J. Hamblin, FARMS board member and BYU historian, had a caustic encryption in his review. . . . I summarily dismissed them. Surely no legitimate scholar would stoop to such an inane level. However, it seems that I underestimated Hamblin's 'scholarly' prowess. Do Hamblin and Peterson's methods typify the brand of "scholarship" FARMS, BYU Department of History, and BYU Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages cultivates and endorses? Evidently some have shifted from apologist to misologist.'
"Those critical of FARMS use the incident as primary evidence of the mean-spirited nature of what FARMS produces. Those supportive of FARMS counter that the critics seem unable to look beyond the incident to address the actual scholarship in FARMS publications."
("Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies," under "Metcalfe is Butthead," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Ancient_Research_and_Mormon_Studies#.22Metcalfe_is_Butthead.22)
As Hamblin the Hypocrite so amply demonstrates, walking through a FARMS review is like attempting to cross through a farm's barnyard.
You're quite likely to get some unwelcome residue on the bottom of your boots.
| Dr. Hamblin Gives Deeper Insight Into The Workings Of The Maxwell Institute
Saturday, Jun 23, 2012, at 08:02 AM
Original Author(s): Kevin Graham
Topic: WILLIAM HAMBLIN -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Bill Hamblin, in his blog, has graced us all with a very interesting entry about the inner workings of FARMS/MI. He describes how and why it was acquired/absorbed by BYU--he actually describes it as akin to a "hostile takeover"--and how and why Dr. Bradford achieved ascendancy therein, among many other things.
It almost amounts to a "man-behind-the-curtain" moment. If you're at all interested in the DCP ousting dust-up, I highly recommend reading it:
What the Maxwell Institute controversy is really about at http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wo...
The Maxwell Institute (MI) controversy is not–or at least shouldn’t be–a personal feud. It is, rather, a clash about the fundamental vision for the future of the MI. Those who try to turn it into a feud of “good people” verse “bad people”–as the apostates and anti-Mormons are gleefully doing–are doing a disservice to the important issues at stake here.
Bill Hamblin you are pathetic.
All this talk about cowardice and suppression of views is quite amusing coming from a lynch mob that hides out on a forum that "instabans" anyone who dares share a different perspective. By merely pointing out that all you're hearing so far is one side, this results in banning. Numerous people have been banned for daring to agree with Bradford and the Church, even LDS folks like Mike Reed. You should just go ahead and rename that forum, the Dan Peterson Support Group because that's all it has become.
As far as your dishonest claim above, the only people making one side "bad" in this debacle is the cult following of Dan Peterson which consists of nothing more than loyalist apologists. There are no apostates "gleefully" turning this into a "personal fued" nor are they arbitrarily deciding who is "good" or "bad."
The most anyone here has said that could possibly be interpreted that way is a few references to the karma that came Dan's way, given his past history of trying to suppress information from the critics as well as his efforts to damage the name of scholars like Michael Quinn and Robert Ritner. Given his despicable history of low-blows, he is in no position to expect a lot of sympathy from anyone here. I've pointed out that his email proved he once lied to us all when he insisted he didn't get paid to do apologetics. But that's it. No one here is trying to "silence" Daniel Peterson. In fact, I don't know what some critics would do without him.
By contrast, the dead heads sucking up to you and your buddy Dan over at MAD are calling for Bradford's head without reservation. The only cool head over there seems to be Bob Crockett. Just take these few examples of the kind of hateful vitriol that has resulted from the mob you're leading:
why me - "Mr. Bradford needs to be replaced because his conduct in this matter is not the conduct that a temple recommend holder should be engaged in. What is sad about all this is that he betrayed the trust of someone showing a lack of empathy and emotional understanding as one who went about hurting someone by his conduct. This is not okay for a temple recommend holder to do nor someone who should be in charge of a church sponsored orgainization."
selek1 - "My prayers and wishes also to the Maxwell Insitute as Gerald Bradford takes a razor to its throat."
"With a lawyer even half-awake, Dan could destroy both Bradford and the Institute"
The target of our ire is Bradford"
"Firing someone by email is tasteless and cowardly. Looking the other way while criminal acts are commited (even if you disagree with the target) is unconscionable."
Log - I cannot help but think this is extraordinarily bad news. Apostasy in high places, even.
Scott Lloyd - Alma 62:44
Alter idem - Bradford's actions were spinless!
William Schryver - those who are attempting to silence LDS apologetics will be thwarted in their undertaking, and finally recognized for who and what they really are.
And all of these judgments have been passed after hearing only one side of the story.
So Bill, you're the ring-leader of this mob, fueling their hatred and now you want to pretend you have nothing to do with it. As if all this emotion comes from the "apostates" who are passing judgment? When we say we support Bradford, we are saying we support his vision for the Institute. Not because we want Dan Peterson "silenced," but because it is nice to know we have been vindicated. For years we've been telling you and Dan that FARMS engaged in pseudo-scholarship and relies too much on ad hominem. Dan's removal proves it, as does your idiotic ranting. But please, keep it up. I'm sure you're soon to realize just how tiny your support group really is when compared to the Church as a whole. Dan has been needing a serving of humble pie for years, and his pedantic response gave people more reason to view him in a negative light. He acted like a spoiled child who didn't like having one of his favorite toys taken away from him.
So, why am I so vehemently opposed to Bradford’s dismissal of Dan and proposed change of direction for the Mormon Studies Review? Here we come to the crux of the problem. If the University does not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University?
Uh, because you were all proving to be an embarrassment for the Church and they had hoped that by taking it over, that they could change that aggressive direction in a gradual way?
I know you, Dan and some of the dead-heads at MAD like to invoke Maxwell's so-called statement (according to Dan) that there be "no more uncontested slam dunks." You seem to think this statement justifies all the attack pieces you've been engaged in. Well, it doesn't.
By "slam dunk" Maxwell was obviously referring to arguments, not people. What you have done is attack people and ignored their arguments. This is what FARMS has done for YEARS. They did it with JP Holding, they did it with Grant Palmer, they did it with Ed Ashment, etc. The phrase makes no sense anyway, since it concedes the fact that there are arguments by critics that are legitimately defined as "slam dunks." That means they scored already and there is no way you can change that.
