DCP Calls for More "Interpersonal Viciousness"
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:27 am
A remarkable thread is underway at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board. As some here are no doubt aware, Brant "Big Boy" Gardner has just published a book dealing with the "translation" of the Book of Mormon. In response to this, rising star David Bokovoy launched a thread attacking Gardner's work. As usual, Bokovoy went out of his way to act the gentleman as he opened up his critique:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/553 ... -new-book/
I think that this thread is a must-read insofar as it may very well represent the first time in the history of the FAIR/MAD/MDD board where two highly regarded apologist-scholars have engaged in such powerful disagreement on such genial terms. By way of comparison, just look at the recent slew of attacks that Will Schryver lobbed at Don Bradley. The point is that this exchange between Gardner and Bokovoy appears to be precisely the sort of dialogue that the more scholarly types on both sides of the divide have been calling for. (It's worth noting that Brent Metcalfe appeared briefly to point out a couple of factual errors in Gardner's book, and Gardner graciously and admirably admitted the mistake).
So the thread is a worthwhile read, and I'm sure that onlookers will see that it unfolds in quite a nice way until page 2, when Mopologetic tag-team duo Peterson and Hamblin appear on the scene:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/553 ... ge__st__20
This was the sum total of the "contributions" to the thread from these two tenured professors and Mopologetic heavyweights.
Of course, a couple of the thread participants (including Bokovoy) played along and indicated that Profs. P. and H. are funny as usual, but I think these two posts are incredibly telling, and I thought they were worth singling out--particularly in light of the recent revelations from Mr. Stak concerning Dr. Peterson's hapless and boneheaded (and perhaps dishonest) use of sources.
It has been argued before that the "Mopologists"--i.e., the LDS apologists who are the most vicious and aggressive--are not really interested in the substantive issues most relevant to Mormonism, and that instead they prefer polemical warfare and game-playing. This latest Bokovoy thread could not be a better or more clear illustration of the truth of this argument. Here we have Bokovoy, who is a young, rising star, and Brant Gardner, who is well-respected but not exactly part of the Mopologetic/Skinny-L Cabal, and their behavior is utterly respectful, gentlemanly, scholarly, and professional. Then you have Peterson and Hamblin, barging in to make dumb jokes and to interrupt the flow of scholarly discourse. While it would be easy to dismiss their behavior and simple tomfoolery and locker-room hijinks, the truth seems to be that "acrostics" and "personal viciousness" are the types of things that these guys prefer.
David Bokovoy wrote:Let me begin by saying that in terms of faithful LDS scholarship, there are very few people that I admire as much as Brant Gardner. In my humble opinion, his contributions to Book of Mormon studies and a defense of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon prove immeasurable. I love to read his ideas and hear his presentations. Whenever Brant shares his thoughts in any context, I always gain new and exciting insights into the text. He is a brilliant man. But more importantly, I very much consider Brant an outstanding person and a good friend. Honestly, I can't say enough great things about both Brant and his scholarship.
So in sum, despite the fact that I love my friend Brant and that his new book represents a worthy attempt for which he should be congratulated for approaching the topic with both faith and academic integrity, I find this new book very problematic. I'm not sure yet what forum I will use, but I feel far too passionate about this topic not to point out these issues.
Please note, I'm certainly not discouraging anyone from reading the book, to the contrary, this has become a must read for anyone interested in the subject of Book of Mormon translation. However, please be aware that there is another perspective that needs to be considered before embracing many of Brant's views, especially his critique of Hebraisms.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/553 ... -new-book/
I think that this thread is a must-read insofar as it may very well represent the first time in the history of the FAIR/MAD/MDD board where two highly regarded apologist-scholars have engaged in such powerful disagreement on such genial terms. By way of comparison, just look at the recent slew of attacks that Will Schryver lobbed at Don Bradley. The point is that this exchange between Gardner and Bokovoy appears to be precisely the sort of dialogue that the more scholarly types on both sides of the divide have been calling for. (It's worth noting that Brent Metcalfe appeared briefly to point out a couple of factual errors in Gardner's book, and Gardner graciously and admirably admitted the mistake).
So the thread is a worthwhile read, and I'm sure that onlookers will see that it unfolds in quite a nice way until page 2, when Mopologetic tag-team duo Peterson and Hamblin appear on the scene:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/553 ... ge__st__20
Dr. Peterson wrote:Could we have a little more interpersonal viciousness in this thread, please?
Also, an acrostic would be nice.
Bill Hamblin wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:Could we have a little more interpersonal viciousness in this thread, please?
Also, an acrostic would be nice.
Are you asking me to weigh in?
This was the sum total of the "contributions" to the thread from these two tenured professors and Mopologetic heavyweights.
Of course, a couple of the thread participants (including Bokovoy) played along and indicated that Profs. P. and H. are funny as usual, but I think these two posts are incredibly telling, and I thought they were worth singling out--particularly in light of the recent revelations from Mr. Stak concerning Dr. Peterson's hapless and boneheaded (and perhaps dishonest) use of sources.
It has been argued before that the "Mopologists"--i.e., the LDS apologists who are the most vicious and aggressive--are not really interested in the substantive issues most relevant to Mormonism, and that instead they prefer polemical warfare and game-playing. This latest Bokovoy thread could not be a better or more clear illustration of the truth of this argument. Here we have Bokovoy, who is a young, rising star, and Brant Gardner, who is well-respected but not exactly part of the Mopologetic/Skinny-L Cabal, and their behavior is utterly respectful, gentlemanly, scholarly, and professional. Then you have Peterson and Hamblin, barging in to make dumb jokes and to interrupt the flow of scholarly discourse. While it would be easy to dismiss their behavior and simple tomfoolery and locker-room hijinks, the truth seems to be that "acrostics" and "personal viciousness" are the types of things that these guys prefer.