Getting "Comped," Mopologetic Style?

[_Gadianton]

For me it's not a hobby, it's a career, and I've spent much more than that on a book. Do I fall into the same category?

Mopologetics is your career? How much do you make a year from this career? How much have you spent on a single book?

[_maklelan]

For me it's not a hobby, it's a career, and I've spent much more than that on a book. Do I fall into the same category?

Mopologetics is your career? How much do you make a year from this career? How much have you spent on a single book?

No, biblical scholarship (and by extension, reading) is my career. On a single book I've spent up to $275. Brill and Peeters can be harsh mistresses.

[_Gadianton]

No, biblical scholarship (and by extension, reading) is my career. On a single book I've spent up to $275. Brill and Peeters can be harsh mistresses.

Ahh.. I get it. Kind of like Egyptology is a certain professor's career even though his commission is essentially to be an apologist for the church. Let me guess, Maklelan, in one life, you are a biblical scholar, this is your career, and in another, you are an apologist, and it's just by blind chance that the Bible scholarship you do for a living lines up and in fact proves all the essential doctrines of Internet Mormonism! I mean, what a lucky coincidence.

And by the way, an interesting choice of metaphor to describe your career as an apologist, that of a kind of sexual deviency.

[_Jason Bourne]

Don't tell me, Jason, a Mormon that takes his family to the Olive Garden. Undheard of!

Yea but I don't drink the wine

In all seriousness though, think about what you're saying. You spend 120$ to feed your hungry family while the apologists caught in the status quo of "catching up with the Peterson's" are forking over 125 for a single book, which merely goes toward their "hobby" as you refer to it. A hobby that doesn't benefit one's family, that fosters anger and bitterness, and that in many cases keeps the apologists from following the Lord's counsel and having families to begin with.

Oh come on.

by the way, I used to be a hobby apologist. I spent very little on it. My hobby of cycling that I have been doing now for a few years costs me much, much more like thousands of dollars a year more. And more time too.

But it has been good for me. And my wife says I am much nicer since I have taken this up. So maybe apolgetics was fostering grumpiness.

Nah!

[_maklelan]

Ahh.. I get it. Kind of like Egyptology is a certain professor's career even though his commission is essentially to be an apologist for the church.

No, not at all like that. I have no such commission, and no such activities interact with my scholarship. I'm here mainly to make sure people aren't spreading false information about my church. If I bring a topic up you can be sure it's something I've also brought up in entirely secular arenas and I'm just looking for different perspectives.

Let me guess, Maklelan, in one life, you are a biblical scholar, this is your career, and in another, you are an apologist, and it's just by blind chance that the Bible scholarship you do for a living lines up and in fact proves all the essential doctrines of Internet Mormonism! I mean, what a lucky coincidence.

I don't know what Internet Mormonism is, but I'm not particularly concerned with proving anything, unless you count trying to prove that cynicism isn't worth much. I am concerned with keeping people honest and objective, and I will respond when I see someone appealing to fallacious argumentation, irrespective of their position. I occasionally enjoy getting feedback about stuff I've come across, but it's becoming increasingly evident that, for the most past, this isn't the place for objective or particularly insightful feedback regarding biblical scholarship.

And by the way, an interesting choice of metaphor to describe your career as an apologist, that of a kind of sexual deviency.

First, learn to spell. Second, my career is in biblical scholarship, and I stick exclusively to rather secular topics, if you can call any facet of biblical scholarship secular. Third, I'll eat my hat the day one of you cynics learns to take a metaphor for what it is instead of appealing ignorantly to this pseudo-psychoanalytical claptrap. That trying-to-make-yourself-feel-like-a-bigger-person by marginalizing and pigeonholing everyone who disagrees with you is what got you guys so deep into this pathetic conspiracy theory about a book Dan Peterson bought at the national SBL.

[_Gadianton]

No, not at all like that. I have no such commission, and no such activities interact with my scholarship.

But one day...right? Maybe you'll be the next Hugh Nibley or the next John Tvedtnes? Oh, none of this interacts with your scholarship at all. You're studying/teaching at BYU, and according to your blog, you're getting all ready (or were) for the ironically named SANE symposium on ancient temples coming up. I'm sure none of those presentations will even hint at similarities to Mormon temples, will they?

this isn't the place for objective or particularly insightful feedback regarding biblical scholarship.

Interesting. You say that your Bible study has no connection with your Mormon beliefs, yet you come online and seek feedback on your studies from an LDS related forum?

Second, my career is in biblical scholarship, and I stick exclusively to rather secular topics, if you can call any facet of biblical scholarship secular.