Dan is disrespecting the memory of Maxwell by trying to tie him into his paranoia-based agenda, where everyone is a potential wolf in sheep's clothing and he gets to attack anyone who doesn't tow the party line. We all know what this is about. It has nothing to do with following Maxwell's advice. It has everything to do with a misguided fringe that has become so extreme and out of control that it is now led by cult master William Schryver, an uneducated hippie from the canyons who is so whacko that he has decided to emulate Porter Rockwell in every way.
Did it ever occur to you that the Church felt that YOU people are more of a threat? The way you dogmatically insist your apologetic ideas are the only way to go and hand more and more people put their trust in you instead of the LDS leadership..
| Although Bill Hamblin posted John Dehlin’s reply on his blog, mine doesn’t seem to be making the cut (Hamblin moderates his blog’s activity). So for those interested, here is the reply that I submitted to Hamblin’s blog...
********************
For you, Bill, Bradford isn’t “a bad person,” but he is “a less than competent administrator” (“a view shared,” you tell us, “by MANY other people”).
You don’t merely “disagree” with Bradford you “disagree RADICALLY.” Bradford’s inability to contain all leaks within the Maxwell Institute doesn’t merely evince “negligence” but “DISASTROUS negligence.” His behavior in firing Dan Peterson isn’t just “shameful” it’s “ABSOLUTELY shameful.” Bradford’s initiation of a new vision isn’t just “immoral” it’s “FUNDAMENTALLY immoral,” not just “wrong” but “FUNDAMENTALLY wrong.”
“[A] less than competent administrator” who exhibits “disastrous negligence” and engages in “fundamentally immoral” behavior sounds like “a bad person” to me.
At what point does the “classic-FARMS” guard recognize that such acrimonious rhetoric has contributed to their now-official marginalization?
| Bill Hamblin has put together his thoughts on the future of Mormon Studies "without rose-colored glasses" (the pdf is available here: http://mormonscriptureexplorations.f... and the MDandD disucssion thread is here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/5...).
Although Hamblin does not say who he is arguing against, my sense is that when he refers to a "rose-colored" view of Mormon Studies, he is probably referring to what Richard Bushman has called the "liberation" of Mormon Studies (see remarks here: http://www.faithandknowledge.org/2007...).
First of all, Hamblin warns everyone that the type of apologetics championed by DCP, Hamblin, Midgley et al. isn't going anywhere:
We also must note that, despite the fond wishes of many critics, LDS apologetics is not going away. The fact that the director of the Maxwell Institute has decided to no longer allow the Institute or its employees to publish LDS apologetics will, in the long run, not even put a small dent in the effort. At most it may briefly delay the appearance of a few studies. Anyone who thinks LDS apologetics is finished, is, to put it nicely--and I really, really want to be nice--grossly deluded. Mormon apologetics has existed since the founding of the Church, and it will continue to flourish even after Dan Peterson is dead--may that day be far from us! So, don’t expect your friendly neighborhood apologist to be silenced by inept bureaucratic decree any time soon.
I love that Bill says that he wants to be nice and then proceeds to call Jerry Bradford an inept bureaucrat.
Then Bill brags about how many books he has read on Hinduism and Religious Studies in general, but then argues that any study of religion from a naturalistic viewpoint is like studying Beethoven without listening to his music:
For if God really does exist, and really does intervene in history, and really is the ultimate cause of religion, then removing God from the discussion means that everything religious studies has to say about religion is at best warped and twisted, and at worst, fundamentally misguided and wrong.
So only believing Mormons are qualified to engage in Mormon studes:
Unfortunately, religious studies scholars in general, and Mormon studies specifically, regularly fail to do this. Their works too often leave the believer puzzled, wondering how there could be another religion called Mormonism which is so fundamentally different from the religion the believer knows and practices and loves. While non-Mormons can certainly study Mormonism and offer whatever insights they may have, we as Mormons would be very unwise to allow ourselves to be defined by the assumptions and dictates of Mormon studies.
Chris/Bridget: according to Bill, you guys are clearly wasting your time in studying Mormonism (and given how Hamblin treated Chris recently on MDandD, I would bet he truly believes that).
And what is the other "fatal flaw" of Religious Studies? Why feminism, of course. To be fair, Hamblin refers more broadly to the evils of "political correctness run amok" but this is the example he gives:
People who are not professional religious studies scholars would undoubtedly be shocked to find the magnitude of sheer nincompoopery that passes itself off as serious academic scholarship at the annual national meeting of the American Academy of Religion. It’s really breathtaking to watch political correctness run amok in the academy. (My favorite example was a session on “Eco-feminism, food and pets.” I’m not making this up.)
So according to Bill, the only people qualified to engage in Mormon Studies are believing Mormons disgusted with the "nincompoopery" of political correctness . . . in other words, people just like Bill!
Bill then predicts that there will not be any money to support Mormon studies:
I also doubt that any serious university support for Mormon studies will be forthcoming anytime in the near future. This is in part due to the recession, and in part do to the rising costs of universities, which are greatly outpacing inflation. Universities simply don’t have the funding or the will to create such new specialized programs. The national trend in academia is in fact to shut down such specialized programs and shift their resources towards high enrollment general education and major classes, not to create new expensive special programs with limited appeal.
Well Bill, given your glowing assesment of the qualities of Religious Studies, I can see why so many wealthy TBMs are just lining up to fund it. I am also sure that no academic institution unaffiliated with the Church is going to spend money to fund "Mormon studies" with as narrow a definition as Bill wants to hang on it.
| Over on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board, Doctor Hamblin seems upset. After it was announced that a new academic chair was being set up at UVA, Hamblin turned up to issue several grumpy dismissives:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/591 ... n-studies/
Hamblin wrote: mapman wrote: Exciting news! I wonder if Bill Hamblin thinks that there is such a thing as Mormon studies yet. Not yet. A couple of chairs of Mormon Studies do not a movement make.
