Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

It's Friday, which means that the Mopologists have delivered up something hot and steamy for your reading pleasure. While the article on its face is uninteresting (it's about how nice the Book of Mormon is), I believe that there is a very interesting Mopologetic subtext underlying this article's publication. In fact, I might even go so far as to one day think of this as a "watershed moment"in the field. But I will have to mull this over. It's an important event, to be sure, but it merits deeper academic scrutiny. Let's begin, shall we?


"Attitudes of superiority lead to societal conflict." --David M. Belnap, "The Inclusive, Anti-Discrimination Message of the Book of Mormon"

"I'm definitely much more familiar with the literature on near-death experiences than you are -- some of it by people who are much more familiar with brains and how they work than you are -- and I know that you don't know what you're talking about." --Daniel C. Peterson, "Sic et Non"


Part I: The History

Remember way back when? When the Mopologists were at war with the EVs, and with other non-Mormon Christians? Do you remember when DCP said that he found Calivinism repulsive, or when Midgley et al. went on the attack on James White and others? Do you remember how SHIELDS went to pains to prove that the details concerning Walter Martin's death were "exaggerated"? And what about this bit of nastiness, from the late Bill Hamblin, still hosted by FAIRMormon?
Bill Hamblin wrote:All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ’em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”

It simply won’t do to insist that you’re not really a bigot because what you believe about Mormonism is really true. Anti-Semites honestly think they’re not bigots either–what they believe about Jews is really true: “I’m not bigoted! There really is an international Jewish banking conspiracy.”
I guess that's one way to make a point.

In any case, I'm sure you catch my drift: the Mopologists don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to issues like "tolerance" and "diversity" and "inclusiveness."


Part II: They Try Harder

Remember how the Mopologists began offering an essay award through "Interpreter" in an effort to attract more female authors? And remember how they later canceled that award, due to an apparent lack of interest? Do you remember how "Sic et Non" got swarmed with critical comments after the Author in Chief made insensitive remarks about LGBT+ activism at BYU? Remember how DCP blew a valve after his hypocrisy concerning Richard Mouw was exposed? And remember how, just a few months ago, Dr. Peterson blew his top yet again over pretty much this same topic? Here--you might as well refresh your memory:
SeN, down in the Comments, of course wrote:I've reached my limit, Shades. This isn't a game.

I just saw (and skimmed) my Malevolent Stalker's latest treatise on your message board. In it, he portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt and as disrespecting believers in them.

This is a brazen and shameless lie, and he knows it. What's more, you know it.

My record in this respect is decades-long, well-documented, very public, internationally attested, and unambiguously clear.

Unless and until you correct him on your message board, your comments will not be welcome here, because your silence there will demonstrate your lack of genuine interest in the truth.

Part III: Politics Invades "Mormon Interpreter"

And that brings us, inevitably, to the latest "Interpreter" article, authored by David M. Belnap and entitled, "The Inclusive, Anti-Discrimination Message of the Book of Mormon." Remember: the President of the Interpreter Foundation once compared LGBTQ+ activists to Nazi book-burners. So, "inclusive? You really have to wonder what the hell is going on.

But then you step back and remember: Interpreter has lost donors lately, largely because of DCP's political comments on "SeN"--he's alluded to the notion that his anti-Donald Trump comments have alienated key donors, and have even pissed off people in his own family. So, how to interpret this latest bit from Belnap? It this a coincidence?

Well, for starters, the notion that the Mopologists actually believe any of the stuff in Belnap's article is ridiculous on its face. Of course they don't think that the Book of Mormon actually supports "inclusiveness," unless you define "inclusive" as "all of those whose calling and election has been made sure." Paid your dues? Sure--come on in. Otherwise? Sorry--it's a TK smoothie for you. Duh, haven't you read Added Upon?

And yet, that's exactly what baffles me about the publication of Belnap's piece, which I regard as highly significant. Was this a calculation on the part of the Board in an effort to piss off the donors who left? I.e., "Not only does Trump suck, but you suck, too! And guess what, we actually support "Inclusiveness"!" I could legitimately see them doing this: revenge via adopting otherwise odious political stances. Anything to score a point, right?

On the other hand, I wonder if this just proves that DCP was effectively "muscled out." Maybe the other people on the Board are getting fed up with his antics, and pressured him to allow a hardcore liberal article like this. (Brant Gardner, who apparently helped out, has always struck me as a semi-"subversive" element within Mopologetics. He's too nice to ever properly fit in with the rest of them.) Plus, he recently said this:
Daniel Peterson wrote:In academia, book reviews and articles are pretty much standard stuff. And I don't believe that the two volume-editors have ever wrapped themselves in apostolic authority or infallibility or claimed an exemption from academic critique for their editorial decisions.
Cobra Kai 4 Life wrote:Thanks Daniel. Your opinion is duly noted.
And, both here and at Interpreter, it carries a bit of clout.
Does it now? Then how'd this article slip through the cracks? While Belnap's article counts a lot of phrases in the Book of Mormon that might be read as "nice," Moby Dick has a lot of material that might be read as "saying stuff about whales." I mean, talk about cherry-picking: looking for advice on how to be nice in a work of scripture is like looking in the sky for a cloud.