I can see that, given your promotion of the ironically named SANE symposium on ancient temples with presenters such as Bill Hamblin and John Gee, on the front page of your blog no less.

...instead of appealing ignorantly to this pseudo-psychoanalytical claptrap. That trying-to-make-yourself-feel-like-a-bigger-person by marginalizing and pigeonholing everyone who disagrees with you...

So now you're psychoanalyzing me? My only interest in mopologetics is to feel like a bigger person? Does this kind of below-the-belt accusation go along with your offensive and rather bland and boring "you know you're a redneck (teenage athiest) when" post on the aptly named MAD board? Isn't it you and not myself, who is obsessed with "pigeonholing" everyone who disagrees with you? And aren't you the one trying to make yourself look big and important by putting down other people, such as putting me down for making spelling mistakes just because I either couldn't afford the high level of education you can, along with the outrageously priced books you brag about having the means to purchase, or simply because I wasn't gifted enough to qualify for the schooling you so ungraciously have had handed to you?

I don't know Maklelan, you seem to be a cross between the "righteous warrior" and Trevor's "student of the mysteries." Tread carefully, the marriage between mysticism and war is particularily horrifying.

[_maklelan]

But one day...right? Maybe you'll be the next Hugh Nibley or the next John Tvedtnes?

No. I have no intention of entering that field.

Oh, none of this interacts with your scholarship at all. You're studying/teaching at BYU, and according to your blog, you're getting all ready (or were) for the ironically named SANE symposium on ancient temples coming up. I'm sure none of those presentations will even hint at similarities to Mormon temples, will they?

I'm currently trying to decide where to go to graduate school, and they're all secular programs I'm looking into, specifically in Northwest Semitic philology. I'm just as interested in the Kirta Epic as in the Hebrew Bible. The SANE Symposium was last month, and I organized it to get our club some exposure and give our students opportunities to present in an academic context. I wasn't slated to speak, but a presenter dropped out two weeks prior, and I put together a paper during those two weeks on a text I think is fascinating. It didn't have an apologetic spin at all. You're free to watch the video if you're still unsure. You'll find references to Latter-day Saint cultural issues, but you'll not find anything apologetic. I'm also the editor in chief of BYU's student journal for ancient studies, Studia Antiqua, and I do not accept papers of an apologetic nature. That's in my submission guidelines. I presented a paper at this year's regional SBL also, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism or apologetics.

Interesting. You say that your Bible study has no connection with your Mormon beliefs, yet you come online and seek feedback on your studies from an LDS related forum?

I've also posted this information in Jewish forums, atheist forums, and secular academic forums. I'm looking for different perspectives on it. That's how you make research better.

I can see that, given your promotion of the ironically named SANE symposium on ancient temples with presenters such as Bill Hamblin and John Gee, on the front page of your blog no less.

I sent out a call for proposals to students and professors at BYU and at a number of other universities. I didn't choose who submitted, but Dr. Hamblin's presentation is available online, and I challenge you to find an apologetic conclusion in it.

So now you're psychoanalyzing me?

Yeah. With you it's just so blatant, though, and it defines the majority of the discussion that takes place here. I don't do it to validate my rejection of Mormonism, either. I do it try to keep people like you from spreading more hypocrisy and misunderstanding all over the internet.

My only interest in mopologetics is to feel like a bigger person? Does this kind of below-the-belt accusation go along with your offensive and rather bland and boring "you know you're a redneck (teenage athiest) when" post on the aptly named MAD board?

You'll notice I called it humor. I don't expect anyone to take it seriously, and I think all but one of those points are kinda goofy. Although I guess Dr. Peterson didn't expect anyone to assume he was being devious by buying a book at a discounted price either.

PS - You'll notice I also corrected Selek's grammar in that thread. You should go see our little discussion about Prop. 8 if you want to see me being objective when it conflicts with Latter-day Saint cultural traditions. I don't discriminate.

Isn't it you and not myself, who is obsessed with "pigeonholing" everyone who disagrees with you? And aren't you the one trying to make yourself look big and important by putting down other people, such as putting me down for making spelling mistakes just because I either couldn't afford the high level of education you can, along with the outrageously priced books you brag about having the means to purchase, or simply because I wasn't gifted enough to qualify for the schooling you so ungraciously have had handed to you?

When you try to tell someone they're betraying their sexual deviancy through their words you really forfeit your right to whine about being picked on. If me telling you to learn to spell really offends your sensitivities then you need to stop condemning and belittling other people's worldviews in public.

