DiscussMormonism.com

Does Doctor Scratch's 2018 Top Ten Happenings require a last minute revision...?

I have a question wrote:Does Doctor Scratch's 2018 Top Ten Happenings require a last minute revision...?

Yeah, wow. This is a real humdinger!

All kinds of stunning revelations here! I knew that it was only a matter of time before the Mopologists exhausted their patience and finally blabbed about what went down. Unsurprisingly, the admissions are quite stunning. Let's summarize:

--LDS apologetics--both legitimate, reasonable apologetics and Mopologetics--is funded by the actual Church. We have always more or less known that this was the case; we just didn't know all the details. Now, though, we see that the Church is pumping serious dollars into this: upwards of 7 figures, if Hodges and others are to be believed. I don't know if people fully realize the gravity of this. Remember how many denials we used to hear about the Brethren being involved in apologetics? This has all been blown to smithereens. The disclaimers listed at all of these organizations will need to change. I also wonder how this will affect the financial "transparency" of these organizations. Presumably, now that the Church has some skin in the game, the financial "reports" will cease, no? Accounting-wise, it will once again be easier for Dr. Peterson to pay himself upwards of 20K per year, and to finance his travels via Interpreter's coffers**. (More on this later.)

--Perhaps even more interesting are the admissions about how Mopologists like Midgley and Peterson have personally profited financially from this kind of Church funding. By Peterson's own admission, his expenses to Australia were paid for by *both* BYU and the Church (which amounts to the same thing, no?). Meanwhile, Midgley is discussing this dinner with Elder Maxwell, where Maxwell ordered the Chair of the Poli Sci department to not only *allow* Midgley to do Mopologetics, but to give him salary increases for it! Whoa! And you really have to wonder about the plight of Bill Hamblin amidst all of this: a man who now seems to have been basically ruined by his involvement in Mopologetics. (DCP and Midgley seem to have been more politically savvy--or expedient, perhaps?--in terms of "playing the system"; one wonders why they didn't help Hamblin to avoid getting screwed over.)

--The relationship that the Midgley is describing between the Brethren and the Mopologists is remarkable. Who serves whom, exactly? (And I admit that it completely escaped my notice--if it's accurate, of course--that the Chair of the Strengthening Members Committee was at the last FAIR Mormon Conference??? On the one hand: holy crap! On the other hand: we always knew that the Mopologists were in cahoots with the "small clipping agency." They (the Mopologists) have always been involved in spying, snooping, and clandestine activities. No real surprises there.

--There seems to be what might be called an "economy of favors" that exists amongst the Brethren and the apologists. The bit about Maxwell having dinner with the Midgleys--apparently to arrange this situation with Midgley's departmental Chair (how long do Chairs serve at BYU, I wonder?). Meanwhile, now we have this claim--from Midgley himself!--that the Church is going to throw money at these half-dozen or so apologetic organizations. There is a subtext here that speaks to a number of stakeholders who are all competing for the favors and good will of the General Authorities, but this is complicated by the fact that they are apparently not supposed to publicly admit to this. (It doesn't look good if the Brethren play favorites.) So, we have the Maxwell Institute (home of "Mormon Studies") is getting massive funding, but in an effort to keep the peace, money is being tossed at the Mopologists, too. **On that note, it would not surprise me at all if the Church's funding of DCP's travels was done in an effort to calm him down. I myself would be willing to bet significant money that his antics in the wake of his dismissal as Editor were *not* viewed favorably by the leadership in SLC. In that sense, paying for his travels could be seen as a variety of "hush money": "Look, just shut up already, Elder Peterson. We've heard your complaints, and you are not going to be reappointed at the MI. Like, ever. So get over it! Here, we'll pay for part of your trip to Australia, and we'll send some money over to Interpreter. But you need to dial it down, pronto."

