The Six Million Dollar Man

[_Ray A]

I don't think this is a "crackpot" post at all, and some points, at least, deserve more serious consideration and clarification. There are, I think, some "unpleasant truths" there that strike me as undeniable. At the moment I'm out of time.

[_Scottie]

Welcome back, Ray!

[_Mister Scratch]

This was a fascinating and very informative post. For me, it helps to put a lot of the pieces together in the puzzle. We know, for example, that money is exchanging hands, and DCP has helpfully informed us that wealthy LDS are being urged by Church fundraisers to help short up apologetic scholarship. On the other hand, The Good Professor has also confessed that he doesn't know everything, and that he is kept in the dark on certain matters.

Still, as far as I know, Bushman was appointed as a "Visiting" Professor, right? In other words, they are looking to start off with a well-seasoned, respectable scholar, perhaps with the intention of later inserting a more hardcore apologist? Perhaps even a Bokovoy, or somebody from the new guard?

The post also makes me think about those two other chairs, still presumably in development. Does anyone know about who those chairs might be? Or, is the hierarchy waiting to see how Bushman's professorship plays out? It is all very interesting, in any case. And, it is quite telling that Dr. Peterson just dismisses the entire post without supplying even a semblance of a concrete critique.

[_The Dude]

Despite the evident effort put into the lengthy tome above...

Ahem... this is Gadianton we are talking about. He probably wrote (or dictated) this "tome" in fifteen minutes, in a single unreviewed draft, while piss drunk.

Not to mention that he's also an uneducated farmboy....

...there is scarcely a sentence in it that isn't substantially -- and often risibly -- false.

Plausible deniability. Yawn

[_Daniel Peterson]

Plausible deniability. Yawn

Inaccuracy on innumerable levels. Yawn.

[_Gadianton]

Dude, lol, unfortunately it took me longer than fifteen minutes. And I had to proof read it twice and run the spell checker. Unfortunately, I wasn't drunk either. Speaking of which, I may be out.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And, it is quite telling that Dr. Peterson just dismisses the entire post without supplying even a semblance of a concrete critique.

I could devote 24/7 to rebutting the baseless conspiracy fantasies that flourish like toadstools in Scratchworld, and it wouldn't have the slightest impact on either you or Scratchworld's 3.3 other residents.

(I'm including poor antishock8 in the total; hence the .3).

[_Mister Scratch]

Plausible deniability. Yawn

Inaccuracy on innumerable levels.

Such as?

[_Sethbag]

Though that is possible, William, I doubt it. Trevor and Sethbag at least I expect to be tough to convince.

I simply don't buy into conspiracy theories very easily. I actually think there's a major kernel of truth in what you wrote. I just don't think it ought to be dressed up with all the conspiratorial and dark language.

I think your real point, minus all of the conspiratorial language, can be summed up thusly:

The LDS Church is looking for some academic respectability. They aren't getting that with FARMS/Maxwell Institute, etc. They see an opportunity in this "chair of Mormon Studies" to have a scholar respected in his field put a good spin on things. They're pleased with that opportunity.

I think there's a lot going for that idea. It's fairly natural for the church to want to take advantage of an opportunity like this. Just like 150 missionaries filling sandbags makes for a good photo-op, hence worth writing a check for 150 yellow "Mormon Helping Hands" tee shirts, a Chair of Mormon Studies where the LDS Church, either officially, or through some of its wealthy and devoted members, have had a hand in picking somone friendly to the church, is a good opportunity as well, and worth writing six million in checks.

There are a lot of wealthy Mormons who are totally devoted to the church, who would be more than willing to pitch in for something they think will help put the Church's message across to the world more effectively. There is nothing surprising, or sinister, about this.

I know a lot of very faithful Mormons. They're not bad people - they just happen to believe in a false worldview. I've never visited the Maxwell institute, but I did go to BYU. It wasn't a dungeon. There weren't meat hooks and iron maidens and red-hot pokers lying around. There are classrooms, offices, etc. I visited a lot of my professors in their offices. They'd have a seat, a computer, a desk, some bookshelves, some personal nicknacks and photos, etc. Pretty much like you'd expect from almost anyone else in the world who works as a professor at a university.

I haven't met Dr. Peterson, nor seen his office, but I can construct a pretty good mental picture of it just by assuming it looks like I'd expect a BYU professor's office to look. There was a time in my life when I would have felt 100% perfectly comfortable sitting in such an office. I would have regarded employment at BYU as something highly to be desired, and looked around me with approval at the whole setting. The only thing that has changed with me is that I now would regard some of the books likely to be on DCP's shelf with a hell of a lot more skepticism, and I'd now find it odious to have my employment tied so explicitly to my unqualified agreement and belief in the theology of the church to which I was a member.

I find it a very odd thing that we set each other up as enemies. It really bugs me sometimes. When I was a believer I probably would have slapped DCP on the back and thought he was a great guy. The only thing that's changed is that I now no longer believe that this church to which we both belong is true. Well, I don't believe that the Roman Catholic Church is true either, and yet I don't hate my friend Greg because of it, who is training for the priesthood at a seminary in Massachusetts.

I really do dislike Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young, and possibly some other early Mormons who perpetuated the false belief system that is Mormonism such that it has survived to this present day. But it would make no sense to hate DCP, or President Monson, or even Boyd KKK Packer. It's not really their fault.

