The Pit and the Pendulum

[_Gadianton]

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... um=1&id=35

Brother Robert Millet just can't win. The second and final review by Gee in FROB v. 2 is of Millet's book, By Grace we are saved. It's about a seven page review though most of the review is taken up by footnotes. Gee's final judgement on Millet's book is sort of a, "Well, not too many LDS have written on this topic, and he does ok (for a Chapel Mormon), so, whatever." But most of the review is nevertheless a scathing critique, a heavy-handed scholarly "smack down" of Millet's ignorance (from the smug vantage point of Internet Mormonism). Gee writes,

There are a few matters which Millet has wisely left alone. For instance, he does not get entangled in a discussion of the meaning of the Greek word chari..translated "grace."

Naturally, since Millet didn't make this "mistake" that Gee clearly wishes he had, Gee quickly cites Millet for doing a poor job translating another Greek word, and then begins correcting Gee on the mistranslation that he never did of "grace" filling three quarters of three pages with footnotes citing scholarly dictionaries, a move clearly in the Tvedtness tradition of, "How dare anyone but me write a book!"

After a couple additional gratuitous crticisms, Gee writes, apparently with some shame of the office of avenger he had been called to by Ra,

For the most part, the preceding has been merely straining at gnats. All books have flaws..

Yes, and the biggest flaw of this book, the overwhelming heaviest handed correction, was for a mistake Gee admitted at the outset that Millet didn't even make!

While Gee swings the pendulum, daring Millet to cross into the bounds of "scholarship" and receive a just punishment, recall the chastisements of Migdley. If Millet were to escape the pundulum, then in surrealistic horror, the walls of the apologetic prison cell would begin folding in as Midgley's voice bellows out charges of proof texting. If Millet tries to be scholarly and provide insights from the culture or original languages to satisfy Migdley, there Gee will be waiting with the pendulum. And if to satisfy the avenger, he leaves the sacred dictionaries alone, Midgley will shoo him into the pit.

An effective and cunning example of tag-team harrassment to keep everyone but the apologists out of the business of speaking on gospel topics.

[_Ray A]

Gad, as always a thought-provoking post. These are the excerpts from Gee that I found significant, and believe it or not, this was one review I did clearly remember, though it was quite long ago.

The publication of Robert Millet's book fills a long felt need for a work on grace for the Latter-day Saints which is balanced but not polemical. Millet has done us all a favor for which we should be grateful.

He also uses the Joseph Smith Translation both extensively and well. His wide use of both of these sources, as well as of several quotes from Joseph Smith, is what gives this discussion of grace a distinctively Latter-day Saint hue. By Grace Are We Saved contains a discussion of grace which is thoroughly grounded in the scriptures. Millet's thought seems to be so permeated with the scriptures, in fact, and with statements of certain of the leaders of the Latter-day Saint Church that at times he seems to quote them unknowingly.

Thus, Millet would have us avoid both the snare of Nehor, who "testified unto the people that . . . the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and in the end, all men should have eternal life" (Alma 1:4), and the delusion of Korihor, who said that "there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength"

Extending your last quote, the bold bit is what you excluded:

For the most part, the preceding has been mere straining at gnats. All books have flaws, and any author should feel fortunate to write a book which has as few as Millet's. His book is one of the better Latter-day Saint discussions of grace available, and we do both the author and ourselves a great disfavor if we do not use what has been offered us...

But I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion:

An effective and cunning example of tag-team harrassment to keep everyone but the apologists out of the business of speaking on gospel topics.

At any rate, this isn't "obvious" to me.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the response ray.

How did I come up with my conclusion?

Well, Gee has blocked the road for Millet to ever contribute as an antiquarian. That leaves Millet with a more traditional LDS theological enterprise. And Midgley blocked that road in Review 1, charging this approach as useless, and as "Mormon Monasticism".

[_Mister Scratch]

Some interesting quotes, Ray. I think that this is a very interesting and rather peculiar piece from Gee. It is definitely worth noting that he is quite generous toward Millet, and yet, his "generosity" carries with it the whiff of intellectual arrogance and condescension. This is especially evident to me (as Dr. Robbers observed) in the lengthy digression into etymology and definitions which seems to serve no purpose beyond demonstrating Gee's book-learning and scholarly acumen. I mean, isn't this supposed to be a book review???. Anyways, you already took note of this important quote:

Millet's thought seems to be so permeated with the scriptures, in fact, and with statements of certain of the leaders of the Latter-day Saint Church that at times he seems to quote them unknowingly. Therefore, the following might be noted where he has omitted a reference or two

It seems to me that this is, at best, a back-handed compliment. It is as if Gee is saying, "Hey, way to go, amateur. You did a good job, but look at this lengthy list of citations you forgot to include." It is as if Gee is patting Millet on the head, and urging him to go off and enjoy his Otter-Pop. I suppose we should praise Gee for not going the full nine yards and accusing Millet of plagiarism. Then again, this was almost twenty years ago, Gee is a lot more bitter these days (just compare this with his "Egyptian Test" on the MADboard), and the methods for handling Chapel Mormons have changed somewhat.

[_Ray A]

It seems to me that this is, at best, a back-handed compliment. It is as if Gee is saying, "Hey, way to go, amateur. You did a good job, but look at this lengthy list of citations you forgot to include."

Well I have to agree on that point. It's rather unusual to have 47 footnotes in a relatively brief review. I don't know who paid attention to that part, but I didn't. I'm hardly likely to look up:

5. Sturzius, Etymologicum Graecae Linguae Gudianum, 563; Slater, Lexicon to Pindar, 543.

Or:

Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, 2:722

Dictionary.com is about the absolute range of my intellect.

[_Dr. Shades]

Interesting thoughts, Mister Scratch. Now that the Internet/Chapel divide is more stark--and with it, the insiders' abject disdain for the outsiders--I wonder how Gee would review the same book today?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Keep the reviews of reviews coming, even if they widely miss the mark, as Ray A ably pointed out.

[_Gadianton]

I will keep them coming, and thanks for admitting I'm right. I'll just go ahead and chalk another one up.

[_Ray A]

Well, Gee has blocked the road for Millet to ever contribute as an antiquarian. That leaves Millet with a more traditional LDS theological enterprise. And Midgley blocked that road in Review 1, charging this approach as useless, and as "Mormon Monasticism".

My understanding of Gee is that he doesn't at all disagree with Millet:

contains a discussion of grace which is thoroughly grounded in the scriptures.

and the delusion of Korihor, who said that "there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength" (Alma 30:17). Sometimes we are apt to fall into the Zoramite trap: "Holy God . . . we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children" and therefore we need "no Christ" (Alma 31:16), all the while being "puffed up, even to greatness, with the vain things of the world: . . . costly apparel, . . . gold, and all . . . precious things" which we have obtained through hard work (Alma 31:27-28). Alma called such people "wicked and . . . perverse" (Alma 31:24), and Millet's book serves as an antidote for such thinking. (Emphasis added)

Gee sounds very "traditional" here to me. Doctrinally and scripturally he agrees with everything Millet says. In other words, Gee is a true blue "chapel Mormon". Using terms I prefer, I wouldn't call Gee a "Liahona". By any stretch, and that's why these terms "chapel" and "Internet Mormons" can be confusing. They don't make as accurate a distinction as "Iron Rod" and "Liahona".

[_Daniel Peterson]

The careful choosing of the target, the selective culling of quotations, the speculative mind-reading, the attribution of base motives -- yet another watershed moment in the history of Scartchoplexy.

Well done, Gad!