_____'s "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"

[_Pahoran]

That is a pretty devastating (and accurate) summary of _____'s review. But it's par for the course: derisive misreadings, attribution of sinister motives, and simple ad hominem. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Can you provide some examples? I've re-read the review, and can't see it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Some excerpts from the response that so many are waxing lyrical over:

I wonder if this review was secretly authored by a Skeptic pretending to be a Mormon.

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

We are told that TMD is "in part, another response to Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide? - a book that seemingly continues to disturb those who have trouble accepting the proposition that individuals can believe differently and still be Christians." Aw, gee, THAT canard again? Skeptic tactic imitated #3: I'm psychoanalyzed and found to be disturbed!

Of course the statement implied nothing of the sort; the normal meaning of "disturb" in this case is "annoy" or "bother." The review draws no conclusions about Holding's mental health, and in fact that statement does not mention him at all; he is being unnecessarily defensive. But what does his magnum opus say?

The seriousness of our situation became urgently clear when InterVarsity Press published an inter-faith dialog... entitled How Wide the Divide?

Note that this comes, not from Holding's own text, but from the Foreword, which was written by somebody else ("Kevin James Bywater," possibly also pseudonymous.) But it was published in Holding's book. However relaxed he may or may not be about HWTD? it clearly bothers Mr. Bywater. Indeed, on that subject he seems to protest too much, as when he says:

I think Blomberg gave a licking and kept on ticking.

And yet it is quite clear, to those who have actually read that volume, that it was not a debate or combat work; no "lickings" were there to be had. This, indeed is what made that book so disturbing to some: Blomberg had the temerity to not only talk to a Mormon (ugh!) like a human being, but he made the fatal mistake (from a polemical standpoint) of allowing the Mormon to speak for his own faith tradition.

Holding also describes the review as a "hissy fit." Had the review said anything similar about Holding's book, Scratch and his cheer squad would be all over it; but when Holding says it, they pass it by in peculiar silence.

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

when Bywater says that "Mormonism is not biblical", it's worthless, because "neither he nor Holding spells out is what they mean by 'biblical.'" Good grief! Canard #4: Pretend you don't know what the opposition is talking about! How hard is this? "Biblical" = "in agreement with the Bible." Obviously, not 100% (because not even the worst atheist disagrees with the Bible 100%) but at core points that are distinctives. There now, wasn't that easy?

Notice the editorial insertions; evidently Mr. Holding doesn't trust his readers to grasp that the review is pronouncing Bywater's dictum "worthless." Perhaps that's because it doesn't. There are no such pejorative dismissives in the review; the "hissy fit" is a Mr. Holding sees is a reflection of his own angry reaction at not meriting a page-by-page rebuttal from one or more of FARMS' heavy hitters, as documented by our own Kevin Graham.

The important thing that Mr. Holding is missing is that his arguments rely upon certain shared assumptions about the meanings of key terms. When Bywater asserts that "Mormonism is not biblical," then he is saying something that, if true, ought to be provable from the Bible; yet not only does Holding not limit himself to the Bible to make his case, he actually relies upon extrabiblical material to determine the interpretation of biblical passages that he will allow. In the end, "Mormonism is not biblical" turns out to mean "Mormons do not read the Bible the way I think they should."

What has clearly happened is that McGregor got in way over his head reviewing TMD, and has produced the same sort of frustrated drivel that I regularly get from atheists who are in over their heads when I refer to things like "honor-shame societies" and "collectivist cultures". I may as well be explaining flight aerodynamics to a naked native.

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

Actually what has clearly happened is that Holding expected a much more detailed response, and instead got a review.

And more! Now it's time for Skeptic Imitation Device #6, "Show your need for a reading lesson." I say:

Therefore, we argue that the majority interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is off the mark. A more reasonable thesis is that the practice was devoid of theological meaning and thus not requiring Paul's explicit condemnation, or else, that we are misunderstanding the passage completely.

McGregor oddly takes this to mean:

Either the passage doesn't mean anything, or we don't understand it - but whatever the case, its meaning must be sacrificed. What isn't biblical?

GOOD GRIEF! No, not "doesn't mean anything," it's "doesn't mean anything theological". See that word "theological" before "meaning"? Ye elohims! And is it like I stopped there and provided nothing to explain how we should be understanding the passage? McGregor's obscuratanism is almost too painful to be borne!

