Lemmie wrote:You're absolutely right, Doctor Scratch. While Jenkins certainly did not "refuse to read ANYTHING," as Hamblin erroneously states in a phrase apparently misinterpreted by 6equj5, I agree that his main point, made over and over, was that reading large amounts of bad writing on an imaginary topic is not necessary. His Bigfoot exposition, which I imagine was written in a state of great exasperation, illustrates the point quite well:Doctor Scratch wrote:Hamblin says "Jenkins refused to read ANYTHING on the topic." The "topic" in this case was the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or, more specifically, the Mopologists' pet theories about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Thus, reading the Book of Mormon is probably kind of important, and would (one would think) count as "SOMETHING" worth reading.
But that's a hyper-literal reading of what's going on. What Hamblin actually means is that Jenkins was dismissive of the Mopologists' own shoddy "scholarship" on the topic--stuff that has never been published in legitimate scholarly journals (i.e., peer-reviewed by actual experts and not tendentious Mormon "friends" of Interpreter). Jenkins discussed all of this in detail: he pointed out that you don't really need to read Sorenson or Gardner because, hey, guess what? Neither of them provides concrete, empirical evidence that would support the Book of Mormon being a legitimate history of southern Mexico.Jenkins, on the subject of Bigfoot writings, wrote:
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!
lulz....
Do you even grammar bro?