And it's not as if the antics have been toned down in any meaningful way. The other day, "SeN" offered a "Note on Anti-Semitism" which amounted to an old-school wisecrack about Jewish names:
SeN wrote:A Jewish man and a Chinese man are in a bar. Suddenly, the Jewish man punches the Chinese man in the face.

“Ow! Why did you do that?” asks the Chinese man.

“That’s for Pearl Harbor,” says the Jewish man.

“But the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. I’m Chinese!” says the Chinese man.

“Chinese, Japanese, what’s the difference?” asks the Jewish man.

So the Chinese man punches the Jewish man.

“Ow! What’s that for?” asks the Jewish man.

“It’s for the Titanic,” says the Chinese man.

“What? That was an iceberg that brought down the Titanic!” says the Jewish man.

“Iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference?”
Didn't you know? Ethnic jokes are all the rage these days! Why, they are practically the very *support system* of "Inclusiveness"! Naturally, Midgley can't help but chime in:
Louis Midgley wrote:I will right now mention Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is truly weird. But Donald J. Trump is not just your average Joe either. His failed efforts to steal the election, including eventually sending a mob to take over the nation's Capitol, were not all that far from his strongest supporter, and clearly were the "inspiration" for her spouting his ideology.

Now please notice that I carefully avoided mentioning that gemli also has a very strange ideology he claims flows from and/or rests on the secret findings of some some unknown science. This is not all that far from Jewish space lasers. Or the ravings of a host of conspiracy peddling talk show hosts. There are a host of both men and women who fit rather snugly into what might be called the Hanity Insanity Club, are there not?
Careful! Those jabs at Trump are what got you into hot water in the first place! But can Midgley and DCP really envision themselves in the same boat as the other "Inclusiveness"-leaning pols--like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren? I rather doubt it.

So we are left with the article, then, and the fact that it made it through "peer review" (or fifth-columnist Gardner used his wiles to force it into publication). Did you ever really imagine that you'd see lines like this in "Interpreter"?:
Belnap wrote:Today, whatever the apparent justifications for racial, ethnic, international, or class strife may be, whatever the reasons for divisions or for others’ circumstances and regardless of a person’s ethnicity, economic class, gender, or other characteristic, you and I can and should choose to love and reach out to others.
Sure, sure. I await the day that Midgley chooses "to love and reach out to" Gina Colvin, D. Michael Quinn, Grant Palmer, and others. How about Gee with Metcalfe, or Robert Ritner? How about DCP with Blair Hodges....or me? Face it: it's not going to happen. War is always preferable.

The Belnap article is remarkable because it can--and will--forever be used as a cudgel against the Mopologists over their own rotten behaviors and prejudices. You really have to wonder why the Mopologists would publish an article espousing something that they have zero ability in ever achieving, or even aspiring to. But it's interesting in an academic sense, at least.
"If, 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
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3843
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gadianton »

This is a staggering development, doctor. And isn't this kind of article the same thing as what's being published at the new MI? How does this fit into the war with them?

And speaking of wars, are we saying that the Book of Mormon is both the definitive text on "being nice" while also, the foremost scriptural work on preemptive war?

I mean, in the weirdest sort of contradiction, supposing that you are right and that the threat of pulling funds over not being right wing enough got this round put into the chamber, then isn't it sort of a "preemptive strike" of it's own -- a preemptive strike of promoting niceness?" This is some head spinning stuff.

But then again, as you point it, it could just be a "one off", in which case, a subversive insider has compromised the institution that much more, or the institution has already been significantly crippled by liberals, and now we're seeing blogging counterpart to the new MI's more scholarly output on the same subjects?

What does Dennis Horne and others of his persuasion think of this? Didn't he land some kind of leadership role recently?
Doctor Scratch wrote:Of course they don't think that the Book of Mormon actually supports "inclusiveness," unless you define "inclusive" as "all of those whose calling and election has been made sure." Paid your dues? Sure--come on in. Otherwise? Sorry--it's a TK smoothie for you.


