A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

[Lem]

And what about the Ghost Committee? To add credibility to the Book of Mormon as a 15th century document, Skousen goes beyond just grammar. Skousen says that, essentially, that the Book of Mormon is 15th century "junk art" when he argues that it's "expansions" are 15th century ones, not 19th century -- "witch burnings" comes to mind as the prime example. Are the apologists throwing 300,000$ worth of research under the bus by printing this article?

Well, I did see this over at the Interpreter site:

? wrote:

In order to fully engage the mopologists, historians and theologians must, like Carmack and Skousen, write under the premise that Joseph Smith’s revelations reflect 15th century natural understanding, creativity, and development. The Book of Mormon expansions, for example, can only be indicative of the Ghost Committee's own 15th Century theological understanding and culture (the time period when they produced these texts) and thus are to be examined and interpreted within that specific period of Early Modern English to ascertain meaning.

The idea that some of Joseph Smith’s revelations might actually be, as he claimed, divinely-aided translations of records from ancient prophets, coming from Reformed Egyptian written on the plates, is not admissible.

Wait, no. Oops. I apologize, that was just me, visioning a vision. Or maybe channeling a Thompson quote in a nightmare.

[Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Scratch
I'm reminded of one of Dr. Peterson's favorite quotes, about how "small minds" focus on people rather than ideas.

Ironically he built his entire career on doing just that! From Tryke to Metcalfe to and including Dehlin and now Hauglid.

Very true, Philo. I notice that, lately, Professor Peterson has been beating on his favorite drum: i.e., the one where he argues that religious societies are better than atheist societies because atheist regimes have killed more people overall. (Sidenote: isn't this a "presentist" argument? I.e., if you "adjust for inflation" vis-a-vis history, don't the "death counts" for religious societies need to be ratcheted up? I've never seen the Mopologists argue this point using statistical methods. I wonder why?)

My position is: *both* of these viewpoints have apparently resulted in unacceptable levels of bloodshed and death. So why should I support either of them?

[Dr Moore]

This was a strange article indeed, and well called out Doctor.

Thompson’s main points amount to a sneaky straw man on the word “bricolage” — narrowing the definition of bricolage from an abstract, creative technique to something that Joseph did specifically without regard to the “original intent or purpose” of ancient things.

Of course, if Thompson is allowed to smuggle that narrower meaning of bricolage, then it’s easy to tear down the argument. But Givens never claimed any such meaning, never asserts that Joseph wrote or created without regard to the original meaning and purpose of ancient things.

To the contrary, the whole point of Givens’ argument is that Joseph’s bricolage incorporated both modern and ancient motifs in a collage that was intensely focused and interested in the meaning and purpose of ancient things.... Except he got most things wrong relative to the way ancient things were originally meant and purposed.

D+ to Interprerer for publishing such an obvious straw man.

Also, the irony. Bricolage, as used by a living author, must be scrutinized in some arbitrarily narrow way, without so much as a sound byte from the living author of the theory. And yet we are expected to allow Joseph Smith the broadest possible meanings for “translation.”

[Doctor Scratch]

Some interesting things have been surfacing in the "Comments" to the article. Just look at Dennis Horne, who is reacting precisely as one might expect:

From my reading of this review, it looks to me like Givens is providing the church’s critics (anti-Mormons) with the fodder they seek to use as weapons to cause members to doubt the divine authenticity of the standard works, the scriptures. They will eat his stuff up as they are Wayment’s and Wilson-Lemon’s:

Meanwhile, look at this from Sam Garner:

I don’t care if that’s not his intent, because that is the outcome. And the fact that he’s draped in the sheep’s clothing of being approved by BYU/the Church makes his writings all the more spiritually dangerous. I personally wish he wouldn’t be allowed to publish such spiritual dribble anymore under the guise of BYU/Church sanction, so that not one more member would get caught in his snare thereby having their faith undermined and ultimately overthrown.

Wow--calling Givens a "[wolf] in sheep's clothing"? This is pretty extreme, no? Later, Thompson himself turns up to reassure everyone that his "review" was not actually a "hit piece," and that, instead, he thinks Givens is a stand-up guy and a legitimate Latter-day Saint:

Thanks everyone for your comments so far. I do want to be clear for my part: While I disagree with Givens’ use of and neglect of several sources pertaining to the Book of Abraham, I still hold him in high regard as a scholar, a person of faith, and I am grateful for many things he has done to help us see the beauty of the gospel.

It's too bad that this all gets undercut by Editor-in-Chief Jeff Lindsay, who points the dirty end of the stick directly at Hauglid:

John, thank you for a very carefully reasoned response. I suspect that the chapter on the Book of Abraham was largely written by or guided by Brian Hauglid, who has disappointed many with his shift toward more naturalistic origins of the Book of Abraham. I hope Givens will be able to consider the thoughtful and well supported opposing views you have presented and be able to reconsider his acceptance of such views, for there is significant evidence that Hauglid is wrong and that many of the standard arguments against the Book of Abraham are based on errant assumptions.

