From My Informant: Stormy Weather Ahead for Brant Gardner?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I recently received one of the most peculiar pieces of intel that I've ever read. This comes from an informant who has, in the past, been quite reliable, and yet the intel doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Nonetheless, I am posting it in the hopes of potentially disproving or verifying it.

I am assuming that most people here like the loveable and rather squishy Mr. Brant Gardner, who is probably best known for his Mopologetic work on mesoAmerica. In fact, he has had a number of skirmishes with Beastie, but what has long struck me about Gardner is his general affability and civility. When compared with the rest of the Old Guard MI Mopologists, these traits make him stand out: he's not mean; he's not a misogynist; he doesn't engage in potty humor about "Butthead"; he doesn't verbally assault ladies at their place of business. He's just an all-around nice guy.

So you can imagine my surprise when this piece of "intel" landed in my PM box:

[It appears that] there will be multiple harsh critiques of Gardner in upcoming issues of [The Mormon Studies Review].... Gardner is strongly opposed by just about all of the [powers-that-be at the Maxwell Institute].

I confess that I found this shocking. Gardner is a stalwart, and he himself has published in the Review. So if this is true, why would the Old Badgers go after him? Perhaps it would be easiest to dismiss the intel as pure falsehood, but I nonetheless tried to dig around a bit--to speculate on potential reasons why he would be targeted for "The FARMS Treatment."

One clue may be this:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/553 ... -new-book/

And this:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/572 ... 1209101084

In the first link, David Bokovoy aggressively challenges some of the claims made in Gardner's relatively new book:

Let me begin by saying that in terms of faithful LDS scholarship, there are very few people that I admire as much as Brant Gardner. In my humble opinion, his contributions to Book of Mormon studies and a defense of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon prove immeasurable. I love to read his ideas and hear his presentations. Whenever Brant shares his thoughts in any context, I always gain new and exciting insights into the text. He is a brilliant man. But more importantly, I very much consider Brant an outstanding person and a good friend. Honestly, I can't say enough great things about both Brant and his scholarship.

So in sum, despite the fact that I love my friend Brant and that his new book represents a worthy attempt for which he should be congratulated for approaching the topic with both faith and academic integrity, I find this new book very problematic. I'm not sure yet what forum I will use, but I feel far too passionate about this topic not to point out these issues.

In response to this, Gardner was, of course, quite gracious. In the second link, Gardner himself writes:

Yes, but my argument for it is awaiting publication/presentation at the next FAIR Conference. I approached the geographic descriptions from the viewpoint of recursive reinforcement. That is, if the text's geography appears to work for Mesoamerica, then we should see signs of Mesoamerica in the text. If we see signs of Mesoamerica in the text, then Mesoamerican concepts of directions might underlie what we see in the text.

(emphasis added)

So, based on this, I can discern two potential reasons why the Old Guard at FARMS would want to attack Gardner. The first here is a conflict involving Bokovoy and Gardner. (Did David ever wind up publishing a more formal, peer-reviewed treatment of Gardner's book? Might this be the first of the "multiple harsh critiques" that my informant referred to?) I've been led to suspect that the Old Guard of Mopologists feels threatened and worried about the younger generation of Mormon Studies scholars and thinkers. These are people like Bokovy, Blair Hodges, the narrator, and a few others: young academics who have decided that legitimate scholarship and academic dialogue are preferable to the attack mindset that dominated the DCP-Midgley-Welch era of Mopologetics. The recent skirmish between LoaP, the narrator, and DCP on Facebook is a clear indication that there is tension between these two groups. And I think it is fairly obvious why the Old Guard Mopologists would have a problem with these youngsters: it would represent a total upheaval of the Mopologists' longstand approach to doing apologetics. The Young Guard are serious and interested in cooperation. Unlike Hamblin, Gee, Roper, et al., the Young Guard is interested in actually having a dialogue with critics, and in just pursuing the best scholarship possible. Whereas Dan Peterson's favorite technique has always been to simply reference a dozen or so literary texts and then spend the next 5,000 words mocking and ridiculing the critics, the Young Guard are actually interested in talking about the issues. The difference here could not be more striking: just look at the way that Bokovoy and Gardner interact with each other on that MDD thread; it is literally impossible to imagine a thread like that involving DCP, Hamblin, or Midgley. So the Young Guard--the Vanguard--would represent a complete shattering of the old way of doing things. Plus, I would imagine that it would have to sting a lot for the Old-Timers to think that these Young Turks don't respect them.

