"Peterson Obsession Board?" Debuting 12am ET

[drumdude]

Kish,

I’m interested in your thoughts on this exchange at SeN:

Seatimer,

I used to feel the same as you about Joseph, but the more I studied, pondered, learned (and yes, even prayed) about how Joseph coerced women and publicly demeaned them if they refused his advances, the fraud, the lies he publicly told, the violence and his false prophecies etc., made me feel otherwise.

I respect your beliefs about Joseph. Some of my favorite and most beloved people feel the same as you about him.

Carry on friend.

I think it appropriate at this point to enter into the record the fact that there are and have been many superb, faithful, believing historians who have spent decades intensively studying Joseph Smith and the early Church. I knew many of them. I know many of them.

As a fellow academic and historian, is it impressive or persuasive to you that faithful historians haven’t lost their faith after extensive study of Joseph Smith and early church history?

[Kishkumen]

As a fellow academic and historian, is it impressive or persuasive to you that faithful historians haven’t lost their faith after extensive study of Joseph Smith and early church history?

Nope. It makes no difference either way to me. Academics and scholars (to cover the non-academic scholars) are flawed human beings just like the rest of us. DCP's strategy here, which is very simple but not a bad one, is to show you that being right or wrong about Joseph Smith does not map well onto being a scholar or a non-scholar. Of course, his way of putting it is to further suggest that the people who really know the material in the right way believe in Joseph. That's not necessarily true, but then it is not DCP's job to fail to promote LDS belief.

There are certain things that Joseph Smith did that I refuse to accept as moral and good. His practice of plural marriage is the best example I can give. I could not feel good about Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives or young girls. In fact, I refuse to feel good about it, let alone defend it. That said, I wish LDS people could find a way of rejecting those practices without feeling obliged to reject their faith as a whole.

That may sound contradictory or silly, but I think that the LDS Church, or at least Mormonism, can be a force for good in the world, and has been a force for good in the world at times, but it has also been saddled with certain problems that it might be able to live without. Unfortunately, there is a culture of leader-reverence and authoritarianism that hinders many Mormons from simply taking the initiative to reject the problematic parts of their tradition.

[Gadianton]

DCP's strategy here, which is very simple but not a bad one, is to show you that being right or wrong about Joseph Smith does not map well onto being a scholar or a non-scholar

In the simplistic case where we're allowed to pit third-generation born believers who became scholars against any other scholar, sure. The more interesting case would be to test the viability of faith claims that intersect empirical domains with scholars who have low awareness of Mormonism. Or in the case of Mormon believers, test the rate of attrition of scholars vs. non-scholars. I haven't seen any claims about the latter but I think the former may be obvious. It's really only a great argument for critics who might significantly overreach, forgetting that there were also scholars within the Third Reich or even scholars who are Trump supporters.

But is it a good argument? In a sense, it is, because he's got nothing better. If you're playing one-card poker and you've been dealt a three of spades, then you play the three. As Doctor Scratch was forced to admit years ago, Mopologetics is dead. There is no serious Mopologist paradigm at the moment, nor are there warring factions in the space. Let's be honest, the Heartland model isn't a serious, scholarly model. I'm saying there is no model for Interpreter; for people who would be serious about it. It's a bunch of random stuff that random contributors are throwing against the wall and I'm not so sure at this point anyone is hoping or expecting anything to stick. It's like the world of the Walking Dead, exploring the next cul-de-sac and finding a box of Twinkies. We're happy for it, just as we were happy for the can of green from yesterday. But we're sure as hell not expecting much more than a rotten hot dog from tomorrow's excursion.

[Doctor Scratch]

DCP's strategy here, which is very simple but not a bad one, is to show you that being right or wrong about Joseph Smith does not map well onto being a scholar or a non-scholar

In the simplistic case where we're allowed to pit third-generation born believers who became scholars against any other scholar, sure. The more interesting case would be to test the viability of faith claims that intersect empirical domains with scholars who have low awareness of Mormonism. Or in the case of Mormon believers, test the rate of attrition of scholars vs. non-scholars. I haven't seen any claims about the latter but I think the former may be obvious. It's really only a great argument for critics who might significantly overreach, forgetting that there were also scholars within the Third Reich or even scholars who are Trump supporters.

