[Apologies if someone else posted something like this previously!]
People (like me) who have recently fallen/plunged into the rabbit hole that is Mormon Truth Claims and Apologetics, little by little uncover more and more the deeper we dig, and in this journey some exchanges/debates between apologists and critics really stand out. Some of these are just... epic.
The old-timers here will no doubt be familiar with the one I list here first (and please understand that I understand you already know all about it), and every other one back to the beginning of the interweb, but us newcomers would love to be enlightened on what we're missing - the essential smackdowns. My knowledge is sadly limited to three -- but then I'm new.
I'll post this first one while I finish my next one (assuming someone else doesn't nail it first). Obviously, we're blessed to be living in a time like the present, with the gallant Billy Shears, Lemmie, Honorentheos and others laying utter waste to the Dale's Bayesian ClusterF#!*ery at The Interpreter. I'll leave that for someone else.
If possible, please include links and a short description to set the scene and make it easier for others new to this scene to know what's going on. Also, a short description of the players involved for those unfamiliar with the names would be helpful (if at all possible; often an online alias is used).
I'll grab the low-hanging fruit. (Old-timers: Yeah, I know, sorry.):
Jenkins/Hamblin debate on the historicity of the Book of Mormon
This is one of the few times that a top-tier non-LDS academic has gone toe-to-toe with a well-known apologist. In this case, they've both got blogs at the same host site, Patheos.com, and, both being historians with an interest in Near East Studies, were already familiar with one another's work and very respectful (at least publicly) of the other's acumen in a non-LDS academic context.
Philip Jenkins is a professor of history at Baylor University in the United States, and co-director for Baylor's Program on Historical Studies of Religion in the Institute for Studies of Religion. Extensive publications on the history of Christianity and other Near East history. Grew up in the UK (Wales) and is Cambridge educated.
Bill Hamblin is a professor of history at BYU. He is a former board member of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at BYU, and has written on archaeology and the Book of Mormon, both in general articles and for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Also served as editor of the LDS apologetics journal Interpreter, and has contributed articles there as well. Has published well-respected books on non-LDS Near East history as well.
Jenkins describes the debate as follows:
"Between May and July 2015, I posted several items on my Anxious Bench blog concerning historicity and pseudo-history, and in the process, I denied any (literal) historical or archaeological claims associated with the Book of Mormon. My assertions naturally drew forth quite an intense reaction, reflected in numerous comments at my blog. From mid-June, these statements also provoked a blog war with BYU historian Bill Hamblin, a leading proponent of the school of Ancient Book of Mormon Studies. He hosted a debate at his blog, Enigmatic Mirror, which generated some dozens of contributions by the two of us."
Jenkins put up a page with links to the posts, mostly in sequence. The first couple of posts by Jenkins sort of set things up for what's to follow, when Hamblin enters the ring.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p ... bating.htm
Yeah, that'll keep you busy for a bit. I think I read the whole thing in one marathon session -- I just couldn't put it down.
One of my favorite comments in this exchange (and thanks to our Dr. Scratch here for quoting it in one of his posts on MD) is when Jenkins responds to Hamblin's repeated assertion that Jenkins has no business even commenting on Book of Mormon historicity because he hadn't read all the published LDS and apologetic material on it. In response, Jenkins repeatedly asserts that that was completely unnecessary (though he did say that he had read the Book of Mormon), as there was not a single piece of non-LDS-accepted evidence (e.g., archeology, linguistics, DNA, morphology, cultural anthropology, etc.) for any Book of Mormon truth claims, so why bother?
After a lot of back and forth about this, Jenkins writes to Hamblin:
"Can you help with a problem absolutely and totally unrelated to Book of Mormon issues?
I’d like to discuss the idea of Bigfoot (Sasquatch) with you. Now, we obviously can’t discuss this properly before you have read everything in the field, which would be probably a hundred or so books, not to mention a few thousand magazine articles. However, to be fair-minded and comprehensive, I know you’ll want to read every page of everything that is written before you are able to express an opinion on this vital question of the day. Read first, opine later!
Oh, and there are also tons of videos to work through.
So if I send you a bibliography of Bigfoot studies, you will read it exhaustively? Then we can have a frank and honest discussion, based on real substance. Don’t tell me you won’t take the time to read!
Of course, it is also possible that you will think the whole idea is drivel, and you have better ways of using your valuable time. That prejudice might change if someone could cite one plausible or credible bit of evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot, but you probably haven’t seen one yet. So frankly, why bother, eh?
Now, let’s return to the question of me plowing my way through the entire literature of Ancient Book of Mormon Fantasies before we can have a serious discussion….
Looking forward to our discussion!"
----------------
~m#9