--The bit about Elder Packer ordering up the Dehlin "hit piece" is both hilarious and unsurprising. I've always had this vision of the apologists as being (mostly) a bunch of angry, middle-aged white men, salivating at the prospect of "destroying" apostates and tools of Satan. Getting "permission" from the Brethren to do this would only fan the flames. That said, Midgley's account doesn't fully add up. The way he is describing things, it would seem that everything was in alignment: Elder Packer orders the hit, and Greg Smith, the ever-faithful acolyte, does as he's told. Everyone's on board; this is being done on an Apostle's orders, so what squashed it? Midgley says that someone at the MI "leaked" the hit piece to Dehlin, who then proceeded to protest very vocally. How/why was that enough to kibosh something that was ordered by an Apostle? What I think this reveals is, ultimately, that the Church cares more about its public image than it does about "crushing" apostates. Mopologetics, in that sense, has to be seen as a "high-risk" activity. High-profile apostasies are not good for the Church. Which means, by extension, that the Brethren probably take issue with certain dimensions of Mopologetics. But let's give Midgley the benefit of the doubt, and let's suppose that the GAs are more or less simpatico with the Mopologists, and that they also enjoy the "warrior" aspect of it, and that they derive a frisson of delight at "ruining" people like Dehlin. Even if that is true, their actions still strongly suggest that there is at least enough calculation going on to know that this sort of thing won't play well publicly (it's not very Christ-like, after all). The Brethren, very much in the public eye, and with a gigantic coterie of advisors, have stronger reasons to hold back and to rein in these problematic impulses, whereas the Mopologists, trying so, so hard to curry favor, are far less gun-shy.

--So the doling out of funds, then, is also a PR move. Publicly, it looks like the Church is supplying money to the respectable, legitimately academic Maxwell Institute, but oh, hey, wink-wink, they are also going to give some money (less money, but still) to the Mopologists. Midgley and DCP are therefore wrong when they characterize Elder Holland's talk as a "spanking." As far as I can tell, the talk was deliberately ambiguous. My sense is that it was likely designed to both encourage (and help pacify) the Mopologists, despite the fact that the big bucks are still going to the more respectable Maxwell Institute. What's hilarious is that Midgley is so stoked up about this--so glad to get this little pat on the head--that he is completely ignoring the fact that (by his own admission!) Interpreter is being put on a tether. Peterson has so far been silent on this, but I'm sure that this is making him nervous: he can feel those doubts creeping into the pit of his stomach. It was bellicose, attack-driven Mopologetics that got him kicked out of the Maxwell Institute, and yet here are the Brethren, seemingly wanting him to steer Interpreter in that direction yet again. I wonder if he's learned the lesson yet: that this is what it feels like to be a pawn in somebody else's game. Well, hey: at least at the end, there is supposedly the Celestial Kingdom. There's always that, I suppose.

--In all of this, Morgan Davis, Blair Hodges, and the people working at the 'new' Maxwell Institute come away looking best. The Brethren seem like manipulators who are engaged in string-pulling and skullduggery. The Mopologists are, of course, frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs. What else is new?

Very interesting, in any case. I knew that these kinds of admissions were coming eventually--I just wasn't sure when. It seems the Mopologists just needed a bit of prodding--or stimulation?--from the Brethren in order to make it happen. Quite an exciting way to launch the new year!

If anyone is wondering why Dan isn't weighing in on this as much as he usually does, there is this little gem from Scott "Baghdad Bob" Lloyd in this same thread.

Dan is traveling in Egypt right now and has only spotty and poor internet access, but I am in high hopes that we will hear from him later

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71425-a-course-correction-for-the-maxwell-institute/?do=findComment&comment=1209878819

Well there's a shocker.

Where is Bob Crockett going to steer his donations now?

Fence Sitter wrote:If anyone is wondering why Dan isn't weighing in on this as much as he usually does, there is this little gem from Scott "Baghdad Bob" Lloyd in this same thread.

Dan is traveling in Egypt right now and has only spotty and poor internet access, but I am in high hopes that we will hear from him later

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71425-a-course-correction-for-the-maxwell-institute/?do=findComment&comment=1209878819

Well there's a shocker.

