Remembering Jenkins/Hamblin

[_Lemmie]

Oh come on. Hamblin was the one who posed the question that Jenkins couldn't answer--What would qualify as evidence of something there is no evidence for?

Jenkins was stumped on that one and Hamblin gracefully took the prize.

Has an apologist used that yet? If not, they will soon. They read here obsessively, and I get the sense that some are truly irony-impaired.

[_Lemmie]

Had some time, so I re-read a couple of Jenkins‘ posts. Still as fascinating as ever, plus the added bonus of the comments. Mopologists did not comport themselves well at all. Rappleye, in particular, has quite a way with words. Here’s an excerpt that had me in stitches:

Neal Rappleye • 5 years ago

Dr. Jenkins,

As a dreaded "Mormon apologist," I have quietly paid attention to your various blog posts on the Book of Mormon, but have not felt a need to comment or respond.

Frankly, your lack of engagement with the actual literature on these topics have made your comments so unrelated to the what is actually going on that it has seemed entirely unnecessary to respond.

I understand why you do not really care to spend a lot of time dealing with Mormon apologetic claims, but I hope you will likewise understand why I therefore do not see a need to respond to you....

...Similar problems persist in your other blog posts on the Book of Mormon. As I indicated above, I am hardly interested in going through them all. Nor am interested in having a long debate with you about it here. So, while you are welcome to make whatever comments in response you feel so inclined to make, don't hold your breath waiting for a response.

...But I would like to extend an invitation.... If you are willing to seriously review the volume [book published by Gardner] and publish your review on this blog or elsewhere, I will personally have a copy sent to you as soon as it is available, free of charge. You can contact me through the contact form on my blog...

http://disq.us/p/ydy5h0

Jenkins replies with great restraint and not inconsiderable irony:

philipjenkins Mod Neal Rappleye • 5 years ago • edited

You make a reasonable offer, and your invitation to debate is well phrased....

http://disq.us/p/ydzd7c

[_Kishkumen]

In my view the real significance of the Jenkins/Hamblin debate is that it constitutes the first time a non-LDS historian with real career gravitas told an LDS academic and apologist point blank: "The Book of Mormon does not meet the minimum evidentiary threshold even to be considered by scholars as a possible ancient work."

It is not as though other people, including the Reverend here, had not said the same thing before. Jenkins said it a lot better, and he said it as a non-LDS historian of some reputation (and debatably with no real dog in the fight).

[_Dr Moore]

In my view the real significance of the Jenkins/Hamblin debate is that it constitutes the first time a non-LDS historian with real career gravitas told an LDS academic and apologist point blank: "The Book of Mormon does not meet the minimum evidentiary threshold even to be considered by scholars as a possible ancient work."

Mormon Apologists are entrepreneurial marketers. They may not self identify that way, but I think that's what they are.

So when Jenkins says he isn't buying because "the Book of Mormon does not meet the minimum evidentiary threshold to be considered by scholars as a possible ancient work" (your words Reverend) that is invaluable feedback.

Entrepreneurial marketers do one thing exceptionally well: listen. Listen to customers, product managers, executives, even to the customer of the customer. How else is the marketer supposed to craft a better story?

Does Hamblin listen to this new information? Does he take that information back to the war room and advocate a different approach?

No. He commits the cardinal sin of marketing. He argues with the informed buyer.

[_Physics Guy]

Huh.

I think that’s exactly why I stopped posting on the MDDB board. They started to complain that I, the at least somewhat informed potential buyer, had not already sold myself on their product.

[_Dr Exiled]

In my view the real significance of the Jenkins/Hamblin debate is that it constitutes the first time a non-LDS historian with real career gravitas told an LDS academic and apologist point blank: "The Book of Mormon does not meet the minimum evidentiary threshold even to be considered by scholars as a possible ancient work."

This is a key point. A respected outside scholar came into the ring with the Mormon PhD's and showed them how empty their claim of historicity was and how it is viewed by the outside academy. So, who really cares if this or that Mormon PhD testifies about the nonsense? These are equally duped as the ordinary member is. Their advanced degrees have no meaning or weight any longer and so the reason for being duped must be because of some psychological reason along the lines of Festinger's research.

[_moksha]

Had some time, so I re-read a couple of Jenkins‘ posts.

Did you read far enough to have an opinion on whether the Denisovans were LDS?