The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2019

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2019

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

I am deeply grateful for the kind words on this thread, and to the expressions of gratitude in honor of this blessed holiday season. I did want to respond to Physics Guy's observations. First, I admit that I don't know what the full story is concerning Gee. We are really only getting second-hand versions of whatever it is that actually happened: we have the gossip-driven account that first materialized on this board, and we also have the hearsay-driven version that Dr. Peterson posted on "Sic et Non." Sure, yes: Gee wound up apparently keeping his chair, and getting transferred over to ANEL.... But what's going on here?

Tough to say, but you zeroed in on this interesting detail:

PG wrote:The brief note from the Maxwell Institute about Gee's transfer to ANEL states that he is retaining his rank and the Gay chair. It also rather oddly goes out of its way to mention that the Gay endowment which funds Gee's chair remains with the MI.


Now *that* is certainly very intriguing, particularly in light of Midgley's claim to have seen some "memo" (and also his unkind remarks about the "control" of Spencer Fluhman).

I don't see that this changes the fact that Gee has kept his Gay chair; I think it just means that when Gee retires the MI will get to appoint his successor and that meanwhile the MI gets to use whatever income remains from the Gay endowment after paying Gee's salary.


Indeed: that's the problem. We don't know the whole scope of what the endowment/gift entailed. There pretty clearly seems to be some "piece" of it that the Maxwell Institute got to keep, and we don't know what that is. The Mopologists have never insisted that they got "all" of whatever the endowed chair entails; they've never even tried to counter that particular element of the "new" MI's announcement.

This last point, however, might mean that the Gay chair used to have research funding attached to it, which Gee could use to pay grad student stipends or hire assistants, and that Gee has now lost this nice extra funding. Sometimes the amount of funding that is attached in that way to a professorship can be substantial, particularly in older German universities. I know a guy who can pay four post-docs out of his permanent funding before even touching his grant money. If the Gay endowment was generous to that kind of degree then it would make more sense for the MI to mention that it has kept these significant resources, and it would be fair to describe the move as a big loss for Gee. On the other hand the extra funding above salary might be just a token sum for conference travel and the MI might just be mentioning it out of petty bitterness.


Again: what were the stipulations of the endowed chair? Was it an outright statement that Gee was supposed to defend the Book of Abraham? (Or perhaps simply "the Church" more generally--which would mean that there was a fully-paid apologist for the LDS Church?) DCP (and Midgley, for that matter) have insinuated that Gee getting moved out of the MI would enable to do the "work" that he was supposed to do under the terms of the gift.... Well, if that means Book of Abraham, apologetics, then that means that the Church has had a paid apologist all along....

So, let's reformulate this in the form of a pop quiz....

Q: Why would a wealthy LDS donor create a "Research Chair" devoted to Egyptology?

a) He just really likes Egypt and ancient things, and likes to support the idea of a Mormon scholar following his passion.
b) He understands that Church critics attack the fact that Joseph Smith didn't actually understand Egyptian, and he thinks that if he hires an Ivy League-trained scholar to address the issue, it might help to quell the criticisms.
c) He could use another line-item on his income tax return, and, hey: this would count as a "charitable donation."
d) None of the above.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Physics Guy
_Emeritus
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:38 pm

Re: The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2019

Post by _Physics Guy »

I don't actually have any idea what rules govern endowments of academic chairs, but it's a fairly old concept so I strongly suspect that it has rules going back to the Middle Ages to ensure that even if you pay a professor's salary you don't get to have any control at all over "your" professor's research. You certainly can't dictate that the professor only find results that you like. I doubt you can even say anything to restrict the professor's range of topics. If the holder of your endowed Chair of Book of Mormon Studies spends her time producing critical editions of Donald Duck comics, you have no recourse, because she's an expert scholar and who are you to say that Donald Duck is not the key to the Book of Mormon?

My best guess in this case is that the MI included that announcement about the Gay endowment because it was really worth mentioning, because some significant funds were at stake. Had Gee previously been employing any students or assistants? Is he no longer doing so now? Is the Maxwell Institute suddenly offering any new studentships or fellowships? This pattern might indicate that Gee had lost control of funding that he previously held.

