Stephen Smoot?????s Masterclass in Victim Blaming

[_Lemmie]

First time reading The Pilgrim’s Progress, fascinating.

The parallels to Lehi’s dream practically scream from the pages.

“Dreamed a dream”
Host holding a book
“Forbidden paths”
“The way”
People in building calling to stop moving forward
Field
Reward of celestial / life eternal at the top of the hill
Dream interpreter at length, piece by piece

Many more themes and key phrases from Lehi’s dream and Nephi’s interpretation

Wow.

Surely someone has written on this already...???

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=50620

From the OP link in the above thread:

Parallels between Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678) and the Book of Mormon have not gone entirely unnoticed. As early as 1831, Eber Howe, in his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, noted the use of names — “Desolation” and “Bountiful” from Pilgrim’s Progress reappear in the Book of Mormon — but most observations have been similarly limited in scope or suffered from lack of a systematic methodology. Bunyan wrote upwards of 60 books, tracts, and pamphlets, including Grace Abounding, A Few Sighs from Hell, Holy War and The Life and Death of Mr. Badman, and these texts provide extensive narrative parallels to the Book of Mormon, often containing unique characteristics shared only by Bunyan and Smith.

[_Lemmie]

On the r/Mormon subreddit, a discussion of Smoot and the Interpreter group between moderators:

So I guess his audience is just his echo chamber of other apologists who read each other’s work and pat each other on the back?

Yes, the Interpreter crew (a group of ousted former FARMs people and hangers on who run their own vanity press now), who are kind of famous for their crude jokes and mean-spirited attacks.

[_Gadianton]

Thank you Dr. Moore for bringing this to our attention, it's psychologically fascinating. I hope Mr. Smoot, who only holds a Master's degree (I caught your drift, LOL!) listens to you, a real Phd.

Smoot more than anything appears to be attacking Chapel Mormonism:

Every Monday night, Sue and Jim would hold Family Home Evening where they would take turns reading their favorite scriptures and then indulge their sweet tooth with root beer floats.

While father's collection of church books sat collecting dust.

One would think, just maybe, that if deep gospel study was the way to protect the Saints, then just maybe Rusty the Tin Man and company would have encouraged such a thing at some point withing the last 30 years, or even now.

My FARMS collection as a teenager is ultimately what did me in. Not everybody is so crippled with rage when contradicted that they dedicate their lives to burying their heads in the sand. The vindictive spirit of FARMS is what resonates with certain people, not the quality of arguments. I got into that a little bit -- not that I had any idea who these people were that Nibley trounced in Tinkling Symbols and Sounding Brass, but I could laugh along with him. It's easy to be impressed when you have no idea whatsoever what real scholarship looks like, or any kind of context to evaluate what you're reading about.

Smoot says his couple were BYU students. If that's the case, they had to take something like 16 credits of religion classes. How is it, Steve, that they were taking institute classes at BYU, and yet totally unprepared for such a silly list of problems? I can answer that one: because I took all those classes and absolutely nothing that would prepare one for the CES letter was ever discussed. Shouldn't BYU know to educate their students properly?

When I went on my mission, my Bishop gently encouraged me to get rid of my FARMS library. He had this practiced story about a friend of his who did just that.

If gospel education worked the way Steve imagines it, sure, those active members who had studied all of these scholarly materials would probably not be fazed by the CES letter, however, since the other 90% who had studied the same materials had apostatized, it's a hollow victory.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's interesting to me that Smoot consistency targets the exmo Reddit and the CES Letter, and yet, I (and I'm sure others) would argue that this board has arguably had a greater impact on Mopologetics. Is there some reason why he seems afraid to take us on? I mean, even DCP was exchanging comments with me on Faith-Promoting Rumor recently. C'mon, Steve: we're not scary.

In any event, I laughed out loud at this:

You see, Jim’s father happened to have an extensive collection of books on Mormon history, doctrine, and scripture. Stuff he’d collected over decades of study. Names like Richard Bushman, Leonard Arrington, James Allen, Hugh Nibley, Milton Backman, Davis Bitton, Truman Madsen, John Welch, and John Sorenson were printed on the spines. (Jim vaguely remembered seeing the books on the shelf when he was young, but had never been curious enough to so much as even thumb through any of them.) When Jim tried to red-pill his father with the CES Letter, he wouldn’t have it. He went through it point by point and explained to Jim how these issues had been resolved in his mind, and how the CES Letter was misleading or inaccurate in a number of details. To make matters worse, Jim’s father triggered him by saying he wasn’t as informed on these matters as he perhaps thought he was and asking him if he would take some time to read a website called FairMormon, which, he said, had extensive rebuttals to the claims made in the CES Letter. (Needless to say, Jim was outraged at his father’s gaslighting and complete lack of empathy.)

