Concerning The Divine Council

[David Bokovoy]

It seems strange to me that Mr. Bokovoy is providing an analysis of the views of Mr. Graham, and Mr. Graham is not allowed to respond. Something related to fairness seems to be missing here.

Of course he's allowed to respond. He pontificates his misreadings all over the Mormon Discussions board. Anyone interested in following the silliness can access Mr. Graham there in all his glory. Since I have no intention of addressing each and every one of his points but simply wanted to provide a basic survey of the types of issues I have with Mr. Graham's efforts, the fact that he will not participate in this thread is of little or no consequence.

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems strange to me that Mr. Bokovoy is providing an analysis of the views of Mr. Graham, and Mr. Graham is not allowed to respond. Something related to fairness seems to be missing here.

I realize that I'm opening myself up to severe criticism elsewhere for saying anything about this, but the fact is that Mr. Graham's banishment from this board came as a result of a number of things, and that there's a history behind it. It's unfortunate that he cannot interact here -- he's a bright fellow -- but there are reasons for that.

He is not, however, altogether without a voice. He has a board on which he's free, in fact encouraged, to criticize MA&DB, me, David Bokovoy, and every other Mormon and Mormon scholar to his heart's content -- a board on which, for various reasons, some of us prefer not to participate. (In my case, of course, the reason is sheer craven cowardice. I might as well say it before those on that other board do. Still, my absence from the other board doesn't spare me from continual criticism there, nor from being exposed as "insane" and dishonest and as the "bigot" that I apparently am.) And, in fact, Mr. Graham has been engaging in criticism of Br'er Bokovoy on the topic of this very thread as recently as today. So there is, actually, a kind of exchange going on, albeit on two different boards, and this makes the situation perhaps a bit less "unfair" than it might seem. I don't know whether Br'er Bokovoy is reading what Mr. Graham has been saying over there, but Mr. Graham is most definitely following and responding to what's said on this board.

[David Bokovoy]

I don't know whether Br'er Bokovoy is reading what Mr. Graham has been saying over there, but Mr. Graham is most definitely following and responding to what's said on this board.

Thanks, Dan. I admit that I have skimmed through Mr. Graham's responses, but I haven't read them in any detail, nor do I intend on doing so. I've said my piece. Readers can make up their own minds.

[David Bokovoy]

Thanks, Dan. I admit that I have skimmed through Mr. Graham's responses, but I haven't read them in any detail, nor do I intend on doing so. I've said my piece. Readers can make up their own minds.

While I freely admit that I'm bored with Mr. Graham's criticisms, I should add that I'm happy to respond to any questions that anyone else might raise on this topic that derive from either their own ponderings or Kevin's misreadings/misrepresentations.

[Momus]

Just let it be known if Kevin Graham joins the board and interacts in anyway he will be banned again.

Momus

[Drewm777]

I see nothing wrong with David Bokovy responding to Graham's accusations here.

That said, if Graham is indeed a contra-mo now, that's too bad. That's really too bad. I had read some of his stuff (some of which is no fairlds.org!) in the past and wish he'd come back to the fold.

[David Bokovoy]

I see nothing wrong with David Bokovy responding to Graham's accusations here.

That said, if Graham is indeed a contra-mo now, that's too bad. That's really too bad. I had read some of his stuff (some of which is no fairlds.org!) in the past and wish he'd come back to the fold.

Truly, his descent into the darkside has been a tragedy to behold. One can almost hear the Darth Vader theme when reading this most recent post concerning his attack:

As far as I can tell I am the only one who has dared take him to task on these issues. Others are capable, but only I have challenged him

[Drewm777]

Sounds like he's pretty proud of himself.

Wasn't that Lucifer's problem--one of the sons of God who became the devil because of pride?

[David Bokovoy]

Sounds like he's pretty proud of himself.

Wasn't that Lucifer's problem--one of the sons of God who became the devil because of pride?

Without getting too personal, no doubt pride is a vice that all of us need to be wary of. It seems that it can all too easily get the better of us, especially on message boards. As one of the great theologians of our time declared "pride is the universal sin."

[TrashcanMan79]

I think the main problem with these kinds of exchanges is that context is often lost in translation. And we're not allowed any links to the context of Graham's original comments. We have to take David's biased perspective for granted. Graham can do the same thing of course.