And note I'm talking about Mormon RELIGIOUS studies. Sounds like this will be a history slot.
Hamblin wrote: But one professor does not a Mormon Studies program make. That's all I've been saying.
But that's fine. We'll see what happens. Hmm. Now, you would think that an announcemnt of this magnitude (it's not as if the U. of Virginia is a "junk" school, after all...) would be cause for celebration. So why would Hamblin be responding with such dourness and cynicism, you might ask? The answer becomes rather clear in short order, thanks to a wish expressed by "The Grimace":
Quote: I hope a non-Mormon scholar is chosen, and I really hope the chair doesn't succumb to the pressure of LDS donors. This, rather predictably, sends Hamblin straight through the roof, and has him trotting out one of his favorite, offensive canards:
Bill Hamblin wrote: "I hope a non-Jew is chosen for the next chair of Jewish studies. I really hope they don't succumb to the pressure of Jewish donors."
Doesn't seem so hip when you talk that way about Jews, does it? "Hip"? What does that have to do with what The Grimace said? In any case, perhaps it is true that The Grimace's wishful thinking was poorly expressed. Later, he elaborates:
The Grimace wrote: What's wrong with wanting a non-Mormon scholar holding a Mormon Studies Chair? Surely it would bring a different perspective to the field, wouldn't it? And what is wrong with not being held slave to the desires of faithful donors? Surely that would allow for a more balanced view of Mormon studies, wouldn't it?
Dr. Hamblin implies that I have some other type of motivation...perhaps I was trying to appear "hip", as he calls it. Or maybe I'm motivated by a hatred of Mormons. Maybe it's lesson for Bill - ask, don't assume. Well, okay: this seems reasonable. Right? Not to Dr. Hamblin:
Quote: I think it is stupid to hope that a chair in Jewish studies should not be filled by a Jew.
I think it is equally stupid to hope that a chair in Mormon studies should not be filled by a Mormon. Why? What's wrong with merely wanting the best scholar to fill the position? The poster called "cobalt-70," whom the Mopologists hate, seems to feel the same way:
Quote: The problem is the generalizations. Yes, some apologetic Mormon scholars do much of their work outside the academic mainstream, and would probably not be a good fit for a Mormon studies position outside of BYU. But the existence of LDS scholars with broad acceptance, like Bushman, Givens, and many others, belies the notion that you can make any sort of generalization about Mormon scholars. Likewise, I'm sure there are Jewish scholars that would not be a good fit for a prestigious Jewish studies chair at a public university because they operate within the academic fringes, or have extreme political views, etc.
For practical and probably legal reasons, UVa cannot base its decision on the religion of the scholar. The decision ought to be based purely on merit. If she happens to be a Mormon, then great--that's one more prestigious position for a Mormon scholar. If not, then that's great too. There very well could be advantages in promoting diversity of views and backgrounds within the field of Mormon studies, and in incentivizing non-Mormon scholars to study the religion. Once again, though, Hamblin disagrees:
Quote: Anti-Mormons are far more marginalized that LDS scholars; by lightyears. Most neither have a degree in relevant fields, not a university position, nor peer-reviewed publications, etc.
Where did you get your Ph.D? In what field? What university do you work at? What peer-reviewed publications on LDS topics have you published?
Your claims are not only pure ad hominem, but pure bull-pucky as well. Huh? What on earth is Hamblin talking about here? Cobalt-70 made what seems like a perfectly reasonable point--i.e., that the best scholar should take the position. But it's clear at this point why Hamblin is erupting with rage: he objects to the notion that Mopologetics will likely never gain traction in the larger academy: he resents the idea that "Mormon Studies" might find respectability among a wide array of scholars. Just watch him as he continues to explode with indignation in subsquent posts:
Hamblin wrote: cobalt 70 wrote: I agree. The vast majority of anti-Mormon writers are just zealous evangelicals. They aren't scholars, and their work is quite often not of academic quality. I never said otherwise. Why the hostility? Has anybody proposed that someone should hire an anti-Mormon for this chair? Do you really believe that all non-Mormon scholars in the field of Mormon studies are anti-Mormon? No. Not at all.
However, you implied that a faithful Mormon who happens to defend his beliefs should not be given the chair. That's your position, right?
By analogy, should an Orthodox Jews who actually defends the Jewish tradition be automatically excluded from a chair in Jewish studies, right?
Where did cobalt "imply" such a thing? S/he said that s/he didn't think that "fringe"-y pseudoscholars should fill the chair, but how does that translate to a "faithful Mormon who happens to defend his beliefs"? The answer is: it translates if you are Bill Hamblin. In his mind, Hamblin has apparently always thought that the FARMS smear pieces constituted plain and simple "defense of his beliefs," rather than the fringe attack pieces that they actually are (a fact that has now been exacerbated in the wake of the Mopologists' dismissal from the Maxwell Institute).
Cobalt-70 once again seems sensitive to this:
Bill Hamblin wrote: cobalt wrote: No. It depends on the nature of the "defense." If a defense could survive peer review outside of BYU and the Church Education System, then no problem. In any event, defending one's religious beliefs is not really the focus of general academia. Because your audience is not Mormon, the focus is more on explaining, comparing, and contextualizing Mormon beliefs, rather than defending them. I think that is probably one of the reasons why BYU has changed its MI focus. What preposterous ad hominem nonsense.
First of all, it seems crystal clear to me that a believer in a religion can better explain and contextualize his religion than a non-believer. I would much rather hear about Hinduism from a Hindu than an atheist.
Second, explaining one's religion isdefending one's religion.
Third, do you have any evidence that my articles cannot stand peer review outside BYU? Any at all? (Have you ever had a peer review article published anywhere? I asked before. Silence.) My most recent article will be published in a forthcoming volume The Other Temple to be published by the Irish Society for the Study of the Ancient Near East. Seems to have passed peer review somehow.
(And I should note that the vast majority of chairs in Jewish studies are filled by Jews.)
This deserves to be unpacked, but I have to pause to include The Grimace's priceless response:
The Grimace wrote: I don't think the Irish are any good at explaining the Ancient Near East. Lol!
