A ZLMB Classic: Prof. Hamblin Lectures RfM

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

A ZLMB Classic: Prof. Hamblin Lectures RfM

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Many folks here have said before that ZLMB contains a wealth of positively fascinating material. Well, I have found that to be true. What follows is quite a stunning (and revelatory) posting which was made by Professor Bill Hamblin on RfM. It was reprinted for everybody's reading pleasure on ZLMB. I will intersperse my remarks in the text.

>>From: William Hamblin
Sent: Friday, 15 August 2003 12:37 PM

I've been lurking on the "Recovery" board for a while, and have really been astonished by what I've seen here.


One cannot help but wonder what he means by "for a while"---i.e., does he make a habit out of it, like his comrade, DCP?

The following are my observations. They are not meant to be an indictment of everyone who posts on this board. I have certainly not read everything said here, and have no interest in doing so. I've merely selected to read from a few topics that piqued my interest. However, I've seen enough of the following characteristics to lead one to suspect there might be some endemic problems on this board.


A neat apologetic two-step here. He says his "observations" aren't intended as "an indictment of everyone", but he nonetheless "suspects" "endemic problems."

Non-Recovery
Using this board as a place to "recover" from Mormonism is like holding an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in a bar during Happy Hour when the drinks are on the house. Recovery from Mormonism will occur only when you let it go. If you don't believe in or like the Church, leave it and let it go. Move on. There are lots of wonderful things to do in life, but ranting about Mormonism is not one of them. People who hang around this board obsessing about everything the Church does will never "recover" from Mormonism.


In other words "shut up!" It is funny how often this refrain crops up amongst Mopologists. What follows is what appears to me to be an astonishing outpouring of vitriol from Prof. B. Take a close look at this, and notice how he seems to relish his use of "the K word":

Bigotry
All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size: "I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em--six hundred and thirteen. This proves they're a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it's because he's a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn't I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can't get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I'm not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts." It simply won't do to insist that you're not really a bigot because what you believe about Mormonism is really true. Anti-Semites honestly think their not bigots either--what they believe about Jews is really true: "I'm not bigoted! There really is an international Jewish banking conspiracy."


Am I alone in thinking there are many, many problems with this? (Perhaps Wade, our resident eminence grise on bigotry can swoop in to explain this for us.) Not only does Prof. Hamblin seem to actually enjoy slinging these racist slurs, but he demonstrates quite a rich familiarity with a number of Jewish stereotypes, which he happily employs in order to try and get his point across.

Anyways, on with the harangue:

Vulgarity
It is quite amazing how vulgar some people on this board are. Is this what "recovery" is supposed to do? Is there any point to this vulgarity? Now you're at last free from the chains Mormonism as last you can be as vulgar as you want to be. Congratulations!

Stereotyping
All Morgbots walk in single file; at least the one I saw did. I once knew a Mormon who was stupid; all Mormons are stupid. There was a Bishop who offended me; all Mormons are offensive. There is a Mormon who committed murder; all Mormons are violent. There is a Mormon who made a stupid argument in favor of the Book of Mormon; all arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon are stupid.


It is just getting embarrassing at this point. Where was DCP to tell him to stop?

Close-mindedness
I'm astonished at how many times people on this board have said that they don't need to read anything written by Mormon scholars because they know the Church is false. This is precisely as stupid as a Mormon who says he doesn't need to read anything about Hinduism because he knows Hinduism is false. If one is uninformed and refuses to read on a topic, the proper intellectual posture is to withhold judgment on the topic. But not on the "Recovery" board.


At least there is no shortage of "judgment" from Prof. B! At the rate he's going here, he must be a veritable expert on RfM!

Gullibility
Anything negative said about the Church, its beliefs, practices and members finds an instant gullible audience on this board. Everything negative about the Church is automatically thought to be true by some here. There is apparently no anti-Mormon argument so stupid that it won't be believed by some people on this board. In reality, however: The Church may still be false, even if Krakauer is wrong about Mormonism being responsible for the Lafferty murders. The Church may still be false, even if Brigham Young did not order the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The Church may still be false, even if most Latter day Saints are basically decent people. The Church may still be false, even if there is evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. The Church may still be false, even if there is no great conspiracy in Salt Lake to suppress the freedom of speech of the Unitarians and ACLU. The Church may still be false, even if it's unhealthy to drink alcohol. The Church may still be false, even if sexual promiscuity is a social and personal ill. The Church may still be false, even if it does some good in the world. The Church may still be false, even if some of its teachings are true. You can still logically believe the Church is false, even if some of the bad things said about the Church are false.