Aside from this I see no problem with posting responses to him here even though he is banned. I think Graham makes some interesting points for those who want to wander over and read him in context.

Edit: I just received an email from Graham. What follows is his email in its entirety, posted with permission -

[Removed by mods]

[David Bokovoy]

And this is how David quotes me (after calling me Darth Vader, which we all know is a normal and mature thing for scholars to say):

I'm sorry Kevin if my playful comment truly hurt your feelings. However, your comment really is amazing and I make no pretense whatsoever of being mature.

[Momus]

Do not give Kevin Graham a platform to stand on here Trashcanman. Kevin has given up his privilege to post here. Helping him spread his message is not something we are going to allow from anyone. So like we would do if he was here we are removing your correspondence. Any future messages from Kevin will have the same effect.

Momus

[TrashcanMan79]

So I am to understand that Kevin Graham's comments can exist on this forum, only if David Bokovoy is providing them?

Sorry, I didn't know. I also didn't know personal threads were allowed again.

I just thought it would be worth reading what the source of our amusement really said. Especially if we're going to sit here and ridicule him (Darth Vader and Lucifer comparisons?) based on an glance at a manipulated citation provided by David Bokovoy.

This was why I emailed him.

You guys can do it too. Despite popular belief, he really isn't the Devil.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm more in Trashman's camp on this one.

[Beowulf]

David Bokovoy's Star Wars reference was actually a show of sympathy for our misguided friend, not an insult. Take it in the spirit offered.

And we are ALL guilty of pride (even, or especially me), as David is careful to point out, so the Fallen reference is also one of shared sympathy, not insult.

Beowulf

[Momus]

David, I understand that you wish to answer Kevin's comments...however, it really is not right to have Kevin brought up here when he can't respond. In the past, these threads follow the same road. Something Kevin said somewhere else is brought up here, he'll naturally wish to respond and since he's banned, he'll be forced to use a sockpuppet, which is against board guidelines, and then when someone figures out that it's him, he'll be banned once again.

I respectfully suggest that if the mods are going to allow this thread to remain open, they also allow Kevin to respond--as himself.

We will never allow Kevin to have a voice on this board again. It was his own choice's that got him kicked off. He had almost 2 years of us trying to work with him. We have zero interest in doing it again. Kevin is best where he is, since he has little to offer this board. Now this will be the last time we allow Kevin any more attention. Anymore attempts to give him more air time then he is worth will be deleted. Kevin has his own board that anyone is more the welcome to join and have many fruitfull discussions. I am sure he could use the company. Plain and simple Kevin burnt his own bridges. What we will allow is persons to defend themselves on our board as usual. We have always allowed that and will continue to do so.

Momus

[Momus]

So I am to understand that Kevin Graham's comments can exist on this forum, only if David Bokovoy is providing them?

Sorry, I didn't know. I also didn't know personal threads were allowed again.

I just thought it would be worth reading what the source of our amusement really said. Especially if we're going to sit here and ridicule him (Darth Vader and Lucifer comparisons?) based on an glance at a manipulated citation provided by David Bokovoy.

This was why I emailed him.

You guys can do it too. Despite popular belief, he really isn't the Devil.

They can exist as long as Kevin isn't trying to interact with the board. Seems like the other issue is a problem for Kevin, he has said and still says much worse things about us almost daily then anyone on this board has said about him. We just don't want him here. Yet he refuses to leave.

Momus

[Drewm777]

Without getting too personal, no doubt pride is a vice that all of us need to be wary of. It seems that it can all too easily get the better of us, especially on message boards. As one of the great theologians of our time declared "pride is the universal sin."

Would that be C. S. Lewis or Ezra Taft Benson?

[Drewm777]

So I am to understand that Kevin Graham's comments can exist on this forum, only if David Bokovoy is providing them?

Sorry, I didn't know. I also didn't know personal threads were allowed again.

I'm pretty sure it's not a personal thread or that what you were doing and what David Bokovoy were doing is the same.

Nice try though.

[David Bokovoy]

What we will allow is persons to defend themselves on our board as usual. We have always allowed that and will continue to do so.

