What's very telling to me about Bokovoy's use of scholarship is that he's so selective in his appeal to it. He'll take the bits which he thinks he can use to support LDS beliefs, and drop the rest. He'll appeal repeatedly to scholarship which can be interpreted favourably to the Book of Mormon, but ignore scholarship which is unfavourable.
Pretty much. He is the first from the FAIR/FARMS crowd to come right out and slam the entire field of Evangelical scolarship as though it were all completely worthless, and he has done so while misusing his own professor as support. Brettler didn't even begin to make the dogmatic dismissals expressed by Bokovoy, but David tried to give the impression that he did.
Yes, I've noticed that Evangelical scholarship is almost completely dismissed by him, and yet he'll pick up the bits and pieces which do favour his views and exalt them to the skies as authoritative.
You will be happy to read my final post then in which I quote a Baptist scholar whose views I believe are right on.
Erm, that's doing exactly what I mentioned above.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
I'm feeling somewhat disappointed right now. Not because the discussion is essentially over, since you are withdrawing, but because neither of you was able to see a few things that I saw in your discussion.
1. This is an ordinary forum on an ordinary site, yet the discussion took place here. This is high level discussion, yet it's not in Pundits nor the CK forum. No bannings were threatened, no deletions occured, no moderator closed the thread. The discussion was allowed to progress as the posters wanted it to progress.
2. Knowledge was presented from both sides. Nothing was censored.
3. "Hell" was the worst swear word I saw.
4. If all of you would learn to deflect personal comments, as opposed to commenting on them or returning them in classic volleying fashion, I think your discussions would be even more edifying.
5. Nothing was resolved, no one changed their mind or their stance, and that's okay. Change does not have to occur, in order for healthy discussion to have taken place. Sometimes, just the discussion itself is reason enough to have it.
Instead of fleeing back to the artificial bubble that is MAD in frustration, I suggest trying to reframe your perception of these types of discussions. Instead of assuming your argument will result in change in another person, use the discussion as an opportunity to bounce ideas off those who you know at the start do not agree with you. Only the closed minded never learn from interacting with others who are different. Use it as an opportunity to sharpen your points, or to approach them from a different direction. You're a smart man, although you have some weaknesses (whatever else they may be, right now, your ego is showing, like a white flag beneath a lovely black dress. Pull it up. It's distracting from your argument and is ruining your whole presentation.) Analyze your argument through Kevin's eyes, and you will see the weaknesses he sees, which can only help you strengthen your argument in the long run. Kevin and Fort and CK have done you a great service, by pointing out perceived weaknesses in your argument, weaknesses you can now address with new eyes. Don't take it personally. They are helping you, even though they may not see it that way, and you likely do not see it that way at all. Learn from every exchange, no matter how wrongheaded you may view it. Their approach to everything is very different from yours, and rather than dismissing them as unimportant or foolishly stubborn, reframe your approach to their ideas. They represent your eventual audience, thus their contribution to your education can only be valuable.
That was a beautiful post and I certainly will take your advise. No doubt the thread proved useful in as much as I gained important insights on how I need to improve my articulation of the arguments for a skeptical audience.
I also fully agree with your assessment of my need to simply deflect personal comments and not return them in kind. The fact that I was not able to do so is the real reason for a need to disengage. To be quite frank, though I recognize that I do not have all of the answers, I am very passionate (perhaps too much so) over the answers that from my perspective, I do possess.
harmony wrote:They represent your eventual audience, thus their contribution to your education can only be valuable.
I appreciate your attempt at peacemaking here, Harmony, but I think David will be better served by discussing his ideas with fellow scholars rather than two disagreeable Internet polemicists.
harmony wrote:They represent your eventual audience, thus their contribution to your education can only be valuable.
I appreciate your attempt at peacemaking here, Harmony, but I think David will be better served by discussing his ideas with fellow scholars rather than two disagreeable Internet polemicists.