Yes: there have been plenty of scholars/thinkers who wound up exiting the Church (Wright, Bokovoy, and Ferguson, for example), but I don't think that anyone can name a single scholar who *converted* do to study of Joseph Smith. There has always been this sort of "pipe dream" hope that Jan Shipps would convert, but I don't think it's ever going to happen. The closest thing to what I have in mind is probably Don Bradley, but he has said that his reconversion had more to do with his feeling that Mormonism makes him a "better person," rather than due to study of Joseph Smith, or some other aspect of LDS history.

But is it a good argument? In a sense, it is, because he's got nothing better. If you're playing one-card poker and you've been dealt a three of spades, then you play the three. As Doctor Scratch was forced to admit years ago, Mopologetics is dead. There is no serious Mopologist paradigm at the moment, nor are there warring factions in the space. Let's be honest, the Heartland model isn't a serious, scholarly model. I'm saying there is no model for Interpreter; for people who would be serious about it. It's a bunch of random stuff that random contributors are throwing against the wall and I'm not so sure at this point anyone is hoping or expecting anything to stick. It's like the world of the Walking Dead, exploring the next cul-de-sac and finding a box of Twinkies. We're happy for it, just as we were happy for the can of green from yesterday. But we're sure as hell not expecting much more than a rotten hot dog from tomorrow's excursion.

Lots of terrific points here, and the "rotten hot dog" is pretty much a perfect metaphor for contemporary Mopologetics. Your remarks got me thinking, though, Dean Robbers. Yes, Mopologetics is "dead" in a sense, though it continues to sort of lurch around in an "undead" state--rather like a zombie. And while I agree with you that there is "no model" for Interpreter, I would argue that the core of Mopologetics was its aggressive attacks on critics. The coordinated slams on people like Metcalfe and Grant Palmer seem to have pretty much evaporated. DCP went ballistic with Gerald Bradford *not* over the LGT or the Ghost Committee, but because he knew that the Mopologists' ability to write smear pieces was being taken away. And let's not forget that one of the marquee debut "posts" on Interpreter was Greg Smith's "hit piece" on John Dehlin, but the Interpreter leadership undercut their own mission by making it purely a blog post--it was never included in the "peer reviewed" journal. So a huge fit was thrown over not getting to continue with the slams and "trashing," as Midgley might put it, but once they went off and launched Interpreter, they basically abandoned that aspect of the "mission," and as I noted, that aspect was essentially the core of Mopologetics. They are still fond of referencing Elder Maxwell's "no uncontested slam dunks" quote, but they've totally thrown in the towel on that one. The Exmormon Reddit is regularly raining down 3-pointers and dunking left and right on the Brethren, the Mopologists, etc., as are the various townships that are combatting excessive temple steeples and that sort of thing. The classic-FARMS have no answer to any of this stuff, and it's not as if it's not on their radar: DCP keeps mentioning some reality show about Mormon "swinger" housewives, or something like that. Will we get 5 well-coordinated articles in Interpreter that blast this show into oblivion? Or, instead, is the show going to dunk on their heads? I predict they will do nothing, because they have essentially given up and the leadership is more interested in making propaganda movies these days.

One final thought: you mention that there are no "warring factions in the space." I think that, on the surface, this would appear to be true, but I believe you are aware of my own position, which is that FAIR, Scripture Central, and Interpreter are actually in a kind of competition with each other (and in a sideways sort of fashion, I believe that FIRM is part of all this as well), and Scripture Central is currently "ruling the roost," and delivering a major-league piss-pounding to Interpreter.

[Gadianton]

What a delightful, scholarly reply, thank you Doctor Scratch.

I decided to reduce my reply to mainly this point:

*not* over the LGT or the Ghost Committee, but because he knew that the Mopologists' ability to write smear pieces was being taken away.