It has always felt like something of a red herring: "We have rebuttals! We have rebuttals!" This phrase is a classic: "these issues had been resolved in his mind" (emphasis mine). Interesting choice of words there, Bro. Smoot. Not "definitively proven" or "supplied irrefutable evidence"; it's all "in his mind." Of course it is. So much of the Mopologetic material generated by FAIR Mormon is meant as a kind of distraction, and you can understand this when you acknowledge the somewhat weird relationship that the FAIRMormon Mopologists have historically had with the FARMS Mopologists. FAIR is mostly a volunteer organization run by laypeople. "Classic FARMS," though, were "the real deal": credentialed people who actually had PhDs and were "experts" in the field, as it were. So, the only "definitive" material is going to emerge from the keyboards of the FARMS Mopologists: *they* are the ones who determine Mopologetic doctrine. Smoot knows this, obviously, which is why he pursued a graduate education in Egyptology (and why your barb about his "mere" MA is quite apropos, Dean Robbers), and which is why his paragraph about reading FAIR materials is disingenuous. The "Jim's father" character is clearly a caricature: there is no way that the FAIR people legitimately think that the FAIR response to the CES letter is "solid." It may be that way "in their minds," but look: it's very telling that Smoot did not list out any of the "point by point" explanations. If the FAIR response is so convincing, why not quote from it verbatim?

We all know the answer.

[_Gadianton]

Does anyone think Smoot might be doing this to impress the Midge...

Not directly. Smoot is trying to impress the same guy with his aggression that the Midge is trying to impress with his aggression.

Is it working?

Yes; with qualifications. The guy at the top knows the extremes are embarrassing, which is why he conscientiously (not because he isn't paying attention or doesn't have time, it's well thought out) refrains from upvoting many of these comments. Only Kiwi57 upvotes the worst of the worst, on purpose, to provoke his adversaries, even if he doesn't really believe what he's upvoting. However, comments over the edge and an embarrassment, are still positive, because they show loyalty, which can't be rivaled, and so in a secondary way, these extreme comments are still impressive for the guy at the top.

[_Dr Exiled]

Dr. Scratch said:

It's interesting to me that Smoot consistency targets the exmo Reddit and the CES Letter, and yet, I (and I'm sure others) would argue that this board has arguably had a greater impact on Mopologetics. Is there some reason why he seems afraid to take us on? I mean, even DCP was exchanging comments with me on Faith-Promoting Rumor recently. C'mon, Steve: we're not scary. 

I wonder why he doesn't take this board on, too. I think it would be entertaining to see how young Smoot maneuvers through the many questionable areas in Mormonism. Perhaps he could debate the CES letter here? Grindael is probably more than willing to go through it point by point and perhaps Mr. Runnells would come here as well to discuss his letter? Smoot would be able to show the world his prowess and maybe he'll convince someone to return to the flock?

So, what do you say Mr. Smoot?

[_moksha]

I was surprised by young Elder Smoot's description of those left behind in Mormonism:

They were emotionally and intellectually crippled by their psychological need for their silly, magical worldview to be true, no matter what. (And this was to say nothing about paid apologists like Tapir Dan.)

I will make the assumption that Tapir Dan is a nickname, sort of like the name "Indiana" for famous anthropology professor Henry Jones, Jr.

[_Kishkumen]

Just when I thought I had lost all interest in Mopologetics. . . .

Dean Robbers has offered the most insightful analysis of Smoot’s blog entry. The key to understanding Smoot’s point of view is, I believe, his Denys Turner quote, and once you parse the relationship between this quote and Smoot’s fiction, you will see the deep disdain in which Smoot holds many of his co-religionists (and, sorry to say, ultimately himself).

[S]ince narrowly Catholic or Methodist or Anglican atheisms are no more absorbing than narrowly Catholic, Methodist or Anglican theisms, they do not exactly amount to an over-rich diet for the theologian.

