Trinity wrote:What a fun and illuminating experience it was for me to attend DCP’s class on Friday!
My thoughts on this summary:
1. This must have been an "overview" type of lecture, since it seems like there's a veritable shotgun spray of subjects that Daniel touched on. Very little actual learning could take place in the timeframe alloted, with such a shotgun approach, but the awe of the attendees is virtually guarenteed.
2. If the objective of the lecture was to give members a taste of the intellectual giants employed by BYU, perhaps that explains the loftiness of the language employed by the lecturer. If the objective of the lecture was to actually teach the attendees something about the subject of the title of the lecture, then the loftiness of the language was a detriment. What were the stated objectives of the lecture?
3. I'm not seeing the connection between critics of the church and Joseph Smith's studies of the Bible, especially I don't see a connection warrenting 22 references. It would seem unlikely that the two were connected at all, yet here we have 22 references to critics of the church. I wonder if that was deliberate and reflected in his lecture notes (As in "C. Discuss obscure German scholar here. [insert gratuitous insult to critic of the church here]"), or if it was simply a reflection of Daniel's internal cognitive dissonance?
4. I wonder who Daniel was really mocking, the critics (who weren't even there) or the ignorant but stalwart members of the church who shelled out their money to hear a learned man subtly mock them? And is a lecture where the attendees had paid their money to hear and learn from one who is often touted as "one of the best minds of the LDS church" the proper place for humor, especially humor that can be misinterpreted? I mean, surely people came to learn, not be entertained or mocked. Perhaps Daniel wants to compete with John Bytheway for audience appeal.
5. Shorthand is a lost skill. I'm impressed that Trinity has the skill to take down every word of the lecture. It certainly makes the normal smoke and mirrors ("you're missing the context", etc) less likely to be utilized. And look! We have a transcript!
6. BYU Education Week is designed for a specific type of member, one who doesn't normally get to visit the campus as a student, who is willing to shell out considerable dollars to rub elbows with the elite, who gives only lip service to actually learning something, and who understands the value of networking with like-minded people. It's sort of like the worst aspect of BYU itself: education-lite. Were it a serious endeavor, Daniel would have given a minimum of 5 lectures, each 2 hours long, and covering only one subject, in order to provide an in-depth examination of whatever the subject was. I can't fault Daniel for bowing to the planners who prefer education-lite to in-depth learning. He was simply following orders. At some point, though, it would be interesting to see what Daniel could do with something more meaty. Would he take up the challenge, or would he continue to mock and joke?
Thanks for the summary, Trinity!