Goodbye to All That

September 8, 2015 By William Hamblin

As noted earlier, Jerry Bradford is stepping down as director of the Maxwell Institute, and BYU has chosen a committee to select his successor. (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/now-accepting-nominations-and-applications-for-next-institute-director/) Unfortunately, the mandate of the committee has not been made public, but let’s take a look at what the composition of that committee can tell us about the staying power of the Bradford Junta’s “new direction.” When academic committees are formed they are often merely showpieces to give the facade of faculty consultation and... Read more

How BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies

September 8, 2015 By William Hamblin

I maintain that numerous policies adopted by a wide range of BYU administrators over the past thirty years have had the effect—intended or unintended—of destroying ancient Book of Mormon studies as a fledgling discipline. Here’s how. College and Department Politics. Although many people might find it incredible, every single BYU administrator on every level of the administration has explicitly discouraged me from doing ancient Book of Mormon studies in my annual performance (“stewardship”) reviews. They have all explicitly told me... Read more

Jenkins 28: THE MYTH OF THEREFORE (Original)

July 23, 2015 By William Hamblin

Jenkins objected to me interspersing comments with his text. So here is his original, without my comments. My response can be found here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/07/23/jenkins-28-the-myth-of-therefore/ =================== A nice case study of rhetoric in action! I love the way you frame a question, in the rich tradition of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” You asked this: My question for Philip is: “If NHM can not be accepted an authentic ancient sixth century South Arabian place name, and therefor an authentic... Read more

Jenkins 28: The Myth of “Therefore”

July 23, 2015 By William Hamblin

Jenkins “responding” to my question here. My comments in blue. My original source = http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/07/22/hamblin-35-time-for-clear-thinking-on-nahom/ Jenkins is “responding” to a question I didn’t ask. My real question is: What additional characteristics or qualities of the authentic sixth century BC south Arabian name NHM would be necessary for it to qualify as an evidentiary match for the BOM Nahom? Please answer the question. Your constant dodging and misdirection is getting noisome. More of my brief comments are interspersed in blue below. ====================== A nice... Read more

Jenkins 27: Bigfoot?

July 23, 2015 By William Hamblin

Here’s more from Jenkins. I suspect he’s trying to be funny. My comments are in blue. If you merely want to passively disbelieve in Bigfoot, or even publicly state that you disbelieve in Bigfoot, then you certainly don’t need pay any attention to the topic or the specifics of their claims. However, if I were going to write a book, article, or blog, or engage in a public debate about the existence of Bigfoot, I, personally, feel that my intellectual integrity would... Read more

Jenkins 26: Still no Evidence?

July 23, 2015 By William Hamblin

This just in from Jenkins. My comments preceed in blue. As I’ve said from the beginning, the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a hermeneutical and epistemological problem. The problem is not “is there evidence?” but “what constitutes evidence and how should it be evaluated and interpreted?” Apparently Jenkins does not understand the difference between evidence and proof. When he says there’s no evidence, what he’s really saying is that there is no proof. I agree with... Read more

Hamblin 35: Time for Clear Thinking on Nahom

July 22, 2015 By William Hamblin

Alas, Jenkins’ thinking on Nahom is hopelessly muddled. If NHM can not be accepted an authentic ancient sixth century South Arabian place name, and therefor an authentic match with the BOM Nahom–and hence evidence for (though not proof of) the historicity of the BOM–what additional qualities of evidence of place, personal or ethnic names would make it acceptable? Remember: Coincidence is not an argument, or even an explanation. It is an excuse. Jenkins claims that Joseph Smith took the name Nahom for... Read more

Jenkins 25: Answer on Nahom

July 22, 2015 By William Hamblin

The following, at the bottom, is from Jenkins, missing my point as usual. My comments are in blue. Jenkins misunderstands my question. My question is: what additional qualities would he want from a piece of ancient evidence [in this case Nahom] in order to have it acceptable as evidence for the BOM. Having the right name, in the right place, and at the right time seems insufficient for you. So, as a general principle, in order to correlate an ancient inscriptional toponym with a... Read more

Jenkins 24: Nahom Part Deux

July 22, 2015 By William Hamblin

From Philip Jenkins–charming as usual. My comments in blue. My question for Philip is: “If NHM can not be accepted an authentic ancient sixth century South Arabian place name, and therefor an authentic match with the BOM Nahom–and hence evidence for (though not proof of) the historicity of the BOM–what additional qualities of evidence of place, personal or ethnic names would make it acceptable? Remember: Coincidence is not an argument, or even an explanation. It is an excuse. ================= You say, “We... Read more

Jenkins 23: Empirical and Objective?

July 22, 2015 By William Hamblin

Philip Jenkins posted this on his blog, responding to my discussion of the impossibility of empirical and objective study of history. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/07/debating-bill-hamblin/ Read more