In any case, Hamblin seems positively apoplectic at this point--so much so that he simply isn't thinking clearly. First, the answer is: "I would rather hear about Hinduism from someone who knows it really well, and who can explain it in an articulate way." The fact of the speaker actually being a Hindu only matters insofar as it increases the likelihood of him/her being more deeply familiar with the topic. But we could ask Hamblin: who would be the better person to ask about Mormonism--Randy Bott, or Margaret Barker?
Secondly: I have to disagree that "explaining" and "defending" are the same thing.
Finally, the evidence that Hamblin's Mopologetic articles haven't survived peer review outside Mopologetic circles is the fact that he hasn't ever published any Mopologetic articles in any journals outside Mopologetic circles. QED, Prof. H.
The thread continues in much the same vein:
Hamblin wrote: cobalt 70 wrote: Sure they are, by other apologists. There are peer reviewed journals for cold fusion, UFOlogy, and parapsychology, too. By saying that, I don't mean to compare these fields to Mormon apologetic research, but the point is that there is a difference between general peer review, and limited peer review among an insular group of scholars working on the fringe. The bold face text is simply a lie, and it is sheer ad hominem. LDS scholars publish in a wide range of academic journals, with academic presses, and give papers in academic conferences throughout the world. Your claim is objectively false.
I've asked you several times why you feel qualified to make such judgments. Your Ph.D.? The University you work at? Your peer reviewed publications in the field? If, in fact, peer review is the gold standard for academics (and really isn't; it's a minimum standard) then your failure to qualify as a "peer" in the field means your views on this matter are irrelevant. Don't you find it highly ironic that a non-peer (you) is telling a peer (me), that my work simply doesn't measure up?
Actually, it's Hamblin who is technically guilty of argumentum ad hominem here, with his silly calls for credentials.
Regardless, I find it unfortunate that Hamblin seems unable to celebrate this exciting development. While I can understand his anger over this being a Mormon Studies--rather than Mopologetics--chair, you'd still think that he'd be able to summon up the maturity and decency to set aside his bitterness and gall for 2 seconds in order to praise the formation of this new Bushman Chair.
| After accusing the current employees of the Maxwell Institute of not having the appropriate testimony of the Book of Mormon to work in said Institute, Bill "Scramblin" Hamblin tries to walk back his comments as him thinking out loud:
Quote:
Obviously, my observations about the question of belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon have been grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. Claims are being made that I am attacking the testimonies of the Bradford Junta. I am not. As I said before, I am confident that all members of the Bradford Junta are faithful members of the Church, and believe that they are doing the right thing for the Church and the Institute by their coup.
On the other hand, for months I have been perplexed by the actions of the Bradford Junta. Nothing they did made any sense to me at all. Even if MI continued its traditional approach to the apologetic and scholarly study of the historical Book of Mormon, nothing prevented the Junta from doing more secularly oriented Mormon Studies that were more congenial to them. One did not have to suppress historicist and apologetic Book of Mormon studies in order to do secular Mormon Studies. Bradford well knew that Dan was the star fund-raiser for the Institute. Why in the world would he treat him with such utter contempt, essentially guaranteeing the (at least temporary) collapse of fund-raising efforts? Why discontinue the publication of materials which were of the most interest to the general LDS public, who have by light-years been the most important supporters of the Institute for the past quarter of a century. Jerry's behavior seemed literally crazy to me.
Then it struck me that if he and his Junta reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, everything he is doing suddenly makes perfect sense. Articles and books discussing a historical Book of Mormon are fundamentally bogus, and can only serve to embarrass the Church. If the Book of Mormon is, in fact, ahistorical, then in the long run, it will be much better for the Institute to abandon its absurd studies of a "historical" Book of Mormon, and focus on the Book of Mormon as a nineteenth century phenomena, since that is what it really is. This allows you to create a faithful view of a fictional Book of Mormon, which is--in their view--fundamental to the future survival of the Church. If the Book of Mormon is not historical, then the Bradford Junta's decision to shift the focus of the Institute makes perfect sense. They sincerely believe that by doing so they are serving the long-term interests of the Church. They are acting, in their own way, as faithful members. They believe that, although this may cause a great deal of temporary problems and loss of funding, they are confident that in they long run it will save both the Institute and the Church.
Now I do not know if in fact this is what they believe. As I noted, I have never seen any member of the Junta make any statement about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, pro or con. So my scenario may be a complete fantasy. All I'm saying is that this scenario makes overall sense of Bradford's actions. Otherwise his behavior seems to me erratic and irrational.
The belief that the Book of Mormon is not historical, but is modern (inspired) fiction is not uncommon among members of the Church, though still represents a small minority. Many who hold such a belief remain faithful temple recommend-holding members of the Church. Those who hold this belief do not view it as an apostate belief. (On the other hand, all apostates share the belief that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical.) They believe it is perfectly consistent with faithful membership in the church. In one sense they are right. I know of people who have been in bishoprics who reject Book of Mormon historicity.
Personally, I believe that a rejection of historicity of the Book of Mormon necessarily entails a rejection of the essential founding narratives of the Church, since if there was no Moroni and no golden plates, Joseph Smith was either delusional or lying when he discusses such thing. The inevitable result is that one must believe Joseph Smith was a "soft"-prophet, that is, a vaguely inspired religious genius who did things that could be described as prophet-like in a very broad sense of the term.
Be that as it may, asking someone if they believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a crime. Its simple inquiry into intellectual ideas. Academics do this all the time. Do you believe in post-modernism? Are you a Progressive. It's like asking if you believe in evolution or special creation, the big bang or young earth creationism. Do you believe in a global or local flood (or a legendary flood). One can be a faithful member of the Church and believe in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography or a regional one. One can posit a "heartland" or Mesoamerican model.
So, I am simply trying to understand their position. I'm trying to make sense of what is going on. I'm asking perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions. If theological liberals want the inspired fiction model of the Book of Mormon to be accepted as legitimate by church members, they need to start standing up for it. And if that is the position of the Bradford Junta, they should publicly stand by it. If it is not, then it is a very simple matter to say, "I believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon."