As far back as I can remember, the FAIR board allowed regular participants this privilege. I for one have always felt that this is a nice feature, since it allows those who have been attacked to respond to some of the issues in a less confrontational manner.

Some posters (both critics and LDS apologists alike) get a bit frustrated and even depressed participating directly in the negative/confrontational environment where these attacks flourish. Moreover, Kevin's most recent criticism of my view actually did take place on this very board. So the issues Kevin has with my views concerning the divine council have been raised here at MA&D.

[Drewm777]

Might I clarify?

If someone where to come onto the message board and critic Daniel C. Peterson's new book and he were to respond, how would that be personal?

That's basically what is happening here. David Bokovoy is responding to Kevin Graham's criticisms of his scholarship. I'm pretty sure Bro. Bokovoy responding to that is not personal, as you define it. Plus, that's an excellent reason to be able to quote Graham.

You, however, want to quote Graham to give him the opportunity to indirectly discuss the issue further, which the mods have said is not to be done.

It's totally different in my estimation.

As far back as I can remember, the FAIR board allowed regular participants this privilege. I for one have always felt that is a nice feature, since it allows those who have been attacked to respond to some of the issues in a less confrontational manner.

Some posters (both critics and LDS apologists alike) get a bit frustrated and even depressed participating directly in the negative/confrontational environment where these attacks flourish. Moreover, Kevin's most recent criticism of my view actually did take place on this very board. So the issues Kevin has with my views concerning the divine council have been raised here on the MA&D board.

And might I add, THEREFORE, Bro. Bokovoy has the right and privilege to respond on the MA&D board.

[David Bokovoy]

As an example of the types of criticisms one has to wade through on other boards consider the following critique offered of my physical apperance:

I looked at his blog one time which showed a picture of him at some museum and the first thing I thought was: dude, tuck in your shirt. Only an american would dress like that in Europe.

To which I can only say, thank goodness the poster did not see me teaching my Old Testament classes today sporting flipflops and a tie with old woodies on it.

Fortunately, I recieve less complaints now from my students since my wife has convinced me to ditch the dark socks with the flipflops.

[Edsel]

Golly, I read Kevin's response. Returned and it's gone.

I thought that David was calling him out by bringing him up ???

He seemed reasonable to me and his arguments seemed fit for reasonable debate.

My observation maybe wrong but is it possible that you all take him so personal and emotional because of your past and his past? If he was just an anti- would it be OK to debate him and his points? Or is it not OK because he was once one of you and then changed sides?

Does this change the issues, the debate, the scholarship, the truth? I think not.

This is all a situation that is personal and emotional and not on being played on a level playing field, why not delete the complete thread? This is not scholarship to me.

[Drewm777]

As an example of the types of criticisms one has to wade through on other boards consider the following critique offered of my physical apperance:

To which I can only say, thank goodness the poster did not see me teaching my Old Testament classes today sporting flipflops and a tie with old woodies on it.

Fortunately, I recieve less complaints now from my students since my wife has convinced me to ditch the dark socks with the flipflops.

I think he has a point there.....

Just kidding

My observation maybe wrong but is it possible that you all take him so personal and emotional because of your past and his past? If he was just an anti- would it be OK to debate him and his points? Or is it not OK because he was once one of you and then changed sides?

Does this change the issues, the debate, the scholarship, the truth? I think not.

This is all a situation that is personal and emotional and not on being played on a level playing field, why not delete the complete thread? This is not scholarship to me.

I think you have your genders confused.

[David Bokovoy]

He seemed reasonable to me and his arguments seemed fit for reasonable debate.

My observation maybe wrong but is it possible that you all take him so personal and emotional because of your past and his past? If he was just an anti- would it be OK to debate him and his points? Or is it not OK because he was once one of you and then changed sides?

I believe that your observation couldn't be more wrong. Some of my favorite posters, no, some of my favorite people were once traditionalists but now critics. We get along quite well. This includes individuals such as David P. Wright, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, Don Bradley and many, many others who are a bit less famous.

I suspect that if you read through his most recent attacks, you'll understand why Kevin dosen't fit in with this group. I for one, however, honestly couldn't be happier if Kevin would follow the example of the above mentioned non-traditionlists in terms of his scholarship, criticisms, and personal interactions.

Personally, I would welcome him back with open arms, notwithstanding his views.