Sue and Jim are two-dimensional Mormon caricatures that bear a striking resemblance to real, earnest Mormons we all know and have a fair measure of sympathy and affection for. Indeed, in many ways, they are exemplary Mormons. But Smoot finds them shallow and insipid. They are reddit-reading, Dehlin-loving ex-Mormons waiting to be born (almost inevitably). The truth is that Smoot despises them as active, believing, and dedicated Mormons almost as much as he hates them as ex-Mormon stereotypes.

The only safe harbor in this scenario is to be found in the third narcissistic stereotype known as the faithful Mormon scholar. He is every bit as two dimensional and unsympathetic as his benighted opponents. Once again Doctor Scratch strikes gold in noticing the key words “resolved in his mind.” Smoot here unintentionally reveals his intellectual arrogance. Just as Turner laments how both narrow atheisms and their mirror opposites, narrow theisms, are thin gruel for the “theologian,” the amateur FARMS scholar is unaffected by run-of-the-mill ex-Mo arguments. He has quieted his misgivings with the armor of his intellect and faithful scholarship.

But this all rings terribly hollow. Who here has a deep, solid faith that not only inspires but pulls people through the dark night of the soul? Sue and Jim had a very brittle faith, but it was exactly the faith that the LDS Church advocates. They are easily turned into ex-Mos. Jim’s father is barely holding on to a faith marginally more robust than his now faithless son had recently enjoyed. All he has is the resolve of his intellect as buttressed by the words of faithful LDS scholars, a diet paltry in comparison with the great spiritual classics of the world.

I have to say that this is all unbearably sad and empty. Reading this makes me sorrow for the author and the people whose spiritual suffering he apparently holds in great contempt. Indeed, Smoot’s post is an exercise in holding profound self-contempt at bay by both lavishing in contempt for others and constructing self-serving, narcissistic fantasies.

Be kinder to yourself, Smoot. Chapel Mormons are too decent and worthy of compassion for you to indulge in this. You should be kind to them too. Have sympathy for those who lost their faith! Consider how they got to a place where they could throw all they once cherished into the bin. That must have been painful! Did they get there on their own? Might we not ask where their faith community might have failed them? Or is it the unique challenges of our age? Let’s reflect on these things too! Jim’s dad just isn’t the answer. Not a sufficient one at least. He’s a security blanket at best. If you really care, Steve, do truly better than your opponents. Don’t simply out-snark and out-snide them. I want to see better from you.

[_Stem]

After the couple concludes the church is not what is claims to be and is not what they were hoping it to be, they got too scared to read anything that might critique their favorite critique?

So he starts out by describing a couple scared to read anything critical and turns them into people who are scared to read anything critical of the critical. What does he imagine these folks who are leaving are thinking? Does he not realize that if the CES letter poses problems for their faith, that they also likely have known about FAIRMormon's response? As if leavers when confronted aren't trying to find ways to stay by seeking answers to their new found concerns? He doesn't imagine that these faithful people won't at some point say to themselves, "wait a minute...this is anti-Mormon and I should know that there are real answers to these issues...that's what I've been told. So where can I find these answers?"

[_honorentheos]

Exactly, stem. For example, reading In Sacred Loneliness bothered me but didn't undemine my testimony. I believed the Church was what it claimed to be still. So I assumed whatever the explanation was, it was a valid one. It was from reading FARMS responses to the book that I began to think there was a real possibility there were problems.

Ironically, I think my participation on this message board is indirectly the result of bad apologetics which the Rommelator put out related to the first vision on the old MAD board. First Vision issues were among the key problems for me in that it undermined the premise of the restoration. While I was participating in Church despite my questions, a post on another board directed me to something he had put up at MAD that supposedly addressed those issues. I admit, I was still in enough at that point that I felt actual relief at the suggestion there were answers. It has the distinction of being the last time I ever entertained the possibility the Church might still be what it claimed to be. Turned out the Rommelator was relying on bad faith arguments on top of being a jerk. His claim relied on late attestations of saints claiming to have heard the first vision story as early as 1831 while the testimonies stating this dated between the 1850s to the 1900s. Not only did it prove unhelpful, it took away any possibility I held onto that there was something true if obscured in the origin story of the Church.

Bad defense is worse than no defense.