Very true. But imagine if the LGT research program had really taken off, and ruins from Mesoamerica poured in vindicating the LGT. Imagine mainstream publications taking notice. Now, suppose at the same time, the leadership was still engaging in hit pieces, and the guys were getting together on weekends to raze Christian book stores. Well, I think in that case, the Brethren would have protected them as much as they could. They'd be "earning" their keep. Let them have their fun, if they're producing. The problem I see in the Bradford era isn't entirely the production of hit pieces, but the lack of scholarly direction. The last few volumes of FROB are getting closer and closer to the "green beans and Twinkies" discoveries of Interpreter. It's clear that a research program of any kind failed to last or to materialize at all. I believe the LGT arose to that status, and that GC attempted but failed. The problem is, not every research paradigm succeeds, and the LGT failed. Bradford didn't just have civility, he had a paradigm, the era of postmodern studies. However lame people may think that stuff is, it's involved more faculty and students than FARMS could rope together for the LGT, and seems to have some credibility with the outside academic world also into that stuff.

One final thought: you mention that there are no "warring factions in the space." I think that, on the surface, this would appear to be true, but I believe you are aware of my own position, which is that FAIR, Scripture Central, and Interpreter are actually in a kind of competition with each other (and in a sideways sort of fashion, I believe that FIRM is part of all this as well), and Scripture Central is currently "ruling the roost," and delivering a major-league piss-pounding to Interpreter.

Well, I wasn't clear, it's my bad, but I'm thinking in terms of a research paradigm. The two things are very compatible. Yes, I agree, we've got three or four institutions locked in a zero-sum death circle: who gets to lap up all the water from the Brethren's bowl? But there's no war of ideas found in print, rather, who is winning more subs, and behind the scenes; who can get an in with a GA.

[Doctor Scratch]

But imagine if the LGT research program had really taken off, and ruins from Mesoamerica poured in vindicating the LGT. Imagine mainstream publications taking notice.

I admit that this is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible for me to imagine. Actual vindication from *mainstream* publications? Like, The NY Times declaring, “New Evidence from Yucatán Suggests Mormonism is True”? That would be a total game-changer, and, I believe, it would have completely upended Mopologetics. If there is legitimate proof, then who has any need for these attack dogs? I actually think that real proof of the LGT might have doomed the Mopologists to an even worse fate than the Bradford incident. Because if you are the Brethren and you now have physical proof, how is it in your interest to have these guys picking fights in a public way? The new goal, I assume, would be to consolidate power and “bring the sheep into the Gospel.” While it makes sense to have “hit men” if you are operating in a somewhat secretive, “mafioso”-type fashion, on the margins of American faith traditions, it would be a significant problem from a PR perspective to keep these guys on board in the event of legitimate evidence.

So, in an odd sort of way, the Mopologists have always needed evidence for the Church to stay under wraps.

[Gadianton]

Because if you are the Brethren and you now have physical proof, how is it in your interest to have these guys picking fights in a public way?

It's a real possibility. However, I've noticed in the business world the making of a great leader is being the guy who communicates the news to upper management. It could be good news, maybe a project just completed and testing is going great, or maybe a big problem was just solved by a low-ranking employee. The guy who is all over the issue to understand it and then gets in the face of senior management to relay it, that guy tends to move up. It's almost like, that guy was the reason why it succeeded, even though he probably had nothing to do with it. So it really depends on how strong the leadership is in the hypothetical: is the senior leader able to take credit for the work of his crew or even others who don't report directly?

If not, then sure, real progress could be a detriment if one's real reason for being there is clowning around and stirring controversy.

[Gadianton]

After the latest CWK episode, I concede the point to Doctor Scratch. There's a reason why he's the B.H. Roberts Chair and I flunked into the administration.

[hauslern]

A couple of amusing cartoons I collected for Google docs to us
Snoopy
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cdO ... 5URF0/edit

Calvin
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mq ... nWCf0/edit