The Pit and the Pendulum

[_Ray A]

Bear in mind too that Millet has written 23 articles for the MI, including the Review, and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. I really don't see a division here.

[_Gadianton]

Ray,

For the most part, I agree. Well, he gives Millet a pat on the head at least, certainly, he didn't spend three pages and a million footnotes praising the good points Millet made, but rather extrapolating possible errors Millet could (or should) have made by getting "scholarly" and he made clear the boundaries that Millet will work in if he wishes to continue beneath Ra's notice. Grace is a pretty neutral topic for Chapel and Internet Mormons, Internet Mormons emphasize it more just in PR fear.

But this agreement is important to the broader point I was making. It's Midgley that takes Millet to the cleaners for claiming to discover pre-established doctrines from the Book of Mormon.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Bear in mind too that Millet has written 23 articles for the MI, including the Review, and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. I really don't see a division here.

He also served for several years on our board of directors, and he's been a friend of mine since I first joined the faculty at BYU in the fall of 1985 (when we team-taught a course on Judaism and Islam).

Of course, I'm a three-time Shades-certified "Chapel Mormon." Maybe that explains why Bob and I get along so well.

[_Ray A]

For the most part, I agree. Well, he gives Millet a pat on the head at least, certainly, he didn't spend three pages and a million footnotes praising the good points Millet made, but rather extrapolating possible errors Millet could (or should) have made by getting "scholarly" and he made clear the boundaries that Millet will work in if he wishes to continue beneath Ra's notice. Grace is a pretty neutral topic for Chapel and Internet Mormons, Internet Mormons emphasize it more just in PR fear.

But this agreement is important to the broader point I was making. It's Midgley that takes Millet to the cleaners for claiming to discover pre-established doctrines from the Book of Mormon.

Well Gad, I think that's the nature of the Review. You know that not all are in agreement, and it shouldn't be surprising if there are disagreements. If Midgley felt that Millet was going overboard somewhere, and said so, that doesn't mean that Millet is ostracised from the "clan", so to speak. It's just a difference of opinion. Others might not agree with Midgley.

I think you need stronger, and clearer arguments here (and maybe some convincing evidences that we can agree on), Gad, and I'm not arguing with you, I just don't see much strength in your claim:

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

it seems to me that Millet is very much "in business" with the MI.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I get a kick out of the notion -- seriously advanced by Scartch, perhaps merely supersubtle satire with Gad -- that there exists some sort of monolith called "Mopologetics" that engages in cunning conspiracies, formulates clever plans for conquest, etc.

This is great stuff. Highly entertaining.

But I've got to go now. We have our weekly Mopologist meeting in less than an hour and a quarter -- they're always at midnight -- and I first need to buy a chicken for sacrifice.

[_Ray A]

and I first need to buy a chicken for sacrifice.

I hear that Red Rooster keeps live ones specifically for that, at bargain prices!

[_Tom]

I view Gee's review as an early sign of apostasy from the purpose of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon: to provide "an annual review of books written about the Book of Mormon."

In his review, Gee writes: "What qualifies Millet's work for review in this publication is not so much that it is a book about the Book of Mormon but that it draws heavily on the Book of Mormon."

(Of course, a mere two issues later, Gee engages in full-blown heresy by sneaking a review of a book on the Book of Abraham into the pages of the Review.)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

You read my posts like you read reviews.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I view Gee's review as an early sign of apostasy from the purpose of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon: to provide "an annual review of books written about the Book of Mormon."

In his review, Gee writes: "What qualifies Millet's work for review in this publication is not so much that it is a book about the Book of Mormon but that it draws heavily on the Book of Mormon."

(Of course, a mere two issues later, Gee engages in full-blown heresy by sneaking a review of a book on the Book of Abraham into the pages of the Review.)

I'm grateful the Review has become broader in scope. It allows the writers to ruthlessly attack more people.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm grateful the Review has become broader in scope. It allows the writers to ruthlessly attack more people.

That was our fiendish plan.