DiscussMormonism.com

I hate to interrupt one decade-long war with news of another, but, like it or not, the Mopologists have taken yet another gratuitous swipe at the "new" Maxwell Institute:

Ostler wrote:It seems to me that the Maxwell Institute has purposely steered away from any “apologetics” regarding the ancient origins of Joseph Smith’s oeuvre (body of work) and his claims to textual antiquity. This is a considerable loss in my opinion. The very faith that Wrathall discusses in this work shows that the issues of faith can be affected not only by misunderstanding faith but also by failing to understand the assumptions that control issues of faith. Alma’s battle with Korihor that Wrathall so ably discusses demonstrates that the evidence-based approach is the standard or default position (and especially so in our culture steeped in the fallacy of scientism regarding faith). Alma does not reject Korihor’s evidence-based approach — he merely points out that there are more kinds of evidence than Korihor has considered.

Let me be blunt: claims made about and by Mormon scripture are often empirical claims that must be addressed by assessment of evidence. There is a vacuum of this kind of approach or response to issues of faith by the Maxwell Institute. In this respect, the Maxwell Institute is a pale reflection of its predecessor. The predecessor demonstrated that the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price would be able to withstand and even foster faith in the face of such empirical challenges. The Maxwell Institute either currently lacks that faith or just wants to avoid it.

Yikes! Suggesting that the MI "lacks...faith"? Those are strong words indeed! But then again, I wonder if this signals that the "new" MI is actually in good shape? I.e., that Mopologists are jealous, and so they’re publishing this hit piece? What's dumb is that Ostler is making these attacks in the midst of his effusive review of Mark A. Rathall's Alma 30–63: A Brief Theological Introduction, which was published by none other than The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship!

You have to wonder how this all computes in the minds of the Mopologists. So, they absolutely hate the Maxwell Institute, and think that they are a bunch of apostates who refuse to take the antiquity of the Book of Mormon seriously (except wait...I thought the Brethren's default position was that there *is* no agreed upon location for the Book of Mormon? Right? Isn't that why Meldrum and the Heartlanders are apostates? Because they're stridently *insisting* that one interpretation must be the accepted one?). They want the "new" MI to crumble and be destroyed. And yet, here is this book, which Ostler is drooling over:

It would be difficult to overstate just how impressive I found Mark Wrathall’s small and brief “theological introduction” of Alma 30–63. Wrathall brings to this introduction his considerable genius and insight. His impressive credentials in both philosophy and law are evident in this work. His immersive knowledge of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger is especially on display — though a full exploration of that issue would take a much longer introduction to Heidegger than this review allows.

Damn. Considerable "genius and insight"? How on earth did this happen, though? How could the loathsome Maxwell Institute let such considerable genius and insight slip through the cracks? Don't they have peer review over there?

In any case: the war continues! Things have intensified since Sis. Givens's recent departure from the MI, which Midgley interpreted as a punishment of some kind. It may be that more interesting things are lurking just around the corner.

Thank you for alerting us to this conundrum, Doctor Scratch. Yeah -- wtf?

The reviewer is in his own conundrum. He's obviously outclassed by the author on his favorite subject. How can he not give credit where it's due?

At the same time, he has an ax to grind against Faith-Promoting Rumor, and he's writing for "team reject".

Hey -- I lost the quote because my computer rebooted at a bad time, but did you catch Mr. Midgley on a recent thread explaining that in a recent paper (I think for the Nibley book?) he'd submitted to Interpreter, that Allan Wyatt was tough on him, and demanded this and that, Midgley obliged, the paper in Midgley's view improved, and then it was published? Wow! The implication is stunning, the "peer review" at Interpreter is basically Allan Wyatt!

Assume for a moment that Blake was totally pro-new-MI and submitted his paper without that rebuke. Any chance it would get published? You've got to pay the bone man to cross the river. right? So really, this could be a knee jerk necessity to get back at the Faith-Promoting Rumor guys, or maybe it was a token required by Wyatt? Meaning: it was required by DCP; meaning it was required/OK with that anonymous donor who basically controls everything that happens now at Sic et Non.

It's really pretty simple should Blake ever drop in to discuss it.

DCP is in effect, right about something really important. Apologetics has never been about a certain kind of great argument, but about the willingness of accomplished academics to promote the Book of Mormon. At one time, you could get away with promoting it as real history, because the rate of producing apostate Phd antiquarians who cared enough to say anything was relatively low. Coupled with solid standards, it's going to be really, really tough to continue the whole "Book of Mormon as history" thing Today, however. Hey, just look at how 'Cacheman' and "Physics guy" suddenly appeared to wipe the floor with John Sorenson, who tried to sneak in a single "wild grape" seed as evidence of "Napa Valley" among the Nephites. Lol! I don't think DCP ever got back to that person in the comment section who pointed out the problem in response to a boilerplate evidence list DCP had just rattled off.

If Blake thinks its so easy, let him sign up on our forum and discuss Book of Mormon and the ancient world with Reverend Kishkumen and Symmachus? Better: let Blake send the most qualified person he can think of here to have that conversation in his stead.

