DiscussMormonism.com

Many here no doubt recall the classic 1980s program Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, hosted by the garrulous and loud-mouthed Robin Leach. In the show, Leach would gasp over the luxurious homes of stars, describing in loving detail everything from the six-figure cars in the garage, to the six-figure fixtures in the bathroom. The show represented the pinnacle--or the nadir--of 1980s materialism and greed.

I have been dwelling on this issue for what will likely seem an odd reason. Indeed, as I sit here in my smoking jacket and matching deerslayer hat (a generous gift from the Dean), I confess that I have been on this particular case for some time, poring over the details with my magnifying glass. At heart, I believe all my thinking on the issue can be crystalized into a basic question: Why do budding Mopologists want? Christie Brinkley, Ivana Trump, and Mr. T craved material wealth on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but what do young Mopologists want? Surely, they eschew material wealth. Mopologetics, after all, is at least superficially an "intellectual" and "philosophical" movement. But, for all but the elites of FARMS and skinny-l, this is at best a pipe dream. Lacking the funds and university sinecures which would allow them easy access to "over 3 million books," these junior, up-and-coming Mopologists have to secure their status via other, more unfortunate and dubious means.

Thus, I offer up Exhibit A:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/02 ... hipps.html

My attention was first called to this 23-Feb-2009 posting by Ray A, who announced on Runtu's "Nominations for the Hughies" thread that LifeOnaPlate deserved an award for his hubris. Indeed, it was this blog posting that earned LoaP the nomination.

So, what was this post about? LoaP begins his narration thusly:

LoaP wrote:It was 4:30 AM and I was sitting in the front room of the Irving House Bed and Breakfast waiting for Jan Shipps. We'd be sharing a cab to the Logan International Airport in Boston, the flight to depart shortly after 6.

Immediately, the young apologist drops a well-known name. We in the audience are intrigued to learn about how and why this erstwhile up-and-comer has managed to score a "cab ride" with Shipps. LoaP continues:

...just five hours earlier Jan sat in that same front room telling stories with a handful of conference participants. She fielded questions about decades worth of work in Mormon studies, but what struck me as much as her memory and candor was her kindness. It wasn't indulgent, airy kindness-- more leathery and solid than sugary, but it infused every word. I realized this must be one reason she has so successfully played the role of an outside-insider, religiously a Methodist, but a wonderful academic Mormon.

In an odd turn of events, LoaP, who is very much looking forward to this one-on-one cab ride, during which he will have the attention of one of the world's premiere scholars of Mormonism, offers up this backhanded compliment, claiming that Shipps's "kindness" (rather than, say, her scholarship) is what has endeared her to folks such as LoaP. But, the name-dropping isn't finished yet:

She appeared at the bottom of the stairs with her suitcases and greeted Richard Bushman (he'd been reading the New York Times online in the front room).

Just like Robin Leach, saturated with all the appurtances of Hollywood luxury, LoaP has found himself neck-deep among the bigwigs of Mormon studies. Probably, he spent the "five hours" completely wide-eyed, unable to sleep with all the excitement. Indeed:

He [i.e., Richard Bushman] helped her to the cab with her luggage, said goodbye, and I became her captive audience for the thirty-minute drive. Not that she was looking for an audience; if anything she was ready to go back to sleep since we'd kept her up past midnight.

One can sense a very uncomfortable pushiness here, as if LoaP took advantage of Shipps's "kindness" just so he could squeeze a name-dropping-heavy blog posting out of her. So, what questions did he ask?

I asked her a little about the book she's been working on for the last ten years and she noted how she hopes to have it done pretty soon, especially considering the declining health of her husband. The topic traces the changes in Mormonism since World War II. She was headed from Boston to Logan, Utah where she'd be giving a lecture and doing some archival research for the next two weeks.

Yes; that's very interesting. You may be wondering: Did LoaP probe further? Did he seek to increase his scholarly knowledge? You be the judge:

I wanted to share something with Jan, somehow let her know that I appreciate her work and that I've thought about the strange position she fills in Mormon studies. Having recently finished reading the collected letters of C.S. Lewis I thought about the parallel between he and Jan. Lewis is still claimed by many Christians inter-denominationally, though he remained a devout Anglican after his conversion to Christianity. Every so often he'd receive a letter asking why he wasn't Catholic or Presbyterian or something along those lines. I described some of the letters to Jan and she smiled when I asked her if she'd encountered the same thing.

With one fell swoop, LoaP gets to show Jan Shipps how smart he is! "Look, Ms. Shipps! I've read C.S. Lewis! And, I've thought about the parallels with you!" One wants to pat LoaP on the head, to tell him that he's a good boy, and that he deserves a gold star for all the work he's put in.

