Jenkins Rejoinder 1

Philip Jenkins recently sent several comments to my blog site.  I’m collecting them all here so they don’t get lost in the comment section. Everything from this point are comments from professor Jenkins.

———

Good morning, Dr. Hamblin,

I just came across this series – delighted to see it. Informed debate is always good!

Excuse me if I do not respond to specific points you make. That does not indicate that I am not taking things seriously, but rather that I have really said what I have to in my posts. Presently, then, it’s over to you.

all good wishes,

Philip Jenkins

——-

I must make one suggestion. In your list of my columns, you leave out others in the series that don’t directly relate to my Mormon material, but demonstrate the context of those article. These are:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/i-want-to-believe/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/outliers-and-iconoclasts/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/how-consensus-changes/

 ——

I find that debates and discussions work best when they are focused. In my recent columns, I have addressed a great many issues, on which many opinions might be expressed. I feel, though, that the most significant part of my argument can be expressed simply, in the form of this question. In my view, none of the responses to my columns addressed it in a vaguely satisfactory way. Given his background, Dr. Hamblin is perhaps in the best position to respond:

“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.”