Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:21 pm

I think Steuss is rather on the mark. One of the main reasons I subscribed for the Review was because it was criticial of many LDS-published books as well, and there was a wide range of reviewers, including people like Eugene England, Susan Easton Black, Richard Cracroft, and a review of John Welch's (the founder of FARMS) The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, by Todd Compton. I don't think Compton's review was a whitewash.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Doctor Steuss and Ray A have recognized what any fair-minded reader of the FARMS Review will also recognize: "Friendly" or pro-Mormon authors don't get a "free pass" in the Review.

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Post by **_JustMe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:03 am

Gadianton

You've read every Review, have you JustMe? I wonder if that would explain your rather extreme aggression as of late. You know what they say, "Garbage in, Garbage out." I honestly had to set the Review down for a couple of days because I felt such a dark, menacing spirit come upon me as I read it.

Aggression? Oh wait, I get it, you are trying to mimic Scratch's incorrect interpretations. This was pretty good in that case. I am not aggressive so much as simply plying Scratch's trade back onto himself. It won't work, of course. He is far too determined not to see anything silly, ridiculous or idiotic in the massive amounts he spews about Peterson and FARMS and apologetics. It is pure entertainment of course, for thus of us who know through reading and learning and understanding for ourselves. I cannot possibly take anything Scratch says seriously about the Review since it's so painfully obvious he speaks from a vast fund af fundamental ignorance about that the Reviews contains. Ah well, he certainly makes a good show of it though....... good stuff and great fun!

Post by **_JustMe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:07 am

Daniel Peterson wrote:Doctor Steuss and Ray A have recognized what any fair-minded reader of the FARMS Review will also recognize: "Friendly" or pro-Mormon authors don't get a "free pass" in the Review.

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

And actually, in all seriousness, when I read Midgley's review, lo those many years ago, of giving his honest and serious impression of the problems of Millet's and McConkie's approach to a doctrinal commentary on the Book of Mormon, I also have read in ernest ever since. In fact, the fairness of the Review to actually allow Mosser and Owen their own comments, commentary, and refutation of Mormonism within the Review's pages was delightful! And the rebuttals were even better. I mean, instead of saying what the Review thought Mosser and Owen thought, they allow them their own say-so? There can be no finer example of fairness and graciousness than this methodology. I congratulate the Review for sharing so vastly much with us poor ignorant Mormons. KEEP IT COMING AT US Dr. Peterson, WE WILL READ IT.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:13 am

He is far too determined not to see anything silly, ridiculous or idiotic in the massive amounts he spews about Peterson and FARMS and apologetics.

A subtle correction on the part I bolded/underlined. You meant "demented", didn't you?

Post by **_JustMe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:16 am

He is far too determined not to see anything silly, ridiculous or idiotic in the massive amounts he spews about Peterson and FARMS and apologetics.

Jersey Girl noted:

A subtle correction on the part I bolded/underlined. You meant "demented", didn't you?

Ahhhhhhhhh. Your perceptions are razor sharp. LOL!

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:23 am

JustMe wrote:He is far too determined not to see anything silly, ridiculous or idiotic in the massive amounts he spews about Peterson and FARMS and apologetics.

Jersey Girl noted:

A subtle correction on the part I bolded/underlined. You meant "demented", didn't you?

Ahhhhhhhhh. Your perceptions are razor sharp. LOL!

It is my gift.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:35 am

Ray A wrote:I think Steuss is rather on the mark. One of the main reasons I subscribed for the Review was because it was criticial of many LDS-published books as well, and there was a wide range of reviewers, including people like Eugene England, Susan Easton Black, Richard Cracroft, and a review of John Welch's (the founder of FARMS) The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, by Todd Compton. I don't think Compton's review was a whitewash.

Ray, I think there is a pretty big difference between the "criticism" doled out by Compton vs. the "criticism" doles out by Hamblin.

Look again at Hamblin's language, as cited by Dr. Robbers:

"This is a seriously flawed book.."
"I feel there are several major problems..."
"A related problem..."
"Hauck also makes some grandiose..."
"Hauck's work is also flawed..."
"A dubious assumption..."
"...last sentence manifestly false..."

Compare with the equivalents in Compton's piece:

"I close with a short list of methodological objections and minor problems."

"it seems to me that Welch sometimes comes dangerously close to subordinating the moral aspects of the Sermon"

"Welch also strikes me as forcing the Book of Mormon context somewhat in his suggested interpretation of Christ ministering to the children"

Do you notice how many qualifications Compton uses? E.g., "strikes me"; "sometimes comes"; "minor problems." Yes, Compton *is* somewhat critical of the Welch piece, but it is mild compared the the typical treatment given to critics. One also needs to take into account Compton's praise of and generosity towards Welch:

"Welch brings impressive tools to bear on this study."

"his command of the secondary literature on the Book of Mormon is superb."

"it serves as an excellent commentary on these important chapters in 3 Nephi."

Where, I ask, is the equivalent praise in the articles on critics, such as Quinn, Dr. Shades, or Hauck? No one seems able to provide any evidence for this.

Post by **_JustMe** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:46 am

Picking and choosing a few selective quotes proves absolutely nothing. Scratch you would make the perfect Evangelical Fundamental Christian.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:49 am

JustMe wrote:Picking and choosing a few selective quotes proves absolutely nothing. Scratch you would make the perfect Evangelical Fundamental Christian.

Well, JustMe, you could always cite some actual text showing how the Compton article is as harsh and belligerent as the Hamblin piece. You know, that might be more effective than supplying zero whatsoever, and tossing in a piece of religious bigotry for good measure.

DiscussMormonism.com

Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review

Re: Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review