Runtu wrote:Pahoran wrote:I agree that that is a derisive misreading.
And it appears to be yours.
So, your dismissal of his scholarship with the aside about false modesty is not a statement about the author's ego? Let's see, you say that the author thinks his own scholarship is formidable, and yet that has nothing to do with your statement?
It is referring to the book. The author thinks the scholarship in the book is formidable. How do I know? He says so. Does he make any claims for himself? None that I can see. Does the review attribute to him any claims for himself? Not that I've noticed.
Mr. Holding is in the same situation as a director who has made what he thinks is another Gone With The Wind, and a movie critic has described it as comparable to European Vacation. Of course he takes it personally, but the review is not about him.
And if he writes a response in which he supposes that it is about him, then he has missed the point.
Runtu wrote:I did not notice that the review took issue with any of Holding's sources. It takes issue with the arguments he derives, either from them or otherwise.
This might be true had you actually addressed any of the arguments instead of picking at a few nits. You specifically said that you were not addressing his arguments.
Who "you?" We are talking about the review.
And the review is just that--a review.
Some of the review essays FARMS publishes address specific arguments in detail; some do not. Some are considerably shorter than the one under discussion; others, including one by the same reviewer, are much longer. In fact, I believe "Letters To An Anti-Mormon" may still be the longest review FARMS ever published. A book review, at the end of the day, is nothing more or less than the reviewer's reaction to the book. A reviewer may choose to go into detail about why s/he feels a particular way about the book, or not.
Sometimes FARMS will publish more than one review of a book. If TMD gets changed in a future edition, or if it gets a sudden upsurge in popularity or if anti-Mormon "ministries" start using it as a "witnessing tool," a longer review may appear.
And the same reviewer might even write it.
Runtu wrote:I think you are confused. There are no "sneering insults" in the review, only in Holding's "hissy fit" response.
Maybe I just read it like a Pahoran post, which usually is one long sneering insult.
In your rather jaundiced opinion. Thank you for admitting, though, that the "sneering insults" were what you read into the review, rather than what was actually there.
Runtu wrote:You are not helping your hero. Paul uses the practice to support his doctrinal argument. Indeed, it is the climax of his argument, the triumphant "ta-da!" moment. How could a practice "devoid of theological meaning" be the keystone of a theological argument?
My hero? You can't be serious.
Must we reprise your admiring gush about how devastatingly accurate his response was?
Runtu wrote:Again, Holding says that the practice is without theological meaning. I always thought that was the traditional argument against baptism for the dead. Either way, you characterized him as saying that the passage is meaningless, which is a misrepresentation. You got it wrong, Pahoran; you could at least concede to have misread that part.
Interestingly, Holding does not make that argument in his response. Either you have picked up on something he didn't, or the distinction isn't nearly as important as you think it is. Holding, I am sure, recognises that there is no "misreading" in that aspect of it. If the practice is meaningless, then it necessarily follows that any passage arguing from it is likewise meaningless. That's why he chose to make an issue of "theological" meaning, presumably as opposed to merely verbal meaning.
Runtu wrote:Gee, I would also think that most of us understand that admitting the point is there and addressing it does not constitute arguing in favour of it.
But why is not admitting it a fault in an apologetic book?
Any expository writing is "apologetic" with regard to the point of view it espouses. And for an argument or exposition to be sound, it needs to engage alternative viewpoints. It isn't necessary for Holding to give the alternative equal weight, but it doesn't do to present two alternatives as if they exhaust the possibilities. The majority of commentators--including non-LDS ones--accept the third alternative that Holding overlooks: namely, that the passage describes a vicarious baptism that was practiced by believing Christians, and that it enjoyed a high degree of prestige. Note that Holding's minority brief was once the majority view, but is now in full retreat. The best scholarship is increasingly showing that the Latter-day Saints have read that passage right all along, although for a long time we were on our own.
Runtu wrote:By working it over to make it appear considerably nastier than it really was. Which tells me that you know it wasn't nearly as nasty as you are trying to make it appear.
So you're admitting it was nasty?
I'm admitting that anything less than sheer adulation will be seen as "nasty" by some. I'm also admitting that Holding's response, your posts, and the OP by the great deceiver, are each far nastier than the review or anything therein.
Runtu wrote:I can show the "snarkiness" of Holding's response by providing unmutilated quotes devoid of editorial interference. Can you do the same to the review? Yes or no?
I think the following quote is sufficiently snarky in its "unmutilated" form:"The only overriding principle appears to be a search for whatever readings provide the most useful argument against Latter-day Saint beliefs and truth claims."
So the review is not mere admiring gush. Can you, with a straight face, say that it is "snarkier" than any one of the following?
Does the review say anything remotely as "snarky" as "the author may as well have written a song about birthday cakes and rainy days?"
Does the review say anything remotely as "snarky" as asking where the author has "been living all these years?"
Does the review say anything remotely as "snarky" as "aimless carping?"
Does the review say anything remotely as "snarky" as calling Holding's book a "hissy fit?"
Can you point to anything in the review remotely that "snarky?"
Because you haven't yet.
The passage you've cited from the review describes the overall approach of the book. Here is the nearest I could find to a parallel statement from Holding's response:
Maybe McGregor was p.o.'d because I sent him running to the dictionary too many times, or perhaps he missed his laxatives the day he wrote the review. Either way this review was a far cry from the sort of responsible report I had been expecting from FARMS, and while I must make it clear that this doesn't tarnish the reputation of the whole of LDS apologists in my view, it does make a certain one named McGregor smell a lot like a weasel.
And this is your idea of "equally snarky," is it? Really and truly?
Could I say things like that about any of my opponents and thus earn your undying admiration the way Holding has?
Can you not see how vast your double standards are here?
Runtu wrote:The review summarises a number of his arguments and shows how the methodology changes from argument to argument, with the one constant being the conclusion.
Sounds an awful lot like what FARMS does.
Does it? And so? Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy making cheap shots?
Runtu wrote:I agree that your far-fetched and--what was your phrase again? "derisive misreading"--would qualify as ad hominem, but the review does not describe him as "an opportunistic and unprincipled attacker," or indeed in any terms even approaching that. That is your own opinion, to which you are fully entitled, but the review does not support it.
It was indeed a misreading; clearly an intentional one.
No, not intentional at all, and not, in my opinion, a misreading.
You are at all times entitled to your opinion.
Now, repeat after me: the review was about the book. Not about the author.
Keep repeating until the penny drops.
Runtu wrote:You should not have brought the question of anyone's personal honesty into the frame. The review certainly did not. Your post is "snarky," inulting and personal; the review is not. Thus, your post fails to surpass the review on any of the points with which you choose to find fault.
You're right. I should not have questioned your honesty, and I apologize for that.
Apology cheerfully accepted.
Regards,
Pahoran