In any event, LoaP wraps up the post thusly:

During the conference after Richard Turley announced the death of Larry H. Miller (who has provided much of the financial backing for the Joseph Smith Papers project) he took his seat again next to Jan and I heard her ask if the project would be alright. The concern in her voice was alleviated when he assured her things would go forward. I'm glad she's around to see the recent developments in Mormon studies, and who knows but that Jan Shipps has come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

"See? She's on our team," he seems to say. While one might have hoped for some more intellectual content in this posting, the truth is that the posting seemed more an opportunity for LoaP to brag about his encounter with this well-known scholar. Above all, he seemed very glad that he'd been able to work his way up to being on a first-name basis with her.

Oddly (as Ray A pointed out), LoaP forgot to mention something:

Sione, a.k.a. Lamanite wrote:Just thought you'd forget that I was riding in the same cab. Sheesh

Whoa! I don't know about you, but I had been led to believe that LoaP was all by himself, with him as Jan Shipps's "captive audience" (though, based on his account, it seems that the roles were reversed, with LoaP doing most of the talking).

So, what was the point of this blog post? The point is that there was no point. It was purely an exercise in obsequious grandstanding--an opportunity for LoaP to make the case that, in fact, within the world of Mopologetics, he is a "winner": "Hey, guys! Look at me! I rode in a cab with Jan Shipps! And I talked to her!"

In the end, it turns out that Ray A is right: LifeOnaPlate deserves his "hubris" award. And he deserves an obsequious award on top of that. One can only wonder why this sort of thing seems to be so rampant among the young Mopologists.

Doctor Scratch wrote:

LoaP wrote:It was 4:30 AM and I was sitting in the front room of the Irving House Bed and Breakfast waiting for Jan Shipps. We'd be sharing a cab to the Logan International Airport in Boston, the flight to depart shortly after 6.

Immediately, the young apologist drops a well-known name. We in the audience are intrigued to learn about how and why this erstwhile up-and-comer has managed to score a "cab ride" with Shipps.

I "immediately dropped a name" because I wrote this as a personal profile piece for a magazine writing class I am taking at the U. I chose Jan Shipps.

LoaP continues:

...just five hours earlier Jan sat in that same front room telling stories with a handful of conference participants. She fielded questions about decades worth of work in Mormon studies, but what struck me as much as her memory and candor was her kindness. It wasn't indulgent, airy kindness-- more leathery and solid than sugary, but it infused every word. I realized this must be one reason she has so successfully played the role of an outside-insider, religiously a Methodist, but a wonderful academic Mormon.

In an odd turn of events, LoaP, who is very much looking forward to this one-on-one cab ride, during which he will have the attention of one of the world's premiere scholars of Mormonism, offers up this backhanded compliment, claiming that Shipps's "kindness" (rather than, say, her scholarship) is what has endeared her to folks such as LoaP.

I suppose if I intended an insult you would have a point. I didn't, and you don't. The scholarship was a given, the kindness was what struck me more, and was unexpected. Not that I thought Jan would be unkind, I had never considered what her personality would be like at all up to that point.

But, the name-dropping isn't finished yet:

She appeared at the bottom of the stairs with her suitcases and greeted Richard Bushman (he'd been reading the New York Times online in the front room).

Just like Robin Leach, saturated with all the appurtances of Hollywood luxury, LoaP has found himself neck-deep among the bigwigs of Mormon studies. Probably, he spent the "five hours" completely wide-eyed, unable to sleep with all the excitement.

While it was a real treat to be there, I slept fine. I thought it was really neat that Richard helped her with the luggage, a nice detail for the spot.

Indeed:

He [i.e., Richard Bushman] helped her to the cab with her luggage, said goodbye, and I became her captive audience for the thirty-minute drive. Not that she was looking for an audience; if anything she was ready to go back to sleep since we'd kept her up past midnight.

One can sense a very uncomfortable pushiness here, as if LoaP took advantage of Shipps's "kindness" just so he could squeeze a name-dropping-heavy blog posting out of her.

I mostly listened the night before. (It was a great conversation, too.)

So, what questions did he ask?

I asked her a little about the book she's been working on for the last ten years and she noted how she hopes to have it done pretty soon, especially considering the declining health of her husband. The topic traces the changes in Mormonism since World War II. She was headed from Boston to Logan, Utah where she'd be giving a lecture and doing some archival research for the next two weeks.

Yes; that's very interesting. You may be wondering: Did LoaP probe further? Did he seek to increase his scholarly knowledge?