I don't know Maklelan, you seem to be a cross between the "righteous warrior" and Trevor's "student of the mysteries." Tread carefully, the marriage between mysticism and war is particularily horrifying.

I hope you won't be offended if I tell you I couldn't be much less concerned with what advice you have to offer me.

[_maklelan]

I probably shouldn't have brought up this meta-debate, and I apologize for derailing the thread. I withdraw my accusations and hope those involved will forgive me. I'd like to bring it back on track.

If anyone has anything that actually substantiates the suspicions of those who got this thread going about Dr. Peterson taking advantage of his "mopologist" status for devious discounts on literature, please provide it. Otherwise I think we're all comfortable just recognizing that this is a particularly asinine assumption cooked up by people who evidently have nothing better to do than invent reasons to belittle others for their beliefs.

[_Gadianton]

I'm currently trying to decide where to go to graduate school, and they're all secular programs I'm looking into,

That would be obvious, since BYU doesn't offer anything, and since as a Mormon it would be rather worthless for you to study in any other kind of religious program. None of the senior apologists entered their apologetic positions by studying "Mormon apologetics", a course of study that doesn't exist.

The SANE Symposium was last month, and I organized it to get our club some exposure and give our students opportunities to present in an academic context.

lol, you organized it? And that whole program on ancient temples had nothing, nothing at all to do with the Mormonism the participants are indoctrinated with?

I wasn't slated to speak, but a presenter dropped out two weeks prior, and I put together a paper during those two weeks on a text I think is fascinating. It didn't have an apologetic spin at all.

But it was on "ancient temples" right? I'll have to dig up my powerpoint slide of the mopologetic agenda and show you just how much we know about your covert methods of "Oh, that has nothing to do with apologetics or Mormon beliefs at all". Your talk, and Hamblin's and anyone elses was at minimum tier two apologetics.

and I do not accept papers of an apologetic nature. That's in my submission guidelines.

Classic tier two.

I've also posted this information in Jewish forums, atheist forums, and secular academic forums. I'm looking for different perspectives on it. That's how you make research better.

How? I mean, I wouldn't post questions related to technical details of my profession anywhere but in a forum where I hope and pray someone knows more than I do about it. How can anyone give you feedback unless at minimum they read Biblical Hebrew and are familiar with whatever methods of textual criticism you bloaks are into nowadays?

Yeah. With you it's just so blatant, though, and it defines the majority of the discussion that takes place here. I don't do it to validate my rejection of Mormonism, either. I do it try to keep people like you from spreading more hypocrisy and misunderstanding all over the internet.

Oh I see. Well, the reason why Scratch and people like me psychoanalyze people like you is to keep the disease of mopologetics as contained as possible.

You'll notice I called it humor. I don't expect anyone to take it seriously,

LOL! Just like the Klan doesn't expect anyone to take their "What do ya call a n...." jokes seriously.

You'll notice I also corrected Selek's grammar in that thread.

If I recall correctly, Selek is pretty close to being a Chapel Mormon. Apologists, in particularily at FARMS, butter their bread with correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes of critics and Chapel Mormons. That's what makes them feel better about themselves. You should instead correct the spelling or grammar of Peterson or Hamblin to show "objectivity". Yes, it's possible, I know of one critic who has done this on a few occasions.

When you try to tell someone they're betraying their sexual deviancy through their words you really forfeit your right to whine about being picked on. If me telling you to learn to spell really offends your sensitivities then you need to stop condemning and belittling other people's worldviews in public.

So are you saying that your worldview is closely linked to your sexually "deviant" metaphors? I find that rather fascinating. Anyway, you can "pick on" me all you want. I'm sure that your close, scholarly study of the Bible teaches that you should curse those who curse you, and do unto others as they've done to you.

I hope you won't be offended if I tell you I couldn't be much less concerned with what advice you have to offer me.

But that's just it. You want me to be offended. As the mystic warrior, you want me to get my "just dues".

[_Nevo]

When you try to tell someone they're betraying their sexual deviancy through their words you really forfeit your right to whine about being picked on. If me telling you to learn to spell really offends your sensitivities then you need to stop condemning and belittling other people's worldviews in public.

So are you saying that your worldview is closely linked to your sexually "deviant" metaphors? I find that rather fascinating.

I realize you're probably being facetious, but mak's "harsh mistress" comment is a fairly common expression, ultimately derived from Harvard law professor Joseph Story's famous line that "the law is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship" (1829). As such, it does not normally indicate a veiled admission of deviancy.