It should be noted, of course, that he cannot backtrack on having accused Gerald Bradford of stealing university resources to carry out his own agenda. Nor can he easily sidestep the issue of his appearing to question the fitness of Bradford and others for BYU employment. But, methinks that there was something motivating him to try. Did someone from the university call him and tell him to cut it out?
That seems like a real possibility.
One thing that interests me in Blamflin's complaint is that he claims to want to know whether Bradford believes in ancient Nephites in order to make some sense of MI's new direction. He raises the notion of methodological or ideological orientations that any faculty member might have as bearing on their suitability for employment.
I find it terribly odd that in a group of guys who identify as politically conservative, and thus likely feel the sting of ideological bias against conservatives in the academy, Hamblin wants people to "out themselves" as this or that as if he suddenly thought such rubrics were a great qualification for employment. On most days, conservatives really don't want their politics to be a reason they might be refused a job.
Hamblin, evidently, wants the MI people to reveal their exact stand on the issue of Book of Mormon historicity so that he can point to these people as suitable or unsuitable employees of the Institute. Well, of course, only an idiot would comply with this request, particularly when the university has not set down any such requirement as a term of the person's contract.
Perhaps Hamblin received a friendly email from the administration telling him he might want to rethink his comments about his BYU colleagues, and now he is forced to pretend that he was engaged in abstract contemplation of "how it all works" with Bradford not wanting to smear people like Laura Compton and his position on the Book of Mormon's antiquity.
Could Bradford really both believe in an ancient Book of Mormon and not desire to blacken the reputation of John Dehlin? We should certainly ask this question, because Handpin is asking the question. And we "just want to understand" the implications of his thoughts. Maybe it is the case that Hamdron assumes that a person who believes in an ancient Book of Mormon would not want to exist in the same Church with someone like John Dehlin, who might not believe exactly that. Thus such a person could not sit still while a character like Dehlin asked the wrong questions about Book of Mormon historicity.
Indeed, if such a person, one who was intolerant of other Mormons holding such views, were to work in a university Institute bearing the name of Neal A. Maxwell, he would surely feel like it was his solemn duty to declare such a person a heretic, or "deceived by Satan," in a print journal.
What, then, must we conclude about the person who did not believe it was their solemn duty to persecute heretics of the "non-ancient Book of Mormon" variety? Must we not conclude that these people do not believe the Book of Mormon is ancient themselves? If we were to scrutinize their writings and find an absence of any clear statement affirming their belief in the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, we would know for sure, and could then comfortably conclude, that they must not want to write slam articles on such people because they themselves think exactly the same thing.
Indeed, any person in the LDS Church who would question the act of smearing those who are allegedly "unorthodox" (whatever that means in an LDS context) ought to be subject to the same scrutiny, no? So, if someone does not agree to slamming Todd Compton in his work on polygamy, saying that he is not a "true believer" or some such, must not really believe in the principal of LDS polygamy, surely one of the central concerns of our time. That must be the logic, right?
We ought to be relieved that there are people like Hamklin who have the time, energy, and dedication to search out the writings and recordings of all those people who do not want to abuse fellow LDS folk in the Review, or who might question the propriety of others doing so, because more heretics might fly under the radar without them.
Hamblin is the one who doesn't evidently give a crap. According to his own account on his blog, he quit the Board of FARMS when President Hinckley personally invited FARMS to join BYU. So, he seems to imagine himself to be kind of a badass, as it were. He doesn't care whose eye receives his thumb. I think he is making noise in the hope that it irritates the people he is angry with. I doubt there is anything constructive to it.
Peterson is another story entirely. Peterson is very strategic and singleminded. He wants others to buy his image of Bradford as an apostate who is in league with other apostates. So he even drags people posting on this board into the group of alleged conspirators. Of course, no one would seriously believe this paranoiac nonsense. But that does not matter to Peterson, because he is desperate to get the Review back. It was the thing that made him an important person, in his own eyes. It is what he truly cared about. Still, he will not go as far as Hamblin because he is not foolish enough to view himself as untouchable, and he still imagines there is something to be gained in carrying on to the extent that he is.
Of course, only a miracle would reverse what has happened. And, these classic-FARMS posts in recent days will only serve to convince everyone who has a real say in the matter that the so-called coup was exactly the right move and probably should have happened long ago. Peterson and Hamblin will be very lucky if they avoid yet more consequences for continuing to embarrass the university.
| Quote:
Why I'm Resigning from Interpreter
Effective immediately, I'm resigning as executive editor of Interpreter for the following reasons.
1- My department told me today in essence that both my editorial work with Interpreter, and publications with Interpreter will not be considered serious scholarship. They explicitly advised me to publish in other venues. (This has been, by the way, the consistent policy of both my department and college for a quarter of a century. I have consistently been told essentially the same thing about not publishing with FARMS by every administrator. The fact that I've published with FARMS in the past has directly led to delayed promotion and sub-cost of living pay raises.) I am tired of receiving poor evaluations on my scholarship because publishing with FARMS and now Interpreter is considered unscholarly by BYU.
2- The directors of the Maxwell Institute complained to the administration about my public criticisms of their new policies. The administration, without giving me a chance to see or respond to those complaints, told me to stop criticizing the Maxwell Institute's new direction.
3- I'm tired of the relentless torrent of abuse from anti-Mormons and apostates, including them sending anonymous slanderous email accusations to university administrators.
4- A person I thought was a friend recently decided to describe me (indirectly) as an apologetic hack instead of a real scholar. (This, by the way, has been the fundamental, most insidious, and perpetual slander of apostates-that a believing LDS scholar don't do real scholarship. It is also, a classic example of ad hominem.) It's rather depressing when your friends desert you.
5- I love research and writing. But I literally hate the bureaucratic and editing work required to run Interpreter. I've spent a great deal of my free time for six months trying to get Interpreter up and running. I think it is firmly established and viable now. Someone else can take it from here on out.
It's clearly time to move on. I will have nothing more to say on these matters, and will not be taking phone calls, answering emails, or posting comments on the subject. (Sorry, I need a break.)
