From My Informant: Stormy Weather Ahead for Brant Gardner?

[_Kishkumen]

I received a question regarding this thread via Facebook.

Really? Wow. Sincerely.

I have not written a critique, and if I did, I certainly would never say a negative word about Brant Gardner.

Though once interested in such matters, I no longer engage in apologetics.

Warm regards,

--DB

I take from this the following:

1) Enuma has not written a review of Brant's book

2) Enuma would not say an unkind word about Brant personally

3) Enuma has decided that apologetics are not for him

Number one is news to me. Not big news, but new information. I am sure Enuma could have written a fair and penetrating review of Brant's book. Number two is not a surprise and was never a question in my mind. Number three is kind of a shame, in a way. As it is often currently practiced, I should hope very few people would want to engage in LDS apologetics. There is, however, some hope of better things on the horizon, and I should hope that good people like Enuma would be part of them. But, that is a personal decision and not for me to question. In any case, nice to see your here, Enuma, if only very briefly.

I am here much less these days too.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I wish Enuma Elish would become the model for Apologetic method for Mormons. I'm sorry to hear that the field which badly needs people like him is no longer interested.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Neither David B. or Brant are very good attack apologists. However, they are the two faithful members writing on LDS subjects I respect the most.

I've always found it interesting the greatest amount of "buzz" seems to come from the intellectually weakest of LDS apologists while the really excellent thinkers are marginalized and ignored.


Phaedrus

[_beastie]

There's always been a divide among Book of Mormon apologists. Those who emphasize the Mesoamerican side of the question MUST dismiss things like chiasmus, because chiasmus depends on a word-for-word translation, which dooms the anachronistic Book of Mormon. Those who emphasize the Hebraic side of the question cling to chiasmus like a life-raft, and minimize the problems word-for-word translation causes for the Mesoamerican side of the equation.

[_Yahoo Bot]

There's always been a divide among Book of Mormon apologists. Those who emphasize the Mesoamerican side of the question MUST dismiss things like chiasmus, because chiasmus depends on a word-for-word translation, which dooms the anachronistic Book of Mormon. Those who emphasize the Hebraic side of the question cling to chiasmus like a life-raft, and minimize the problems word-for-word translation causes for the Mesoamerican side of the equation.

Yup. Sure. That's a pretty unprincipled assessment, in my view.

Apologists come in all stripes. They can be 18 years old. They can be 75 years old. They can be high school dropouts. They can be accountants, insurance salesmen and accountants.

LDS apologists are not monolithic, although some claim to have their feet in the FARMS or FAIR camps. Even those are not monolithic. Some think Meldrum has something to offer; others don't.

Brant stands out for not believing in Hebraisms. So what. It is all speculation. I read his work, and all the speculative stuff about Mesoamerican supposition, to better understand church doctrine and history. Just like reading Eisenmann (is it one n or two at the end) or Hitchens or Ehrman to better understand Christianity. A lot of hokum and bunkum but good stuff in between.

[_moksha]

For being Yahoononymous.

I think this translates into a request to furnish enough personal data so you can be silenced.

[_moksha]

I have not written a critique, and if I did, I certainly would never say a negative word about Brant Gardner.

Though once interested in such matters, I no longer engage in apologetics.

Warm regards,

--DB

It takes integrity and fortitude not to be used as a cudgel upon request. I hope the blessing of good barbecue always shines on David Bokovoy.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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).

Hello Friends,

I received a question regarding this thread via Facebook. I have not written a critique, and if I did, I certainly would never say a negative word about Brant Gardner.

Though once interested in such matters, I no longer engage in apologetics.

Warm regards,

--DB

Hi, David. Thanks for popping in and clearing this stuff up. I figured that you wouldn't be mean to Gardner--that's not your style. Of course, as I pontificated above, there really wouldn't have been any way to stop, say, Lou "Woody" Midgley from doctoring an article you submitted. But you are out of the Mopologetics game and that's that.

How are things going for you these days, by the way? Did you wind up getting hired at BYU?

[_sock puppet]

I've always found it interesting the greatest amount of "buzz" seems to come from the intellectually weakest of LDS apologists while the really excellent thinkers are marginalized and ignored.


Phaedrus

That might be because Mormonism is propped up by apologetic screeds, but pales when excellent thinkers look at the problematic issues.

[_Enuma Elish]

How are things going for you these days, by the way? Did you wind up getting hired at BYU?

This is my final semester teaching at BYU. It's been a great experience. I loved the students, but I'm moving in a different direction.

Best,

--DB