Hamblin Accuses Jenkins of Anti-Mormon Prejudice

[_Doctor Scratch]

After announcing recently that if the old-school Mopologists were still in power at the MI, they would be plotting out a "systematic" attack on Jenkins, Bill Hamblin has decided to go it alone on his blog, "Enigmatic Mirror," via a series of "throw-down"-style posts. The most recent one is rather intriguing, since he compares Mormons to Jews, and suggests that Jenkin's argument is akin to anti-semitic prejudice:

It seems clear that Jenkins is engaging in rhetorical posturing in order to marginalize LDS scholars, and thereby relieve himself of any obligation to actually read what they have to say, and respond to their actual arguments. If is not published by secular journals, it can be safely ignored.

Of course, it is still within living memory that Jews have been marginalized or even ostracized from scholarly circles precisely and only because they were Jewish.

Hamblin also tries to make the case that, because LDS MesoAmericanists have degrees from accredited universities, that they publish in secular peer-reviewed journals, and they are respected as colleagues in the field, that their Book of Mormon work therefore must be "respected":

There are about a dozen professional LDS Mesoamericanists who accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[...]

I maintain that these LDS Mesoamericanists are authentic scholars, not cranks as Jenkins implies. As evidence for my argument I note the following:

1- They all have received Ph.D degrees from accredited non-Mormon universities in Mesoamerican studies.
2- Most teach Mesoamerican studies at accredited universities—some at BYU, but others at secular schools.
3- They regularly attend and present papers at the professional meetings in the field.
4- Some lead—not just participate in—major archaeological digs in Mesoamerica.
5- They publish peer reviewed articles in the standard academic journals, edit books and journals, and publish university press books in their field.

These are all objective criteria by which we can determine that LDS Mesoamericanists are accepted and well respected in the discipline. (This does not mean, of course, that their views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon are accepted.) While the Book of Mormon may not be accepted as authentic history by non-Mormon Mesoamericanists, Book-of-Mormon-believing scholars are routinely accepted as authentic scholars by non-Mormon Mesoamericanists. Because these LDS Mesoamericanists are accepted as authentic scholars in their field, their views on historicity of the Book of Mormon at least merit some degree of attention, if not respect.

The problem is transparently obvious, though. Sure: the Mesoamericanists are 'scholars in their field,' but the Book of Mormon is not accepted as part of the field. Hamblin's argument is akin to saying that a neurosurgeon's views on alien brain surgery should be taken seriously, or that a zoologist's views on big foot ought to be treated seriously.

In the Comments section, Hamblin says to someone--it's not clear who--:

I understand. However, doesn't the obvious expertise of LDS scholars in Mesoamerican studies imply their views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon should at least be given a serious examination? Or do they suddenly become incompetent when dealing with the Book of Mormon?

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

[_Kishkumen]

If a world-class scholar of genetics believes in aliens, do we have to take belief in aliens seriously? Such a view is the very definition of argument from authority. It is the argument that should demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis, not the credentials of the person who forwards the hypothesis.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Aaaaand this is why the PAC-12 took a pass on BYU.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Hamblin commits the classic fallacy of the excluded middle: one can be both an "authentic scholar" and a "crank." Lynn Margulis was a brilliant biologist and a crank on the subject of AIDS. See also Linus Pauling and Vitamin C; Freeman Dyson and Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Every crank thinks he's a bona fide authority.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Jenkins responds:

I think people have an amazing ability to juggle differing world views. I encounter Mormon apologists who are suberbly educated, in professions that demand immense critical skill, yet that seems to abandon them when they move into the religious realm. The same is true, to varying degrees of other faiths.

Isaac Newton, one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, spent a large amount of his time writing total garbage on apocalyptic and religious themes (Garbage not because it was religious or Christian: it was just out and out nutty). That dissociation again.

But perhaps you are asking the wrong person. Why is it that these fine archaeologists, who publish in flagship academic journals on mainstream topics, do not try to place work supporting the Book of Mormon in those same outlets? Let's ask them.

[_Gadianton]

This may be one of those times when the best strategy is to go after any double standards Jenkins may hold for the Bible. Unfortunately, that's not possible anymore as Hamblin has declared the Bible to be infallible based on its own declaration of itself as the word of God. That was in response to David Bokovoy, who questions the historical underpinnings of the Bible.

So the only avenue of defense now is to sledge along the hard ground of Book of Mormon evidence. I participated a little in the thread with Jenkins to translate apologetics to him and his readers, because there were a lot of junior apologists showing up and coming up with the most bizarre arguments for the Book of Mormon based on Mopologetics and Jenkins had no idea what was going on. One apologist even brought up the Skousen 16th century English study to be rock-solid proof of the Book of Mormon divinity whereas any archeology he declared shaky and untrustworthy.

Well, I tried to explain that the apologists don't offer the kinds of evidence he's looking for. It's not just a matter of supporting extraordinary claims. Alien neuroscience and Bigfoot studies could find a respectable champion if the right kinds of evidence were brought to the table. Of course, on that day, there may be a chance to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. A big issue with the apologists is their methodology. Mostly, they've created this world that they alone occupy of "internal evidence". Well, we've seen how Darth J found Rome in the Book of Mormon when we can't find the Book of Mormon in Rome.

Is it possible that some of this internal evidence could be of value? Sure, I guess. But are there any standards for evaluating that kind of evidence? When was the last time a document in English with no extant source text was placed as a translation of an ancient language that may only exist in shadowy speculative connections to other known ancient languages, and based on internal evidence alone? It seems like on textual grounds the KJV and the Late War would dominate anything the apologists have produced.

If the apologists have developed some game-changing methods, then my suggestion is to apply these same methods to a historical puzzle without any religious or political controversy and first convince the world of that, and then move on to the Book of Mormon.

[_Symmachus]

Jenkins is actually responding?

What a coup for this old FARMSian! His existence as an apologist is finally being recognized by an established scholar, and to top it off he gets to defend the faith with curmudgeonly abandon.

[_cinepro]

Of course, it is still within living memory that Jews have been marginalized or even ostracized from scholarly circles precisely and only because they were Jewish.

What an odd argument. Jews were excluded not because of what they believed but because of who they were.

Mormon scholars aren't being ignored because other scholars are prejiduced against Mormons (and won't golf at the same clubs with them, or allow their children to marry them etc.). They ignore Mormon scholars on the subject of the Book of Mormon because they find the arguments themselves to be foolish.

It would be fascinating to see a Kerry Muhlstein or other Mormon scholar actually try to publish an article in a scholarly non-LDS journal about unique LDS beliefs. Do they even try?

[_EAllusion]

Or do they suddenly become incompetent when dealing with the Book of Mormon?

The short answer to this question, of course, is yes, yes they do. It is not uncommon for scholars who are otherwise competent and well-respected to engage in shoddy scholarship in areas where they have ideological commitments. Several famous examples have been listed. Such is the nature of bias. That religious commitments has this corrupting influence on them speaks poorly to the influence of their religion, though.

I think we are witnessing the offensive prong I referenced in this post:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38323

[_cwald]

Thanks for the update.