DiscussMormonism.com

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2026 3:51 pm

While the apologists regularly deny the possibility of truth in order to defend the church and even more important, defend fellow mopologists and mopologetic theories from the pure light of reason, they've often drawn the line at anything having to do with so-called "postmodernism." This is likely less about postmodernism's criticism of science and truth, and more about postmodernism's association with feminism and racial justice, and criticisms of the white-male dominance of science as an institution. We can't have that! Dan has insisted that Mopologetics is a "masculine" enterprise -- one of combat and hard feelings.

A few times over the years, Dan has touted a book he calls a favorite of his, that is Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal, a physicist who deals brutally and dismissively with all thinkers postmodern, the worst offender being the philosopher Jacques Derrida. Sokal's style is right up Dan's ally: sarcastic and prone to exaggeration. The Interpreter in kind has taken aim at the new guard at the Maxwell Institute, namely Adam Miller and Jared Hickman, who are both students of Derrida's kind of thinking, which they use to defend the church.

Louis Midgley responded immediately to the "off the rails" article, which was published several years ago, stating what we seem to hear frequently, that Neal A. Maxwell once said at a banquet a long time ago that FARMS should never change and keep doing what they were doing, to which Dan reply's "thank you Louis, thank you." Postmodernism, which is "fashionable nonsense" and "off the rails" is a threat both to the church and the practice of Mopologetics. And so it is quite shocking that Interpreter has been forced to call in a favor from James E Faulconer, the mentor of Hickman and Miller, and one of the most important figures behind the scenes at the new MI.

In the newest article from Interpreter Dan promotes on his blog, Brother Faulconer offers an "introduction" to the thinking of Derrida and how Derrida and other continental philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger can help the church. It's a dense article, I got halfway through and gave up. I'm pretty sure Dan hasn't read it, and therefore is careful not to comment on it in his promotion, fearful he'll be found out. I'm sure it was good enough to have Brother Faulconer "help Interpreter sound more smart" as Interpreter has often been the brunt of jokes for its lack of intellectual seriousness. I'm sure the average LDS reader of the article will feel empowered to stay Mormon, reasoning that if a guy as smart Brother Faulconer can stay in the boat, then they are justified to do so also.

The article is hard to understand, but I think one consequence of Derrida's and Faulconer's views on truth and meaning is that a single statement by Neal A. Maxwell could never imbue Lou and Dan with the ultimate security of forever staying at the center of the text of an unfolding story.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2026 3:51 pm

While the apologists regularly deny the possibility of truth in order to defend the church and even more important, defend fellow mopologists and mopologetic theories from the pure light of reason, they've often drawn the line at anything having to do with so-called "postmodernism." This is likely less about postmodernism's criticism of science and truth, and more about postmodernism's association with feminism and racial justice, and criticisms of the white-male dominance of science as an institution. We can't have that! Dan has insisted that Mopologetics is a "masculine" enterprise -- one of combat and hard feelings.

A few times over the years, Dan has touted a book he calls a favorite of his, that is Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal, a physicist who deals brutally and dismissively with all thinkers postmodern, the worst offender being the philosopher Jacques Derrida. Sokal's style is right up Dan's ally: sarcastic and prone to exaggeration. The Interpreter in kind has taken aim at the new guard at the Maxwell Institute, namely Adam Miller and Jared Hickman, who are both students of Derrida's kind of thinking, which they use to defend the church.

Louis Midgley responded immediately to the "off the rails" article, which was published several years ago, stating what we seem to hear frequently, that Neal A. Maxwell once said at a banquet a long time ago that FARMS should never change and keep doing what they were doing, to which Dan reply's "thank you Louis, thank you." Postmodernism, which is "fashionable nonsense" and "off the rails" is a threat both to the church and the practice of Mopologetics. And so it is quite shocking that Interpreter has been forced to call in a favor from James E Faulconer, the mentor of Hickman and Miller, and one of the most important figures behind the scenes at the new MI.