Sure, they ought to know better, but I could say the same thing about the Pope, all of the Cardinals, Archbishops, etc. I could say the same thing about all of the muckety mucks who lead the Jehovah's Witnesses. Take the Archbishop of Canterbury. Now there's a guy who ought to know better. I mean, come on. The Roman Catholics at least claim to go back to the apostle Peter and through Peter to Jesus Christ, and the Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was authorized directly by Jesus through direct visitations and administrations. On what basis does the Archbishop of Canterbury claim to be the true leader of God's faithful? Because King Henry VIII said so? Huh?

But you can't really blame all of these people. They believe what they believe because the combination of the various beliefs and rationalizations and justifications, in their interactions with the human mind and the needs, desires, and abilities that we have as humans, results in a combination, a synergistic relationship between belief systems and their believers, which defends and even perpetuates false belief systems far beyond what a casual observer would think was rational.

The Mormon Church is just one example of this kind of false belief system. Pedophile priests aside, I'd bet that most Catholic bishops are pretty nice guys. I recall meeting with the priest over my friend's seminary on one of my visits, and he was a very nice guy. He was totally sincere, authentic, and cared deeply about his mission of educating new priests to serve Christ through his church.

I hear the horror stories of people on RFM and whatnot who had real asshole bishops. But to be entirely, every single bishop I've ever had, so far as my experience with them is concerned, was a nice guy, sincere, authentic, and who really cared. I'd describe my current bishop the same way, although I'm still kind of pissed that he told my wife that he thinks that my apostasy would be a reasonable grounds for divorce, if that's what she wants.

There are Mormons I think I would regard as enemies. Pahoran and Selek are two of them. These guys are real tools. If I dislike them it's because they're pricks, not because they believe in the Book of Mormon. I would not include DCP, Hamblin, Midgely, or Gee amongst them. These guys are pretty much typical, believing Mormons whose reactions to anti-Mormon criticism is pretty understandable. It's an application of the natural human propensity for problem solving to the problem of unpleasant facts surrounding the history and some of the scriptures of the church. I don't agree with their apologetic responses to things, but my disagreement with them no more makes them my enemies than my friend Greg's invocation of the proofs of Thomas Aquinas in a discussion of the existence of God makes him my enemy.

If I found myself up in Utah again at some point in the future, and I went down to BYU for old time's sake, and to marvel at how much has changed in the last ten years or so since I was last there, I'd have no problem eating a taco salad with Dr. Peterson in the Cougar Eat. Do I think he's on the wrong side of the argument regarding the LDS Church's status as "true church"? Absolutely. Do I think he applies his considerable intellect towards the defense of things which I would regard as indefensible? Yes. But he's not a bad guy, I'm sure.

Yeah, I think that the FARMS people have some intellectual blood on their hands with respect to book review hatchet jobs and the like. I think they're on the wrong side of the argument. I think Elder Holland and the other old white men in the GA hierarchy are defending what really ought to be discarded, not defended. But I just cannot make myself see this whole thing in purely Machiavelian terms. I can't make myself see this whole thing as sinister, menacing, conspiratorial, etc. And when it's put in these terms, sure I'm going to be skeptical.

Daniel Peterson and the other BYU apologists are Cardinal Ratzingers of the Mormon Church, not Joseph Goebbelses.

[_Gadianton]

Sethbag,

Thanks for the feedback. I do have a few comments.

I just don't think it ought to be dressed up with all the conspiratorial and dark language

Yeah. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

There are a lot of wealthy Mormons who are totally devoted to the church, who would be more than willing to pitch in for something they think will help put the Church's message across to the world more effectively. There is nothing surprising, or sinister, about this.

No there isn't. I agree. however, I do think there is something unsettling about the fact that Dr. Mauss specifically stated that he did not want to turn this chair into a springboard for the political aims of the church, and we must believe that the brokers on the church's side agreed with that. Yet, it's clear that the Church sees this as their chance to further their political inflluence on the world, Elder Holland didn't seem to care much about the historical research that would go on, and only had in mind a desire to break that part of the agreement and see Hunter's vision of world domination come to fruition.

There weren't meat hooks and iron maidens and red-hot pokers lying around.

I didn't see any either when I studied at BYU. I liked all my professors there and have nothing bad to say about them. But we can't rule out entirely the possibility that some very evil things go on within the walls of the school. Certainly, the moral corruption of the honor code office is well known.

But it would make no sense to hate DCP, or President Monson, or even Boyd KKK Packer. It's not really their fault.

I don't hate any of these people either. But, I do not think Monson or packer are good people, and i do not like them. I think DCP is a good person, but hangs around with a crowd that is a bad influence on him.
I have my Packer stories. they are enough for me to cast judgement.

There are Mormons I think I would regard as enemies. Pahoran and Selek are two of them.

I regard Pahoran as a friend. I have a long-standing invitation open for a BBQ with him. He hasn't responded to it, but he might someday. Selek, well, I could never finish reading any of his posts. So I can't say.

I think some of the others you've mentioned have displayed contemptable behavior online. I think they have anger issues. But evil? No. They are pawns of higher forces.

I can't make myself see this whole thing as sinister, menacing, conspiratorial, etc. And when it's put in these terms, sure I'm going to be skeptical.

I understand. Be skeptical, you are one of the best skeptics I've ever encountered. Just keep an open mind. Sometimes we can become so skeptical that we refuse to ever connect the dots again.