Bought Yahoo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:10 pm
In chron order, I think:
1. My sarcastic and bitter assessment of John Sorensen's work.
2. My disagreement with the conculsions of Nephi and his Asherah. That has brought me into collision with several people; most notably Kevin Christiansen (the "paradigm" and "Margaret Barker" fellow). Kevin is a super nice guy and I'm not. He's just wrong.
3. My criticism of Margaret Barker's conclusions. I could not be more opposed to her conclusions about the Temple and the Josian reforms.
4. My argument that BYU was justfied in terminating Dr. Peterson's involvement with leading the MI and editing its publications. I supported MI (and FARMS before it) with my money, and supported Dr. Peterson on numerous forums, but questioned the then-format of MI at any university.
5. My support for Brant Gardner's conclusions relating to Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. [I'm not sure, however, that Dr. Peterson and I have ever discussed this.]
6. My questioning of Ye Olde English as having anything to do with the Book of Mormon and, more specifically, my questioning of the peer reviewed nature of the Interpreter. [In that regard, I consider the critical text project a collosal waste of time, energy and money. If the Church puts its imprimatur on the current text of the Book of Mormon, then other conclusions made by past leaders are irrelevant. For instance, before the Book of Mormon went into column format, there was a footnote that said that Lehi landed in Chile. I think Widstoe edited it out. What is the significance of that today?] As I am a peer reviewer and understand the concept, I just couldn't believe the Interpreter's format and claim to be peer reviewed. Rather than say, "Hey, you have your opinion. We do it our way to ensure accuracy," he rubbed my nose in the ground over the issue. [How could I know how Interpreter articles are reviewed? It is supposed to be a secret.] Not a problem, but an interesting anecdote in my life.
However, I have fond admiration for Dr. Peterson and what he has done in the LDS environment. The Church needs him and his writing, and in my view he is more deft at it than Dr. Nibley. I admire the fact that he rose from his resignation at MI and formed the Interpreter, which is better than the MI format and more in tune with the Internet. I admire his testimony and his intellect. He has saved many people. But he brooks no opposition and I simply question some of his positions. I suppose if he had the temperament of just another BYU professor he'd be quickly forgotten.
He is not narcissistic. He is simply an accomplished person. Quite different than the nasty bitterness I see on this board, but I understand it.
Well, Bought Yahoo, I sincerely doubt that his disagreements with you are personal in nature. He will publicly defend his position with great vigor, but behind the scenes I can't believe that he is at all angry with you or hurt about these differences of opinion. If there is some crack in your relationship, I hope you guys repair it. I think the apologetic arena is better off for your differences of opinion with each other. Both of you are deeply committed to the LDS Gospel and to defending it. When two people can disagree deeply on less important issues but be united in their love of the central pillars of the faith, that shows the robustness of the faith and the community, in my opinion.
Personally, I increasingly enjoy the apologetic community. I have come to appreciate many of you a lot more over the past couple of years, despite my lack of belief in what you are saying or lack of agreement with what you are arguing. There are lots of genuinely good people in that community. Sure, they frustrate me when they let me down in their arguments (in my own view), but that doesn't change the fact that they are basically good people, and, moreover, I like them. For example, I really like Brant Gardner, although I find much of what he has written in an apologetic vein to be completely unconvincing.
What is important here? I say charity. Unselfish love. Gratitude. Forgiveness. I hope I never reach a place where I abandon my commitment to core principles like those. If I can agree with Brian Hales on the importance of those things, my disagreement with him about the composition of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith's polygamy should be unimportant. And, in my view, it is.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to
explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