How is this "obscurantism?" The quoted passage offers two alternatives:

1) Either "the practice was devoid of theological meaning";
2) Or "we are misunderstanding the passage completely."

How does the qualifier "theological" materially impact the question? The end of Mr. Holding's learned exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:29 is to offer two mutually exclusive choices so as to distract from the unpalatable third alternative, which is that Paul's contemporaries practiced a vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead, and far from disapproving the practice, Paul actually cited it as evidence in favour of a core Christian doctrine.

Then we have this:

And ugh! Skeptic Tactic #7, already! It's said:

In contrast to this approach, Holding becomes a staunch and loyal enthusiast for majority opinion or scholarship as soon as it suits his purposes.

Um, no, as soon as the data demands it actually, but you won't hear McG stepping into that hornet's nest, now, will you? The subject this time is Mark 16:15-16, and to my note that "the reader may be surprised to see this verse cited by LDS apologists, knowing that it is almost universally declared to be not part of the original Gospel of Mark," McGregor offers the derisive snort, "Just exactly why the fashions of scholarship should determine which passages of scripture form part of the faith of the Latter-day Saints is not clear, but Holding does not even attempt to address the real issue regarding the authenticity and authority of that passage; the actual question has to do not with Mark's authorship but rather with whether Jesus actually made the statement. Matthew 28:19-20 would seem to suggest that he did say it or at least something very much like it." Gack, pfft -- Matt. 28:19-20 is, under the evidence given, a model for Mark 16:15-16, and that "fashion of scholarship" has to do with sound textual-critical principles that I list in full but McGregor doesn't even shake a stick at. I may as well give McG his card for the KJV Onlyist Club. Mark IS the only source for us to decide whether Jesus made that statement as he did, as his text is clearly not original between 16:9-20, and the appeal to Matthew's parallel is a counsel of despair.

Not hardly, no.

Here is the whole "great commission" controversy in a nutshell:

Q) Was the Mark passage borrowed from Matthew?

A) Maybe. Probably. Most authorities think so.

Q) Does that mean that the passage is inauthentic in Mark?

A) It would, yes.

Q) Does that mean that Jesus never said it?

A) No. It does not. Only if we accept that Matthew invented the passage out of whole cloth would that follow. However, the alternative and--in the view of many, more likely--possibility is that Matthew was citing from an independent source--either his own recollection, or some other written urtext, such as the mysterious Logia which some believe to have been written down prior to the Gospels, and used by them as a source.

Q) But isn't Mark the oldest of the gospels and the one that the others copy from?

A) Such is the majority view, yes. But Matthew was there in person; even if he did use Mark's gospel as his starting point, he was entitled as a living witness to add whatever his own memory told him was missing.

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

McGregor then abandons actual argument again to remark upon my "repeatedly assuming that Mormon and Christian are distinct categories." Not an exact Skeptic canard, to be sure, but a common canard from LDS apologists who know no better. As I have told my Mormon friend Kevin Graham, and which he quite clearly understood, my repeated use of such statements as, "A fundamental point of contention between Mormonism and Christianity . . ." is not meant as any kind of social statement about division. These are terms of convenience for the average reader; if I went about making qualifying statements every line or so I may as well ship each inidividual copy of TMD in a U-Haul.

Since the book is only 130 pages long, I fail to see how using "Protestant" or even "Evangelical Protestant" in place of "Christian," or even using "mainstream" as an adjective, would have sent his book into the multi-volume range. He could have chosen almost any other pair of labels which would not have inconvenienced "the average reader," much less created the impression that "Mormon" and "Christian" are non-intersecting sets.

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

So what can I say? 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 veteran readers know what I mean by that reference.

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Mister Scratch]

Hey Pahoran, haven't you heard? You're not supposed to be posting your own in real life name on here. You better go back through your post and delete all of the citations in which Holding calls you by your name. Naughty, naughty, Pah.

[_Runtu]

That is a pretty devastating (and accurate) summary of _____'s review. But it's par for the course: derisive misreadings, attribution of sinister motives, and simple ad hominem. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Can you provide some examples? I've re-read the review, and can't see it.

