The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2016

[_Lemmie]

Midgley, Hamblin, Peterson, Gee, Schryver and others all insisted that the "real story" would eventually be told. Will that ever happen? It may be that they have waited too long, and now the next chapter is being written at the same time that their embarrassing antics are being cremated in the ovens of history.

Dr., unless I'm missing something that was the "real story", (in bold) and it has been told in all the events that played out over the last few years.

Heh, I see what you mean. What I'm referring to, though, is the conspiratorial, insinuation-heavy posts from some of them (well, mainly just Midgley and DCP) that there is actually some untold story that would ultimately exonerate all of them and would show the whole world that Bradford and his "co-conspirators" were actually closet apostates who wanted to undermine the Church's truth claims. At this point, I don't expect that story to ever be told.

Hah! I do remember seeing quite a few threats of ultimate and devastating exposure early on, but they definitely have faded. Although fairly recently, I saw DCP mention yet another book "in the works," his memoirs. Maybe we'll get a blistering exposure there!

[_Xenophon]

10. Censorship on MADB, Sic et Non, etc.

Man I really miss Black Jesus Loves You from Dan's blog. For the most part he offered a nice little counterbalance to some of the discussions. My favorite part about Dan's banning of people was the it began to be assumed that ANYONE that disagreed or voiced contention had to be sock puppet to the infamous "Black Beefy Handsome Pants", or whatever they called him.

Excellent write up, Doc. Appreciate your cataloging!

[_grindael]

Dr., unless I'm missing something that was the "real story", (in bold) and it has been told in all the events that played out over the last few years.

Heh, I see what you mean. What I'm referring to, though, is the conspiratorial, insinuation-heavy posts from some of them (well, mainly just Midgley and DCP) that there is actually some untold story that would ultimately exonerate all of them and would show the whole world that Bradford and his "co-conspirators" were actually closet apostates who wanted to undermine the Church's truth claims. At this point, I don't expect that story to ever be told.

That was rather tongue and cheek, good Doctor. What you meant is perfectly clear but I just couldn't resist. You know that their founder continually harped on the same thing?

History of The Church Vol. 6, 410-411:

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.

William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. He testified under oath that he was my friend, and not the "Brutus." There was a cogitation who was the "Brutus." I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery.

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.

Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document, and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness,[6] they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.

[Joseph H.] Jackson has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.

There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.

When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross—I can lay down my life; but don't forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.—Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall.

Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.

I then sent Mr. Backenstos, when they declared that they were my enemies. I told Mr. Backenstos that he might tell the Laws, if they had any cause against me I would go before the Church, and confess it [p.412] to the world. He [Walmart. Law] was summoned time and again, but refused to come. Dr. Bernhisel and Elder Rigdon know that I speak the truth. I cite you to Captain Dunham, Esquires Johnson and Wells, Brother Hatfield and others, for the truth of what I have said. I have said this to let my friends know that I am right. ~Joseph Smith

Smith provided not one shred of "proof" that he wasn't guilty of what he was being charged with. On the contrary, history has borne out that what Smith was accused of, by those dang "apostates" was absolutely true.

[_malkie]

I was kind of hoping to see one of my favourites appear in your list, Dr Scratch: the defense of transubstantiation.

At the beginning of the year we were treated to an amazing display of priesthood power, when Pres Nelson of the Q12 single-handedly transformed policy into revelation right before our very eyes and ears.

The great hallelujah shout from the apologists was heard around the world, as the defenders of the faith proclaimed that god had once again spoken from the heavens to his chosen mouthpiece in order to express his (god's) disgust with legally married gays, and the rejection of their children during a critical phase of their young lives, thus proving the truth of Mormonism.

[_Doctor Scratch]

A Mopologist has weighed in on the Number 3 happening:

From time to time, I read mocking comments about the “Early Modern English” hypothesis regarding the language of the Book of Mormon that’s associated with Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack. Much merriment ensues, as the critics vie with one another in denigrating the idea as crazy, desperate, stupid, and so forth.