Ha! That didn’t stop him from posting on Sic et Non!

First of all, a hearty thanks to Reverend Kishkuman for so humbly blowing the lid on this monumental fiasco.

I have a few questions for Doctor Scratch, assuming he has time with his busy travel schedule to answer.

Of all the astounding revelations in the last 24 hours, most striking was the revelation by Midgley that the "hit" was ordered by Packer himself, which corroborates the revelations of Doctor Scratch regarding Brethren-directed apologetics, and specifically, the power of Packer. Although Midgley struggles to control his own narrative, he reveals subtly that Packer's influence is factional and political. And if Scratch is right about the Packer faction, then what of the Oaks faction? Perhaps Midgley doesn't know about the Oaks faction? I mean, here you have Midgley with suddenly, all this GA backed firepower behind him, and he generalizes from here that this represents the general will of the Church leadership without realizing that there may be an opposing faction that would be a kind of negative space within his own narrative. If Scratch is right, and Oaks is taking over, then this could be very bad for the Mopologists.

And yeah, I thought Lemmie's observation about financing deserves serious attention: A few weeks ago, a neighbor wanted to take me to dinner. In the car, I got what he was up to, and so I picked a less formal venue and when we got there, I scurried to the register and paid for my own dinner, and then proceeded to tell the guy the thing he was so excited to tell me about and rope me into was idiotic and to count me out. Apparently, Midgley doesn't understand human nature like I do.

Or does he?

I've read commentaries on terrorism that conclude a persisting problem among terrorists is that once they secure funding and the paycheck, they're easily corrupted and lose sight of their ideals. And so it strikes me as very interesting how vocal these apologists are, revealing facts about things perhaps they shouldn't be revealing publicly. I mean, even if true, they are essentially "outing" their backers who quite clearly want to remain behind the scenes. Why would such backers want to continue to support people who can't keep a secret? Well, perhaps these outbursts find meaning in a different context that that which is typically considered: perhaps the apologists demand to be paid off. Once the easy funding comes, one possibility is that they are restricted to the aims of their backers and forever gagged and the new MI wins, another possibility is that they smile with glee, are fine with writing what they're told to write, and laugh all the way to the bank.

Gadianton wrote:I have a few questions for Doctor Scratch, assuming he has time with his busy travel schedule to answer.

Of all the astounding revelations in the last 24 hours, most striking was the revelation by Midgley that the "hit" was ordered by Packer himself, which corroborates the revelations of Doctor Scratch regarding Brethren-directed apologetics, and specifically, the power of Packer. Although Midgley struggles to control his own narrative, he reveals subtly that Packer's influence is factional and political. And if Scratch is right about the Packer faction, then what of the Oaks faction? Perhaps Midgley doesn't know about the Oaks faction? I mean, here you have Midgley with suddenly, all this GA backed firepower behind him, and he generalizes from here that this represents the general will of the Church leadership without realizing that there may be an opposing faction that would be a kind of negative space within his own narrative. If Scratch is right, and Oaks is taking over, then this could be very bad for the Mopologists.

Well, that's an interesting question, Dean Robbers. Oaks has seemingly been laying low for a while. Is he still leading up a "faction"? I had been under the impression that part of the reason that Oaks's faction existed in the first place was to oppose Packer's faction. Let's not imagine even for a second that there *aren't* power struggles among the General Authorities. With Nelson's ascension, I think that the power dynamics have shifted. *Some*one apparently supports "attack"-apologetics, a.k.a. Mopologetics; meanwhile, somebody else clear favors the more respectable "Mormon Studies" approach of the new MI. (And it could very well be that this is the same person/people; anyone who's ever been around admin leadership in a big organization--like a church, a corporation, or a university--knows how contradictory and confusing the motives of the leaders can be.)