Regards,
Pahoran

Derisive misreading:

A further self-recommendation is found in the author's introduction, which is title, "Aggressive Apologetics: The Growing Mormon Mission." "Holding" takes up the them introduced by Mosser and Owen's essay on the need for better quality evangelical apologetics and promises to deliever the goods in the form of "top-notch Biblical scholarship" (p. 10). This level of self-certification makes no concessions to false modesty. Whatever the actual quality of the scholarship here, the author certainly thinks it is formidable.

As Holding makes clear in his response, the reviewer misreads a promise to bring top-notch scholarship into the discussion, meaning that Holding intends to bring other people's work into it. The reviewer, on the other hand, takes these three words and riffs on Holding's inflated ego and "self-certification," insisting that Holding is referring to his own book as "top-notch scholarship."

Another derisive misreading:

Holding asserts that the practice of baptism for the dead cited by Paul was "devoid of theological meaning and thus not requiring Paul's explicit condemnation, or else, that we are misunderstanding the passage completely."

The reviewer's take: "Either the passage doesn't mean anything, or we don't understand it--but whatever the case, its meaning must be sacrificed."

Again, Holding is referring to the practice not having theological meaning, but the reviewer takes that as a statement that the passage in Corinthians itself is meaningless. The first rule in reviewing a book is to have adequate reading comprehension, which is apparently lacking in this reviewer.

Sinister motives:

Apparently "disturbed" by the existence of How Wide the Divide?, Holding "attempts to widen the divide by attacking on seven fronts."

"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."

"Nonetheless, his agenda is clear from the title he has chosen. For defenders do not contend against other defenders; attackers do."

Thus we see that Holding is an opportunistic and unprincipled attacker, hell-bent on widening the divide between Mormons and mainstream Christians, which would qualify as an ad hominem.

A detailed critique of his arguments would run to many pages and would be tedious.

Apparently, so would an honest one.

[_Runtu]

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

You really have a problem with misreading quotes, Pahoran. I never said it was a "devastating piece of scholarship." It was devastating because it was accurate. I wouldn't expect something Holding posted on the net to be particularly scholarly, especially when it's a response to a rather snarky review in FARMS. I would expect an equally snarky response from Holding, which is what we have. That it is more accurate than the original snarky review is pretty telling.

[_Pahoran]

That is a pretty devastating (and accurate) summary of _____'s review. But it's par for the course: derisive misreadings, attribution of sinister motives, and simple ad hominem. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Can you provide some examples? I've re-read the review, and can't see it.

Regards,
Pahoran

Derisive misreading:

A further self-recommendation is found in the author's introduction, which is title, "Aggressive Apologetics: The Growing Mormon Mission." "Holding" takes up the them introduced by Mosser and Owen's essay on the need for better quality evangelical apologetics and promises to deliever the goods in the form of "top-notch Biblical scholarship" (p. 10). This level of self-certification makes no concessions to false modesty. Whatever the actual quality of the scholarship here, the author certainly thinks it is formidable.

As Holding makes clear in his response, the reviewer misreads a promise to bring top-notch scholarship into the discussion, meaning that Holding intends to bring other people's work into it. The reviewer, on the other hand, takes these three words and riffs on Holding's inflated ego and "self-certification," insisting that Holding is referring to his own book as "top-notch scholarship."

Who said anything about Holding's "ego?" This is another example of his unnecessary defensiveness. The review says nothing about Holding as a scholar; his book promises that "top-notch scholarship" will be found therein. Whether it is to be his own or someone else's is immaterial--the book is still certifying itself. Unless you think the passage in question claims that the "top-notch scholarship" in view will not be found in the pages of Holding's book.

Do you?

Wherein does the "misreading" lie, other than in the wrong conclusion to which you have leaped?

Another derisive misreading:

Holding asserts that the practice of baptism for the dead cited by Paul was "devoid of theological meaning and thus not requiring Paul's explicit condemnation, or else, that we are misunderstanding the passage completely."

The reviewer's take: "Either the passage doesn't mean anything, or we don't understand it--but whatever the case, its meaning must be sacrificed."

Again, Holding is referring to the practice not having theological meaning, but the reviewer takes that as a statement that the passage in Corinthians itself is meaningless. The first rule in reviewing a book is to have adequate reading comprehension, which is apparently lacking in this reviewer.

