Peterson takes another bitter swipe at the Maxwell Institute

[_Doctor Scratch]

Terryl Givens has now turned up in the "Comments" section at "Sic et Non" in order to tell Peterson and Hamblin to tone it down:

The Book of Mormon Wars” used to refer to cross-
denominational debates—but now the controversies have shifted to differing
perspectives within the LDS faith. I believe the differences between the
competing voices have been overstated, to the detriment of all. Given that Ben Park’s review of David Holland’s book was published in a Maxwell Institute Journal, of which Park is an associate editor, concerns about the implications of his views
for the sanctity and historicity of the Book of Mormon are entirely legitimate
on the part of the faithful. I do not want to fault Dan Peterson or William
Hamblin for their attentiveness to the message and direction emanating from an
institution in which they invested so much effort and valuable scholarship. At
the same time, I want to explain why I did not see the review by Ben Park in
the same light that they and others apparently have.

One of the consequences of the growth of the academic study of Mormonism is that the Book of Mormon is a subject of non-religious interest for the first time.
Sustained exposure to this sacred text, even by those not predisposed to put
Moroni 10 to the test, must in general be considered a good thing by the
faithful. Considering the reception and meaning of the Book of Mormon in a 19th
century historical context expands the conversation and this exposure, without
requiring a denial of its ancient origins or divine provenance. It is in that sense that I construed Park’s praise for an escape from parochial and exceptionalist frameworks. (I would have preferred the word transcendence to escape, but these are quibbles). I think that my reading is supported by his praise for making “the text much more relevant” to scholars and students.

Even if Park is implying 19th century influences in the book’s actual translation,
I believe the Doctrine and Covenants’ reminder that God’s revelations unfold
“after the manner of [a person or prophet’s] language,” means that such a
perspective cannot be dismissed as inconsistent with orthodox faith in the
Restoration and its teachings.

Park’s phrase “just another voice” was unfortuitous. But his introductory
invocation of Mormon and Moroni as real editor/writers, his subsequent
reference to the “significant particulars of Mormonism’s revelatory claims,”
and his closing references to the Book of Mormon as a “book out of time” and a
“unique scriptural text” fully reassured me, at least, that he was praising an
enlarged conversation that does not diminish the scripture’s sacred status or
origins.

-Terryl Givens

[_Fence Sitter]

One of the consequences of the growth of the academic study of Mormonism is that the Book of Mormon is a subject of non-religious interest for the first time. Sustained exposure to this sacred text, even by those not predisposed to put Moroni 10 to the test, must in general be considered a good thing by the faithful.

-Terryl Givens

Any exposure of the Book of Mormon to academic study by non-believers will only further show the world that it was made up by Joseph Smith. How this could be considered by the faithful as a good thing is puzzling.

[_Maksutov]

One of the consequences of the growth of the academic study of Mormonism is that the Book of Mormon is a subject of non-religious interest for the first time. Sustained exposure to this sacred text, even by those not predisposed to put Moroni 10 to the test, must in general be considered a good thing by the faithful.

-Terryl Givens

Any exposure of the Book of Mormon to academic study by non-believers will only further show the world that it was made up by Joseph Smith. How this could be considered by the faithful as a good thing is puzzling.

Isn't that what prophets do, make stuff up? But with inspiration, of course.

Givens would certainly be the most eloquent member of the Emperor's Clothes Appreciation Society.

[_beastie]

I believe the compulsion some defenders of the faith have to take on the task of separating the wheat from the tares would have struck me unseemly even as a believer. I would have believed that task best left to God.

[_Kishkumen]

It is good to see Givens jump in to support Park's overall message about the Book of Mormon coming into its own as a subject of academic inquiry. Good on him. I am only surprised because he doesn't ordinarily weigh in in such venues. I think we can read this as a wake up call to Peterson and Hamblin that they have overreached in their swipes at Park.