But this is a fast moving target. Midgley is going nuclear on Blair Hodges:

Midgley wrote:More spin from a PR expert. What I have been told by those who were in the trenches is that you constantly complained that they were not doing things the right way, and they begged you to explain exactly what the problem was that troubled you, and you never could give a coherent reply. Were a half a dozen people, all of whom I trust, all making something up.

He is publicly claiming that people in the FAIR leadership viewed Hodges as a "problem": someone who's questioning and "complaining" got him flagged as untrustworthy, so he was kicked out of the organization. For the record, Hodges denies it:

B. Hodges wrote:I wasn't "sent packing" from FAIR, Lou. I withdrew for lack of time while attending grad school. I was thanked for my service, which included founding the FAIR podcast. I've explained in other venues that neither myself nor the Institute is averse to apologetics. Since things keep descending into gossip, and since you've openly described yourself as trying to dig up "useful" information about me personally, I prefer to end the conversation with you at this point. Take care.

It gets even more interesting, though: Midgley is now "naming names," and he has fingered Carl Griffin as someone who was responsible for helping to get DCP jettisoned from the MI:

Midgley wrote:Carl Griffin was one of four employees [I'm guessing the others are Morgan Davis, Gerald Bradford, and Brent Webb?] of the Maxwell Institute who were involved in the plot to purge Dan Peterson from the Institute. The title of his essay is "Looking Down a Dark Well: An Editorial Introduction" (pp 55-58), which is followed by essays by Daniel Becerra, who was then a PhD candidate at Duke University (pp. 59-65), which is then followed by Taylor Petrey's "Siding with Heretics: Evaluating Hugh Nibley Today" (pp.66-70). Petrey is now a tenured professor at Kalamazoo College. And his opinions are not even close to the faith of Latter-day Saints. So I urge everyone to read and ponder his bizarre essay. He argues that Nibley work was derivative and also that he work neglected looking into the currently popular concerns about sexual orientation, gender and so forth. This is clearly a not even subtle argument that Nibley's work on early Christianity must now be sent to the rubbish bin because he wrote prior to the now trendy concern about sexual orientation and gender. Pleas make your own assessment on whether this kind of ideology ought to have been published by an Institute named after Elder Maxwell.

[SNIP!]

Both Carl Griffin's own comments and those he solicited from others, all but one of whom had not even finished a PhD, is clearly irresponsible and offensive. Nibley deserved better treatment and so did the donors who helped pay for the Maxwell Institute, and so did the tithe payers whose contributions help finance the Institute.

In addition, if one compares the very last edition of what was called the FARMS Review, until Jerry Bradford insisted on calling it Mormon Studies Review (see volume 23/1 (2011) with any issue of the what Bradford eventually revived under the name Mormon Studies Review, it will be obvious that what Dan Peterson, Greg Smith, George Mitton and I edited was far superior in every way from what has subsequently been published by the Maxwell Institute. I invite this comparison, since it will clearly manifest the problems that donors, the Brethren and ordinary Latter-day Saints find in the so-called "new direction."

(emphasis added)

So tithing money was going towards this operation all along, according to Midgley? Not for long, it seems. Midgley (rather unbelievably) continues:

Midgley wrote:The fact is that Professor Peters was invited by Elder Quentin Cook, an Apostle yet, to join him and five crucial Seventies, and Scott Gordon and Laura and Brian Hales to prepare a proposal that was eventually presented to the Area Committee, which consist of the Twelve Apostles, and whose meeting are attended by the Seventy who are currently assigned in Salt Lake, on how best to replace the Maxwell Institute as an agency to defend the Church of Jesus Christ from its critics, including those who are nominal members of the Church. This group met three times to carefully prepare a proposal for the consideration of the Twelve Apostles. And Professor Peterson delivered their recommendations to a meeting of the Area Committee. Those proposals were well received and many of them have already been implemented.