Well yeah, it's really difficult to see how Mopologetics can have much to do with "inclusiveness" given that their primary weapon of online warfare is exclusiveness. Since it would be unlikely for the Mopologists ever to win an argument by anything approaching objective standards, their MO has been to deride their opposition, namely in terms of education and personal importance, while promoting their own education and importance. They may not get "NHM" published in a peer reviewed journal, but they can point to their own Phds and world travels, which are objectively established matters. If some random member with doubt happens upon their web and point X about the church is in dispute, no matter what the arguments are, the Mopologists simply point to the credentials and world travels of apologists a, b, and c, and consider X settled in their own favor. Divisiveness is at the very heart of Mopologetics in action to defend the Church.
User avatar
Gabriel
Deacon
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:20 pm

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gabriel »

Their inclusiveness may be put to an Abrahamic Test: RFM just announced in his last podcast that he and John Dehlin are preparing a Mormon Stories episode on this whole rhubarb between the Interpreter and the JSPP.
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

Fantastic post.

Lately I’ve found myself hesitant to respond to Dr. Scratch’s posts. His posts reflect the mind of a genius who is clearly at the very top of his craft.

They are so thought provoking and insightful anything I say will just dilute the message.

It’s like John Lennon’s brilliant album, Double Fantasy. John Lennon realized the album was almost too perfect and decided to crap it up a bit by allowing Yoko Ono to participate.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:03 pm
This is a staggering development, doctor. And isn't this kind of article the same thing as what's being published at the new MI? How does this fit into the war with them?
I don't know, and it really is baffling. You're right that this is very much in keeping with the allegedly "more Liberal" new MI. And, of course, I'm sure you remember how flat-footed they seemed after Grant Hardy said that you can believe the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction" and still get into the Celestial Kingdom. Even that seems mild in comparison, though. Because you know who *can't* get into the Celestial Kingdom in the Mopologists' worldview? LGBTQ+ people. That's why DCP compared those activists to "Nazi book-burners." You know how he boasts about his father helping to free Holocaust victims and/or POWs from one of the death camps? *That* is how seriously he takes Nazism, so when he hurls the vilest insult he can drum up, guess where it's aimed?

So, yeah: "inclusiveness" doesn't really seem to fit into this worldview.

Meanwhile, he is working himself into a tizzy over at "SeN." Apparently, because I pointed out that he was cracking an "ethnic joke," he's decided to take this "very seriously":
SeN wrote:One of his favorite tropes over that period has been to insinuate that I’m an anti-Semite — probably because, as he well knows, the charge of anti-Semitism, if it can be made to stick, is justly viewed as one of the most destructive and damaging accusations in the rhetorical arsenal. So, of course, with the stunning lack of intellectual integrity that has been characteristic of his behavior from its earliest months, he has seized upon my recent blog entry criticizing anti-Semitism as being, itself, anti-Semitic.
Really? Where? I thought my point had more to do with the fact that Mopologists blithely crack wise about stuff like this in the same breath that they are carrying on about "inclusiveness." (Notice that DCP doesn't complain about me insinuating that he's racist; technically, he was cracking jokes about Chinese people, too.)

The Dean wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:Of course they don't think that the Book of Mormon actually supports "inclusiveness," unless you define "inclusive" as "all of those whose calling and election has been made sure." Paid your dues? Sure--come on in. Otherwise? Sorry--it's a TK smoothie for you.


Well yeah, it's really difficult to see how Mopologetics can have much to do with "inclusiveness" given that their primary weapon of online warfare is exclusiveness. Since it would be unlikely for the Mopologists ever to win an argument by anything approaching objective standards, their MO has been to deride their opposition, namely in terms of education and personal importance, while promoting their own education and importance. They may not get "NHM" published in a peer reviewed journal, but they can point to their own Phds and world travels, which are objectively established matters. If some random member with doubt happens upon their web and point X about the church is in dispute, no matter what the arguments are, the Mopologists simply point to the credentials and world travels of apologists a, b, and c, and consider X settled in their own favor. Divisiveness is at the very heart of Mopologetics in action to defend the Church.
Exactly. Think about all the junior apologists that they chased away--some of whom have spent time posting on this board. Perhaps that's the strategy? Maybe "someone" has pointed out that, while the new MI might be publishing Liberal ideas, at least they haven't actually driven people away from the Church. The Mopologists *have*, however, so maybe this move is meant to function as some kind of vague political "gesture"?
"If, 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
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:07 pm
Fantastic post.

Lately I’ve found myself hesitant to respond to Dr. Scratch’s posts. His posts reflect the mind of a genius who is clearly at the very top of his craft.

They are so thought provoking and insightful anything I say will just dilute the message.