More silliness. It really doesn't seem like Prof. B. paused to really fully think out his thoughts before he posted. (And further, he didn't have sense enough to prevent this from being re-posted on ZLMB.) This above bit about gullibility sounds strikingly familiar to a typical Mopologetic form of argument.

Arrogance
For many on this board, it seems that once your mind is freed from the shackles of Mormonism you are suddenly capable of being absolutely right about absolutely everything. When I find a cartoonist pontificating with absolute certitude about the history of religion, for example--on topics where mere mortals with PhDs have spent lifetimes of study and still are unable to resolve disputed issues--you will have to forgive me for being dubious about the intellectual rigor required by many on this board. It is possible for stupid people to believe a true idea for illogical reasons. In fact, it is quite likely that all true ideas are believed by someone or another for fallacious reasons. Because a stupid person believes an idea for an illogical reason, it does not prove the idea is wrong. It is also possible for very intelligent people to believe false ideas for very good reasons. (Take geocentricity, for example.) It is possible to give valid arguments for a false proposition. It is also possible to give invalid arguments for a true proposition. There are a number or reasons--limitations of human reason, human fallibility, opposing paradigms, ambiguities of evidence—why intelligent people of good will can disagree about complicated and controversial matters. But not on the "Recovery" board. Here all intelligent, right-thinking, and honest people agree with absolute certitude that Mormonism is not simply false, but so manifestly absurd that anyone who believes in it is a liar or an idiot.


A nice little dig at Steve Benson here. I wonder if he carried over this attitude towards arrogance to FAIR/MAD?

Ad Hominem
It seems that if you disagree with any of the dogmas of the Recoveryboard, you are a bad person. Once again, for some on this board, it is not possible that intelligent people of good will can honestly disagree about complicated and controversial issues. If someone happens to believe that a plausible case can be made for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, that person is not simply mistaken. He is a moron and a liar. In the real world one can be mistaken without being an idiot and a liar. But not for some on the "Recovery" board. If Latter-day Saints have a different understanding of their history than do non-Latter day Saints, the Church is not simply mistaken, it is hiding THE TRUTH about its history. Rather than seriously dealing with the evidence and analysis on the issue, it is a sufficient response to simply note that all Morgbots are brain-dead. You see, they are psychologically trapped in a mind-controlling cult; only when one has "recovered" from this cult can one see THE TRUTH. It is inconceivable that a brain dead Morgbot could possibly think for himself, let alone come up with a cogent argument in favor of his beliefs.

I'm not going to lurk on this board any more. It is a monumental waste of time.


Well, there really is not need for him to lurk, as DCP will be happy to do it for him.

So feel free to blast away at me. Be sure to note that I once made a joke comparing an anti-Mormon to an inane cartoon character.


I believe he is referring to his "Metcalfe is Butthead" gaffe.

Oh, and since someone claims (no need to actually demonstrate) that I once made a mistake on some topic, everything I say about every topic is not only suspect, but demonstrably wrong. Therefore, you can all ignore what I have to say. After all, I'm a mindless Morgbot. Enough said. Don't forget that cogent argument--"I know you are, but what am I." You see, some Mormons are gullible; therefore, all Mormons are gullible. And since people on the "recovery" board are not Mormons, it's impossible that they might be gullible.

I have rarely seen such a manifestation of unbridled obsession, contempt, bigotry and hatred as found among some on this "recovery" board. But what is truly sad is that no one here has the courage to stand up and say so.>> END


Wow.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Hmmm...highly credentialist. Only those with PhD's need apply to discussions of religous history!

Also the term is "closed-minded." Having a "close" mind would mean something else, but I'm not sure what...

