Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_Chap]

DCP really must like the heat.

If he doesn't, why does he spend so much time in the kitchen?

[_J Green]

Chap,

Fair enough. I would characterize both as obsessions that are harmful. I suppose one question I would ask is how much flexibility and room for compromise would you see in either one in talking about their subject of choice? Regardless of how witty or creative I might find Droopy's little songs or urbane you might find Scratch's musings, I really don't think that engaging either one in their "specialty" could really be called a "discussion" in any sense of the word, could it?

Regards

I am not sufficiently interested to play an infinite bait and switch game with you on the subject of Scratch's posts. I rejected your use of 'obsession'. Now you are trying to see if I will commit to 'discussion'. If I say yes to that, you can go on to ask whether it would be a 'sincere discussion', and so on for ever until I finally agree to join you in making some mildly opprobrious statement about Scratch. We both have better things to do.

I'd rather save my energies for reading Scratch's next post about DCP ...

No worries, Chap. I only regret is that you feel I was trying to pull a bait and switch.

Regards

[_J Green]

Kish,

I appreciate your posts as well and would love the opportunity to talk with you in person. And really, once we shift focus from Dan’s ability to defend himself to what his strategy should be to reduce the allegations, I don’t see much of a role for participation. I don’t pretend to know what Dan’s strategy should be given his public stature and responsibilities; I haven’t read the Dehlin piece and won’t comment on something I haven’t read; I remain unconvinced that the allegations would stop if Dan didn’t respond; etc. All of these positions require information I don’t have.

I’ve followed your posts enough to know that there are many things on which we would agree and build common ground. I find your area of specialization fascinating and enjoy reading many of your insights. You have a good mind and very often a fair one. But on this issue we probably won’t agree. For example, we would likely disagree on what evidence there really is for the Dan-invites-this-on-himself argument, the evidence for a nasty FARMS hit machine, and several related issues. I hope in the future we can build on the common areas of interest and minimize the areas of disagreement.

Regards

[_J Green]

What are you talking about? Lol. How is it that, when I say "You would never have even shown up on my radar," if you hadn't popped up on this board to level criticisms, that you somehow interpret that to mean that I've singled you out as a means to "get to someone else"? It's not like I came looking for you, J Green, in the hopes that I could somehow "manipulate" you so as to score some points against DCP.

Like I said: I never would have had any reason whatsoever to say anything to or about you had you not shown up in the first place.


And getting back to my first post on this thread: what caught my attention was your comment on MDD about how non-LDS had formulated an opinion on DCP because of his online antics. "He has a right to respond!" is your argument. Well, you never said that these non-LDS folks had arrived at their opinion based on reading RfM or The Mormon Curtain, right? Presumably, the read the man's own posts and came to their conclusions on the basis of that.

But, hey: don't listen to me. Listen to Kishkumen, Blair Hodges, etc. You seem to be one of the few remaining halfway intelligent TBM holdouts who thinks that DCP is totally innocent in all of this.

Scratch,

I was hoping for a better outcome from the Netherfield ball. Perhaps at least the promise of Rosings on the horizon. Maybe some day in the future. Best wishes.

Cheers

[_Doctor Scratch]

J Green:

Well, hey, I was hoping that you would at last come to your senses and listen to what people other than I have been saying. No such luck, I guess. Have fun inspecting that unit.

[_Kishkumen]

I appreciate your posts as well and would love the opportunity to talk with you in person.

Let's do that sometime. I get to Utah once every couple of years. If you are there, maybe we could meet up.

And really, once we shift focus from Dan’s ability to defend himself to what his strategy should be to reduce the allegations, I don’t see much of a role for participation. I don’t pretend to know what Dan’s strategy should be given his public stature and responsibilities; I haven’t read the Dehlin piece and won’t comment on something I haven’t read; I remain unconvinced that the allegations would stop if Dan didn’t respond; etc. All of these positions require information I don’t have.

