Bokovoy Hits One Out of the Park
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:19 pm
Thanks to the good work of Doctor Scratch, many of you are aware of the ongoing exchange between Daniel Peterson and David Bokovoy over the changes at Maxwell Institute. David has written a wonderfully insightful piece on Patheos that hits the nail right on the head.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/12/a-response-to-my-friend-daniel-peterson/
To put it as succinctly as possible, Bokovoy believes that the real issue here is not secularism on BYU campus but the departure of attack-dog apologetics from BYU.
Here are some worthwhile quotes for those who do not want to read all of Bokovoy's post:
Of particular interest is David's revelation about the l-skinny tactics we have long known about, but almost no one on the inside was willing to admit to. Bokovoy reveals that emails on an apologetic list discuss the possibility of opposition research into the personal past of a perceived enemy. To his credit, Bokovoy was "very, very uncomfortable" with these tactics.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/12/a-response-to-my-friend-daniel-peterson/
To put it as succinctly as possible, Bokovoy believes that the real issue here is not secularism on BYU campus but the departure of attack-dog apologetics from BYU.
Here are some worthwhile quotes for those who do not want to read all of Bokovoy's post:
David Bokovoy wrote:If we cut through all of the hyperbole, I believe what this all really comes down to is simply aggressive apologetic tactics. The MI clearly wants to move away from such efforts and some believe that this is a misstep.
David Bokovoy wrote:But what about attacking people directly like Jeremy Runnells and John Dehlin? Does this strengthen faith? It may, but I’m not convinced. I don’t like it, and it feels wrong to me. More importantly, that type of apologetic seems inappropriate from my perspective for a serious academic venue, especially one sponsored by the LDS Church.
I’m not going to cite the emails because they’re personal exchanges, and to do so would be highly inappropriate. But I will give a personal example. In the not-too-distant past, my name was attached to an apologetic email list that was discussing how the group should respond to an article that appeared in the news. Several of the emails discussed openly the type of “digging” that could be done into this person’s past in an effort to provide an effective apologetic response. It made me feel very, very uncomfortable.
I responded, asking the group to please reconsider their approach, stating, “placing the blame on [name omitted] for his struggles is not an effective apologetic and I personally don’t think it will help [your] cause.”
And this is what this entire unfortunate public confrontation comes down to: What is the most effective type of apologetics, and what style of academics should an LDS sponsored institution engage in? I don’t believe in aggressive attack style apologetics. Some people do. I believe in critical thinking, listening to alternative views, and open friendly exchanges.
Of particular interest is David's revelation about the l-skinny tactics we have long known about, but almost no one on the inside was willing to admit to. Bokovoy reveals that emails on an apologetic list discuss the possibility of opposition research into the personal past of a perceived enemy. To his credit, Bokovoy was "very, very uncomfortable" with these tactics.