It may strike some people as odd, but this short personal profile was structured to include a personal exchange. Hence, I focused on a personal exchange that I thought was interesting and unique to the situation.

You be the judge:

I wanted to share something with Jan, somehow let her know that I appreciate her work and that I've thought about the strange position she fills in Mormon studies. Having recently finished reading the collected letters of C.S. Lewis I thought about the parallel between he and Jan. Lewis is still claimed by many Christians inter-denominationally, though he remained a devout Anglican after his conversion to Christianity. Every so often he'd receive a letter asking why he wasn't Catholic or Presbyterian or something along those lines. I described some of the letters to Jan and she smiled when I asked her if she'd encountered the same thing.

With one fell swoop, LoaP gets to show Jan Shipps how smart he is! "Look, Ms. Shipps! I've read C.S. Lewis! And, I've thought about the parallels with you!" One wants to pat LoaP on the head, to tell him that he's a good boy, and that he deserves a gold star for all the work he's put in.

Odd. I really had just finished reading the letters and they really did strike me as an interesting parallel. Here was a person who had heard a remarkably similar sentiment from many Mormons that Lewis heard from other Christians. It was a good opportunity to see what she had to say.

In any event, LoaP wraps up the post thusly:

During the conference after Richard Turley announced the death of Larry H. Miller (who has provided much of the financial backing for the Joseph Smith Papers project) he took his seat again next to Jan and I heard her ask if the project would be all right. The concern in her voice was alleviated when he assured her things would go forward. I'm glad she's around to see the recent developments in Mormon studies, and who knows but that Jan Shipps has come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

"See? She's on our team," he seems to say. While one might have hoped for some more intellectual content in this posting, the truth is that the posting seemed more an opportunity for LoaP to brag about his encounter with this well-known scholar. Above all, he seemed very glad that he'd been able to work his way up to being on a first-name basis with her.

It's not a matter of being on the same "team," or anything. This response to my post is simply bizarre. Further, I don't know that Jan would recall my name now, but she liked the profile piece I did at the time. (I didn't send it to her, someone else did. In telling you that I am bragging about the wide reach of my blog. Or just anticipating another complaint you will make from my response to you.)

Oddly (as Ray A pointed out), LoaP forgot to mention something:

Sione, a.k.a. Lamanite wrote:Just thought you'd forget that I was riding in the same cab. Sheesh

Whoa! I don't know about you, but I had been led to believe that LoaP was all by himself, with him as Jan Shipps's "captive audience" (though, based on his account, it seems that the roles were reversed, with LoaP doing most of the talking).

Sione didn't have a word with Jan throughout the taxi ride, he was talking to the driver the whole time. This detail was irrelevant to my personal profile as I understood the assignment from the class. Notice I didn't mention the taxi driver, either.

So, what was the point of this blog post? The point is that there was no point. It was purely an exercise in obsequious grandstanding--an opportunity for LoaP to make the case that, in fact, within the world of Mopologetics, he is a "winner": "Hey, guys! Look at me! I rode in a cab with Jan Shipps! And I talked to her!"

The purpose was two-fold: to fulfill a requirement for my class and to detail a personal experience I'd like to remember. A nice sidebar is letting people know how neat Shipps was in person. Her scholarship should be evaluated on its own merits.

In the end, it turns out that Ray A is right: LifeOnaPlate deserves his "hubris" award. And he deserves an obsequious award on top of that. One can only wonder why this sort of thing seems to be so rampant among the young Mopologists.

Thanks for the award.

This will be my only response.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Sione didn't have a word with Jan throughout the taxi ride, he was talking to the driver the whole time.

Bless his dear soul. Imagine that, talking to a lowly, brainless cabbie while Jan Shipps is in the same car. I'll bet Sione even found out his name.

Many here no doubt recall the classic 21st century messege board Mormondiscussions.com frequented by the garrulous and loud-mouthed Mr. Scratch. On the board, Scratch would gasp over the arguments and testimonies of LDS apologists, describing in loving detail everything from ink stains on KEP manuscripts to the personal character and morality of FARMS scholars. The board represented the pinnacle--or the nadir--of secular ex-Mormon hate sites.

Insert first person account...

I had been dwelling on this issue for what will likely seem an odd reason. Indeed, as I sit here in my jockstrap and matching sombrero (a generous gift from the Dean...ahem), I confess that I have been on this particular case for some time, poring over the details with my magnifying glass. At heart, I believe all my thinking on the issue can be crystalized into a basic question: Why do budding Mopologists want? Mercury, Harmony, and Trevor craved deep psychological catharsis at Mormondiscussions.com, but what do young Mopologists want? Surely, they eschew religious bigotry and paranoid fantasies of SCMC black helicopters? Mopologetics, after all, is at least superficially an "intellectual" and "philosophical" movement. But, for all but the biggest snarks and moonbats at Mormondiscusions.com, this is at best a pipe dream. Lacking the education and moral literacy which would allow them to compete with Maxwell Institute scholars, these junior, up-and-coming intellectual poseurs have to secure their status via other, more unfortunate and dubious means.

An early redaction of Scratch's OP, just received from my well placed informants.

All this talk of smoking jackets and deerslayer hats and jockstraps and matching sombreros has me putting forth quite the effort to stifle my laughter, lest I wake the young black gentleman sleeping next to me.

Only four posts in and this thread is already one of my favoritest EVER.

The show represented the pinnacle--or the nadir--of 1980s materialism and greed.

Left wing anti Regan propaganda. The 1980's do not hold any sort of monopoly on materialism and greed anymore than the 1960's hold a monopoly on hedonism.

Dumb, really dumb.

Doctor Scratch wrote: Mopologetics, after all, is at least superficially an "intellectual" and "philosophical" movement.

I think it's more of an intellectual and philosophical movement. Note how both Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie distance themselves from aggressive apologetics. Duffy notes in his excellent article this quote from Fielding-McConkie:

Given that it is the Lord’s purpose that our testimony
of the Book of Mormon rest on faith, what is our purpose
in so zealously seeking evidences of all sorts . . . ?
If such evidence supplants the necessity of faith, are
we not at odds with the Lord’s purposes? . . . Some
seem to be more interested in proving the Book of
Mormon true than in discovering what it actually
teaches. [Yet] the only meaningful evidence that the
book is true is its doctrines.

Apologetics as an antidote to doubt:

ORTHODOX SCHOLARSHIP
AS ANTIDOTE TO DOUBT

THEIR commitment to mainline scholarship leads orthodox
intellectuals into a non-LDS world. This can be disorienting
and challenging: looking through the lenses of scholarship,
Latter-day Saints are brought to see their faith, at least to
some degree, the way outsiders see it. No doubt Daniel
Peterson speaks for many orthodox intellectuals when he
describes how his studies in Cairo with a prominent
Catholic scholar of Islam led him to doubt the credibility of
LDS faith claims: “At a certain stage in our relationship, I was
overcome by a feeling of inferiority before the vast and ancient
intellectual traditions Father Anawati represented—
both Islamic and Catholic. How improbable it suddenly
seemed to me that God’s true church resided in the arid
Great Basin of the American West, among a relatively unsophisticated
people with a very short history.”1
Catholic cardinal Avery Dulles once wrote that apologetics
has become “a dialogue between the believer and the
unbeliever in the heart of the Christian himself.”2 In other
words, apologetics is less important as a means of convincing
outsiders than as a means of reassuring the converted.
Christians in the contemporary West live in a secular
milieu, which shapes their values and worldview to a considerable
degree; apologetics assures such Christians that the
claims of their faith are consistent with the secular criteria of
credibility they have internalized.
Orthodox scholarship serves a similar function for intellectually
inclined Latter-day Saints. As intellectuals, they
have internalized to a great degree the criteria for credibility
that prevail in contemporary scholarship. LDS faith claims
do not fare well by these criteria: hence the doubt Peterson
experienced in Cairo, his sudden sense of the provinciality
and implausibility of his faith. Orthodox scholarship provides
an antidote to doubt. It reassures orthodox intellectuals
that their faith is credible by scholarly standards.
Outsiders remain unconvinced, which is to say that orthodox
scholarship enjoys little success as an apologetics ad
extra, for the persuading of skeptics; but it does succeed as
an apologetics ad intra, for the strengthening of believers.3 (Emphasis added)

This has always been a school closet doubters who love reason, but who cannot let go of Mormonism. They are really the ones who "halt between two opinions", but in shows of bravado, they try to save the wavering from their own fate. They understand that once testimony is undermined by reason that only "scholarship" can save them.

This has always been a school closet doubters who love reason, but who cannot let go of Mormonism. They are really the ones who "halt between two opinions", but in shows of bravado, they try to save the wavering from their own fate. They understand that once testimony is undermined by reason that only "scholarship" can save them.

Ray obviously has no idea how incoherent this really is, and so I will not attempt to do the impossible and educate him regarding what it means to understand what your talking about.

Droopy wrote:Ray obviously has no idea how incoherent this really is, and so I will not attempt to do the impossible and educate him regarding what it means to understand what your talking about.

If you don't judge a person by what they say, rather what they do, then you're closer to understanding the real person.