[_Mayan Elephant]

for some unexplainable reason i just reread a bunch of that conversation with peterson and bokovoy and all those other clowns. and really, really, there is nothing there but a bunch of big words that amount to an academic's thesaurus for 'butthurt.' peterson is still sore about losing his job and losing it for the reasons that the trailer park and others said he would lose it - he was a vindictive attacking weenie with a bunch of flyweight lieutenants in smith and midgley.

[_Kishkumen]

for some unexplainable reason i just reread a bunch of that conversation with peterson and bokovoy and all those other clowns. and really, really, there is nothing there but a bunch of big words that amount to an academic's thesaurus for 'butthurt.' peterson is still sore about losing his job and losing it for the reasons that the trailer park and others said he would lose it - he was a vindictive attacking weenie with a bunch of flyweight lieutenants in smith and midgley.

Dan is a man with some friends and an audience. He will continue to use his bully pulpit until he gives up the ghost. It is in his blood.

[_Symmachus]

It is good to see Givens jump in to support Park's overall message about the Book of Mormon coming into its own as a subject of academic inquiry. Good on him. I am only surprised because he doesn't ordinarily weigh in in such venues. I think we can read this as a wake up call to Peterson and Hamblin that they have overreached in their swipes at Park.

Agreed. One of the most disturbing things about this from my point of view as a young scholar (though not in Mormon studies) is to see two tenured (or the BYU equivalent) professors kicking up a an eternally Googleable fuss on their blogs through willful misunderstanding in order to impugn not only the review, but the editorship and (by implication) the competence of young scholar who is at this point only a post doc. Luckily, if not quite the way that Ben Park wants it, Mormon Studies is obscure, but if two public academics in my field decided to bully me on their blogs and Facebook pages over a positive review (of someone else's book, no less!)--well, that's not the kind of attention I would want so early in my career. Good for Givens, Holland, and Hardy for showing the decency to call them out.

[_Kishkumen]

Agreed. One of the most disturbing things about this from my point of view as a young scholar myself (though not in Mormon studies) is to see two tenured (or the BYU equivalent) professors kicking up a an eternally Googleable fuss on their blogs through willful misunderstanding in order to impugn not only the review, but the editorship and (by implication) the competence of young scholar who is at this point only a post doc. Luckily, if not quite the way that Ben Park wants it, Mormon Studies is obscure, but if two public academics in my field decided to bully me on their blogs and Facebook pages over a positive review (of someone else's book, no less!)--well, that's not the kind of attention I would want so early in my career. Good for Givens, Holland, and Hardy for showing the decency to call them out.

I agree that it is unfortunate to see senior professors ganging up on a bright young scholar like Ben Park. I have read Park's work, and, in my view, it holds a great deal of promise. He has already made at least one very noteworthy contribution on the place of Joseph Smith in LDS thought. Note, too, who it is who is coming to his defense. These are scholars of some consequence in Park's field, not Hamblin and Peterson. So, in the end, I don't think that Park's reputation is in the least bit tarnished by this minor dustup. To the contrary, Park probably gained a lot of positive attention in the wake of the rather strained criticisms of Hamblin and Peterson. It is unfortunate that their poor interpretation of Park gains any traction. But, then, there are always those who are eager to lap up fabricated outrages such as these.

[_Tom]

Park has released a statement in response. I expect Hamblin to issue a blog post shortly that states: "Park's statement raises more questions than it answers."

In a post titled, ironically enough, "On Clarity and Misrepresentation," Hamblin writes:

Without clarity there can be no understanding. Human language is inherently ambiguous. We’ve all experienced being misunderstood as well as misunderstanding. Generally misunderstanding is sincere. Sometimes, however, it is intentional. Throughout the internet I have been repeatedly vilified for supposedly intentionally misrepresenting Ben Park’s position. That is not true. I may have misunderstood him, but it was a sincere misunderstanding.

Hamblin then says:

I accept Ben Park at his word that he believes in the historicity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon. However, that really does solve my problem his review essay.

What? I assume that Hamblin intended to write: "However, that really does not solve my problem with his review essay."

Hamblin continues:

Several of Ben’s supporters have tried to explain how they believe I have misunderstood his real intent. This has thus become an exercise in circular claimed readings and misreadings. Unless Ben himself clarifies the issues, this debate is rather pointless.