I understand. You probably don't feel it is your place to tell your friend how he should handle his business.

Since I am not his friend, and my friends have been adversely affected by the way he conducts his business, I have not refrained from commenting. I would hope that every LDS person could agree that writing and publishing criticisms of members in good standing under the auspices of the Church's university is something that ought not to be done.

Maybe you could give that more thought in the midst of defending Daniel's right to defend himself against criticism for facilitating published attacks on fellow members of the LDS Church.

I’ve followed your posts enough to know that there are many things on which we would agree and build common ground. I find your area of specialization fascinating and enjoy reading many of your insights. You have a good mind and very often a fair one.

Thanks for the compliment. It means something to me coming from you.

But on this issue we probably won’t agree. For example, we would likely disagree on what evidence there really is for the Dan-invites-this-on-himself argument, the evidence for a nasty FARMS hit machine, and several related issues. I hope in the future we can build on the common areas of interest and minimize the areas of disagreement.

First of all, I do not believe that FARMS is a "hit machine." They do, however, publish very unkind criticisms of members of the LDS Church in good standing with support of the Church via BYU. I don't think that is appropriate, and I think it should end. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible and reasonable expectation that it should.

As for Dan bringing this on himself, I think the evidence pretty much speaks for itself. If you can name one other LDS scholar who provokes criticism the way he does, and who dedicates as much time to fighting criticisms of himself as he does, then I am eager to know who that would be. If there is not another person like that, I would imagine that the fact Daniel does excite such criticism is not just the will of fate.

Daniel has said on more than one occasion that he is fascinated by critics. He said on many occasions that he was fascinated by Scratch. It seems to me that he is playing anthropologist, but then complaining a lot when he has to eat beetles or live in mud huts to do his work. One could always choose to do something else, but he can't help himself. He is, at heart, an anthropologist, so, like it or not, he will have to accept that eating beetles and sleeping in mud huts comes with the territory.

If you are an apologist for the LDS Church, and spend a lot of time lampooning critics, commenting on how nutty and silly they are, and scouring the internet engaging them, quoting them, etc., then you will probably end up the focus of their attention as well. Others choose not to engage critics so directly. Daniel has decided to quote us in print, blog about us, etc. How can I feel sorry for the guy when he gets some attention in return?

[_Gadianton]

As I've said, I actually don't think that strong rhetoric is the preferable option. But let me ask you this: Did you read the entire article yourself? Do you think Greg's claims are accurate? I.e., is it just the rhetoric to which you object, or do you take issue with the evidence itself? If the terms hadn't been used in a published article but in a backyard conversation instead, would you agree that "snake oil salesman" accurately describes the behavior that Greg documents? I'm trying to assess the scope of your objection. I have a few other questions, but I'll leave it at that for now.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=793

I believe these may be the unanswered questions, so I will try to answer them the best I can now.

Did you read the entire article yourself?

No. I'm not a big reader, and this article is a book in its own right. I read enough of the tome to understand several complete arguments against Meldrum and to prove that the article contains personal insults, which is what I believe my main point was in bringing this up.

Do you think Greg's claims are accurate? I.e., is it just the rhetoric to which you object, or do you take issue with the evidence itself?

No. And yes, I take issue with both the tone and the evidence itself.


If the terms hadn't been used in a published article but in a backyard conversation instead, would you agree that "snake oil salesman" accurately describes the behavior that Greg documents?

No, I don't. But I owe a bit of explanation here. It gets tricky when discussing "snake oil" selling. If I were on the street selling crackers that I claimed would make one immortal, you'd say "snake oil". If I pass a cracker in the form of the eucharist, "snake oil" doesn't have quite the ring to it, even from the standpoint that religious rituals are as empty of effect as snake oil. I'm not sure I can provide a satisfactory definition of snake oil, but I think it's important to understand that "snake oil" doesn't automatically cover opinions that aren't backed well by science. The fact that Meldrum is working within a well-established religious tradition and writing for people within that tradition using the kinds of "evidence" folks within that tradition are accustomed to using gives him some credibility.

