mikwut wrote:Themis,
Maybe you could provide one example from the article on how it focused on the author himself rather than appropriate criticism and critique of the work.
my regards, mikwut
I can't be arsed to read a full article those guys anymore, but I didn't notice an ad hominem in the first few paragraphs - just the usual smarmy, unprofessional, tabloid-esque writing style.
Example:
Shocking! Not only has G. D. Smith proved at once that Joseph's spelling hadn't improved much since he allegedly made up the several-hundred-page Book of Mormon, but also that Joseph wrote this to his wife! Imagine, a man writing that to his wife! If the book's title had not alerted us, we are certainly on notice that this is about plural marriage. (G. D. Smith hopes, one suspects, that we will emphasize the word plural rather than marriage.)
Alas, this document is merely a specimen of the hoary art of selective citation and textual distortion. One must admire G. D. Smith's bravado. In his haste to firmly fix some naughty thoughts to Joseph's character, he neglected to include much of the letter. He didn't burden us with the fact that Joseph wrote to three people: "Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c." Now, this is a serious omission by G. D. Smith on two counts.
They could easily have conveyed this information in an academic and credible voice, but they go for sophomoric sarcasm every time. That's fine in a forum post, but disturbing in a publication associated with an accredited university.
This sort of odd writing style, at once sophomoric and pedantic, seems to hold regardless of author. Maybe in some future age it will become known as vox mopologia.