The anti-semetic comparision was embarassing. Racism and criticism of members of an organization are not the same thing. Nor are "former jews" the ones usually found slinging anti-semetic comments.

I can't remember if I read this originally on RfM or not..that's how big of an impression his whiney rant made on me.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sat May 26, 2007 11:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Blixa wrote:Hmmm...highly credentialist. Only those with PhD's need apply to discussions of religous history!

Also the term is "closed-minded." Having a "close" mind would mean something else, but I'm not sure what...

The anti-semetic comparision was embarassing. Racism and criticism of members of an organization are not the same thing. Nor are "former jews" the ones usually found slinging anti-semetic comments.


Excellent points. To tell you the truth, I was quite blown away at how carried away he got. This Trump's his "Metcalfe is Butthead" screw-up, in my opinion.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Well, I did get a minor giggle out of that "Gullibility" section: what was his point again? Are all those examples supposed to be somehow similar or of equal importance? And are they all supposed to be examples of things exmos are "gullibile" about? I can't follow the supposed rhetorical trope, here.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Gullibility
Anything negative said about the Church, its beliefs, practices and members finds an instant gullible audience on this board. Everything negative about the Church is automatically thought to be true by some here. There is apparently no anti-Mormon argument so stupid that it won't be believed by some people on this board.


I think RfM as a group pretty much rejects Ed Decker and David Icke.

In reality, however: The Church may still be false, even if Krakauer is wrong about Mormonism being responsible for the Lafferty murders.

I don't recall Krakauer attempting to make this point at all. His book is about the legacy of violent beliefs in Mormonism...some of which have been directly and indirectly disavowed by the Brighamite faction, but are still extant in the beliefs of other branchs.

The Church may still be false, even if Brigham Young did not order the Mountain Meadows Massacre.


At this point I think only some Mormons and Jan Shipps believe this.

The Church may still be false, even if most Latter day Saints are basically decent people.


Where on RfM is this constantly asserted? Many, if not most of the posters still have much loved family members in the church (one of the reasons why they "obsess" about it that Hamblin can't get through his head).

The Church may still be false, even if there is evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon
.

No. That would speak to its truth, wouldn't it? And where is this evidence?

The Church may still be false, even if there is no great conspiracy in Salt Lake to suppress the freedom of speech of the Unitarians and ACLU.


Yuck, yuck. Them ACLU-ers... well, this hardly merits a respons. Suffice it to say that growing up in Utah made it easy for me to understand Gramsci's notion of hegemony when I later encountered it.

The Church may still be false, even if it's unhealthy to drink alcohol.


Apparently not true either.

The Church may still be false, even if sexual promiscuity is a social and personal ill.


Some people believe this. Many do not.

The Church may still be false, even if it does some good in the world.


Yes, so?

The Church may still be false, even if some of its teachings are true.


And if many are not?

You can still logically believe the Church is false, even if some of the bad things said about the Church are false.


Yeah, but many of these examples either aren't false or relevant.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Blixa wrote:Hmmm...highly credentialist. Only those with PhD's need apply to discussions of religous history!

A cursory example of the actual post will demonstrate that this is not what Hamblin implied or said. I'm not saying you misrepresented it on purpose, but you have misrepresented it.


When I find a cartoonist pontificating with absolute certitude about the history of religion, for example--on topics where mere mortals with PhDs have spent lifetimes of study and still are unable to resolve disputed issues--you will have to forgive me for being dubious about the intellectual rigor required by many on this board


This is very apropos to the kinds of forums about which he is speaking and always has been. A half educated, marginally educated, but nonetheless articulate and literate individual like Scratch is a classic example. With others who are not widely read, intellectually mature, or philosophically active, he can talk a very good and convincing game...until you dig a little deeper. He says nothing regarding what could possibly be regarding as a "credentialist" jab at amateur intellectuals.

Hamblin's point is spot on. The Protestant Fundamentalists are, in particular, infamous in this regard (making simplistic, blanket statements about very complex philosophical quandaries and dilemmas as if with a wave of the hand they had, without the deep study and reflection it seems necessary for others, untangled all the knots and solved all the mysteries and ambiguities of such historical questions at a stroke). The exmo and similar boards are overloaded with these kinds of attitudes and mentalities.

