Runtu wrote:Pahoran wrote:The author certainly thinks it is formidable.
How is that not a jab at the author? Come on, Pahoran.
What, there's a mention of the author, so therefore it's a jab? Come on, Runtu.
Runtu wrote:In your rather jaundiced opinion. Thank you for admitting, though, that the "sneering insults" were what you read into the review, rather than what was actually there.
Of course, I read that reviewed with a certain bias, but the sneering insult is right there just the same.
No. It's not.
Runtu wrote:Must we reprise your admiring gush about how devastatingly accurate his response was?
One sentence about how his response was devastatingly accurate constitutes a gush? Wow, you need to get out more.
Somehow "gush" seemed better than "dribble," "slobber" or "drip."
His response was not "devastating" and it certainly wasn't "accurate." It was mere venting.
Runtu wrote:If the practice is meaningless, then it necessarily follows that any passage arguing from it is likewise meaningless.
That's a non sequitur. If the practice is theologically meaningless, the passage is not necessarily meaningless. Paul spoke of the "unknown" God and used that to illustrate God the Father.
The cases are not parallel. Paul merely says, "whom therefore ye ignorantly serve, declare I unto you." No argument is adduced.
Runtu wrote:Is a Roman god theologically significant in Christian theology? If not, you're saying that Paul's teaching there is meaningless.
No, I'm saying they are quite different kinds of discourse. (And it was a Greek god.)
Runtu wrote:Come to think of it, that's the distinction Holding was making, which you apparently still can't grasp.
Actually I grasp it just fine.
Runtu wrote:Runtu wrote:Any expository writing is "apologetic" with regard to the point of view it espouses. And for an argument or exposition to be sound, it needs to engage alternative viewpoints.
Not according to Robert Millett (OK, sorry, cheap shot).
So, turning this around, any Mormon apologetic that does not engage alternative viewpoints is unsound?Runtu wrote:It isn't necessary for Holding to give the alternative equal weight, but it doesn't do to present two alternatives as if they exhaust the possibilities. The majority of commentators--including non-LDS ones--accept the third alternative that Holding overlooks: namely, that the passage describes a vicarious baptism that was practiced by believing Christians, and that it enjoyed a high degree of prestige. Note that Holding's minority brief was once the majority view, but is now in full retreat. The best scholarship is increasingly showing that the Latter-day Saints have read that passage right all along, although for a long time we were on our own.
How is acknowledging "the majority view" in his words and rejecting it not engaging the alternative?
Holding's discussion ends up by offering two incompatible possibilities. Clearly he has not succeeded in making his case for either of them, so why pretend the third alternative is no longer on the table? That's the point. Which you seem unable to grasp.
Runtu wrote:I'm admitting that anything less than sheer adulation will be seen as "nasty" by some. I'm also admitting that Holding's response, your posts, and the OP by the great deceiver, are each far nastier than the review or anything therein.
Yes, but I'm not pretending to write a scholarly review, am I? I don't expect FARMS to write fawning reviews of critical materials, but I expect less snarkiness.
On the contrary, you clearly expect considerably more "snarkiness," which is why you keep seeing it where it is not.
Runtu wrote:Does the review say anything remotely as "snarky" as "the author may as well have written a song about birthday cakes and rainy days?"
I notice that you don't disagree that your statement was snarky, only that Holding's response was snarkier. That's not the point, is it? Yeah, his response is snarky and snotty and juvenile in places. I think I would have reacted the same way had a supposedly scholarly journal published such a review of my work.
I see then that you have resiled from your previous claim that Holding's response was merely "equally snarky" as the review.
Runtu wrote:Can you point to anything in the review remotely that "snarky?"
Because you haven't yet.
There you go, let's just move the goal posts. It's OK to be snarky, as long as it's not "that snarky."
No, the goal posts are right where you left them, when you wrote:
I would expect an equally snarky response from Holding, which is what we have.
I see you now agree that we in fact do not. That's progress. I see we are getting somewhere.
Runtu wrote:Could I say things like that about any of my opponents and thus earn your undying admiration the way Holding has?
Can you not see how vast your double standards are here?
No double standard. One is a review in a supposedly scholarly journal; the other is a personal response on a web page. Do you hold those two types of publications to the same standards? I don't. And, no, the man does not have my undying admiration.
Glad to hear it.
So now we see that you want to move the goal posts. Okay, fine.
Since you have some standards for reviews published in scholarly journals, exactly what are they, and what is the basis for them? Have you actually read reviews published in scholarly journals other than The FARMS Review? If so, where? Do you seriously believe we wouldn't find any reviews more "snarky" than the one under discussion in just about any journal you could care to name? If so, then maybe you need to get out more.
Runtu wrote:Does it? And so? Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy making cheap shots?
Well, I do like the occasional cheap shot (and you have sent your fair share my way in the past). So what? My point was that I rarely see books or articles that maintain a consistent, rigid approach to a topic.
No, but you probably do see books or articles--particularly those that aspire to high scholarly standards and are seeking the attention of the heavy hitters in the relevant field--that have sound and consistenly applied methodology.
Runtu wrote:Now, repeat after me: the review was about the book. Not about the author.
Keep repeating until the penny drops.
Sorry, I'm not carrying any change. If the review was about the book, you shouldn't have brought up the author's confidence.
Oh, so book reviews never mention the authors in any connection, is that it? Who knew?
Runtu wrote:Apology cheerfully accepted.
I never imagined you could be cheerful.
Evidently there's a lot you've never imagined.