Interpreter throws Grant Hardy under a bus?

[Gadianton]

A a certain religious blog is promoting a new article by Duane Boyce, a staunchly conservative apologist. The article is a direct attack on Grant Hardy's interpretation of Captain Moroni.

Several years ago, Hardy argued famously that Moroni was brash, hot-headed, and probably guilty of war crimes. An odd thesis for a TBM to make, but the Proprietor of the religiously themed blog I mentioned is quick to point out the benefit:

I confess that, while Captain Moroni has never seemed to me not “particularly religious,” I have long thought, myself, that he had a quick temper. In fact, I've seen it as evidence of his historical reality; he seems to me a real, three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood, complex human character, not a paper cut-out figure. I've used this as a minor argument in favor of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon - a hint, at least, if not really a solid argument. And making that point once got me into trouble: Many years ago, after I had taught a Gospel Doctrine lesson in a California ward about the chapters in Alma in which Moroni figures prominently, the bishop called me aside. A couple of older sisters had come to him with the complaint that, by pointing out a possible human flaw in one the Book of Mormon's great heroes, I was preaching “secular humanism.” Fortunately, the bishop wasn't concerned in even the slightest degree. He chuckled, told me not to worry, and said that he had allayed their concerns.

The longing of the Proprietor to shock Chapel Mormons by his dark literary sophistication is on full display. Hardy's version of the Book of Mormon is R-rated. It's "The Wire" compared to "CHiPs". It's the re-imaged Galactica. It's a book of great moral complexity vs. transparent statist propaganda. It's not really compatible with Added Upon, but when has the Proprietor ever been concerned about consistency?

Anyhow, enter Duane Boyce, the champion of statist propaganda and two-dimensional heroes who can do no wrong. He easily got his paper approved by Allan Wyatt and published, despite the fact he's, for one, going up against Hardy. Hardy might be a key player at the new MI, but he has the respect of the entire range of LDS apologists. If LDS-themed academics were to have Thanksgiving together, Hardy would be the guy carving the turkey. And then, to give the Book of Mormon back to Chapel Mormons as a simplistic work of didactic literature is quite a concession. What's going on here?

Is it possible that ultra-conservative political forces are having their way with Interpreter? Could DCP be in real hot water now with his conservative readership for essentially saying he believes Moroni is a complex war criminal?

Anyway, here's a snip of Boyce's argument:

The third feature of the text that calls for a different interpretation revolves around use of the term “slaughter.” Among English speakers that word connotes carnage — the wanton, indiscriminate killing of others. But that kind of imagery does not capture what happened with the king-men in Alma 51. Knowing the danger posed by dissidents who aligned their sympathies with the Lamanites, Moroni — as we’ve just seen — sought approval of the population through a petition and then of the governor to move against these dissenters and to compel them to cease their insurrection and to assist in defending against the invading Lamanites. He received this approval and then marched toward the king-men. When these insurrectionists “did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni,” Moroni’s army engaged them, and it is in this context that four thousand men were slain. (Alma 51:15–20). Nothing in the account suggests wanton destruction or indiscriminate killing — and this makes it hard to see how the term “slaughter” is an appropriate description of the event. It is not the term we would employ in normal English usage.

18 And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled to the earth.

19 And it came to pass that there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.

Lol! You've got to admit Hardy has a point. Boyce didn't find it worth mentioning that the king-men were "hewn down and leveled to the earth". How many soldiers were lost to Moroni? It doesn't say, but the impression is that it was an utter smack-down. Give me a break: 'they did raise their weapons' -- that would be like, the capitol rioters breached the capitol doors, and then instead of this nicey-nice response, elite troops enter and mow them all down. And I'm having a tough time buying that Moroni who was "beloved by all" was beloved by those thrown into prison without a trial.

But this is quite a fascinating argument coming from Boyce. Recall, he is the pro-war author of "Even Unto Bloodshed" and "The Ammonites were not Pacifists". Morgan Deane, the Interpreter reviewer of Bloodshed noted Boyce "defended preemptive war conceptually". It's interesting, because this isn't the only instance in the Book of Mormon where the bad guys strike first. But if preemptive war is justified in principle, why would it say anything that Moroni waited until the insurrectionists lifted their weapons? And by the way, "slaughter" means, according to Merriam-Webster: "killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre)". Certainly there was carnage, but it wasn't indiscriminate, it was very discriminate: only those on the wrong side of the Lord's politics got "hewn down and leveled".