It's game over, guys. Over the years, enough apostates who can definitively cut through the BS have been produced; and that's in addition to the lay persons who have already cleaned the filthy clock of Mopologetics a dozen times over. But how about the Book of Mormon as some exemplary study in Heideggerian philosophy? The numbers game shifts into a new realm. How many apostates or lay persons will have the interest or knowledge to contest it? And then, on what grounds? Does anyone have a great standard for validating the legitimacy of a deconstructive reading (close reading) of the Book of Mormon? Probably not. Sounds like a win to me. Shouldn't Blake be thrilled that the Book of Mormon is finding a new spot whereby it can evade criticism for a while?

This conflict has been fascinating to watch. In some ways, it reminds me of the many factions and constant feuding in the Roman Catholic church.

Mormonism under McKay was moving in a rather liberal direction but that development was halted by the neo-fundamentalists (Hinckley, Oaks, Maxwell, etc) joining the orthodox (Benson, JFS, McConkie) to throw out the Brown types.

Given just how much modern scholarship has utterly destroyed the neo-fundamentalist case, a fact that the Q15 know, they are now trying to make a space for the once persecuted liberal tradition, but only to the extent that the liberals don't resurrect embarrassing doctrines like Heavenly Mother.

The neo-fundamentalists hate this development greatly because they were in the catbird seat for so long, bossing around the passive orthodox. Now, however, the leaders actually need the liberal tradition to save their tithing dollars. The old FARMS crew was never respected for its apologetic work outside of Mormonism. Now, they have to play second fiddle to a bunch of "apostates."

And then the Meldrum faction is beginning to awaken the orthodox to how arrogant BYU professors have been tearing down century-old doctrines because they aren't ecumenical or are scientifically ludicrous. And of course they are correct to say that the early church taught the hemispheric Book of Mormon geography. Sorenson and his heirs have basically tried to destroy Mormonism in order to save it. But their effort utterly failed.

Definitely going to need popcorn.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Sat May 15, 2021 5:10 am

What's dumb is that Ostler is making these attacks in the midst of his effusive review of Mark A. Rathall's Alma 30–63: A Brief Theological Introduction, which was published by none other than The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship!

It's politics. Those who were banished along with Dr. Peterson want their castle returned. The Maxwell Institute belongs to them via their ability to knock slam dunks aside with spears, poison darts, and effective hatchets, while the current crop of Maxwellians are too busy with their so-called "scholarship" to even bother with what the critics are saying.

To prove deserving of this needed change, Interpretarians can demonstrate to their faithful orthodoxy, such as pointing out the apostasy of the Joseph Smith Papers.

If only that crew of 16th Century translation bards could reach across the centuries and inform the Brethren of the needed change at the Maxwell Institute, then it could continue with more crucial matters.

Ostler
Alma’s battle with Korihor that Wrathall so ably discusses demonstrates that the evidence-based approach is the standard or default position (and especially so in our culture steeped in the fallacy of scientism regarding faith). Alma does not reject Korihor’s evidence-based approach — he merely points out that there are more kinds of evidence than Korihor has considered.

Let me be blunt: claims made about and by Mormon scripture are often empirical claims that must be addressed by assessment of evidence.

I know.... I know.... I am truly sounding like a broken record, and I apologize, because it's almost making me look boring (I can't help that, I actually am so), but Ostler is incomplete here. It has never been about having the evidence. There is evidence for every single hypothesis out there. It is about the probability of the evidence being true or false, and whether the evidence fits a theory well or not. Just finding evidence ends up defaulting to mere confirmation bias as Kerry Muhlestein with the Book of Abraham has fundamentally proven in a very negative way for Mormonism's truth factors, which he still apparently does not grasp. On the Book of Mormon end, Sorenson is the Muhlestein of the Book of Mormon parallels use of evidence.
It has nothing at all to do with scientism, Ostler is boning up again on red herrings. It is about the weight of probability of the value of the evidences deduced either/or in favor or refutation of hypotheses that is the most singular crucial step of which apologists, including Ostler apparently, still have not received the memo.
Blaming scientism is idiotic and a non-issue. Ignoring probabilities of evidence is just down right fatal. What apologetics lacks is just such favorable probabilities. They also fail to realize that having various different theories about the Book of Mormon (even its geography all are in play here) seriously lowers the overall probabilities which they cannot justifiably ignore. It must lower the probabilities by at least HALF - LITERALLY to have only a mere 2 competing hypothesis concerning geography, since the probability space is 100%, that means the 2 competing theories halve that, i.e. 100/2 = 50% and now they have to fight among themselves which theory gets the greater weight of probability. This is all in favor almost entirely to the disbelievers who can honestly just sit back now and watch them slaughter each other for the honors of a win, without even realizing that their win can only literally, probabilistically give them only HALF a victory! Apologist need to grasp Bayesian probability and demonstrate its proper use before they will ever have any kind of credibility with the world. I wonder when they will be able to use their seer stones to translate that message into that brain of theirs?
With just 1/2 the victory this means their evidences logically must be at the bottom least, 2X greater and stronger than anything they have come up with yet to over ride the deficit they aren't even aware of! I just don't see that happening in any realistic way.

