Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract

[_Blixa]

The ideas may seem extreme, though in large part they are just taking the idea of the restoration to its most absurd conclusion [or is the conclusion really that absurd considering the premise?], but I don't think you can say its badly written. That's a pretty sad way to dismiss it.

"The doctrine of restoration we argue has been understated in relation to Joseph Smith's role. His position as a king could have in fact reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings. But his role of restorer might help to explain some of the even more important, peculiar and alarming actions of Joseph Smith, specifically in relation to polygamy, which practiced for a limited time may well have been a vestigial component of the restoration itself."

Joseph Smith's position reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings? That qualifies as bad writing in my book.

A tad awkward, but it's one sentence. It would read better, "His position as a king could have in fact reflected an instance of the post-exilic reign of kings." I don't "agree" with the text, by the way, but its still not an example of "undergraduate" writing, or whatever you think dismisses it. Whether it is credible as apologetics or parody thereof is another matter entirely...

[_Nevo]

A tad awkward, but it's one sentence. It would read better, "His position as a king could have in fact reflected an instance of the post-exilic reign of kings." I don't "agree" with the text, by the way, but its still not an example of "undergraduate" writing, or whatever you think dismisses it. Whether it is credible as apologetics or parody thereof is another matter entirely...

That's a bit better but it's still not a meaningful sentence. Can you imagine a biblical scholar saying that "David's position as a king reflected an instance of the pre-exilic reign of kings?"

Anyway, this thing isn't credible on any level: as apologetics it's worthless; as parody it overreaches.

[_Blixa]

A tad awkward, but it's one sentence. It would read better, "His position as a king could have in fact reflected an instance of the post-exilic reign of kings." I don't "agree" with the text, by the way, but its still not an example of "undergraduate" writing, or whatever you think dismisses it. Whether it is credible as apologetics or parody thereof is another matter entirely...

That's a bit better but it's still not a meaningful sentence. Can you imagine a biblical scholar saying that "David's position as a king reflected an instance of the pre-exilic reign of kings?"

Anyway, this thing isn't credible on any level: as apologetics it's worthless; as parody it overreaches.

Well, no I can't imagine a scholar of the Bible even treading into this apologetic territory.

Anyway I find "post-exilic" humorous in terms of LDS restorational rhetoric, so I'm well satisfied.

[_Mister Scratch]

The ideas may seem extreme, though in large part they are just taking the idea of the restoration to its most absurd conclusion [or is the conclusion really that absurd considering the premise?], but I don't think you can say its badly written. That's a pretty sad way to dismiss it.

"The doctrine of restoration we argue has been understated in relation to Joseph Smith's role. His position as a king could have in fact reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings. But his role of restorer might help to explain some of the even more important, peculiar and alarming actions of Joseph Smith, specifically in relation to polygamy, which practiced for a limited time may well have been a vestigial component of the restoration itself."

Joseph Smith's position reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings? That qualifies as bad writing in my book.

Is the writing somewhat crummy and overly obscure? Well, yes. To a certain extent, it is. Is this how many academics and apologists actually write? Yes, it is.

[_Sethbag]

I'm starting to agree with Nevo. I think Gadianton is yanking our chains. I still think it's funny, as Beastie points out, that the apologists can't seem to come up with any kind of opinion on what was written without knowing who wrote it.

[_Dr. Shades]

Let's face it: Isn't the piece in question representative of modern mopologetics taken to its necessary extreme?

The summer seminar is about defusing criticisms of Joseph Smith. If we're all honest with ourselves, isn't the argument put forth therein pretty much the only possible way to defend Joseph Smith, once we finally quit denying the historical facts?

[_Sethbag]

I don't think a lot of apologists are ready to quit denying the facts though. For them, nothing will matter so long as "the jury is still out" and "not all the facts are in", and there it will end, hanging in mental limbo for the rest of their lives. Or they'll chalk it up to something we can't understand because we weren't there, but if we had been, and knew and understand the mind of God, it would make sense to us.

[_beastie]

I'm not sure that charity's reaction ought to be extrapolated to "most MADdites." Probably most of them haven't even read it. And it's so badly written that those who did may have just ignored it.

Nevo,

You were the only believer willing to comment on the actual content on the thread Charity created. That's what I'm basing my comments on.

I've seen apologetics that were just as much of a stretch as this piece is, but because the right name was on the piece, it was defended. I mean, really, is this any more of a reach than Gardner speculating that "horses and chariots" really referred to the spiritual animal companion (called the way) that accompanied royalty into battle? Or, frankly, that horses were really tapirs? Horses = tapirs is a very bad argument due to the context of the Book of Mormon, and yet it is defended to the death over at MAD. But it's got the right names behind it.

[_Sethbag]

I'm wavering again. As much as I want to side with Nevo that someone is making this up just to yank our chains, I think it would have taken a mind truly committed to the mumbo jumbo to have come up with the phrase in the title, like "restoration contract" and "Godly concession". That's too obviously a Nibley wannabe trying to come up with an sophisticated, "scholarly" kind of a dress to clothe the pig in, so that we will be so impressed we won't notice it's still a pig.

[Guest]

Nevo! Good to see you, it's been a long time. As for your comments on the paper's quality, what can I say? Ultimately it just reflects bad on the MI. Like I said myself, I have a hard time seeing it make the cut. I will also note that the one recognizable (to someone not in the loop at least) name on the paper is by no means an expert on the Old Testament, I'm pretty sure. I noticed the "post-exile" paradox too, figured it was a typo and kind of overshadowed by the other junk. Anyway, can you imagine a real Bible scholar presenting at a Joseph Smith spin-doctoring contest?

I disagree on your assessment about FAIR/MAD. You wrote, "And it's so badly written that those who did may have just ignored it." Do you really believe that? I mean, the trashier it is, the quicker the apologists pounce. If you don't mind me saying, scholarly study of the Bible is kind of your hobby horse. And I can imagine stumbling across something this outlandish and poorly presented that's touching on your turf tripped a circuit somewhere in the Nevosphere and just kind of pissed you off. And deepening the irritation, is the fact that some critics seem to think it might be representative of the apologists' work or at least could be. Well, that's all understandable to me. Of course, I hope at least one of the collaborators makes it to MI summer smith camp next year and pushes it through, even if modified a bit. And if that happens, I hope you're going to look at the paper with the same contempt, even if that means burning a bridge or two with apologists you might currently respect.