tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4196341061429230444.post6959938281091529085..comments2023-03-29T06:14:24.103-07:00Comments on Calba Savua's Orchard: Moshe Idel and Joseph SmithCalba Savuahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161376199754614838noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4196341061429230444.post-54971432049349012862015-03-16T09:54:51.794-07:002015-03-16T09:54:51.794-07:00I found it odd that Hamblin was so emotionally inv...I found it odd that Hamblin was so emotionally involved with this issue, describing the work of Dr. Lance Owens with as “sheer fantasy,” “smoke and mirrors,” engaging in “legerdemain" to bolster his “flimsy case,” creating “history out of nothing” and pulling a “magic rabbi out of his hat.” Bear in mind, Owen’s work held Mormonism in quite a positive light, describing it as "intrinsically American,” even citing the praise of Bloom, who has admired the “imaginative vitality of Joseph Smith’s revelation.” <br /><br />It appeared to me that the sheer mass of Hamblin’s (70 plus page) rebuttal (plagued by superfluous detail, citation dumping and a bombardment of tangential minutiae) was intended to convince via intimidation (rather than reason) was made clear by his handling, which was far more concerned with casting Owens in a dim light more than anything else, inferring Owen’s work contained absolutely nothing of value, begging the question of why Hamblin never saw fit to explain how the Mormon History Association would grant Best Article Award (1995) to something that far off the mark. No doubt, RLDS historian, Paul M. Edwards, was correct when he stated that there exists a "fundamental deficiency of Mormon historical studies,” characterized by "methods and interpretations have become so traditional that they can only reinforce the fears of yesterday rather than nurture the seeds of tomorrow's dreams.” Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com