Typically, those making the derisive remarks also make comments strongly suggesting that they don’t really have the slightest clue what the proposal is about. In fact, I would be pleasantly surprised if one vocal critic on the topic in ten is actually familiar, at first hand, with what Drs. Skousen and Carmack have argued. I’ve never seen any indication that a single one of them can accurately describe it or cares to do so.

Fortunately, most discussions (thus far) of the “Early Modern English” hypothesis by the two principal scholars who’ve been laying out it are easily accessible, at no charge, through the Interpreter Foundation:

Royal Skousen

Stanford Carmack

It’s very much a data-driven hypothesis, as surprising and unexpected to Dr. Skousen and Dr. Carmack as it has been to the rest of us. Actually looking at their work demonstrates that in spades. I think I can speak for both of them in saying that they would appreciate intelligent critical responses, informed feedback, on their argument. Unfortunately, though, ignorant smirking and sneering, uninformed derision aren’t particularly helpful.

There’s really no excuse, under the circumstances, for ignorantly mischaracterizing what these two highly trained linguists and scholars have had to say.

Of course, "theories" are formulated both in print, and in conversation. There's really no reason for supposedly well-educated people to confuse the two things. "Metcalfe is Butthead" is no longer in print; that doesn't mean it's unimportant, or that it never happened. I don't think anyone is "laughing at" or deriding the presence of the Elizabethan English in the text. As for the explanations as to how that text got there? Well..... It may do the apologists some good to remind themselves once again that they really do believe in magic.

[_Kishkumen]

Of course, "theories" are formulated both in print, and in conversation. There's really no reason for supposedly well-educated people to confuse the two things. "Metcalfe is Butthead" is no longer in print; that doesn't mean it's unimportant, or that it never happened. I don't think anyone is "laughing at" or deriding the presence of the Elizabethan English in the text. As for the explanations as to how that text got there? Well..... It may do the apologists some good to remind themselves once again that they really do believe in magic.

Oh, to be a linguistics man right now, eh? Dr. P. has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging all comers to give the EME Thesis a full and fair hearing. Personally, I look foward to any ensuing debate. My first thoughts are that epic has, in the past, sparked the creation of a special language, which, while not existing in contemporary usage, was rather the conscious creation of the poets. Maybe the Muse did inspire Homer and his fellow poets to sing of Bronze Age weapons because only in that way could the inspiration of the poet be impressed on a listener yearning for a sense of the divine influence. On the other hand, maybe it is the case that the author is capable of casting about in his environment for those elements of speech that sound an arcane note or evoke a lost age. Maybe both are in fact the case. Only long study will illuminate the issue further, and I think it quite unfair of Dr. P. to deny others the joy of a little merriment in response to the epicylclical hypothesis of the ghost committee.

Now, truth be told, I really have nothing against the Ghost Committee. Hell, I have offered my own suggestion of Mssrs. Dee and Kelley as the leaders of this Committee, whereas others, who shall remain nameless, offered the rather bland and unbelievable Tyndale as their man.




Having offered my own suggestion, it is odd that I stand accused of being a naysayer and detractor. If there is any negative reaction on my part, it is because the once boldy proposed suggestion of a Ghost Committee has been suppressed in the face of ridicule. I call for the Ghost Committee hypothesis to receive a serious vetting. To toss it aside because of a few guffaws strikes me as unworthy of those who profess the convictions of true faith.

[_Gadianton]

To toss it aside because of a few guffaws strikes me as unworthy of those who profess the convictions of true faith.

Right, the apologists are wrong on two counts. One: "let the critics give a fair hearing" -- I'm not qualified to give it a hearing. Get the damn theory peer-reviewed by a non-TBM academic source and then throw it in our faces. Two: The best part of the theory is the supernatural underpinnings, as the Rev says, those with real faith in the supernatural swallow this one easily, in fact, I have to wonder if the supernatural possibilities didn't tempt Skousen in his direction...

