DiscussMormonism.com

Over in the pundits thread Chris Smith has engaged Brian Hauglid on the KEP discussion. Here is a run down on how the exchange has played out. There are more comments involved, but I just want you to get a gist of what's been said:

Brent asked Brian to look at a specific portion of teh KEP with his high powered microscope. Brian said he had not done so yet. Chris asked politely,

Chris: Are you planning to take a look and report the result here?
Hauglid: Yes I am. It won't be until later in June. When I have something I'll report it here. Although quite frankly it eludes me as to why you really care.
Chris: No need for hostility.
Hauglid: No need to be testy, it was a simple inquiry.
Chris: Maybe I'm misreading you, but you appear to be the one who is "testy". Have I merely misunderstood your posting style?
Hauglid: I do not know you, so there's no reason for me to be testy.
Chris: Ok. Than I apologize for misunderstanding.
Hauglid: No hard feelings.
Hauglid: [Deleted post]
Chris: I appreciate the irenic reply [the deleted post]. And I do, of course, respect your views and your right to disagree with my conclusions on this subject.
Hauglid: I'm sure you know that the use of "irenic" as a general description my last post (and what follows) tells me you don't respect what I, as an LDS scholar, have to say about these mss. That's too bad. I can teach you nothing. So mite it be.
Chris: Unless I'm misusing the term "irenic", I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. As I indicated in my post, I do respect what you have to say.
Hauglid: In my field "irenic" is generally used to refer to inferior scholarship. I'm relieved you were not using it in that way. I realize it mainly has the meaning of promoting peace and conciliation. It appears this was the way you were using the word. My apologies.

Now I am calling all scholars to chime in on this one (Trev, chap, duder, EA, etc). I have always understood the term irenic to mean exactly what Chris has said. Now is it true that the term can refer to "inferior scholarship" when used in scholarship? Because I cannot even fathom a context in which it could. It seems to me that Hauglid simply didn't understand what the word meant and then jumped to a conclusion based on ignorance.

At the very least, if he understood the proper definition of the term, he should have at least considered the possibility, to say nothing of the probability, that this is how Chris intended it.

Maybe they are both idiots?

Here's my question: What "field" is Hauglid referring to? Mopologetics?

I just want to know if Hauglid's excuse is plausible. He says irenic "generally" refers to inferior scholarship. I'm no scholar, but I an a fan of scholarship and I've read more than most, and I cannot imagine any context in which irenic is used to describe inferior scholarship. I don't recall any instance where it was used that way.

Does anyone else have an example?

dartagnan wrote:I just want to know if Hauglid's excuse is plausible. He says irenic "generally" refers to inferior scholarship. I'm no scholar, but I an a fan of scholarship and I've read more than most, and I cannot imagine any context in which irenic is used to describe inferior scholarship. I don't recall any instance where it was used that way.

Does anyone else have an example?

I doubt that any example exists. "Irenic" plainly does not mean what Hauglid thought it meant. He screwed up. I would guess that his reference to "[his] field" was a last-ditch effort to save face, sort of like Gee's "Egyptian Test."

dartagnan wrote:I just want to know if Hauglid's excuse is plausible. He says irenic "generally" refers to inferior scholarship. I'm no scholar, but I an a fan of scholarship and I've read more than most, and I cannot imagine any context in which irenic is used to describe inferior scholarship. I don't recall any instance where it was used that way.

Does anyone else have an example?

No, I think Hauglid is off base. I've never heard or read it as referring to inferior scholarship.

I figured as much.

It seems Hauglid owes Chris an apology for being stupid.

Geez. Just when you think it can't get any worse for these guys in the Book of Abraham apologetic camp. After two years Hauglid finally makes an appearance but it seems he is back to his same old tricks. By making stupid comments and deleting his posts.

A display of ego is hardly a meltdown.

I am guessing that Brian Hauglid is a religion scholar of some kind, because these folks use the term irenic with exponentially greater frequency than classicists. Classicists rarely use the term, and when we do it usually takes its primary meaning. You therefore see it popping up in discussions of bucolic poetry and the like.

Having said that, I am aware of a rarer usage in which someone might be accused of deliberately avoiding controversy or of failing to exercise the requisite critical faculties and thus holding all things as equally valid or true. Such a person might be accused of taking an irenic position. Even here, however, I do not see it as inherently derogatory. Its negative meaning derives mostly from use within a specific kind of criticism.

Can't say I understand where Brian read Chris as using irenic in this negative sense, particularly given the laconic nature of the exchange. Maybe in his field there is a very special use of irenic that is recognized as negative without a lot of context. I really don't know. Sorry I can't be of any more assistance.

Edit: I would add that since Chris is a student of Christianity, he would be well aware of how it is generally used in religious scholarship. I don't think it is "generally" used in the way Hauglid suggests, but I could be wrong.

Wow, that thread is really getting quite juicy. Please be sure to save it, Dart, in case the moderators get jumpy and decide to seal it off, as if it were a crime scene. I was especially delighted to see CK quote from Gee's latest FARMS article, and his boner of an admission that the Church severely limits access to the archives. Will had absolutely zero response to that.