It could also be, though, that there was some side-pot of Gay money that the MI had always been using independently of Gee, that Gee never thought of trying to take this other Gay money with him to ANEL, and that the MI just wanted to clarify that this non-Gee portion of the Gay money would indeed continue within the MI just as before. No loss or defeat for Gee might be involved and everything might have been perfectly amicable.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2019

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Physics Guy wrote:I don't actually have any idea what rules govern endowments of academic chairs, but it's a fairly old concept so I strongly suspect that it has rules going back to the Middle Ages to ensure that even if you pay a professor's salary you don't get to have any control at all over "your" professor's research. You certainly can't dictate that the professor only find results that you like. I doubt you can even say anything to restrict the professor's range of topics. If the holder of your endowed Chair of Book of Mormon Studies spends her time producing critical editions of Donald Duck comics, you have no recourse, because she's an expert scholar and who are you to say that Donald Duck is not the key to the Book of Mormon?


Normally I'd agree with you, except this is BYU that we're dealing with. I assume you know about the numerous professors over the years that were given the pink slip because their research did not align with the proclivities of the Brethren? Some of this is documented in the "Chronology" section of D. Michael Quinn's second Mormon Hierarchy books: start reading at the 1980s, and you'll see what I'm talking about. There have been many people over the years: Quinn himself and David Wright being two key examples.

To return to your point: if BYU/the LDS Church can squelch a professor for doing the "wrong" kind of research, then what is to stop them from dictating the type of research that someone is meant to do?

My best guess in this case is that the MI included that announcement about the Gay endowment because it was really worth mentioning, because some significant funds were at stake. Had Gee previously been employing any students or assistants? Is he no longer doing so now? Is the Maxwell Institute suddenly offering any new studentships or fellowships? This pattern might indicate that Gee had lost control of funding that he previously held.


Again: under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. But I've never heard anything about Gee having that kind of money. I think that, if he'd had grad student assistants, we would have heard about it: they would have been promoted / "groomed" to be Mopologists in the same vein as Smoot and Rappleye. (Plus, DCP would have been jealous that he didn't get to have the same kind of assistants, and we would have heard about it.)

It could also be, though, that there was some side-pot of Gay money that the MI had always been using independently of Gee, that Gee never thought of trying to take this other Gay money with him to ANEL, and that the MI just wanted to clarify that this non-Gee portion of the Gay money would indeed continue within the MI just as before. No loss or defeat for Gee might be involved and everything might have been perfectly amicable.


That could be true, too. Hopefully, there will come a day when we will no longer need to speculate.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2019

Post by _I have a question »

Doctor Scratch wrote:To return to your point: if BYU/the LDS Church can squelch a professor for doing the "wrong" kind of research, then what is to stop them from dictating the type of research that someone is meant to do?
I’d argue that squelching a professor for doing the “wrong” kind of research IS their method for dictating the type of research they expect someone to do. They favour the “make an example out of someone and the sheep will herd themselves” methodology across all that they do.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Physics Guy
_Emeritus
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:38 pm

Re: The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2019

Post by _Physics Guy »

No, I don't know BYU at all. So maybe it isn't so out of the question that Gee is required to follow certain topics or even uphold certain conclusions.

I admire that old J. Reuben Clark line about his faith, "If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." Perhaps not all Mormon authorities agree with J. Reuben.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2019

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Item 6, the War with the Heartlanders. We might expand this to include the war against the Transhumanists also. These activities are on the table for bringing about full-blown resurrection. Transhumanism alone, however, is too small of a movement to sustain a Mopologist army. The Heartlanders are a large and worthy opponent if there ever was one, but blog attacks aren't going to cut it. I know a few folks who are part of Heartland and I will ask, but I doubt they've heard of any criticisms. The apologists need books sold in Deseret book and firesides as part of the war effort, but whatever they choose, the Heartlanders themselves need to actually be aware that they are under attack, which they aren't.



Dean Robbers:

You definitely need to read Dr. Southerton's most recent thread. I think you're right: the Heartlanders don't seem to view the "Interpreter" Mopologists as a threat. The best that DCP & Co. can muster up is "Neville-Neville Land," which is a smear blog pseudonymously authored by "Peter Pan": someone Peterson claims he doesn't even know. This--*this* is all they've got? Not even making their own arguments, but instead farming this out to a cartoon character?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply