DCP's First "MI" Article is a Flop

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Peterson has finally--some two months after the "launch" of this latest Mopologetic venture--plopped out something resembling an "article" for the MI. As he notes at one point:

There can be no question that scholars, and especially reviewers, who seek to be and behave as Christians, walk a very difficult line. And this is particularly true when the issues at stake involve religion, contentious, disputed matters of ultimate [Page viii]concern and value. Such writers must be fair, and they must not be abusive. But they must tell the truth. And sometimes the truth is that evidence has been deliberately or inadvertently misused or misrepresented, that an argument is invalid, that a thesis doesn’t hold water, that an agenda is misguided, that something is poorly written. And, if a reviewer is committed to seeking and telling the truth, such things must be pointed out where they seem to occur.

I can tell you that I'm very much "committed to seeking and telling the truth," dear readers, and so, with great sadness, I must inform you that Dr. Peterson's article is a rambling mess. Yes, it's true: the piece is "poorly written."

Intriguingly enough (and humorously), the "editorial" (or whatever this is supposed to be) is called, "Charity in Defending the Kingdom" (I kid you not):

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/charit ... e-kingdom/

The article begins nicely enough, with Dr. Peterson asserting that "charity" is needed to protect the Saints from the "jarring" aspects of Church history, and he spends the next several paragraphs explaining how important it is to extend forgiveness to others. Terrific, right?

It turns out, however, that this really isn't about the Universal Principle of Forgiveness. On page iv, DCP clarifies what he's actually been talking about:

It would be unrealistic, though, to expect indulgent charity toward our foibles and flaws from all those outside the church. Some will grant it, surely. But some—and particularly those residing in the “great and spacious building” of Lehi’s vision (1 Nephi 8:26–28)—will certainly not.

Ah. So it's not about extending "forgiveness" to, say, Church critics, or even to one's fellow Saints. Instead, his entire premise appears to be trained on Church history itself: you must forgive, e.g., Joseph Smith for his various indiscretions. You must forgive Elder Packer for his homophobic remarks.

It's at this point that the essay takes an incredibly bizarre turn, as Prof. P. reminisces on yet another of the many injustices that have rained down upon his head:

Sometime in the Fall of 1974, I read an article in the Georgetown University newspaper about the open house for the newly built Washington D.C. Temple. I particularly remember its mockery of the temple’s new president, a retired Singer Corporation executive whose hand the author had shaken during a press reception. It was a hand, the article sneered, that had undoubtedly demonstrated and sold many sewing machines in its time.

Oh, come on! This was an innocent enough joke. Why the outrage? Why the indignation? In the next passage, Dr. Peterson can scarcely disguise his out-of-control disgust:

Georgetown is a Catholic school, and I recall wondering whether the article would have been as contemptuous toward Peter, whom Catholics revere as the first pope but whose hands had, undoubtedly, mended and cast a great many fishing nets in [Page v]his earlier years. Or, even, toward Jesus himself, whose youthful hands, we’re told, were busy in his father’s workshop.

Ironically, such smug elitism would have been quite congenial to those who eventually killed Jesus.

He goes on to rail against "secular critics" and "elite criticism," and even includes this remarkably bizarre diss of Plato:

Another point of elite criticism focuses on Mormonism’s simple teachings, sometimes dismissed as shallow, and the absence of trained theologians among its lay leaders. Listen again, however, to Peter Brown on ancient Christianity:

“Already, some writers looked down from the high battlements of their classical culture at the obscure world pressing in upon them.” Yet the second-century physician and philosopher Galen “noticed that the Christians were apparently enabled by their brutally simple parables and commands to live according to the highest maxims of ancient ethics. The Christian Apologists boasted of just this achievement. Plato, they said, had served good food with fancy dressings, but the Apostles cooked for the masses in a wholesome soup-kitchen!”12

I'm sure you can imagine my aghast reaction to this: Huh??? What, I'm forced to ask, as I adjust my monocle, does any of this have to do with "charity"? Has Dr. Peterson lost his ability to stay on topic?

