The exchange between Dr. Phillip Jenkins and Dr. William Hamblin came to an end and then flared up again today. Remember that everything marked “Jenkins Response” is a post from Professor Hamblin, while everything marked “Jenkins Rejoinder” is a post from Professor Jenkins:
Jenkins Response 14: The Real Problem
Jenkins Response 15: Pottery 2
Jenkins Response 16: Refusing to Read
Jenkins Rejoinder 9: He’s Back
A brief personal note:
I’m admittedly partisan. I’m a convinced and believing Latter-day Saint. I can’t pretend, therefore, that I have no stake in this discussion. And, needless to say, by Philip Jenkins’s declared judgment, I’m a pathetic pseudoscholar and a crank. But I have to say that I’ve been very disappointed by what I’ve seen from Professor Jenkins.
He’s plainly very bright. He’s also a prolific scholar, some of whose work I’ve seen and thought quite good.
But, even before he entered into the exchange with Professor Hamblin, his recent series of posts on Mormonism and the Book of Mormon (out of which the exchange emerged) surprised and shocked me for its spirit of contemptuous derision and its lack of respect. I hadn’t expected that.
He raises appropriate issues. Still, in my judgment his position is misconceived and many of his complaints unreasonable and unjust. But I’ll have more to say about that later.
I’m still waiting for the exchange to wind down. It’s already fairly complex and difficult to follow, so I’m certainly not going to add a side conversation. I also haven’t wanted to become enmeshed in an endless back-and-forth with multiple commenters on my blog, one that would surely eat up hours of work time day after day after day. I would rather comment when I have the whole thing laid out in front of me and have had time to reflect on it. Then — at least, this is my current intention — I’ll offer my take in a relatively sustained way.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In