Interpreter throws Grant Hardy under a bus?

[Doctor Scratch]

Meanwhile, Interpreter’s chairman and SeN proprietor “confess[es] that I haven't yet read Dr. Boyce's article -- I've been on the road too much of late!”

That seems like a hazardous way of doing things. Isn't it risky to openly plug an article that you haven't bothered to read? Aren't he and Midgley constantly berating Gemli for not going into their rabbit warren of Mopologetic sources? He ought to be criticizing himself. Here he is, "President" of the Interpreter Foundation, and he's championing an article--which throws Grant Hardy under the bus--and he hasn't even read it? Quite shameful.

I do think that Gadianton’s post here stung. Why? I notice that the SeN proprietor quickly added a tepid note to his post that he is “plainly on record (often, and as recently as last week) as an admirer of Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon.”

I would imagine that some of the Mopologists are still angry at Hardy for some of the things that he said at the FAIR Conference a few years back--i.e., that you can still get into the CK (or Added Upon?) even if you think the Book of Mormon is fiction.

[Gadianton]

Moroni also possessed this dualistic “militant humility” or “lethal love” of the gospel, if you will. Neither is a particularly complex character, and are arguably closer to a paper cutout than not.

Yeah, the question is was this a flaw or not? For normal people, it's obviously a flaw. The Book of Mormon doesn't speak of it as a flaw, and so in the "Book of Mormon is history" in the most extreme sense, where the values of record keeper are true implicitly as a function of it being 'true history', then do not stand in the way of the Lord and do not show sympathy to those who do.