David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

[Lem]

That was very interesting to read, Ben, thank you. And thank you for the references, also, those two chapters look intriguing.

... Part of what I want to do is to stress over and over again that the Book of Mormon should not be privileged as some sort of special text to which the normal rules of literature do not apply. And whatever our individual beliefs about the Book of Mormon are (in terms of its truth claims), I am fascinated by its narrative, by its intertextuality, and by its politics and philosophy. And I don't think that you need to have an opinion on its authenticity as a historical record to appreciate these issues.

I think you’ll find many here who appreciate this approach as well.

...I would suggest two possible approaches: 1. Believers such as Thompson could simply ignore the implications of mainstream scholarship and just choose to believe. This would never work for me, but it does for some. 2. Believers such as Thompson could accept these historical views about the Bible and shift their belief paradigms to accommodate the implications of scholarship. It is possible to do, and many believers in a variety of faith communities are able to make that approach work.

In my view, either approach would be superior to publishing apologetic work, which shows that the authors have had very little exposure to the topics they’re addressing.

That sums up the value of most current Mormon apologetics pretty well.

[DeWalke]

There is more bias against "Mormonism" and Keith Thomson from David Bokovoy and his acolytes in the various comments in this thread than Stalin's ultimate reply to Trotsky. The comments are not worth the effort in responding individually because they mostly have only one agenda, to "Discuss Mormonism" with heavy blinkers on. They should all carry the verbal equivalent of an ice-pick in their rhetorical arsenal. It would be far easier to bury it in someone's head at the very beginning rather than going to the trouble of trying to justify their "intellectual" partisanship through page after page after page of trash.

[drumdude]

There is more bias against "Mormonism" and Keith Thomson from David Bokovoy and his acolytes in the various comments in this thread than Stalin's ultimate reply to Trotsky. The comments are not worth the effort in responding individually because they mostly have only one agenda, to "Discuss Mormonism" with heavy blinkers on. They should all carry the verbal equivalent of an ice-pick in their rhetorical arsenal. It would be far easier to bury it in someone's head at the very beginning rather than going to the trouble of trying to justify their "intellectual" partisanship through page after page after page of trash.

I haven’t seen a more accurate description of Interpreter. Well done.

[Alphus and Omegus]

There is more bias against "Mormonism" and Keith Thomson from David Bokovoy and his acolytes in the various comments in this thread than Stalin's ultimate reply to Trotsky. The comments are not worth the effort in responding individually because they mostly have only one agenda, to "Discuss Mormonism" with heavy blinkers on. They should all carry the verbal equivalent of an ice-pick in their rhetorical arsenal. It would be far easier to bury it in someone's head at the very beginning rather than going to the trouble of trying to justify their "intellectual" partisanship through page after page after page of trash.

This is a classic example of fundamentalist dudgeon. Well done! You cannot refute any of the arguments so you just whine and cry that others are "mean."