In my opinion, part of the fun of on-line Mormon discussions is that they provide an opportunity for both critic and believer to engage in thoughtful discussion. I have stated on more than one occasion at the MA&D board that I would hate to see it’s most thoughtful critics driven away.
I have even stated that if I had a vote that I would vote against Kevin's ban from the MA&D board.
Since we’re dealing with a topic that carries strong emotional reactions for both the active and at-one-time believer, these interactions can become a bit heated. I believe that both sides would do well to remember this point. Nevertheless, I believe that healthy on-line discussions can and do take place between the two groups.
Dr. Shades:
After that last post of his, any bets on how long it'll be before the MAaDites accuse him of being a Kevin Graham sock-puppet?
Surely you know that Kevin and Trashman are one and the same. Which, in all honesty, makes this whole affair all the more intriguing. Consider Kevin’s comments about himself:
David, I do not think it is fair to make this comparison. First of all Kevin seems to have particular background knowledge in the field of biblical scholarship that far surpasses Metcalfe and Vogel.
Despite his hubris, Kevin is no more qualified to critique biblical scholarship than Brent or Dan. Kevin is not a Biblicist. He has had very little exposure to biblical scholarship and does not have the necessarily linguistic and/or critical skills to engage in a serious interaction with the field.
Does this mean that Kevin’s opinions are without value? Of course not. But it does mean that despite his self-portrayal, Kevin is in no way more qualified than Dan Vogel and/or Brent Metcalfe to critique issues that combine Mormonism with biblical scholarship.
In fact, until the article was put on hold, Brent Metcalfe and David P. Wright were co-authoring an important article critiquing the identification of chiasmus in biblical and Book of Mormon studies. I have interacted personally with Brent and I can assure you that he is intellectually extremely gifted and is every bit as qualified as Kevin, if not much more so.
They tend to focus on Mormon history which has very little to do with your apologetics. Most of your apologetic claims relate to biblical scholarship, so naturally Kevin is more likely to take exception with anything you say. Also, I do not recall Vogel or Metcalfe starting any threads that critique any of your positions. I don’t even recall them disagreeing wit you in any particular discussion.
This is simply not true.
My apologetics almost always involve Mormon history, at least at some level. Moreover, both Vogel and Metcalfe have offered many, many critiques of my views. Prior to abandoning all message board interaction, Brent offered direct criticisms of my observations, from the biblical/Book of Mormon use of the three-four pattern, to the way I called Robert Ritner to task for his public attack on LDS scripture.
Though I disagreed with Brent’s views, his comments were extremely helpful in refining my own ideas and Brent and I remain friends. The same is true of Dan Vogel.
Dan has participated in almost every thread I have posted on at FAIR/MA&D which draws connections between the Book of Mormon and the ancient Near East. Dan has even attempted in that sphere to counter comments I have made regarding the divine council and the premortal human spirit in the Hebrew Bible.
Over the years, Dan and I have debated back and forth for several pages of posts on the topic of Joseph Smith Sr.’s alleged universalism. While Dan and I still disagree, our discussions have actually resulted in an on-line friendship that has now only been strengthened by visiting in person.
I have really enjoyed my interactions with Dan and am grateful that the message boards have given me a new friend, even if he is a critic of both Mormonism and my views.
Despite Kevin’s assertions that he is the only one who has challenged me concerning my apologetic efforts, even the Dude (who has surfaced on this very thread) has participated in many of the FAIR/MA&D discussions in which I have posted my thoughts and, once again, and in all honestly, the Dude’s criticisms have on occasion changed the way I view certain issues.
Despite our disagreements, I’m quite fond of the Dude and have appreciated his criticisms that have either changed the way I look at a topic or have helped refined my arguments.
Maybe Kevin was right when he said he is the only one who has taken you to task on some of your apologetic issues?
Well, I suppose it’s a matter of perspective. I don’t believe that anyone has ever “taken me to task” on my apologetic issues. And... I’m just going to be honest here, Kevin has never presented near the challenge to my thoughts as any of the above mentioned individuals, a point that illustrates that simply because someone challenges your way of thinking, even in a religiously driven context, doesn’t mean that that individual will become an enemy.
No, I don’t believe that I have ever been taken to task, certainly not by Mr. Graham.
Have I refined and sometimes even altered my thinking as a direct result of interacting with critics, absolutely, but taken to task?
Again, no doubt others will disagree, but that’s simply the nature of these things.
What I have hoped to illustrate through these examples is that notwithstanding differences in perspectives, interactions between critic and believer need not result in some sort of personal grudge match. And even though the debate need not take this angle, at least over here on the MD board, such attacks seem to be the standard rule of engagement.
Until this changes, I suppose the apologists at MA&D and the critics at MD will have to simply talk among themselves or discuss each other’s views on separate boards.
In the meantime, I’ve lost interest, which of course will not surprise those who have paid any attention to my posting habits as of late. These days it takes a personal attack by Kevin in a series of divine council threads to even draw me back into the fray.
No worries, given our current state, it won’t last long.