I wish Interpreter well, and believe it has a very important role to fulfill in LDS intellectual and spiritual life. The Board of Editors and associates have done a truly miraculous job in producing a journal ex nihilo-the third volume will be published this week. I appreciate all their efforts in creating the journal. I have every confidence that they can move ahead to a great future without me
http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wo...
| In The Wake Of His Resignation From The "Interpreter," William Hamblin Remains The Butt Of His Own "Butthead" Antics
Tuesday, Mar 5, 2013, at 08:24 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: WILLIAM HAMBLIN -Link To MC Article- | ↑ | Having resigned from his latest attempt at playing "scholar," Willliam Hamblin is lashing out at his vast array of perceived enemies laying siege against him--including those at RfM and behind the Zion Curtain itself.
Lordy, is there no help for the whiner's son?
Hamblin has now abruptly quit serving as LDS-apologist sidekick/exective editor for BYU prof Daniel C. Peterson's "Interpreter" outfit (Peterson is the "Interpreter's" chairman of the board; see: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/boar...).
Hamblin is busily blaming Mormon apostates, so-called Mormon haters, BYU administrators, Maxwell Institute directors and insidious unnamed fake-faced friends for:
-- treating him badly,
--slandering him,
--attacking his scholarship,
--delaying his overdue promotions,
--giving him poor performancce reviews,
--denying him a decent living wage,
--cramping his style and, thus,
--forcing him, he says, to throw in the towel.
That's quite a list of grievances for someone cheerfully doing the Lord's work.
--About his ex-Mormon and Mormon-hating critics, Hamblin complains:
"I'm tired of the relentless torrent of abuse from anti-Mormons and apostates, including them sending anonymous slanderous email accusations to university administrators."
--As to the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS), Hamblin moans:
"I edit and publish with 'Interpreter.' BYU administrators inform me that I should publish in other venues. . . . The result . . . is that if I publish with FARMS or 'Interpreter,' I am considered to have low productivity because publications count as scholarly only if published outside the BYU bubble."
--Hamblin then goes on to attack BYU administrators along with those who run Maxwell/FARMS:
"The directors of the Maxwell Institute complained to the administration about my public criticisms of their new policies. The administration, without giving me a chance to see or respond to those complaints, told me to stop criticizing the Maxwell Institute's new direction. The fact that I've published with FARMS in the past has directly led to delayed promotion and sub-cost of living pay raises. I am tired of receiving poor evaluations on my scholarship because publishing with FARMS and now 'Interpreter' is considered unscholarly by BYU."
--Hamblin notes how devoted and successful he has been but, alas, how unappreciated he has become, declaring:
"I love research and writing. But I literally hate the bureaucratic and editing work required to run 'Interpreter.' I've spent a great deal of my free time for six months trying to get 'Interpreter' up and running. I think it is firmly established and viable now. Someone else can take it from here on out."
--Regarding his unnamed traiterous friends, Hamblin dramatizes:
"A person I thought was a friend recently decided to describe me (indirectly) as an apologetic hack instead of a real scholar. (This, by the way, has been the fundamental, most insidious, and perpetual slander of apostates-that a believing LDS scholar don't do real scholarship. It is also, a classic example of ad hominem). It's rather depressing when your friends desert you."
--Stomping out, Hamblin says in a heave-ho hollerin' huff:
"It's clearly time to move on. I will have nothing more to say on these matters, and will not be taking phone calls, answering emails or posting comments on the subject. (Sorry, I need a break)."
("Why I'm Resigning from 'Interpreter,'" by William Hamblin, 2 March 2013, on "Mormon Scriptural Explorations: Exploring the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price," at:
http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wo...)
Boo-hoo.
Hamblin is in no place to play martyr when it comes to ad homenim-attack victimhood.
First, let it be noted that Hamblin has, in fact, a history of personal assaults on those who post here on "Recovery from Mormonism."
In this regard, in a stunningly hypocritical hit piece entitled, "Their 'Little Corner of Cyberspace"--pro-Mo apologists on the so-called "FAIR" board have attacked "the vehemence with which its detractors approach anything having to do with the [Mormon] Church' . . . [on the] the popular 'Recovery from Mormonism' message board, which receives up to 1,000 posts per day by a disgruntled collection of Mormon dissidents."
How is this known by the faithful?
Hamblin, his FAIR supporters confess, acknowledges "lurking on the 'Recovery' board for a while," where he claims to "have really been astonished by what I've seen [t]here."
Among other complaints, Humpty-Grumpty Hamblin waxes whiny about the "arrogance" he says exists on RfM, as so declared in his following observation:
"For many on this board, it seems that once your mind is freed from the shackles of Mormonism you are suddenly capable of being absolutely right about absolutely everything.
"When I find a cartoonist pontificating with absolute certitude about the history of religion, for example--on topics where mere mortals with PhDs have spent lifetimes of study and still are unable to resolve disputed issues--you will have to forgive me for being dubious about the intellectual rigor required by many on this board."
(William Hamblin, "Their Little Corner of Cybperspace," August 2003, at: http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/T...)
Snort!
People like Hamblin are hardly occupying the high ground in pointing fingers at the supposed lack of credibility of ex-Mormon critics when, in fact, Hamblin himself has been guilty of astonishingly juvenile antics in blasting those critics in ways that cause adult students of Mormon studies to drop their jaws in utter disbelief.
Mormon apologists, reviewers and "researchers" in Hamblin's backwater bush league are notorious for savaging critics of the Mormon Church for supposedly being puerile and unsophisticated in the conclusions these skeptics reach about LDS doctrine, practice and history.
Case in point: FARMS offensive lineman (and we do mean "offensive") Hamblin--in ridiculing Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work, "Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon"--pompously asserted:
"[T]hey [the Tanners] simply refuse to deal with recent serious Latter-day Saint arguments . . . a perfect picture of the Tanners at the height of their ineptitude . . . completely fails to deal with [current LDS scholarly] interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography and archaeology . . . incapable of seriously dealing with academic studies and issues surrounding questions of archaeology and geography of either the New or old World. . . . [they should] stick to their . . . facile, ad nauseum demonstrations that Latter-day Saint doctrine bears little relationship to fundamentalist Protestant doctrine."