This is fascinating. Did you actually read my post, above?

The quoted passage offers two alternatives:

1) Either "the practice was devoid of theological meaning";
2) Or "we are misunderstanding the passage completely."

How does the qualifier "theological" materially impact the question? The end of Mr. Holding's learned exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:29 is to offer two mutually exclusive choices so as to distract from the unpalatable third alternative, which is that Paul's contemporaries practiced a vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead, and far from disapproving the practice, Paul actually cited it as evidence in favour of a core Christian doctrine.

Kettle asks: "adequate reading comprehension," Mr. Pot?

Sinister motives:

Apparently "disturbed" by the existence of How Wide the Divide?, Holding "attempts to widen the divide by attacking on seven fronts."

Again with the inadequate reading comprehension. What the review actually says is:

This book is, in part, another response to Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide?—a book that seemingly continues to disturb those who have trouble accepting the proposition that individuals can believe differently and still be Christians. Holding attempts to widen the divide by attacking on seven fronts: divine embodiment, trinitarianism, premortal existence, baptism for the dead, vicarious ordinances in general, the role of works in salvation, and exaltation.

Is it necessary for you to misrepresent the review in order to attack it?

"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."

Right. Now show how this conclusion does not follow from the evidence, can you?

"Nonetheless, his agenda is clear from the title he has chosen. For defenders do not contend against other defenders; attackers do."

And is this not correct?

Thus we see that Holding is an opportunistic and unprincipled attacker, hell-bent on widening the divide between Mormons and mainstream Christians, which would qualify as an ad hominem.

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.

You made it up.

A detailed critique of his arguments would run to many pages and would be tedious.

Apparently, so would an honest one.

Apparently, an honest critique of the review would be even more so. Clearly it was beyond your capabilities.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

But don't forget; the FARMS review was nothing but ad hominem, while Holding's response was simply a devastating piece of scholarship.

You really have a problem with misreading quotes, Pahoran. I never said it was a "devastating piece of scholarship." It was devastating because it was accurate.

Oh, so it wasn't devastating because it was so very scholarly. Got it.

The reason why I didn't tumble that you thought it was "devastating" because of its accuracy is that it wasn't all that accurate either, was it?

I wouldn't expect something Holding posted on the net to be particularly scholarly, especially when it's a response to a rather snarky review in FARMS. I would expect an equally snarky response from Holding, which is what we have.

No, it is vastly more "snarky" than the review.

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?"

That it is more accurate than the original snarky review is pretty telling.

That you so errantly imagine it to be is even more so.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

That is a pretty devastating (and accurate) summary of _____'s review. But it's par for the course: derisive misreadings, attribution of sinister motives, and simple ad hominem. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Can you provide some examples? I've re-read the review, and can't see it.

Regards,
Pahoran

Derisive misreading:

Who said anything about Holding's "ego?"

You did, when you sarcastically brought up "false modesty."

This is another example of his unnecessary defensiveness. The review says nothing about Holding as a scholar; his book promises that "top-notch scholarship" will be found therein. Whether it is to be his own or someone else's is immaterial--the book is still certifying itself. Unless you think the passage in question claims that the "top-notch scholarship" in view will not be found in the pages of Holding's book.

Do you?

So, your premise is that none of the scholarship he brings in is "top notch"? Since you haven't really discussed in your review what scholarship he used, which scholars did he quote that you found inferior?

Wherein does the "misreading" lie, other than in the wrong conclusion to which you have leaped?

It's hard to reach a wrong conclusion about a sneering insult like the one I noted.

This is fascinating. Did you actually read my post, above?

No, I didn't see your post until after I had written mine.

The quoted passage offers two alternatives:

1) Either "the practice was devoid of theological meaning";
2) Or "we are misunderstanding the passage completely."

How does the qualifier "theological" materially impact the question?

It's not the qualifier that materially impacts the question. It's the noun: the practice is theologically meaningless, not the passage. Again, you're clearing misinterpreting this statement.

The end of Mr. Holding's learned exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:29 is to offer two mutually exclusive choices so as to distract from the unpalatable third alternative, which is that Paul's contemporaries practiced a vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead, and far from disapproving the practice, Paul actually cited it as evidence in favour of a core Christian doctrine.