One of the proposals was that the Brethren ought to officially endorse the Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central and what has been called Fair Mormon as reliable sources of information. That has been done. Then, instead of using tithing money to finance the defense of the faith and the Saints, it was proposed, and accepted, that the Brethren establish an agency to seek donations to help finance Interpreter,Book of Mormon Central and FAIR. This agency is not operating; it is called Mormon Voices. One can also anticipate, given the current President of the Church of Jesus Christ, that there will be additional efforts made to see that the Saints defend their faith in responsible ways. I have been told that Elder Cook told that committee now to even mention the Maxwell Institute because the Brethren had given up on it. But, thankfully, what Elder Holland said so carefully and eloquently on November 10th seems to me to indicate that they still hope to turn the Maxwell Institute away from it dreadful course change fashioned after the firing of Dan Peterson.

I have previously explained all this to Blair Hodges, but he just ignored what I wrote, and went on posting the same rubbish. Has anyone at the Maxwell Institute even heard of the Area Committee? Or the proposals that Professor read to them, and upon which the Brethren have begun to act? Given what I know about how the Brethren feel about the radical change of directions that came after Professor Peterson was sent packing, I read Elder Holland's remarks directed to it current Director and to all those involved with it, as call for repentance, and a dire warning.

When the Spencer posts the Maxwell Institute report for 2018, with the very carefully worked remarks by Elder Holland that were read on November 10, 2018, I urge everyone to read the words of one who indicated that he was speaking with the full support of the Board of Trustees, the current President of the Church, whose opinions on the Maxwell Institute he quoted from an email sent to him, and also from all the Apostles. Given the language used by Elder Holland, I am confident that it would be a grave mistake for anyone at the Maxwell Institute not to do exactly what they have now been told to do. Then and only then can we begin to talk about their "coming along" with FAIR, Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter Foundation.

(emphasis mine)

Deeper and deeper we go. So, perhaps not an "Oaks Faction," but there does seem to be a "Cook Faction"? (Cook, if I'm not mistaken, was a protege of Elder Packer's, for what it's worth.) If what Midgley is saying is true, it means that there was a secret "Area Committee" that was convened as a means of figuring out how to provide financial support to Mopologetic organizations. This tidbit is remarkable: "I have been told that Elder Cook told that committee now to even mention the Maxwell Institute because the Brethren had given up on it." Of course, this isn't true, given Holland's speech, and also the new building (more on that in a moment). All of this is remarkable, though: the political backstabbing and maneuvering. Midgley just can't seem to keep his mouth shut.

His remarks have put DCP in the unenvious position of having to try to put the lid back on these revelations. Some of the stuff he writes is astonishing:

DCP wrote:First of all, my essay is being portrayed by certain folks as part of a continuing war on the Maxwell Institute waged by the Interpreter Foundation. This is not true. Had we wanted to go to war against the Maxwell Institute, the warfare would have been unmistakable. Those who want to see such antagonism are reading it into places where it simply doesn’t exist. I’m said to be positively drooling in anticipation of a purge at the Maxwell Institute. There are several clear problems with this idea. One is that it’s not true. Another is that I wrote absolutely nothing that can reasonable be construed as saying that.

[SNIP!]

Am I altogether pleased with the course taken by the Maxwell Institute since June 2012? No. Very decisively not. And I’ve been candid about that. I think that the “change of course” announced then was a significant and quite unforced error, and that it has done grave damage. Do I think that I personally was treated fairly or well? No. Have I continually harped on either of those subjects privately, let alone publicly? No, I have not. I have, as the saying goes, moved on.

(emphasis added)

ROFLOL!!! Is this guy blind? Someone ought to go back and collect all the crap he's said about Bradford, the MI, the various fights he's picked with them, etc. Elsewhere, he is dismissive of the MI's new building:

DCP wrote:A second final note: Some are saying that a new campus building is to be constructed for the Maxwell Institute and that this illustrates the enthusiasm and complete support of the Brethren for the course that the Institute has taken since 2012. Well, let’s not overstate this. The Maxwell Institute has been housed in University buildings for decades, since before it had the name Maxwell Institute and since long before it adopted its new course. (I had an office in its third campus building that I was ordered to clear out and to leave immediately upon my return to the United States from the Middle East in June 2012.) Significantly smaller now than it once was, the Institute has recently been moved to temporary housing in another university building – which is its fourth. And, when the new West View Building is completed, the employees of the Maxwell Institute will be among its various tenants.

