Blake Ostler on DCP and MI Issues

[_Kishkumen]

Here's an interesting opinion:

I find it unnecessary to read the Maxwell Institute’s recent iteration of its purpose to exclude the sort of honest work that Dr. Bohn thinks it should do (i.e., to expose the failures in dishonest or misguided efforts, by drawing the reader to a more secure ground). Rather, what the statement seems to preclude is that obnoxious sort of publication whose main point is not to teach and edify, but to simply prove the incorrectness of an opponent.

In my opinion, the person who is upset that the Church of Jesus Christ’s flagship university would try and get away from that sort of SWAT-style publication, is probably the same type of person who loved so-called “scripture-bashing” on his mission.

Ouch. Well said.

[_Cicero]

Here's an interesting opinion:

I find it unnecessary to read the Maxwell Institute’s recent iteration of its purpose to exclude the sort of honest work that Dr. Bohn thinks it should do (i.e., to expose the failures in dishonest or misguided efforts, by drawing the reader to a more secure ground). Rather, what the statement seems to preclude is that obnoxious sort of publication whose main point is not to teach and edify, but to simply prove the incorrectness of an opponent.

In my opinion, the person who is upset that the Church of Jesus Christ’s flagship university would try and get away from that sort of SWAT-style publication, is probably the same type of person who loved so-called “scripture-bashing” on his mission.

Ouch. Well said.

I'm amazed that I never thought of it that way before. It really is a lot like scripture bashing . . . and is just as ineffective in converting souls.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Ouch. Well said.

For some reason, everyone understands the reason for the change except the mopologists.

The FARMS crowd has gained a well-deserved reputation for aggressive, personal attacks instead of apologetic scholarship. Case in point: Midgley's attack on Grant Palmer had nothing to do with scholarship or with reviewing a book. It was an attack on Palmer's character, nothing more. As a BYU alumnus I'm glad they are cutting off the pissed-off apologists in favor of the kind of scholarship a university is supposed to do. Apologetics can be scholarly, interesting, and persuasive, but FARMS clearly decided years ago to be driven by grudges, not scholarship.

[_Kishkumen]

For some reason, everyone understands the reason for the change except the mopologists.

The FARMS crowd has gained a well-deserved reputation for aggressive, personal attacks instead of apologetic scholarship. Case in point: Midgley's attack on Grant Palmer had nothing to do with scholarship or with reviewing a book. It was an attack on Palmer's character, nothing more. As a BYU alumnus I'm glad they are cutting off the pissed-off apologists in favor of the kind of scholarship a university is supposed to do. Apologetics can be scholarly, interesting, and persuasive, but FARMS clearly decided years ago to be driven by grudges, not scholarship.

They don't agree because they think that this was good practice.

[_Bob Loblaw]

They don't agree because they think that this was good practice.

That's why they're so shocked that they've been shown the door. It's like the mildly drunk guy giving a toast at a wedding, who keeps on talking until he's straying into embarrassing territory. Everyone else in the room sees what's going on, but he thinks he's doing a great job.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Robert F. Smith's thoughts are pretty humorous:

Of course Steve Smith is quite wrong on several counts: (1) FARMS has always employed the best in ancient Near Eastern studies and Mesoamerican studies by first rate archeologists and anthropologists to explore the nature of the Book of Mormon; (2) non-Mormon scholars can hardly be expected to suddenly abandon their a priori views and to actually give credence to legitimate Mormon claims — which might prove to be a career-ending move at worst, and a potential waste of precious time at best — so why bother? and (3) FARMS never attempted to quash opposing points of view.

Yes, Robert, they never attempted to quash opposing points of views. They never published them, and they sought to destroy the reputations of the people who did.

[_Cicero]

This whole mess has had one tangible effect: it has brought out some stunningly bad writing from some quarters.

+100

Blake is no Droopy. He has published numerous books and articles on philosophy and Mormon theology. I will admit that I haven't read them all since I long ago lost any real interest in philosophy (and because I decided that "Mormon theology" doesn't really exist . . . but I digress). I was frankly surprised to see him chime in here and advocate for DCP attack-dog style apologetics (or, in his words, a defense lawyer). I was also surprised and disheartened to see Rosalynde Welch's poorly written attack on Mormon Stories.

Kish: I don't know if you have the stomach to read MD&D but I have always found Robert F. Smith to be one of the more "humorous" posters over there.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm stoked about this claim:

Bryce Hammond is more than fair and quite correct to claim that “there are mountains of evidence for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon,” some of it still unpublished. Good evidence, which is compelling in a systematic way. Not simply vague parallels, as Steve Smith would have it.

I have been waiting all my life!

[Guest]

I'm stoked about this claim:

Bryce Hammond is more than fair and quite correct to claim that “there are mountains of evidence for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon,” some of it still unpublished. Good evidence, which is compelling in a systematic way. Not simply vague parallels, as Steve Smith would have it.

I have been waiting all my life!

Right. They'd have held a press conference already if they had any such thing. Suppose they found a set of gold plates, written in reformed Egyptian, in Meso America. That would have been in the news that day.

[_Drifting]

I'm stoked about this claim:

Bryce Hammond is more than fair and quite correct to claim that “there are mountains of evidence for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon,” some of it still unpublished. Good evidence, which is compelling in a systematic way. Not simply vague parallels, as Steve Smith would have it.

I have been waiting all my life!

When he says 'some of it unpublished' that indicates that the balance (all of it - the unpublished 'some') has been published.

What is it? Where is it?