(Hamblin, "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon: "A Review of 'Archaeology and the Book of Mormon' by Jerald and Sandra Tanner," reprinted from "FARMS Review," vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 258-72, Maxwell Institute, Provo, Utah, 1993, at: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publi...)
**Here's the clincher, though, when it comes to proving that Hamblin is the last in line to be chiding others for not being serious.
--The "Metcalfe-is-Butthead" Highwater Mark for FARMS
Hamblin himself is about as serious as a whoopie cushion in a church pew.
John Weldon, writing for the "Apologetics Index," points to the stupidly childish FARMS case of "Metcalfe is Butthead," which exposed Hamblin's breathtaking immaturity in dealing with Mormonism's critics:
"FARMS is, as we know, an acronym for the 'Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.'
"Unfortunately, after reading their reviews, etc., and examining their methods, an acronym equally suited for FARMS would often be: 'Frequent Artless Ridicule Made Simple.'
"This is particularly so in light of the 'Metcalfe is Butthead' acronym fiasco, and similar matters. We mean no disrespect toward the more balanced FARMS writers, but FARMS style and antics are often less than scholarly."
(John Weldon, "Appendix 2: FARMS Review of Books," at: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoin...)
Just what, exactly, was this "fiasco" and how was Hamblin involved in it?
An answer to that question exposes the FARMS boys as engaging (and eventually being caught in) some of the most infantile, imbecilic antics imaginable.
Lecturer John Hatch, in an address at a "Sunstone" symposium entitled "Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books," detailed this extremely unprofessional and embarrassing moment in the history of FARMS's juvenile and scurrilous attacks on Mormonism's critics:
"Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, 'New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology.'
"The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages.
"However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym.
"In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, 'Metcalfe is Butthead' was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.
"It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of 'why' springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?
"Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out 'Metcalfe is Butthead' rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review.
"Why?
"That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?"
Below is another account, from "Wikipedia," of Hamblin's back-firing butthead approach to Mormon "academics":
"William J. Hamblin published an essay in a FARMS publication entitled, 'Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,' criticizing an essay by Brent Metcalfe, a writer who criticized the Book of Mormon. The point of Hamblin's essay was that Metcalfe criticized the Book of Mormon using circular arguments and by applying uneven standards.
"Hamblin's review included an 'acrostic' spelling out 'Metcalfe is Butthead,' a reference to one of the two title characters in the popular cartoon 'Beavis and Butt-head' that aired during the mid-1990s. (The acrostic was made up of the first letters of paragraphs spanning nine pages of the essay).
"After the 1994 publication went to press and a few early issues were distributed, it was caught by a FARMS editor who stopped the press run, recalled the issues, and edited part of the acrostic out.
"Portions still remained, with the post-editing acrostic spelling out 'METWHSFE IA BUTAHEAT.'
"'Associated Press' writer Vern Anderson wrote an article concerning the matter which was published in the 'Deseret News':
"'The salvos contained in the 566-page "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon" come as no surprise, given the longstanding animus between scholars associated with FARMS, many of them professors at church-owned Brigham Young University, and those published by the independent Signature Books. . . .
"'Recently a review by BYU history professor William Hamblin containing an encrypted message 'Metcalfe is butthead' was hastily edited out after the "Review" had gone to press.'
"Upon learning of the acrostic, Metcalfe responded, stating:
"'When I heard rumors that William J. Hamblin, FARMS board member and BYU historian, had a caustic encryption in his review. . . . I summarily dismissed them. Surely no legitimate scholar would stoop to such an inane level. However, it seems that I underestimated Hamblin's 'scholarly' prowess. Do Hamblin and Peterson's methods typify the brand of "scholarship" FARMS, BYU Department of History, and BYU Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages cultivates and endorses? Evidently some have shifted from apologist to misologist.'
"Those critical of FARMS use the incident as primary evidence of the mean-spirited nature of what FARMS produces. Those supportive of FARMS counter that the critics seem unable to look beyond the incident to address the actual scholarship in FARMS publications."
NOTE: The above "Wikipedia" article on Hamblin's "Butthead" antics was first published as "Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies," under the subhead "Metcalfe is Butthead." That article was later edited to alter the subhead from "Metcalfe is Butthead" to the "Metclafe Incident." This subsequent version also eliminated Metcalfe's response, but added Petersen's quasi-apology, which read:
"I am writing to apologize for my private practical joke. Whenever I write a paper Dan Petersen [Daniel C. Peterson] will be editing, I always include a joke or two for his enjoyment - fake footnotes, comments about space aliens and the golden plates, etc. The acrostic was simply a light-hearted joke for Dan's amusement. . . . "
Peterson's lackluster skinback is also quoted in article, "The Book of Mormon: Inspired Scripture or a Work of Fiction?," under the subheads, "A Disgusting Joke?" and "METCALFE IS BUTTHEAD--MET***FE I* BUT*HEA*," in the "Salt Lake City Messenger," #86, June 1994, wherein the following is reported:
"Brigham Young University professor William J. Hamblin, who also serves on the Board of Directors at FARMS, was very upset with Brent Metcalfe. His anger against Metcalfe led him into making a very offensive mistake. When he prepared his response to Mr. Metcalfe, he included what he termed 'a joke' which eventually caused embarrassment to FARMS, Brigham Young University and the Mormon Church. 'Associated Press' writer Vern Anderson wrote an article concerning the matter which was published in the Church's own newspaper:
"'The salvos contained in the 566-page "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon" come as no surprise, given the longstanding animus between scholars associated with FARMS, many of them professors at Church-owned Brigham Young University, and those published by the independent Signature Books. . . .
"'Recently a review by BYU history professor William Hamblin containing an encrypted message--"Metcalfe is Butthead"--was hastily edited out after the 'Review' had gone to press.'
"('Deseret News,' 22-23 March 1994)
"As we understand it, 'Butthead' is an animated character that appears on MTV and is known for his crude and stupid behavior.