However, many secularist exmos or anti-Mormons partake of the same mentality. Just look around in this forum to see Hamblin's point.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

I'm not quite certain it is a misreading, Cog. I've read it again and while yes you could say I over- generalized from his point, is it not a slur against the uncredentialed for daring to tread into arguments yet unsettled by the credentialed? Else why bring up "cartoonist" vs. "Phds"?

I don't really see the kind of thing Hamblin is talking about in the Gullibility section all that represented on RfM or elsewhere. I have seen noob posters bring up things like Icke or Decker, only to be set straight, and I have seen posters bring up other spurious "evidences" (there's a Satanic star on the temple square meeting house!) and again be met with argument and correction.

I never follow the posts of anything that looks "EV" or "Protestant Fundamentalist" because I'm not interested in any "proof" that Mormons aren't xtains, or that they are a Christian hersey, etc. (Although I'm not saying I dismiss anything written by any religous believer out of hand, I'm just saying I don't follow the kind of threads that I think you are alluding to).

RfM does have a more "emotional" tone to it than this board, but that I think is because its where posters usually talk about personal experiences more than inquiring into historical or theological concepts---although the latter does happen there, too.

I will say I've seen more people grasping at the unsupported and bizarre in an effort to support their position on MAD than on any other mormon-related BBS.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I'm not quite certain it is a misreading, Cog. I've read it again and while yes you could say I over- generalized from his point, is it not a slur against the uncredentialed for daring to tread into arguments yet unsettled by the credentialed?


No. Its a critical observation on those who have done little study or deep thinking on such subjects but who yet feel qualified to opine with various degrees of certitude upon them. I concur completely. As I pointed out in another post, there is no reason that amateur intellectuals (thinkers for whom their intellectual endevours are not also there vocation) cannot be just as smart and just as knowledgeable as professional intellectuals. I do not perceive Hamblin's comments to be directed at this group.


I will say I've seen more people grasping at the unsupported and bizarre in an effort to support their position on MAD than on any other mormon-related BBS.


We'll have to agree to disagree on these kinds of subjective impressions.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Blixa wrote:I'm not quite certain it is a misreading, Cog. I've read it again and while yes you could say I over- generalized from his point, is it not a slur against the uncredentialed for daring to tread into arguments yet unsettled by the credentialed? Else why bring up "cartoonist" vs. "Phds"?


I think you're right on the money, Blixa. Steve Benson has clearly spent a great deal of time studying Mormonism, as is evidenced by his many postings on various obscure aspects of Church history and doctrine. (I recall reading an interesting piece of his examining BY's "cruelty" during the trek to Utah.) Further, his status as the grandson of ETB gives him a special, "insider" knowledge that Prof. Hamblin surely resents. Hamblin's dismissal of Benson as a mere "cartoonist" is no different from DCP's "a certain Canadian rock musician" attacks on Tal Bachman.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

No. Its a critical observation on those who have done little study or deep thinking on such subjects but who yet feel qualified to opine with various degrees of certitude upon them. I concur completely. As I pointed out in another post, there is no reason that amateur intellectuals (thinkers for whom their intellectual endevours are not also there vocation) cannot be just as smart and just as knowledgeable as professional intellectuals. I do not perceive Hamblin's comments to be directed at this group.


I would agree with you, Coggins, if the "cartoonist" and "phd" part weren't there. I think that gives the remark an ad hominem and elistist shading.


Quote:
I will say I've seen more people grasping at the unsupported and bizarre in an effort to support their position on MAD than on any other mormon-related BBS.


We'll have to agree to disagree on these kinds of subjective impressions.


Ok, but here's a question.

Does it strike you that MAD has an extremely wide range of posters of varying degrees of philosophical sophistication? I don't mean this as a snipe; I'm trying to describe a feature of MAD that has always intrigued me---that it seems to combine both the intellectual as well as the unschooled and simple believer. I don't think I know offhand of another BBS (devoted to any topic) that isn't separated along, for lack of a better word, "professional" and "amateur" lines. I'm not saying that this is bad (or good), I'm just asking if it also strikes you that way. I find it unusual.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Post Reply