Well, we find out soon enough that none of this matters, since the entire preceding verbiage has been a pretext for this:

But now, with all this in mind, is there any place in the Kingdom for such a publication as Interpreter?

Emphatically yes!

DCP notes that the Mopologists were ordered by General Authorities to "never...forget “the Relief Society sister in Parowan.”" Is he referring to Chapel Mormons here? Or, instead, did the Mopologists interpret this to mean that Relief Society sisters in Parowan would be interested in 100-page hit pieces on John Dehlin, or long email exchanges with teenagers posted to SHIELDS? Clearly, there was a failure to communicate clearly here. Indeed, the now-deposed FARMS leadership seems to have been seriously misguided:

Interpreter has been founded, at least in part, to ensure that that principle, of caring not merely for professional scholars and academic libraries but for ordinary Latter-day Saints and for religiously-interested outsiders, continues to be honored. Though we hope to adhere to high academic standards, we will not forget our wider audience.

How, one wonders, will they aim to accomplish this? By "dumbing down" their attacks?

Ultimately, it doesn't seem to matter, as the Editor in Chief goes on to make a bold pledge:

I was very proud of the FARMS Review and the Mormon Studies Review.

And Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture is going to be even better. As is plainly evident from this first volume, it has established a high standard for itself. We pledge that we will maintain that standard.

So, there you have it: an article that's about charity, and about how Mopologists can expect Charity from Christians, or from "elites" of Plato's ilk, and that the MI will carry out this mission of charity by writing articles suitable for Relief Society sisters in Parowan (who apparently want to read about C.L. Hansen's sexual exploits at BYU), and by continuing to do apologetics and to write reviews that will continue to be praised "for telling the truth as its authors perceived the truth to be."

I have to admit that I was blown away by this remark:

I can report that, in my sincere and serious judgment, those who wrote for [FARMS] did a very good job, through nearly a quarter of a century, of maintaining fairness and charity.

Whoa! "Metcalfe is Butthead" is the maintenance of charity? Citing authors so anti-semitic that they were kicked off the faculty of Notre Dame is maintenance of charity? Claims like this make you wonder if whatever plagued Louis "Woody" Midgley's article is contagious.

In any event, as the Emeritus B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies at Cassius University, I can't help but view this article along the continuum of Mopologetic history writ-large. So, you can imagine my surprise when I read this, in the comments section:

T., actually, the essay was written before the recent unpleasantness at the Maxwell Institute.

And yet, magically, it refers to events--like the founding of the MI--that occurred after the "unpleasantness at the Maxwell Institute"! Stunning! Perhaps Dr. Peterson's overflowing charity has imbued him with the ability to tell the future?

In all seriousness, this admission, I'm afraid to say, only underscores how sloppy of a job DCP has done with this article. It reads like a pastiche: a jumble of random thoughts. It's as if DCP was feeling guilty about Mopologetics one day and thus felt obliged to write about charity, though when he was at last able to return to the editorial, he had once again begun to dwell on the many injustices and humiliations heaped on him by Plato-like "elites," who've apparently made fun of him for being a Mormon. And then, finally, he picked it back up to "spruce it up" for the MI--hence the hardcore promotion and enthusiastic endorsement for this new venture.

It's all just baffling: the piece is every bit as bad as Midlgey's was--it may very well be the most poorly structured/written thing that Dr. Peterson has ever "published." While he (thankfully) sidestepped the nastiness in Midgley's article, this editorial is nonetheless quite a flop. (Note: you don't need to put a closing set of quotation marks at the end of a paragraph if you're going to pick up that same quotation in the following paragraph.)

You can't help but wonder, more and more, if these guys are asleep at the wheel.

In any case: that's my "review." I've sought to maintain high standards of fairness and charity here, and I hope I've succeeded.

[_DrW]

Dr. Scratch,

In your review, as well as in his article(s), DCP is reflected as self-absorbed and continually obsessing about the myriad of actual and merely perceived slights of Mormonism in his seemingly ever shrinking world.

At some point, his rants are going to be so rambling, repetitive (and ultimately irrelevant) that they will not be worth the effort it takes to discuss them.

It would be great to know the readership (or even the number of hits) that his latest article gleans.

Wouldn't surprise me if, at some point, the reviews of his articles have a larger readership than the articles themselves. Certainly the reviews are shorter, more informative, and make for better reading.

[_Chap]

Dr. Scratch,

Well done.

In your review, as well as in his article, DCP comes off as self-absorbed and continually obsessing about the myriad of perceived slights of Mormonism in his seemingly ever shrinking world.

At some point, his rants are going to be so rambling, repetitive (and ultimately irrelevant) that they will not be worth the effort it takes to discuss them.
...

Sadly, I suppose this is the case.

You know, I rather miss the glory days of DCP. At the high tide of his self-confidence, before he retreated into the comment-free zone of the blogosphere, he was a truly awesome spectacle. Sadly, it seems that the Brethren have pulled the plug. Mopologetics can never be the same.

To adapt some well-known lines:

But now we only hear
His melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
...
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

[_Elphaba]

That was some of the most meandering weirdness I've ever read. First I thought he was writing about how the Mormon Interpreter was going to incorporate charity into its publications, which seemed a worthy goal. But no, suddenly it changed into a "poor poor pitiful me" whine about all the people who have not been/are not/will not be charitable to MI, and Mormons in general.

I especially liked the part where he used the example of something written decades ago in a Georgetown University paper to prove said persecution. The thing is, it is reasonable to assume university newspaper articles are written by the university's journalism students, students who are immature, impetuous, and unfortunately, sometimes rude. So, to me, using a journalism student's incivility to prove how persecuted you are, instead of being charitable enough to cut the kid a little slack because s/he did something 99 percent of kids the same age do--make fun of someone outside his/her tribe--just seems petty. After all, there's a good chance this kid, like most journalism students, grew up to be a decent, respectful adult who would never, again write such a thing. But, I guess that didn't occur to DCP because he works at BYU where not one single journalism student has ever, ever, ever, ever, written something smug about a non-Mormon. Ever.

[_RayAgostini]

I especially liked the part where he used the example of something written decades ago in a Georgetown University paper to prove said persecution.

He's written many articles to prove "said persecution". Including:

But this does not exhaust the pleasures of that message board. It is rife with personal abuse and bloodcurdling hostility, not uncommonly obscene, directed against people the posters do not know and have not met—against President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, the Brethren, the general membership of the church, and even, somewhat obsessively, against one particular rather insignificant BYU professor. Ordinary members of the church—Morgbots or Morons or Sheeple, in the mocking jargon of the board—are routinely stereotyped as insane, ignorant, tyrannical, emotionally impoverished, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, dishonest, greedy, foolish, rude, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured. There was once even a thread—and I am not making this up—devoted to discussing how Mormons noisily slurp their soup in restaurants. Posts frequently lament the stupidity and gullibility of church leaders, neighbors, parents, spouses, siblings, and even offspring—who may be wholly unaware of the anonymous poster's secret double life of contemptuous disbelief. It is a splendid cyber illustration of the finger-pointing and mocking found in the "great and spacious building" of 1 Nephi. Whenever the poisonous culture of the place is criticized, however, its defenders take refuge in the culture of victimhood, deploying a supposed need for therapeutic self-expression as their all-encompassing excuse.

Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism.

But carry on with your misguided bias.

[_Elphaba]

He's written many articles to prove "said persecution". Including:

But this does not exhaust the pleasures of that message board. It is rife with personal abuse and bloodcurdling hostility, not uncommonly obscene, directed against people the posters do not know and have not met—against President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, the Brethren, the general membership of the church, and even, somewhat obsessively, against one particular rather insignificant BYU professor. Ordinary members of the church—Morgbots or Morons or Sheeple, in the mocking jargon of the board—are routinely stereotyped as insane, ignorant, tyrannical, emotionally impoverished, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, dishonest, greedy, foolish, rude, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured. There was once even a thread—and I am not making this up—devoted to discussing how Mormons noisily slurp their soup in restaurants. Posts frequently lament the stupidity and gullibility of church leaders, neighbors, parents, spouses, siblings, and even offspring—who may be wholly unaware of the anonymous poster's secret double life of contemptuous disbelief. It is a splendid cyber illustration of the finger-pointing and mocking found in the "great and spacious building" of 1 Nephi. Whenever the poisonous culture of the place is criticized, however, its defenders take refuge in the culture of victimhood, deploying a supposed need for therapeutic self-expression as their all-encompassing excuse.

Yes, Dan's obsession with all the people who say mean things about his beliefs is well-documented. Meh.

I'm an atheist, and have had many of those, and other offensive things, said to me and/or my fellow atheists over the last thirty years. With a few exceptions, those who said them to me personally were Mormons, and included how I am evil and seek to destroy America. One Christmas Eve when my brother-in-law stood screaming at me is particularly memorable. Reunions are also always fun when they sit around switching back and forth between atheist, gay, and n****r jokes. (I no longer attend.) On another message board one woman hysterically insisted I was literally working with Satan to destroy . . . . I don't remember her exact words on what we were destroying. It was probably the Church. The point is, she literally accused me of colluding with Satan. It was freakin' bizarro!

So, I know well what it feels like to have awful, hurtful, and most-importantly, inaccurate things said about your beliefs. However, if I were keeping track of all the hurtful things I've heard over the years (something I would never do because it's pathetic), if one of those things was said by someone I suspected was too immature to know better, I would not add it to the list.

[_Kevin Graham]

Dan Peterson is a liar and a coward, and really has nothing of value to offer anymore. He convinced so many of us that he was an effective apologist who was interested in getting to the truth, but he has shown that he was never interested in truth. He is only interested in apologetic spin. He begins with a "poor me" conclusion and then tries to cram all the evidence to lead to that conclusion.

This is also true for his little clique of old school FARMS apologists like Russell McGregor and Bill Hamblin. They don't debate because they know they'd lose. So instead they hide out at the other forum and whine forever and a day about how they're victims of persecution. Get real.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Whenever the poisonous culture of the place is criticized, however, its defenders take refuge in the culture of victimhood,

Said the.kettle to the pot.

[_Kishkumen]

There is plenty of bile to go around. That is to be sure. I find this article to be self-indulgent in unfortunate ways. It is not that there isn't good stuff in it, but there is that self-pitying aspect of it that would be better kept to himself. Do I sympathize with him for his loss? You bet I do. That doesn't make these indulgences good reading, though. And it does not bode well for the Mormon Interpreter. In fact, much that has been published in it since David Bokovoy's excellent inaugural essay has been basically a retread of the same ole same ole.

But what gets me most of all, frankly, is to see Allen Wyatt, someone who knows very little of what professional humanistic scholarship is all about, represent Midgley's foray into cyber-stalking and character assassination against C. L. Hansen "scholarship." I almost wish there were a way to make that fool shut his pie hole.

But, I believe in freedom of speech, no matter how deleterious and deceitful the message.

[_Shulem]

Poor, poor, pitful, Dan. He's just the shell of a sad man who has lost everything important to him. And that is? Nobody respects him. Even his own church bodies have dumped him. His artical read like a dejected professor sitting Indian style in a padded white room.

Poor Dan. Let us play our violins and console his poor soul. We who preside in the great and spacious building of free thought and expression will continue to mock men who pretend to be apostles and prophets possessing all kinds of magical spiritual gifts. I judge the credibility of the powers of Mormon prophets by the silly untrue Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. It's a no brainer -- the Mormon cult is manmade religion.

Paul O