Toward a Theory of Mopologetics, Part II

[_Daniel Peterson]

It reminds me a bit of those Extenz "male enhancement" commercials that they show on late night television, in which you get to see people doing the "real science" that surely undergirds the advertised product. You can tell that they're doing "real science," because they're wearing white lab coats and goggles and peering intently at things.

Are you guys wearing white lab coats and goggles? I know that Scratch, at least, is peering very, very intently. He has been for three years. I predict a Nobel Prize.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I know that Scratch, at least, is peering very, very intently. He has been for three years.

I'm curious: do you really think that this is a good point or a good argument? On the one hand, you know nothing about me beyond what you've seen me post. So, to claim that I've been "peering very, very intently" seems a bit presumptuous, no? Secondly, you have been involved in Mopologetics for nearly three decades, and we pretty much know the full extent of your involvement since you have no qualms about mentioning your various globe-trotting trips, firesides, publications, debates, and so on that relate to Mopologetics. I can assure you that your "peering" (and activities) goes well, well beyond anything I've posted. Certainly, I've never been paid to do things related to Mopology or counter-Mopology, nor have I ever engaged in real-life gossip that would hurt somebody's standing in the Church, or professionally. Are you really sure you want to head down this accusatory path, Dr. P.?

[_The Nehor]

I know that Scratch, at least, is peering very, very intently. He has been for three years.

I'm curious: do you really think that this is a good point or a good argument? On the one hand, you know nothing about me beyond what you've seen me post. So, to claim that I've been "peering very, very intently" seems a bit presumptuous, no? Secondly, you have been involved in Mopologetics for nearly three decades, and we pretty much know the full extent of your involvement since you have no qualms about mentioning your various globe-trotting trips, firesides, publications, debates, and so on that relate to Mopologetics. I can assure you that your "peering" (and activities) goes well, well beyond anything I've posted. Certainly, I've never been paid to do things related to Mopology or counter-Mopology, nor have I ever engaged in real-life gossip that would hurt somebody's standing in the Church, or professionally. Are you really sure you want to head down this accusatory path, Dr. P.?

Difference of course being that DCP writes and publishes papers, gives lectures, attends symposiums, etc. while you spend your time gossiping about apologists. This is kinda sad already but then you make it sound like science. You routinely try to point out that 'mopologetics' is an academic laughingstock. I would like to see that compared to you if you attempted to publish all your brilliant insights/gossip pieces in an academic journal. I'm sure they'll be equally awed by your brilliant rating system. I'd go for anthropology and call it a piece on a Mormon subculture.

Do this and tell us how it went.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I know that Scratch, at least, is peering very, very intently. He has been for three years.

I'm curious: do you really think that this is a good point or a good argument? On the one hand, you know nothing about me beyond what you've seen me post. So, to claim that I've been "peering very, very intently" seems a bit presumptuous, no? Secondly, you have been involved in Mopologetics for nearly three decades, and we pretty much know the full extent of your involvement since you have no qualms about mentioning your various globe-trotting trips, firesides, publications, debates, and so on that relate to Mopologetics. I can assure you that your "peering" (and activities) goes well, well beyond anything I've posted. Certainly, I've never been paid to do things related to Mopology or counter-Mopology, nor have I ever engaged in real-life gossip that would hurt somebody's standing in the Church, or professionally. Are you really sure you want to head down this accusatory path, Dr. P.?

Scratch claims to have a far superior sense of humor.

Perhaps one requires "spiritual eyes" in order to see it?

Here's my entire solemnly accusatory post:

It reminds me a bit of those Extenz "male enhancement" commercials that they show on late night television, in which you get to see people doing the "real science" that surely undergirds the advertised product. You can tell that they're doing "real science," because they're wearing white lab coats and goggles and peering intently at things.

Are you guys wearing white lab coats and goggles? I know that Scratch, at least, is peering very, very intently. He has been for three years. I predict a Nobel Prize.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm curious: do you really think that this is a good point or a good argument? On the one hand, you know nothing about me beyond what you've seen me post. So, to claim that I've been "peering very, very intently" seems a bit presumptuous, no? Secondly, you have been involved in Mopologetics for nearly three decades, and we pretty much know the full extent of your involvement since you have no qualms about mentioning your various globe-trotting trips, firesides, publications, debates, and so on that relate to Mopologetics. I can assure you that your "peering" (and activities) goes well, well beyond anything I've posted. Certainly, I've never been paid to do things related to Mopology or counter-Mopology, nor have I ever engaged in real-life gossip that would hurt somebody's standing in the Church, or professionally. Are you really sure you want to head down this accusatory path, Dr. P.?

Difference of course being that DCP writes and publishes papers, gives lectures, attends symposiums, etc. while you spend your time gossiping about apologists. This is kinda sad already but then you make it sound like science. You routinely try to point out that 'mopologetics' is an academic laughingstock. I would like to see that compared to you if you attempted to publish all your brilliant insights/gossip pieces in an academic journal. I'm sure they'll be equally awed by your brilliant rating system. I'd go for anthropology and call it a piece on a Mormon subculture.

Do this and tell us how it went.

Actually, you do have sort of a point here: of course if I tried to publish "brilliant insights/gossip pieces" in a legit academic journal, it would never fly. That's why it is so staggering that the apologists claim that FARMS Review is an "academic" journal. I mean, come on, Nehor: do you really regard, say, DCP's Loftes Tryk piece, or Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic" as legitimately "academic"? I'd be willing to bet that you haven't even read any of the FARMS articles.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I mean, come on, Nehor: do you really regard, say, DCP's Loftes Tryk piece, or Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic" as legitimately "academic"?

I do.

The latter is incontestably an academic article despite your rather obsessive on-going attempt to misrepresent it. Those who would like to read it for themselves are welcome to do so, at

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=364

And, although I realize that it doesn't -- could not possibly! -- measure up to the exalted standard of your much vaunted, far-superior sense of humor, my send-up of Loftes Tryk is every bit as substantive and at-bottom-serious as, say, Alan Jacob's wonderful recent review/send-up of the Collected Works of Kahlil Gibran in First Things:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009 ... -worksi-50

Those who would like to read my little essay on Loftes Tryk for themselves are welcome to do so at

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... um=1&id=72