Kettle asks: "adequate reading comprehension," Mr. Pot?

Gee, I would think that most of us understand that an apologetic is not going to argue in favor of the opposition's point.

This book is, in part, another response to Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide?—a book that seemingly continues to disturb those who have trouble accepting the proposition that individuals can believe differently and still be Christians. Holding attempts to widen the divide by attacking on seven fronts: divine embodiment, trinitarianism, premortal existence, baptism for the dead, vicarious ordinances in general, the role of works in salvation, and exaltation.
Is it necessary for you to misrepresent the review in order to attack it?

To paraphrase you, how does my summary materially misrepresent the review?

"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."
Right. Now show how this conclusion does not follow from the evidence, can you?

It's difficult to say, given that you don't provide anything more than a cursory glance at his arguments, because, as you said, actually tackling the arguments would be "tedious."

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.

You made it up.

That was a fun part to write, I have to admit, as I was adopting the same rhetorical approach you take in almost every discussion. Yes, it was a derisive reading, but not a misreading.

Apparently, an honest critique of the review would be even more so. Clearly it was beyond your capabilities.

This of course is the rhetorical equivalent of "neener neener."

All my love,

John

[_Pahoran]

Derisive misreading:

Who said anything about Holding's "ego?"

You did, when you sarcastically brought up "false modesty."

I agree that that is a derisive misreading.

And it appears to be yours.

This is another example of his unnecessary defensiveness. The review says nothing about Holding as a scholar; his book promises that "top-notch scholarship" will be found therein. Whether it is to be his own or someone else's is immaterial--the book is still certifying itself. Unless you think the passage in question claims that the "top-notch scholarship" in view will not be found in the pages of Holding's book.

Do you?

So, your premise is that none of the scholarship he brings in is "top notch"? Since you haven't really discussed in your review what scholarship he used, which scholars did he quote that you found inferior?

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.

Wherein does the "misreading" lie, other than in the wrong conclusion to which you have leaped?

It's hard to reach a wrong conclusion about a sneering insult like the one I noted.

I think you are confused. There are no "sneering insults" in the review, only in Holding's "hissy fit" response.

The quoted passage offers two alternatives:

1) Either "the practice was devoid of theological meaning";
2) Or "we are misunderstanding the passage completely."

How does the qualifier "theological" materially impact the question?

It's not the qualifier that materially impacts the question. It's the noun: the practice is theologically meaningless, not the passage. Again, you're clearing misinterpreting this statement.

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?

The end of Mr. Holding's learned exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:29 is to offer two mutually exclusive choices so as to distract from the unpalatable third alternative, which is that Paul's contemporaries practiced a vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead, and far from disapproving the practice, Paul actually cited it as evidence in favour of a core Christian doctrine.

Kettle asks: "adequate reading comprehension," Mr. Pot?

Gee, I would think that most of us understand that an apologetic is not going to argue in favor of the opposition's point.

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.

This book is, in part, another response to Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide?—a book that seemingly continues to disturb those who have trouble accepting the proposition that individuals can believe differently and still be Christians. Holding attempts to widen the divide by attacking on seven fronts: divine embodiment, trinitarianism, premortal existence, baptism for the dead, vicarious ordinances in general, the role of works in salvation, and exaltation.
Is it necessary for you to misrepresent the review in order to attack it?

To paraphrase you, how does my summary materially misrepresent the review?

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.

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?

"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."
Right. Now show how this conclusion does not follow from the evidence, can you?

It's difficult to say, given that you don't provide anything more than a cursory glance at his arguments, because, as you said, actually tackling the arguments would be "tedious."

Excuse me, we are talking about the review, not anything I have posted here. Just to get that straight.

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. The review is there for you to address.

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.

You made it up.

That was a fun part to write, I have to admit, as I was adopting the same rhetorical approach you take in almost every discussion. Yes, it was a derisive reading, but not a misreading.

It was indeed a misreading; clearly an intentional one.

Apparently, an honest critique of the review would be even more so. Clearly it was beyond your capabilities.

This of course is the rhetorical equivalent of "neener neener."

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.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

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?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

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 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."

Excuse me, we are talking about the review, not anything I have posted here. Just to get that straight.

The tedious statement is on page 4 of the review.

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.

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 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.

All my best,

John