Ostler is really just another Midgley, Kiwi/Pahoran, etc., type of character. He is always spoiling for a brawl. I hope for his sake that he does amateur boxing because it suits his physique and pugnacious personality. He is one of the most tedious and intellectually overconfident people I have ever seen in action. There is nothing he won't pontificate about or claim to know about after reading a couple of things. That wouldn't be so bad if he didn't, when disagreement arises, act as though everyone else is an idiot and he is the only person who knows what he is talking about.

Ostler can be such a wind bag.

His review in one line: “Wrathall is brilliant; faithless, but brilliant.”

The irony indeed, Doctor.

Gad says
If Blake thinks its so easy, let him sign up on our forum and discuss Book of Mormon and the ancient world with Reverend Kishkumen and Symmachus? Better: let Blake send the most qualified person he can think of here to have that conversation in his stead.

I'd pay to see this occur. In fact, seriously I have set aside $100 to pay Ostler, or a scapegoat of his choosing, if he can win the argument, and all he has to pay me is $1 if he loses. 100 to 1 odds seems about right to me. (I got a bonus at work, I am truly willing to spend it on this).
A few stipulations lest assumptions get in the way. The discussion must occur on a regular basis over the course of say 6 months, which I believe is a decent time allotted for each side to gather their materials and be able to present them in a coherent fashion. In the spirit of fairness, neither side of those actually participating gets to crow that they won, only the two audiences, the Sic et Non group and this one are allowed to come to conclusions. We also ought to find a way to get some truly unpartisan judges in on this who have no horse in the race to also assess the results. We could set up a separate arena where ONLY a select group of folks can post in so as to prevent derailings occurring. We can chatter all we want out here in public land, while viewing the discussion in the selected spot of participants only.
We could ask Sic et Non to choose a panel of, what... say 5 scholars of their choosing, and we could select 5 of our choosing to participate in the debate. The rest of them there and we goons here can be the cheering/jeering section, of which, of course, the participants have full access to.
NO CENSORING OF ANY KIND ALLOWED IN THE PARTICIPATION ARENA. What is posted stays.
Lets see what BOTH sides have.
I'm all for it, seriously, and I will be the first to place my bet. 100 to 1 odds Ostler's team will lose, and the money has been set aside to be paid in full based on a fair jury hearing and judging... Let the evidences begin!

I have a lot of sympathy with the critique of "scientism" when that word means the outsized privilege we grant not merely to our senses but to the extensions of our senses, namely, all the instruments we use to measure and describe the material world, to the exclusion of almost anything else ("look at the data" and "Bayesian analysis" blah blah blah in airy realms like history or ethics). The measuring and description of material facts is one thing, but it substitutes for a rational framework for articulating values and ideas (or even facts) that are not susceptible to measurement by those instruments. That would be bad enough on its own, but it has eroded not only the ability to conceive of or understand shapes more complex than a pie chart but almost eliminated even the space to do so. The result is that people end up injecting values and moral claims anyway without realizing it or—much worse—while realizing it, so that science is instrumentalized as an epistemological weapon in a struggle over power. Much of that has been on display this past year.

Enter the Interpreter: "Scientism gligily lock-o-lock scrum scum bad bad, but just look at what the empirical data tell you, as well as our Bayesian analysis!"

The contradiction of attacking empirical analysis while insisting on the primacy of empirical claims is no less ludicrous than it is obvious. What it tells me is that, far from being rational, their framework for articulating value is just gibberish.

It's a tough pickle for them, since the Abraham Cycle and the Book of Mormon insist on being read empirically. The substance of the Book of Mormon are the empirical claims: event X really happened, and hence proposition Y is true. If that substance were only one event (like, say the resurrection of Christ), that would be one thing, but it's 500 pages of events. That's a lot of empirical substance.

At the (apparently) defunct Philosophical Lexicon, Daniel Dennett et al. satirically defined Heidegger as "A ponderous device for boring through thick layers of substance." Perhaps Wrathall, with his "considerable genius and insight" can use "his immersive knowledge of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger" to bore through all that substance and discovering something of value in the Book of Mormon that can't already be got from Christianity. I, for one, await the Interpreter's liberation from scientism.

Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑

Sat May 15, 2021 6:10 am

The neo-fundamentalists hate this development greatly because they were in the catbird seat for so long, bossing around the passive orthodox. Now, however, the leaders actually need the liberal tradition to save their tithing dollars. The old FARMS crew was never respected for its apologetic work outside of Mormonism. Now, they have to play second fiddle to a bunch of "apostates."

Welcome to the forum. I have enjoyed your posts.

I would suggest that leadership is not as concerned with tithing dollars as much as in the past, given they have over 100 billion in assets stashed away. With recent market conditions that figure is probably substantially more. Having that kind of fungible fund, they can make decisions based on ideology rather than need. Given the lack of growth in the church, it could easily operate indefinitely from just the interest in that fund. I think they still view tithing as an important way to demand obedience, but the church is no longer in the financial straights of their youth.