I guess we're supposed to view the new funds for Interpreter as having greater significance than this new building? *This* is the proof at last that the Brethren *do* formally endorse Mopologetics? (But weren't we told all along that the Brethren have nothing to do with apologetics--that the articles, authors, and organizations don't represent official Church views?)

Peterson wrote:A third and final final note: I see that the tiny group of my most obsessive critics is now inventing an entire new narrative in which the Brethren (who seem, in these critics’ minds, alternately to despise and reject me and to regard me as a valuable if sordid weapon against goodness and truth) are now funding Interpreter and directing our every move. Or something like that. If these critics weren’t so predisposed to fantasies and conspiracies and so certain that everything I say is a lie, they could simply ask me questions and I would answer them. I’m a pretty transparent fellow, and I have nothing to hide. But they seem to love the devilry that they’ve invented and ascribed to me and to prefer it to the truth. They’re blissfully happy with it. Thus, at least for now, they apparently can’t be helped.

No: it's actually Professor Midgley who's been telling everyone about how the Brethren are going to be steering money to Interpreter. This is the first any of us has heard about it. That's not exactly what I'd call "transparency." *Any* funding that's steered towards Mopologetics by the Church should be disclosed. Period.


Doctor Robbers:

And so it strikes me as very interesting how vocal these apologists are, revealing facts about things perhaps they shouldn't be revealing publicly. I mean, even if true, they are essentially "outing" their backers who quite clearly want to remain behind the scenes. Why would such backers want to continue to support people who can't keep a secret? Well, perhaps these outbursts find meaning in a different context that that which is typically considered: perhaps the apologists demand to be paid off. Once the easy funding comes, one possibility is that they are restricted to the aims of their backers and forever gagged and the new MI wins, another possibility is that they smile with glee, are fine with writing what they're told to write, and laugh all the way to the bank.

I don't think there's any question that the top-ranking Mopologists have profited from their work. I mean, no matter how you slice it: whether it's "donations" for their pet organizations, or salary increases thanks to political finagling and intimidation of department Chairs, or funds mean to cover travel, food, and lodging expenses for what is basically (let's face it) a vacation. They can joke about how, gee, if they're trying to get rich, they've really failed! Well, sure--if you think about it in those terms. But if you think of it instead as getting away with something, you can see how that would have value to a certain type of person--something that you'd never be able to put a price on.

Holy smokes! A late Christmas came on New Year's Eve.

OMG:

"First of all, my essay is being portrayed by certain folks as part of a continuing war on the Maxwell Institute waged by the Interpreter Foundation."

Has he read the comments section at Interpreter? lol. In addition to Scratch's important correction to the author that no, it is Lou Midgley himself who is driving the war narrative, I note that the commentator Dennis Horne is quickly rising in importance, from the margins of the comment section and may be a future Mopologetic force to be reckoned with.

But this is becoming a regular play in his book. Blame anything not politically favorable to him at that moment on Dr. Scratch. Other famous examples:

Doctor Scratch is responsible for inventing the "ghost committee" hypothesis. Even though he himself on his own blog, took full credit for creating this hypothesis even when contested directly on this matter publicly by Royal Skousen himself. He claimed that in the presence of Skousen, that in jocularity, he suggested, "translation committee in the spirit world."

Another example is blaming Scratch for NAMING the Interpreter "Mormon Interpreter", even though that's the name of the website everyone goes to and many generally remember it by! So "transparent" is he about things like this -- as he just now boasted of transparency -- that in a recent radio podcast he pretended not to know the name of the Interpreter website. This stuff is truly nuts.