Let me give an example. Ben said the following:

For a book that claims an epic scope and cosmological depth, the Book of Mormon has mostly received a rather parochial academic framework. What does the text tell us about Mormon conceptions of scripture? What does it reveal concerning Joseph Smith’s religious genius? How did Mormons use the book during the church’s first few decades? These are certainly important questions, and they have received—and will receive—the responses they deserve. But what if scholars took a page from Mormon and Moroni’s own approach and placed the narrative’s importance on a much broader scale—demographically, geographically, and chronologically?

So, the question is: “What does [the Book of Mormon] reveal concerning Joseph Smith’s religious genius?” My answer is, if Joseph was not the author of the Book of Mormon, it reveals precisely nothing about his religious genius. Compare the following statements to try to see my point:

What does Michelangelo’s Pieta reveal about Bernini’s artistic genius?

What does Shakespeare’s Hamlet reveal about Milton’s literary genius?

What does Mozart’s Magic Flute reveal about Beethoven’s musical genius?

These questions are clearly nonsensical. Why should they suddenly make sense when we are talking about Joseph Smith?

I am having difficulty seeing Hamblin's point. Hamblin quotes Grant Hardy's explanation of Park's statement:

There are at least two ways to interpret this statement. Many Latter-day Saints believe that God revealed spiritual impressions to Joseph through the Nephite interpreters or the seer stone, and then Joseph put them into his own words. That would be one possible expression of his “religious genius.” The second is that a closer study of the Book of Mormon will shed light on Joseph’s later ecclesiastical and theological contributions, many of which could be characterized as the result of religious genius.

Hamblin acknowledges that it is possible that "Park means what Grant thinks he means." However, he responds:

But these [sic] is not the obvious, straightforward reading of Park’s statement. There is a third possible interpretation, one that I believe all non-Mormons reading Park’s words would immediately assume Park was trying to say: The Book of Mormon reveals Joseph’s religious genius because Joseph is its author. Just like Hamlet reveals Shakespeare’s genius, not Milton’s.

Several commenters have suggested Park intended something else here. Park's review begins as follows:

For a book that claims an epic scope and cosmological depth, the Book of Mormon has mostly received a rather parochial academic framework. What does the text tell us about Mormon conceptions of scripture? What does it reveal concerning Joseph Smith’s religious genius? How did Mormons use the book during the church’s first few decades? These are certainly important questions, and they have received—and will receive—the responses they deserve. But what if scholars took a page from Mormon and Moroni’s own approach and placed the narrative’s importance on a much broader scale—demographically, geographically,and chronologically?

Smallaxe has commented on Faith-Promoting Rumor:

For starters, those series of questions belong to the “academic framework” mentioned in the first sentence; they are not necessarily Park’s questions. Further, even if we take the question Hamblin quotes as Park’s, I don’t see why historicity must equal tight control (by God) in the translation process. Additionally, even if we assume tight control of an ancient document, Joseph’s interaction with the Book of Mormon (either the plates or the translated document) surely could reveal his genius.

Similarly, on Hamblin's blog, Chuck Finney has commented:

Dr. Hamblin, it is plainly clear that Dr. Park is identifying each of these questions as examples of the "rather parochial academic framework" he laments. So far from advocating such a view--as you repeatedly do, in spite of already being told that you are misreading or misrepresenting his views in doing so--he is criticizing articles and books that examine the Book of Mormon as a means of determining what it may or may not reveal about Joseph Smith's religious genius. This is an important point, not only because it highlights your continued misreading of Dr. Park's comment, but also because it undercuts your claim that Dr. Park had "Classic FARMS" in mind (at least exclusively) when he decried the "rather parochial academic framework" of earlier generations, since you all clearly did not publish work using the Book of Mormon as a way to reveal Joseph Smith's religious genius.

Finney seems to be guilty of overstatement when he labels his interpretation of Park's point as "plainly clear," but his and Smallaxe's readings are plausible.