And yet who is his eventual audience? Fellow scholars or the rest of the world? What good does it do to only discuss his ideas with people who agree with him? And what knowledge is given to the rest of the world, if academics only allow fellow academics in on their discussions? If David cannot hold his own with those whom you characterize as "disagreeable internet polemicists", his argument has little to offer the world at large. Perhaps this has given him the impetus to refine his argument and his delivery, even while holding onto his passion for his subject. I hope so. Eventually he will present in an environment where his ideas may not be readily accepted, and his experience here will be valuable to him. If he can hold his own among those who tear his words to pieces on an internet board, surely he is better prepared for those who would embarrass or heckle him in a public presentation.
He, and you, need to remember that his argument isn't read by only those within the discussion, and isn't valuable to only those who are in the midst of the discussion. I appreciate him coming to what may be viewed as hostile territory by him or his friends. Perhaps he's changed his view about us here, perhaps not, but at least the discussion took place without external moderation. That can never be said about his home board.
That was a beautiful post and I certainly will take your advise. No doubt the thread proved useful in as much as I gained important insights on how I need to improve my articulation of the arguments for a skeptical audience.
I also fully agree with your assessment of my need to simply deflect personal comments and not return them in kind. The fact that I was not able to do so is the real reason for a need to disengage. To be quite frank, though I recognize that I do not have all of the answers, I am very passionate (perhaps too much so) over the answers that from my perspective, I do possess.
Thanks again,
--David
You're quite welcome. As you gain more and more experience, you'll see an improvement in your delivery and in your ability to deflect personal comments, without losing your passion for your subject. Even experiences that you may be tempted to view as negative have value. If you only learn from those who praise you, you have shortchanged yourself. The most learned are the ones who give equal time to those who would present an opposing view, and not listen to just those who agree with them.
David will never discuss his apologetics or these arguments with "fellow scholars." He is still just a kid who likes too woo his audience with tales about his associations with other Brandeis scholars.
In all his talk about how only objective scholars are good scholars, he has already paved the way for a reputation as an apologist, which is one of the worst things a scholar can be. And it makes him a hypocrite for he will never be objective. Scholars don't enter the field of biblical Hebrew for the sole purpose of trying to pry evidence for a NRM.
Do you think any of them would care about his crazy theories about how th divine council proves Joseph Smith was a prophet?
It would be the death of him as far as his so-called career in academia goes.
But if he ever does make a name for himself in the field of biblical scholarship, he has already written enough nonsense on these forums to destroy whatever future reputation he might have.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
dartagnan, I feel your frustration. But I think it could be expressed without being quite so personal.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Just calling it as I see it, it got personal a long time ago when David chose to go that route with me.
I have little respect for people who attack scholarship while at the same time wanting to rely on it whenever it suits their agenda. I have less respect for people who constantly throw up their academic resume to substitute for decent arguments. This is the same kind of thing we get whenever Gee or Nibley is shown to be in error: "But he got a Ph.D from a good school so automatically his argument wins." David hasn't even achieved this yet, but he is already twice as arrogant than Gee and Nibley put together. I never heard them brag about their credentials; it was always their fan base that did it for them.
In David's case, he is his greatest fan, always reminding us of his social circle in academia.
But what always annoyed me most with this new breed of apologists, is the refusal to concede points and the insistence that they are always in teacher mode and everyone else should submit to listening mode. David steps on his feet all the time but then tries to blame others for failing to grasp points he never made, and then has the audacity to claim he is "correcting" mistakes. It is an amazing spectacle for a psychologist to witness. Projection, denial and righteous indignation all rolled up in one arrogant rant.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Kevin, I think you've succinctly pointed out the four major problems with the recent crop of apologetics. Let me bullet-list & bold your comments:
dartagnan wrote:
I have little respect for people who attack scholarship while at the same time wanting to rely on it whenever it suits their agenda.
I have less respect for people who constantly throw up their academic resume to substitute for decent arguments.
But what always annoyed me most with this new breed of apologists, is the refusal to concede points and the insistence that they are always in teacher mode and everyone else should submit to listening mode.
David steps on his feet all the time but then tries to blame others for failing to grasp points he never made, and then has the audacity to claim he is "correcting" mistakes.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"