"After reading that the demeaning comment 'was hastily edited out after the "Review" had gone to press,' we closely examined our copy of 'Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,' vol. 6, No. 1, to see if any remnants of the acrostic remained in the book.
"To our surprise, we found that even after the article was revised, 12 of the original 18 characters remained (see pp. 434-42 of the FARMS publication). In this particular acrostic, the first letter of each paragraph was used to form the words. (It should be noted, however, that if a paragraph was part of a quotation from another source, it was not counted as part of the acrostic).
"Below we show the original message Professor William Hamblin wrote and the way it was later altered in an attempt to cover up his vindictive attitude toward Brent Metcalfe. The reader will note that in the modified version we have shown letters that have been changed with asterisks:
"METCALFE IS BUTTHEAD
"MET***FE I* BUT*HEA*
"It seems evident that those who were more sensible at FARMS realized that Hamblin's so-called 'joke' could have a very serious effect on the foundation and scrambled to correct the problem. According to Brent Metcalfe, the book had already gone to press when the encrypted message was discovered. William Hamblin seems to have realized that he made a very serious error in judgment and tried to pacify Mr. Metcalfe by claiming it was only a joke:
"'I am writing to apologize for my private practical joke. Whenever I write a paper Dan Petersen [Daniel C. Peterson] will be editing, I always include a joke or two for his enjoyment--fake footnotes, comments about space aliens and the golden plates, etc. The acrostic was simply a light-hearted joke for Dan's amusement. . . .'
"(computer message by William Hamblin, dated 14 March 1994)
"Brent Metcalfe wrote the following concerning Professor Hamblin's attempt to belittle him:
"'When I heard rumors that William J. Hamblin, FARMS board member and BYU historian, had a caustic encryption in his review . . . , I summarily dismissed them. Surely no legitimate scholar would stoop to such an inane level. However, it seems that I underestimated Hamblin's "scholarly" prowess. In the latest "Review of Books on the Book of Mormon" Hamblin had the first letter of succeeding paragraphs spell out the message: "METCALFE IS BUTTHEAD"
"'I say "Hamblin HAD" because the "Review" has gone back to press to rectify Hamblin's demeaning remark. I have been told that Daniel C. Peterson, FARMS board member and "Review" editor, approved its inclusion--I am unaware of other FARMS board members who may have known. Frankly, I'm stunned. Hamblin and Peterson's behavior is contrary to all Mormon ethics I was taught.
"'Do Hamblin and Peterson's methods typify the brand of 'scholarship' FARMS, BYU Department of History and BYU Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages cultivates and endorses? Evidently some have shifted from apologist to misologist."
"(computer message by Brent Metcalfe, dated 8 March 1994)
"If BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson did approve the publication of the rude statement, as Metcalfe claims, this would mean that at least two members of the FARMS Board of Directors were involved in the so-called 'joke.' . . .
"On March 9, 1994, 'The Daily Herald,' published in Provo, Utah, printed an 'Associated Press' article concerning the bizarre incident:
"'SALT LAKE CITY-Independent Mormon scholar Brent Metcalfe is shaking his head over a practical joke . . .
"'Metcalfe edited the 1993 "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon," published by Signature Books, which raised the hackles of many traditional scholars into the scripture that is foundational of the Mormon faith.
"'Indeed, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or FARMS, planned to release on Wednesday a 600-page book rebutting the essays in Metcalfe's book.
"'And thereby hangs the tale.
"'According to Metcalfe, the rude message was to have been spelled out in the first letter of the first words of the opening paragraphs of an article written for the FARMS book by William Hamblin, a history professor at Brigham Young University.
"'"The coded message was to have read, 'Metcalfe is Butthead,' Metcalfe said. He said he learned about it from someone who had seen the article.
"'Metcalfe said that according to the, er, scuttlebutt, FARMS learned about the encryption just as the volume was going into print, quickly halted the press run and rewrote and reprinted the offending pages.
"'But FARMS editor Brent Hall would not confirm that Tuesday.
"'The book will be out tomorrow. The book that will come out tomorrow will not have that,' Hall said. 'We had some problems with the book--footnote problems, binding problems, and an article that we thought needed some revision, which was done.'
"'Was the article Hamblin's?
"'"That was the article," Hall said. . . .'
"Both Hamblin and Peterson seem to be very skillful in making ad hominem attacks on those with whom they differ. Since Professor Peterson serves as editor of 'Review of Books on the Book of Mormon,' he sets a very bad example for contributors to that publication. Anyone who examines the articles written by Daniel C. Peterson, William Hamblin, Louis Midgley and some of the other Mormon scholars will see that they have sometimes been mean spirited in their attempt to save the [Mormon] church.
"Although Metcalfe is a powerful debater, in the book he has edited he has not used the vitriolic type of approach which appears so frequently in 'Review of Books on the Book of Mormon.' Professor William Hamblin accused Metcalfe of 'academic immaturity' on p. 522 of his response. We feel that Hamblin should take a careful look at his own writings. If we had written the tasteless acrostic mentioned above and had directed it at William Hamblin or Daniel C. Peterson, we would never hear the end of it. These scholars certainly use a double standard when they deal with those they perceive to be enemies of the [Momron] church."
(For the full text of this highly recommended "Salt Lake City Messenger" newslewtter article, see: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no86..... For my previous RfM post on Peterson's "Butthead" Bozoness--where the afore-mentioned "Wikipedida" article is quoted before it was subsequently changed--see: "The 'Butthead' of Bad Jokes: William Hamblin Defends the So-Called 'Cutting -Edge Scholarship' of the Maxwell Institute (spawn of FARMS), in the wake of Danny Peterson's Firing... ." by steve benson, "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 21 June 2012, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2.... For the currrent, altered version of the "Wikipedia" article, see: "Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies," under "Metcalfe Incident," at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundati...
Try as some might to change the facts (and as hard as Hamblin hysterically and desperately manuevers to dance around those facts), the fact remains that Wild Bill is the self-created butt of his own bad jokes.
Good luck, Brother Hamblin--and enjoy your break.
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
|