At the end of the day, you really can't ignore the impact that an article like this has on folks like Sam Garner and Dennis Horne: it is quite literally causing them to turn on their fellow Latter-day Saints. Quite shameful, in my opinion.

[Shulem]

At the end of the day, you really can't ignore the impact that an article like this has on folks like Sam Garner and Dennis Horne: it is quite literally causing them to turn on their fellow Latter-day Saints. Quite shameful, in my opinion.

And it comes with a giant size disclaimer:

All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

Stupid Interpreter! Professors of foolishness -- all of them.

[Dr Exiled]

I wonder how long it took for Dr. Gee and/or Midge to contact their favorite member of the brethren to tattle on Dr. Givens? It must have been within a day of reading the book. We all know that Midge has a file on Givens, for a possible future loyalty trial. I bet Gee does too.

[Moksha]

All this is done with the thought in mind of another dinner at BYU where an Apostle will wag his finger at the Maxwell Institute, telling them they failed to guard the castle gate, then embracing the Interpreter Foundation as "mine good and faithful servants" and handing them the keys to the Maxwell Institute as "a reward for years of diligent hit pieces against those dreadful wolves at the door".

[Gadianton]

I really have to wonder how the Mopologists don't see the Q12 as a bunch of incompetent fools. Let's turn this around on the mopologists: If Givens really believes (or has convinced himself) that the best way to balance between faith and evidence is to believe in his "junk art" theory, and the Church is implicitly (at the least) backing his theories by publishing them from their university outlet, then why should he listen to Dennis Horne and others and concede merely on their own say-so? From what I can tell, if Givens can't have this overly-nuanced understanding of the Church, then his testimony is probably in jeopardy. Why should he give up on his faith, a faith that seems supported by the Brethren, just because a cadre of avowed fundamentalists demand that he believe like they do? Don't forget that not too long ago, a "purging" was called for at Sic et Non by another Interpreter-active fundamentalist.

The mopologists 1) know that the Q12 are aware of and at least passively allowed the restructuring of the Maxwell institute in 2012. 2) The Brethren have let the new MI flourish for 8 years. 3) They know the Brethren are familiar with the alternative viewpoints of the new MI because Jeffery Holland was sent to scold them for not promoting the gospel enough. 4) years have now past since the great scolding, and yet nothing has been done. How can they not reason that the Brethren are incompetent for letting it continue?

And if they still have faith that the Brethren are competent, why do they speak outside of the purview of their own stewardships and comment on the faithfulness of the scholarship of other Latter-Day Saints that holds at least as much support from the Brethren as their own?

[Moksha]

In order to fully engage the Mopologists, historians and theologians must, like Carmack and Skousen, write under the premise that Joseph Smith’s revelations reflect 15th century natural understanding, creativity, and development.

This is a bit tangential, but did God prefer hearing prayers before the Great Vowel Shift? If this were to be observed at Church it would make Sunday services more interesting.

[Dr Exiled]

I really have to wonder how the Mopologists don't see the Q12 as a bunch of incompetent fools. Let's turn this around on the mopologists: If Givens really believes (or has convinced himself) that the best way to balance between faith and evidence is to believe in his "junk art" theory, and the Church is implicitly (at the least) backing his theories by publishing them from their university outlet, then why should he listen to Dennis Horne and others and concede merely on their own say-so? From what I can tell, if Givens can't have this overly-nuanced understanding of the Church, then his testimony is probably in jeopardy. Why should he give up on his faith, a faith that seems supported by the Brethren, just because a cadre of avowed fundamentalists demand that he believe like they do? Don't forget that not too long ago, a "purging" was called for at Sic et Non by another Interpreter-active fundamentalist.

The mopologists 1) know that the Q12 are aware of and at least passively allowed the restructuring of the Maxwell institute in 2012. 2) The Brethren have let the new MI flourish for 8 years. 3) They know the Brethren are familiar with the alternative viewpoints of the new MI because Jeffery Holland was sent to scold them for not promoting the gospel enough. 4) years have now past since the great scolding, and yet nothing has been done. How can they not reason that the Brethren are incompetent for letting it continue?

And if they still have faith that the Brethren are competent, why do they speak outside of the purview of their own stewardships and comment on the faithfulness of the scholarship of other Latter-Day Saints that holds at least as much support from the Brethren as their own?

I think they see the brethren as too preoccupied with business and the day to day running of the church to delve too deeply into doctrine or mopologist issues. So, the mopologists called themselves or were incentivized in a non-public way to take up the cause. Anyone can do it and will get recognized if it helps promote tithing flows. Robert Smith told me over and over again, that the brethren didn't have time to give official church positions or form any theology, when I posted over at MD&D, and so the brethren didn't.

In my opinion, he is probably correct to a certain extent. The brethren have their hands full making up stories behind their callings of various leaders and making their sales pitches and conceiving of ways to promote their real estate to wade too much into tangential issues as whether or not the crap they sell makes any sense. They leave that to the self-styled apologists and never make anyone official theologian or apologist so as to allow plausible deniability and to be able to let the children fight it out in the playpen, scolding this or that camp from time to time when they get too far out of line. It really doesn't matter anyway as long as the tithing coffers and investments continue to increase.