It’s like John Lennon’s brilliant album, Double Fantasy. John Lennon realized the album was almost too perfect and decided to crap it up a bit by allowing Yoko Ono to participate.
You are far too kind, Stake President Wang Chung
"If, 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
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gabriel wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:20 pm
Their inclusiveness may be put to an Abrahamic Test: RFM just announced in his last podcast that he and John Dehlin are preparing a Mormon Stories episode on this whole rhubarb between the Interpreter and the JSPP.
Ah, yes—of course. Thank you, Gabriel. Your insight here has been most enlightening.
"If, 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
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Moksha »

David Belnap seems to represent a more progressive side of Mormonism since his two Interpreter articles deal with inclusiveness and love as taught in select scriptures within the Book of Mormon (and the Book of Mormon being okay with evolution). I like that. Too much of apologetics (and Mormonism) seems to be caught up in divisiveness and the Harsh Gospel. It is good to see the other side portrayed as well since Mormonism can co-exist with the teaching of Jesus. I think that it is positive that the Interpreter has published it.



by the way, at Sic et Non, Dr. Peterson issued a new mantra that is capable of lulling apologetic practitioners into a stupor of thought, "Wright, Sorenson, Clark, Hull, Gardner". Not sure how many times the apologetic practitioner is supposed to repeat the mantra, but I am assuming his stupor of thought will improve with repeated use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=NY5X6-pjpzs


At some point in the future, I would like to see an article crediting LDS apologists for not running with the idea that Lamanites were cursed with a DNA of Asiatic lineage. As a trans-Beringia immigrant may have said, "Better to be truthful than to compound an error".
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8981
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Ironically, in the article linked above, when attempting to equivocate the racialisms used to describe Lamanites by describing Nephites as having those very same traits as Lamanites when they were being naughty, I was struck by just how many of these traits were descriptives are embodied by DezNat types:
Nephites also were angry (Nephites 45 : Lamanites 3);87 blood-thirsty (6:7); cannibalistic (3:1); contentious (57:1); cunning (13:10); choosing darkness (6:2); seeking to destroy the church, prophets, or Nephite government (24:8); ferocious (2:4); filthy (6:4); hardhearted or hardened (43:9); hateful (1:12); idle (1:3); idolatrous (8:3); impenitent (2:1); lazy or indolent (2:3); lying and deceptive (17:2); guilty of malice (4:1); materialistic (23:3); murderers (33:13); plundering and robbing (12:11); rebellious against God (8:3); rejected the gospel or prophets (57:8); stealing and thieving (7:2); stiffnecked (12:2); subjugators (10:10); unbelievers (14:3); uncivilized (1:8); vain (11:1); vengeful (4:1); weak (3:3); committing whoredoms (22:1); wicked (293:41); and wild (2:4).


Granted, DezNattys have yet to eat babies, but I’m pretty sure air lap dances fall under whoredoms.

Anyway.

Weird that someone who is so sensitive about possibly being described as an antisemite, and the reputational damage it can do, has spent decades describing his enemies as antimormons because, you know, he didn’t want to besmirch anyone’s good name or anything.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Philo Sofee »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:06 pm
Ironically, in the article linked above, when attempting to equivocate the racialisms used to describe Lamanites by describing Nephites as having those very same traits as Lamanites when they were being naughty, I was struck by just how many of these traits were descriptives are embodied by DezNat types:
Nephites also were angry (Nephites 45 : Lamanites 3);87 blood-thirsty (6:7); cannibalistic (3:1); contentious (57:1); cunning (13:10); choosing darkness (6:2); seeking to destroy the church, prophets, or Nephite government (24:8); ferocious (2:4); filthy (6:4); hardhearted or hardened (43:9); hateful (1:12); idle (1:3); idolatrous (8:3); impenitent (2:1); lazy or indolent (2:3); lying and deceptive (17:2); guilty of malice (4:1); materialistic (23:3); murderers (33:13); plundering and robbing (12:11); rebellious against God (8:3); rejected the gospel or prophets (57:8); stealing and thieving (7:2); stiffnecked (12:2); subjugators (10:10); unbelievers (14:3); uncivilized (1:8); vain (11:1); vengeful (4:1); weak (3:3); committing whoredoms (22:1); wicked (293:41); and wild (2:4).


Granted, DezNattys have yet to eat babies, but I’m pretty sure air lap dances fall under whoredoms.

Anyway.

Weird that someone who is so sensitive about possibly being described as an antisemite, and the reputational damage it can do, has spent decades describing his enemies as antimormons because, you know, he didn’t want to besmirch anyone’s good name or anything.

- Doc
Good points Doc. If they could just somehow find a way to get out of their limited tribal exclusivist thinking and enlarge the borders of their exclusivist vision for a worldwide of peace and brotherhood and religious appreciation of all God's children. Such an impossible thing apparently, or not. If they could just somehow find a way to quit worrying about being so right all the time in relation to all others, and build bridges across the yawning egotistic gaps of doctrinal correctness and historical verification into truth with all. Or not. If somehow, someway, the whole world could be included in value rather than just Utah's concerns. Or not. If, perhaps, somehow they could find value across the entire globe, and goodness and love and share that rather than just one mere country's concerns. Or not.
Post Reply