As an example, if two ministers are sending letters back and forth to each other arguing over whether Christ suffered more in the garden or on the cross, citing historical data and medical concepts as they go, an atheist outsider might accuse either as "peddling snake oil" but context matters and I don't think the charge would fit very well. Interestingly, if one of the ministers were to use strategies outside of shared religious heritage to prove a point, such as citing an acid trip rather than an answer to a prayer as evidence of an idea, the other would intuitively be entitled to use the snake-oil expression.

So there are two points I can make here. Internet Mormon ideas that recast doctrines to be more academically friendly are a kind of "snake oil" for TBM Chapel Mormons. An intellectual Mormon walking into a Chapel and telling the flock that the flood never happened is selling snake oil, even though technically speaking, he is correct in his claim. But a second point is that with all the effort, Internet Mormonism isn't even necessarily more academically friendly in the end. How many non-Mormon academics believe the Sorensen model vs. the Meldrum model? The apologists try to jargon us into believing that they aren't proffering pseudoscience, but if what Meldrum is doing is pseudoscience, their work is no better. A snake oil sold by a layman using a layman's creativity and a snake oil sold by a Phd using a Phd's creativity is still snake oil.

[_Kishkumen]

No, I don't. But I owe a bit of explanation here. It gets tricky when discussing "snake oil" selling. If I were on the street selling crackers that I claimed would make one immortal, you'd say "snake oil". If I pass a cracker in the form of the eucharist, "snake oil" doesn't have quite the ring to it, even from the standpoint that religious rituals are as empty of effect as snake oil. I'm not sure I can provide a satisfactory definition of snake oil, but I think it's important to understand that "snake oil" doesn't automatically cover opinions that aren't backed well by science. The fact that Meldrum is working within a well-established religious tradition and writing for people within that tradition using the kinds of "evidence" folks within that tradition are accustomed to using gives him some credibility.

As an example, if two ministers are sending letters back and forth to each other arguing over whether Christ suffered more in the garden or on the cross, citing historical data and medical concepts as they go, an atheist outsider might accuse either as "peddling snake oil" but context matters and I don't think the charge would fit very well. Interestingly, if one of the ministers were to use strategies outside of shared religious heritage to prove a point, such as citing an acid trip rather than an answer to a prayer as evidence of an idea, the other would intuitively be entitled to use the snake-oil expression.

So there are two points I can make here. Internet Mormon ideas that recast doctrines to be more academically friendly are a kind of "snake oil" for TBM Chapel Mormons. An intellectual Mormon walking into a Chapel and telling the flock that the flood never happened is selling snake oil, even though technically speaking, he is correct in his claim. But a second point is that with all the effort, Internet Mormonism isn't even necessarily more academically friendly in the end. How many non-Mormon academics believe the Sorensen model vs. the Meldrum model? The apologists try to jargon us into believing that they aren't proffering pseudoscience, but if what Meldrum is doing is pseudoscience, their work is no better. A snake oil sold by a layman using a layman's creativity and a snake oil sold by a Phd using a Phd's creativity is still snake oil.

Very well put, Dean Robbers.

[_J Green]

Thanks for the response, Dean. You'll have to give me some time to revisit both the other thread as well as the article in question. With the passage of time, I don't remember the details very well. If not tonight, I'll try to respond sometime in the next day or two.

In the meantime, so I can have it fresh in my mind while I'm looking at the article again, are there any other examples of tone you want me to look at in this specific instance, or are you happy with us tackling the issue of "snakeoil salesman" as a part representing the whole?

Regards

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yeah, wow. I have been revisiting this, and it really is a nasty piece of work. Why, for example, is Greg Smith using Meldrum's patriarchal blessing as a means of attacking him? He cites a lot of familiar "testimony bearing" language and uses that to lambaste Meldrum, too. And why is he citing emails that were sent to Scott Gordon?