But I am somewhat sympathetic to Boyce. Clearly, the Book of Mormon does paint Moroni as a two-dimensional hero without fault. To get the complex Moroni, Hardy reads the text against the grain. A brilliant strategy from Hardy, but at the end of the day, the Book of Mormon isn't complex literature, even if Hardy can pull its complexity out of his hat.

One imagines the Mopologists may be on the fence here. On the other hand, Hardy's book is complex, which is an argument for its legitimacy. On the other, Boyce's reading legitimizes the harsh dealing of critics. The choice between these alternatives can't be an easy one to make!

[Moksha]

I'm hoping Mr. Boyce can give an equally impressive defense for whatever besmirchment Dr. Hardy has made on the military record of General Zelph.

Wonder if Dr. Louis Midgley has anything in his dossiers against Captain Moroni or General Zelph? They were probably both credits to the Nephite Tapir Cavalry, despite what Dr. Midgley may have unearthed.

[Tom]

It’s difficult to tell who’s in charge over at the Interpreter Foundation, including at the journal. Brant Gardner, a member of the board of advisors, openly wonders “why Boyce felt we needed another hagiography of Moroni,” noting that “I much prefer Hardy’s more three dimensional person to the saintly version Boyce seems to want to resurrect.” Meanwhile, Interpreter’s chairman and SeN proprietor “confess[es] that I haven't yet read Dr. Boyce's article -- I've been on the road too much of late!”

I do think that Gadianton’s post here stung. Why? I notice that the SeN proprietor quickly added a tepid note to his post that he is “plainly on record (often, and as recently as last week) as an admirer of Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon.” Still, I wonder if the proprietor intends to read the next installment of Dr. Boyce’s hagiography of Captain Moroni/attack on Dr. Hardy, “Did Captain Moroni Lack the Typical Religious Virtues? and Does Dr. Hardy Have a Testimony?,” before it’s posted at Interpreter.

[Moksha]

I demonstrate elsewhere that Moroni’s life repeatedly displays both humility and his suffering willingly.26

26. As testified to by several Boffins, Bracegirdles, and Sackville-Baggins.

[Kishkumen]

One imagines the Mopologists may be on the fence here. On the other hand, Hardy's book is complex, which is an argument for its legitimacy. On the other, Boyce's reading legitimizes the harsh dealing of critics. The choice between these alternatives can't be an easy one to make!

Excellent reportage, Dean Robbers, and your description of their Mopologetic conundrum at the end is, as Dora the Explorer might say, delicioso!

[Kishkumen]

It’s difficult to tell who’s in charge over at the Interpreter Foundation, including at the journal. Brant Gardner, a member of the board of advisors, openly wonders “why Boyce felt we needed another hagiography of Moroni,” noting that “I much prefer Hardy’s more three dimensional person to the saintly version Boyce seems to want to resurrect.” Meanwhile, Interpreter’s chairman and SeN proprietor “confess[es] that I haven't yet read Dr. Boyce's article -- I've been on the road too much of late!”

Brant Gardner and Grant Hardy keep the candle of hope flickering, hope that the field of LDS scriptural interpretation will not be utterly bereft of humane and intelligent readers.

[Symmachus]

It’s difficult to tell who’s in charge over at the Interpreter Foundation, including at the journal. Brant Gardner, a member of the board of advisors, openly wonders “why Boyce felt we needed another hagiography of Moroni,” noting that “I much prefer Hardy’s more three dimensional person to the saintly version Boyce seems to want to resurrect.” Meanwhile, Interpreter’s chairman and SeN proprietor “confess[es] that I haven't yet read Dr. Boyce's article -- I've been on the road too much of late!”

Brant Gardner and Grant Hardy keep the candle of hope flickering, hope that the field of LDS scriptural interpretation will not be utterly bereft of humane and intelligent readers.

Very true, my dear Reverend. The most basic mark of a genuine scholar, in my opinion, is that they instruct; that their readers can learn things from them and understand a problem in a different way, despite even fundamental disagreement. I will never see the Book of Mormon the way Brant Gardner does and never have, but at the same time reading his The Book of Mormon as History made me think about the text and experience it differently as a reader than I had up to that point. I learned a lot about it, as well as about the Meso-American cultures within which he tries to situate it. Similarly with Grant Hardy on its literary construction.