So, what does this have to do with a potential attack on Gardner? Well, it would make sense from the Old Guard's perspective to initiate and encourage in-fighting amongst the Vanguard. If they can encourage Bokovoy to viciously attack Gardner, it will not only undercut the Vanguard's power, but it will push Bokovoy ever so slightly closer to the Old Guard's way of doing things (i.e., ad hominem attack, mockery, smear campaigns, and so on).

The other reason the MI might want to attack Gardner is somewhat more subtle. Look again at the post I highlighted above:

Yes, but my argument for it is awaiting publication/presentation at the next FAIR Conference. I approached the geographic descriptions from the viewpoint of recursive reinforcement. That is, if the text's geography appears to work for Mesoamerica, then we should see signs of Mesoamerica in the text. If we see signs of Mesoamerica in the text, then Mesoamerican concepts of directions might underlie what we see in the text.

One of Gardner's main scholarly arguments is that one should be able to, as he says, "see signs of Mesoamerica in the text," and this includes remnants of old Mesoamerican languages. Now, perhaps I'm wrong and someone (beastie?) can correct me, but my understanding is that this directly contradicts some of the work that has been done by Jack "The King" Welch, who spent (or frittered away?) so much effort on finding "chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon. The question here is: What should the apologists be looking for? Hebraisms, or Mesoamerican linguistic fragments? In other words, is Gardner's work spitting in the eye of the true "Puppet Master" of FARMS?

Regardless, it's interesting to speculate. As I noted in the beginning, I have no idea if any of this is true. Then again, I initially didn't think it was true that Midgley tried to stop Meldrum's book publication, and that it wasn't true that Elder Oaks went to visit Scott Gordon, and so on. This source has been right a number of times in the past, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

If I'm not mistaken, the latest issue of the Review is all set to go. Will we see an attack on Gardner in its pages?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Brant differs from the normal crowd in that he thinks the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are there for reasons relating to the nineteenth century milieu of Joseph Smith. I'm not sure he has adequately tackled the chiasmus issue but the rest of his argument is fairly persuasive, at least to me.

His book, which I have and have read, is massively overlong and has a lot of secular asides to explain metaphysical events. He tries to use secular means to explain a lot of what Joseph Smith did in the translation process. Not quite the sort of thing that would resonate with the normal apologetic crowd.

But otherwise he is lockstep with them. He is a William Dever disciple, an agnostic middle east archaeologist, who believes that the true religion of Israel is that not found in the Old Testament. In particular, the true religion involves the worship of Asherah. This is a significant diversion from standard LDS theology that few really care about or have even detected. But, Kevin Christiansen and Kevin Barney are really the chief proponents of this detestable heresy for reasons that really astound me.

And, Brant is an LGT Mesoamericanist, which I also believe is a significant diversion from standard LDS theology although which is gaining traction among the faithful. And, perhaps the LGT theory will rule for good reason.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's interesting, Bob. It looks like you've discovered even more reasons why he might have a target on his back.

[_harmony]

But otherwise he is lockstep with them. He is a William Dever disciple, an agnostic middle east archaeologist, who believes that the true religion of Israel is that not found in the Old Testament. In particular, the true religion involves the worship of Asherah. This is a significant diversion from standard LDS theology that few really care about or have even detected. But, Kevin Christiansen and Kevin Barney are really the chief proponents of this detestable heresy for reasons that really astound me.

This paragraph is really unclear. What exactly are you saying?

[_MrStakhanovite]

[_MrStakhanovite]

Ever notice that when Scratch posts these threads, the # of views shoots up quickly? Like someone linked it on the skinny-L....

[_Yahoo Bot]

But otherwise he is lockstep with them. He is a William Dever disciple, an agnostic middle east archaeologist, who believes that the true religion of Israel is that not found in the Old Testament. In particular, the true religion involves the worship of Asherah. This is a significant diversion from standard LDS theology that few really care about or have even detected. But, Kevin Christiansen and Kevin Barney are really the chief proponents of this detestable heresy for reasons that really astound me.

This paragraph is really unclear. What exactly are you saying?

I guess I am being intentionally vague. But it is very troublesome.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Ever notice that when Scratch posts these threads, the # of views shoots up quickly? Like someone linked it on the skinny-L....

I don't get this particular personal attack you're making on me. I'm saying I don't go along with some of these theories. I'd say spinelessness is defined by somebody who make anonymous personal insults. Wounldn'tyasay?

[_MrStakhanovite]

I don't get this particular personal attack you're making on me. I'm saying I don't go along with some of these theories.

That comment has nothing to do with you, it is an observation that a Scratch thread can gain the number of views in just a few hours that take a typical active thread a few days to gain.

[_Yahoo Bot]

That comment has nothing to do with you, it is an observation that a Scratch thread can gain the number of views in just a few hours that take a typical active thread a few days to gain.

Yer really a coward.