Daniel C. Peterson wrote:There’s really no excuse, under the circumstances, for ignorantly mischaracterizing what these two highly trained linguists and scholars have had to say.
Peterson does not dare, however, to offer any succinct explanation of just what these scholars have really said. He accuses critics of having crudely misinterpreted them, but offers no hint at what the right interpretation would be. Instead he provides links to large collections of papers, and merely implies that these long reams of text are relevant and substantial. This way of citing academic authority seems to be a common ploy by Mormon apologists.
Far be it from an apologist like Peterson to summarize Skousen's and Carmack's positions. That would be sticking his neck out. For if he laid out a succinct summary in plain words, why, oh dear: it might not look impressive. And then Peterson himself would be in trouble from everyone. Fellow apologists would blame him for making Mormonism look bad by trivializing the subtle work of Skousen and Carmack, while critics would mock him for having been impressed by ridiculous claims.
No, no, no: this way's better. Make the critics have to work first just to guess what points the apologists are claiming to make; then wait and see how the critics attack those points. Perhaps their attacks will have genuine flaws, and you can pounce on them; or at least you may be able to spot an ambiguity or irrelevance on which you can make a show of pouncing as if it were fatal. If the criticisms are all too damnably cogent? That's the best part. You can simply sneer at the critics for having misconstrued the apologist position so badly, and kicked down a straw man. Send them back to your great wall of texts, to guess again at your argument, and congratulate yourself on a victory.
A brilliant strategy, yes. Except for this. Anyone who has ever really had a strong point to make, about anything, will recognize that the wall-of-text strategy is something no-one would use if they had a strong point. If you have a strong point, you can't spit it out fast enough; and far from hedging and hiding, you don't mind oversimplifying, because you know that as soon as anybody grasps the basic idea, they'll see how the nuances fall into place.
Apologetics by allusion is the opposite of that. You never explain, but only mention; you pound on authority and never take the risk of presenting anything that should stand on its own. You decline to spoon-feed. You demand engagement. Perhaps people who haven't spent much time in academia are impressed by this style because they imagine that it's how real experts think and express themselves, but quite the opposite is true. Apologetics by allusion is a damning confession that you've got nothing — and at some level, you know it.