Boyce wants to defend the Primary-level interpretation of scripture, which is different from defending a literalist view of scripture—I actually don't have a problem with the literalist in the sense that it can be a defensible view of the text. But I think the few Interpreter readers and donors actually prefer just the childish primary version, though, as onservative Mormons have such a childish view of religion in general—I think it is very significant that there are no minor key hymns and hardly any minor key bars in the whole of the very upbeat Mormon hymnal—he is hardly unusual. I would call Brother Boyce and any like him to hear the words of Saint Paul:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[Symmachus]

Brant Gardner and Grant Hardy keep the candle of hope flickering, hope that the field of LDS scriptural interpretation will not be utterly bereft of humane and intelligent readers.

Very true, my dear Reverend. The most basic mark of a genuine scholar, in my opinion, is that they instruct; that their readers can learn things from them and understand a problem in a different way, despite even fundamental disagreement. I will never see the Book of Mormon the way Brant Gardner does and never have, but at the same time reading his The Book of Mormon as History made me think about the text and experience it differently as a reader than I had up to that point. I learned a lot about it, as well as about the Meso-American cultures within which he tries to situate it. Similarly with Grant Hardy on its literary construction.

Boyce wants to defend the Primary-level interpretation of scripture, which is different from defending a literalist view of scripture—I actually don't have a problem with the literalist in the sense that it can be a defensible view of the text. But I think the few Interpreter readers and donors actually prefer just the childish primary version, though, as many Mormons and particularly the lean-minded conservatives have such a childish view of religion in general—I think it is very significant that there are no minor key hymns and hardly any minor key bars in the whole of the very upbeat Mormon hymnal—he is hardly unusual. I would call Brother Boyce and any like him to hear the words of Saint Paul:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[Tom]

A a certain religious blog is promoting a new article by Duane Boyce, a staunchly conservative apologist. The article is a direct attack on Grant Hardy's interpretation of Captain Moroni.

Several years ago, Hardy argued famously that Moroni was brash, hot-headed, and probably guilty of war crimes. An odd thesis for a TBM to make, but the Proprietor of the religiously themed blog I mentioned is quick to point out the benefit:

I confess that, while Captain Moroni has never seemed to me not “particularly religious,” I have long thought, myself, that he had a quick temper. In fact, I've seen it as evidence of his historical reality; he seems to me a real, three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood, complex human character, not a paper cut-out figure. I've used this as a minor argument in favor of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon - a hint, at least, if not really a solid argument. And making that point once got me into trouble: Many years ago, after I had taught a Gospel Doctrine lesson in a California ward about the chapters in Alma in which Moroni figures prominently, the bishop called me aside. A couple of older sisters had come to him with the complaint that, by pointing out a possible human flaw in one the Book of Mormon's great heroes, I was preaching “secular humanism.” Fortunately, the bishop wasn't concerned in even the slightest degree. He chuckled, told me not to worry, and said that he had allayed their concerns.

The longing of the Proprietor to shock Chapel Mormons by his dark literary sophistication is on full display. Hardy's version of the Book of Mormon is R-rated. It's "The Wire" compared to "CHiPs". It's the re-imaged Galactica. It's a book of great moral complexity vs. transparent statist propaganda. It's not really compatible with Added Upon, but when has the Proprietor ever been concerned about consistency?

Good question. I am reliably informed that the little old lady from Pasadena Ward spoke on the phone to the Relief Society sister in Parowan last night about the Gospel Doctrine class incident, and the sweet Parowan sister now has some genuine concerns about whether the SeN proprietor is a faithful scholar. These concerns are unlikely to be allayed by a chuckling bishop in Parowan, let alone the typical Mormon in Ogden. Even a nine-hour telephone harangue from Dr. Midgley wouldn’t change her mind. Suffice it to say that the Relief Society sister in Parowan has canceled her ticket to see what she is calling a “secular humanist agitprop talkie” (Witnesses) at the Parowan Drive-In and Relief Society Bazaar and Swap Meet.

[Dr Moore]

Wonderful abstract, Dean Robbers. Once again you lead from the front, hammering out fresh work for peer review right through the end of our school year!

To me Moroni is a type of Nephi, who is a residual self image of Joseph himself. Nephi was righteous enough to see angels and to save the family from starvation and ocean storms, while at the same time willing to commit cold blooded murder when it served a greater purpose. Moroni also possessed this dualistic “militant humility” or “lethal love” of the gospel, if you will. Neither is a particularly complex character, and are arguably closer to a paper cutout than not. The only complexity is in their deadliness toward those who stand in the way of truth and right, God-justified of course. It conjures images of Joseph dealing out justice on disloyals. All of them are rather like DeNiro in The Fan.