DiscussMormonism.com

There was an interesting new posting on "SeN" today. Well, in fairness, as usual, the blog entry itself is rather boring, but there are intriguing things afoot in the "Comments" section. The blog entry itself deals with the Pearl of Great Price--a text in the LDS canon, which, I think it's fair to say, is probably the least read and most esoteric of the Standard Works. And indeed, a poster named "David B" makes this exact point:

David B wrote:There really is no pearl in the Pearl of Great Price, I notice. No one pays much attention to it and those that do really struggle to demonstrate anything useful coming from it. It seems to remain in the Church due to tradition, even if that passage in Abraham gets quoted a bunch. It's really misnamed.

Now, I wasn't aware that *this* David B is also actually David Bokovoy, but that hardly matters. It's more than enough to send Midgley into a lather:

Midgley wrote:I don't think that David Bo is telling the truth about his own apostasy.

And "David B" responds:

David B wrote:Hey, what do you know or don't know about my own apostasy? And what have I said about it?

Midgley wrote:What David Bok has said about his apostasy is, of course, his own story.

Huh. I knew that the Mopologists have been at odds with Bokovoy for quite some time, but I wasn't aware that they were actually accusing him of apostasy that is *quite* a serious charge. Very interesting, in any case.

You know, professor, it's interesting that after thousands of posts with consistent information about his background, Midgley will still tell Gemli that because he's anonymous what says about his degrees and so forth can't be trusted.

Somebody drops by simply as David B. and Midgley immediately assumes with infinite credibility that the poster is David Bokovoy and goes on a slander spree.

Could be, but from the way David posted on this forum some time ago it doesn't really strike me as David's manner of discourse.

Yep. I’m with Dean Robbers on this one. I would be very surprised if that were David Bokovoy. That is not David’s style, and he has essentially sworn off having anything to do with most things Mormon, including especially Mormon apologetics. David is moving on and not in the business of engaging with those whose views are so irreparably at odds with his own that it would be pointless to try.

Sorry but if accusations must be leveled about who is this or that, and apostasy from the basic teachings of Jesus Christ are in question, then I am afraid Midgley is missing his own beam for David’s mote. Bokovoy is a wonderful human being, a friend of many years, whose reputation and discipleship to principles that matter most I will gladly defend to the grave.

It will be interesting to see if that is David Bok, but I also have to explain it doesn't sound like the Bok I know. Unless he has really changed. I am truly surprised he posted on Peterson's blog in the comments. I have to wonder......

Philo Sofee wrote:It will be interesting to see if that is David Bok, but I also have to explain it doesn't sound like the Bok I know. Unless he has really changed. I am truly surprised he posted on Peterson's blog in the comments. I have to wonder......

It suckered me if that is not Dr. Bokovoy. I assumed Dr. Midgley had attached an apologetic tracking device to DavidB and thus knew for certain before declaring him to be an apostate. The telltale signs are there for it being someone else, such as no mention of pork butt barbecue.

The sad tale of the immature and rabid Midgley is so crazy that unless I had observed it myself, I would doubt that this village idiot could be an esteemed LDS apologist.

Dr Moore wrote:Sorry but if accusations must be leveled about who is this or that, and apostasy from the basic teachings of Jesus Christ are in question, then I am afraid Midgley is missing his own beam for David’s mote. Bokovoy is a wonderful human being, a friend of many years, whose reputation and discipleship to principles that matter most I will gladly defend to the grave.

I wholeheartedly agree, Dr. Moore. David Bokovoy is a sterling individual with a big heart, a big brain, and the highest integrity. It is unfortunate that Dr. Midgley is unable to look past their differences of opinion on religion and see David’s good qualities more clearly.

But it is not surprising. I don’t think it redounds to the credit of classic-FARMS apologetics that David parted ways with its methods years ago. He did so at great personal cost, of course. He abandoned a fundamentalistic view of LDS scripture that is untenable, while not denying his faith. The folks at BYU clung to a narrow view of scripture, and refused to hire David.

In the end, however, the cruelty of certain Church policies were, to David’s credit, unacceptable to him, and he had to part ways with the Church. I maintain that David did the right thing at every turn, and the position of the Church was, unfortunately for us all, gravely mistaken.

David Bokovoy has been posting openly on Facebook about why he won't ever have anything to do with the LDS Church again. It has to do with the church's repeated rejection of him for embracing Old Testament scholarship / biblical criticism plus the church's treatment of gays, especially the November policy.

That said, I don't think that the David B. in question is David Bokovoy. As Kish said, it doesn't seem like his style.

Mr. Midgley wrote:I am also not sure if David B is David Bokovoy, but it is possible. He could settle the issue easily, if he really cared to, could he not?

Absolutely, but suppose it isn't Bokovoy, and he or she doesn't care to, then what? There are many reasons somebody who isn't David wouldn't clarify the matter, especially if the individual is trolling. And can you really blame somebody for wanting to troll the easiest to troll crowd of goons on the planet?

Mr. Midgley intones that if this individual doesn't come forward to clarify the matter, and it appears he's willing to simply take the person's word for it, that he's free to bad-mouth David Bokovoy. The person posting is Bodovoy with absolute metaphysical certitude until proven otherwise.

If only Gemli could be extended a fraction of that credibility.