What the author wants is another failure like the LGT, which everyone pretty much agreed died in 2011. As an academic theory, no-one cares outside of a handful of Mopologists. As a spiritual theory, it doesn't resonate with the Saints like say, Meldrum's theory does.

[Guest]

I see the Mopologists are familiar with the Firehose of Falsehoods method:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Click on the pdf file. It's 16 pages, but if you want to understand how spreading falsehood through spewing an epic amount of bull **** helps maintain their information narrative, because, it takes an OOM higher effort to counter their lies.

Edited for clarity. These are some steps you need to take to counter their FoFs:

Forewarn audiences of misinformation, or merely reach them first with the truth, rather than retracting or refuting false "facts."

Prioritize efforts to counter the effects of Russian propaganda, and focus on guiding the propaganda's target audience in more productive directions.

Compete with Russian propaganda. Both the United States and NATO have the potential to prevent Russia from dominating the information environment.

Increase the flow of information that diminishes the effectiveness of propaganda, and, in the context of active hostilities, attack the means of dissemination.

In context of the highlighted point, this is why Dr. Scratch's efforts are so necessary and effective. Without his efforts and studies of Mopologia and Mopologists these maleficent men would continue to operate behind the Mormon Curtain with impunity, push their lies, keep members in the dark, and destroy lives with nary a care.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

A Mopologist has weighed in on the Number 3 happening:

From time to time, I read mocking comments about the “Early Modern English” hypothesis regarding the language of the Book of Mormon that’s associated with Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack. Much merriment ensues, as the critics vie with one another in denigrating the idea as crazy, desperate, stupid, and so forth.

Typically, those making the derisive remarks also make comments strongly suggesting that they don’t really have the slightest clue what the proposal is about. In fact, I would be pleasantly surprised if one vocal critic on the topic in ten is actually familiar, at first hand, with what Drs. Skousen and Carmack have argued. I’ve never seen any indication that a single one of them can accurately describe it or cares to do so.

Fortunately, most discussions (thus far) of the “Early Modern English” hypothesis by the two principal scholars who’ve been laying out it are easily accessible, at no charge, through the Interpreter Foundation:

Royal Skousen

Stanford Carmack

It’s very much a data-driven hypothesis, as surprising and unexpected to Dr. Skousen and Dr. Carmack as it has been to the rest of us. Actually looking at their work demonstrates that in spades. I think I can speak for both of them in saying that they would appreciate intelligent critical responses, informed feedback, on their argument. Unfortunately, though, ignorant smirking and sneering, uninformed derision aren’t particularly helpful.

There’s really no excuse, under the circumstances, for ignorantly mischaracterizing what these two highly trained linguists and scholars have had to say.

It's increasingly clear why DCP was ousted from MI in 2012. His entry above is jarringly at odds with this MI blog entry from Dec 2105:

In addition to more recent instruction from Brigham Young University administration about elevating our tone, we also look to the wise counsel offered in 1994 to one of our grandfather organizations, FARMS, by then-church commissioner of education Henry B. Eyring:

“...You know that a spirit of contention will drive away the very influence by which they can know truth. That has led you to shun ridicule. It has led you to avoid the temptation of playing to the already converted, seeking their applause by trying to make your adversary appear the fool. It is easy to gain the laughter of an appreciative crowd who delight to see the truth defended with boldness and strength, but you have remembered that the heart you wish to touch may hear derision in that laughter and so turn away.”12

If smashmouth apologetics has a place, it isn’t at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.
from: Blair Hodges, entry in the Maxwell Institute Blog, November 11, 2015, titled:

"Apologetics at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute? No and Yes.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/miapologetics/

Smashmouth apologetics perfectly describes DCP's efforts.

[_Johannes]

An excellent presentation, Herr Doktor.

The only surprising thing about the demise of Mopologetics is that it took so long. It seems to have been a reaction to the Evangelical counter-cult apologetics of the 70s and 80s. Mopologetics is as much a product of that time as Rubiks cubes, Charles in Charge, Reagan lapel pins and the original Star Wars. The real question is how DCP and his friends managed to hold out at the MI until the 2010s.