DiscussMormonism.com

Doctor Scratch wrote: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.

That anyone calling themselves scholars could accept compensation for producing such dreck is contemptible.

Gadianton wrote: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.

Yes, it is puzzling to read his bizarre characterization of our informal chats here. He tends to give them a lot more weight and attention than one would think they deserve. We must be a real gift to DCP as his collective dark nemesis in cyberspace, to whom he attributes anything he likes. I mean, here are these guys, who have been charged by LDS apostles to protect the kingdom of God from its enemies, and he takes time to portray this tiny corner of cyberspace as some great foe. I guess that plays well to the donor base, or perhaps even the Brethren.

Maybe you can file it under: Yet another day on which DCP met the enemies of God on the battlefield.

Dr. Shades wrote:And just like before, the only thing surprising is that you're surprised.

Out of curiosity, when are you finally going to conclude that all this is just "business as usual," which it most emphatically is?

Changing subjects: The fact that Elder Holland shut down an essay commissioned by Elder Packer, senior to him in the hierarchy, is puzzling. It may lend validity to Doctor Scratch's proposition of varying factions within the Twelve. Or it might be an indicator of something else: That the right hand knoweth not what the left hand doeth.[/color]

I tend to reserve judgment until I have really good reason to make one. Midgley has been an excellent source for settling old questions, and this is probably his greatest holiday gift of all.

As for the question of factions, I remain somewhat skeptical. All I know is that the following apostles--and this is not an exhaustive list--seem to have a well established (by evidence) history of taking an active role in the support and directing of apologetics:

1. Neal A. Maxwell
2. Dallin H. Oaks
3. Boyd K. Packer
4. Jeffrey R. Holland
5. Quentin Cook

That's a pretty high percentage of the entire batch, and I know I have probably missed some. We can also now add these presidents of the LDS Church:

Russel M. Nelson
Gordon B. Hinckley

How do we divide this into factions? That is unclear to me.

Kishkumen wrote:We must be a real gift to DCP as his collective dark nemesis in cyberspace, to whom he attributes anything he likes. I mean, here are these guys, who have been charged by LDS apostles to protect the kingdom of God from its enemies, and he takes time to portray this tiny corner of cyberspace as some great foe.

We are, we are, we are the champions...of The World!

Thank you for the list of potential factionalists, Reverend.

Prior to your recent comments, I'd wanted to add the importance of Nelson, who prior to becoming prophet was head of the SCMC.

Is the SCMC aligned with apologetics or a competitor?

I can see it either way. They both have the same goal, to oust critics, and so perhaps they are aligned. But as with any two organization aligned to do the same thing, there's competition.

The way Midgley described it, Packer wanted the apologists to skewer the critics so they didn't have to deal with it. But what of those employed by the SCMC? Shouldn't they be the ones to ride back to the elders with the enemy head on a pike?

Gadianton wrote:Thank you for the list of potential factionalists, Reverend.

Prior to your recent comments, I'd wanted to add the importance of Nelson, who prior to becoming prophet was head of the SCMC.

Is the SCMC aligned with apologetics or a competitor?

I can see it either way. They both have the same goal, to oust critics, and so perhaps they are aligned. But as with any two organization aligned to do the same thing, there's competition.

The way Midgley described it, Packer wanted the apologists to skewer the critics so they didn't have to deal with it. But what of those employed by the SCMC? Shouldn't they be the ones to ride back to the elders with the enemy head on a pike?

Yes, Nelson should go on both lists. I put him on the second for reasons of economy (of the effort of typing his name twice or copy-pasting).

I always saw some of the Old Rogue McConkie in Elder Packer. When an apostle comes calling, who is going to say no? Some have, but their number is not big, I would wager. The last thing Packer was worried about was being contradicted by one of his colleagues in the Q12. He would just backchannel anything he wanted to get done, don't you think?

And one thing that Roger Hendrix taught us all is that the president exists in a kind of odd bubble, even in as mundane an environment as a cafeteria. No one goes up to chitchat him up, not even the apostles. This kind of social isolation practically invites independent shenanigans by other GAs.

Doctor Scratch wrote: 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."

Maybe I just have a very suspicious mind, but I'm getting the sense that there is a far more plausible way to interpret the main elements of this story about creating a committee and asking for recommendations. I don't think Midgley has it right, or else he's been fed a line.

I think it's more likely that the creation of this committee to make recommendations represented an attempt by the Brethren to pacify DCP, et al, and to get him to back off attacking the Maxwell Institute, but without spending any church money. In other words, a a distraction, made more palatable with the promise of a bribe. A ruse.

Think about the main facts Midgely puts forward:

[1] ...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,

[And 2]...on how best to replace the Maxwell Institute as an agency to defend the Church of Jesus Christ from its critics,

[3] ....Professor Peterson delivered their recommendations to a meeting of the Area Committee.

[4] ...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.


[5]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.

[6]...I have been told that Elder Cook told that committee now to even mention the Maxwell Institute

Fact 1 and 3, ok. Fact 2? Not a chance.

If Fact 4 is referring to that less than ringing endorsement where the church announced that materials at those websites are considered helpful and therefore links are provided, as long as people realize the links do not constitute the official positions of the lds church, then midgley got duped. If I recall correctly, the 1834 Webster's Dictionary is on the same list of lds helpful links as the Mormon Interpreter, and is also officially endorsed as a reliable source.

Fact 5 is just a promise, a way to get them off the idea of the church providing support, but it obviously isn't producing any money yet. It's also a way to take credit for the church supporting something financially, kind of like how the church solicits funds from other groups as well as even more than 10% from lds members for their Giving Machines, without touching tithing or fast offerings, then takes credit for "donating" other people's money, all the while protecting their revenue stream.

And Fact 6? Well of course. If the meeting attendees were informed they would be hearing about additional ways to do apologetics that could be done without having to commit tithing money, then of course they wouldn't expect the Maxwell Institute, already supported and currently promised full funding through tithing money, to be mentioned.

I think it is fair to say that anything Lou says must be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone who reads his effusive, fanatical posts has to recognize that he’s a few bricks short of a full load.

Thanks Lemmie,

I paused on that same issue and nearly called BS myself. At the very least, the fact that a committee was formed to give a recommendation on something means what -- about nothing? Five "crucial" 70s? Are there 70s who aren't crucial?

As others have pointed out, if the Brethren were so outraged, they'd simply level the current system and start over. The implications of the Brethren doing things as ambitious as throwing some bills to Book of Mormon central only cast doubt on his entire position. For being so outraged, the Brethren are certainly doing a lot of side stepping and toe-dipping. Heck, if all the brethren were aligned and then Samuelson screwed it up without full information, why not just go to Samuelson and fix it? why get a committee together that doesn't have all the necessary players to cover the full scope of the various interests and misunderstandings in the first place?

Pretty soon, Midgley is going to be reduced to arguing from Scott Lloyd's playbook. As Lloyd portrayed the Church's sparing of Gina Colvin's membership as a means to allow her free agency to seal up her own damnation, Midgley will argue the same to explain why the Brethren still haven't taken action against the new MI this year, the next and the next after that.