In the newest article from Interpreter Dan promotes on his blog, Brother Faulconer offers an "introduction" to the thinking of Derrida and how Derrida and other continental philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger can help the church. It's a dense article, I got halfway through and gave up. I'm pretty sure Dan hasn't read it, and therefore is careful not to comment on it in his promotion, fearful he'll be found out. I'm sure it was good enough to have Brother Faulconer "help Interpreter sound more smart" as Interpreter has often been the brunt of jokes for its lack of intellectual seriousness. I'm sure the average LDS reader of the article will feel empowered to stay Mormon, reasoning that if a guy as smart Brother Faulconer can stay in the boat, then they are justified to do so also.

The article is hard to understand, but I think one consequence of Derrida's and Faulconer's views on truth and meaning is that a single statement by Neal A. Maxwell could never imbue Lou and Dan with the ultimate security of forever staying at the center of the text of an unfolding story.

Over at the Peterson Obsession Board, one of the posters seems recently to have assumed the task of interpreting my thinking to his fellow board participants. (He takes his moniker there from a notable Book of Mormon robber and murderer.) It is, I suppose, a noble effort, though I don’t think that his prospects for success in this new enterprise are very high. I mean, his is an audience that seems, on the whole, to have tastes and predilections more suited to People Magazine or the National Enquirer than to, say, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. Most of them appear to have a ravenous appetite for gossipy speculation. But for actual ideas and arguments? Maybe offline, perhaps. (Who knows?) There’s little evidence of any deep thinking among most of those on the POB. Just personal contempt, insults, and hostility. And, sometimes, self-congratulation.

In any case, my commentator’s track record thus far isn’t especially impressive, notwithstanding (or, perhaps more accurately, partly because of) his recent endorsement by the ever-mendacious and continually juvenile (≈)Everybody’s WC. He plainly thinks, despite his palpable animus, that he understands my views, but his attempted summaries of Peterson Thought are unrecognizable to me. (“Don’t believe me?” he writes at the end of one fundamentally misguided exposition. “Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.) As the saying goes, he’s almost always wrong, but never in doubt. But he’s undeniably clever, so I’m reminded of what is sometimes called the “second corollary” to Murphy’s Law: “It’s impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.”

Over at the Peterson Obsession Board, one of the posters seems recently to have assumed the task of interpreting my thinking to his fellow board participants. (He takes his moniker there from a notable Book of Mormon robber and murderer.) It is, I suppose, a noble effort, though I don’t think that his prospects for success in this new enterprise are very high.

I mean, his is an audience that seems, on the whole, to have tastes and predilections more suited to People Magazine or the National Enquirer than to, say, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. Most of them appear to have a ravenous appetite for gossipy speculation. But for actual ideas and arguments? Maybe offline, perhaps. (Who knows?) There’s little evidence of any deep thinking among most of those on the POB. Just personal contempt, insults, and hostility. And, sometimes, self-congratulation.

He plainly thinks, despite his palpable animus, that he understands my views, but his attempted summaries of Peterson Thought are unrecognizable to me.

(“Don’t believe me?” he writes at the end of one fundamentally misguided exposition. “Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.)

And wasn’t Heidegger an avowed Nazi? Why would anyone promote him?

...I mean, his is an audience that seems, on the whole, to have tastes and predilections more suited to People Magazine or the National Enquirer than to, say, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. Most of them appear to have a ravenous appetite for gossipy speculation. But for actual ideas and arguments? Maybe offline, perhaps. (Who knows?) There’s little evidence of any deep thinking among most of those on the POB. Just personal contempt, insults, and hostility. And, sometimes, self-congratulation...

“Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 30, 2026 1:13 am

“Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.

What would be the point? Does he *ever* answer questions? He’d just make some excuse about how busy he is, and how maybe he’ll get to it eventually, etc.

A case in point: Chet just asked him a perfectly polite and reasonable question and he got typical brush-off.