Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_Kishkumen]

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?

Greg Smith is a consummate hit piece artist to be sure. Pure diabolism.

[_Gadianton]

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

No problem, take your time, it looks like I took mine. Well, let's see where your response leads. I wasn't particularly looking to resurrect the issue as a whole, though I'm not opposed to that, I wanted to answer whatever questions that I had neglected answering before.

[_The Mighty Builder]

You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there.

[_J Green]

Gad,

It took a while to review the article. I’d forgotten how long it was. But I’m with Kish. Your point about “snake oil” context was well articulated and reflective. (Although I never thought I’d use “snake oil” and “context” in the same sentence.) And I agree with your point as stated: Within the context of a faith tradition where ideas, assumptions and paradigms become almost ritualized, appeals to or about science shouldn’t necessarily be connected to snake oil and chicanery. One man’s young-earth creationism is another man’s limited flood theory. I get it, and I agree.

But the problem is that I don’t think that the analogy is complete in understanding Greg’s article. If you skip straight to the conclusion, he clearly ties the snake oil concept to what he perceives as Meldrum’s pseudo-science. But if you did skip to the end, you’ve missed the journey that ties the context of pseudo–science to the issue of profit. And it is this angle that your analogy doesn’t address. Others here admonish Greg for invoking Meldrum’s patriarchal blessing, but it appears to me that it’s the other way around. It is Meldrum invoking his blessing, not Greg—and in a promotional e-mail trying to sell seats to a seminar and membership in his business, no less. Greg is merely pointing this out after the fact. I’ve seen threads here in this forum linking to published articles about the high instance of fraud among LDS wards and how others will use the common culture of faith to advance their own fiduciary schemes. And this issue resonates with me because I’ve had friends and associates lose houses, savings and other financial resources to others who have used the common language of faith to get them involved in a business deal that is portrayed as having a spiritual or Church nexus. So what your analogy of the two gentlemen discussing the suffering of Christ doesn’t address is the context of using the language of common faith for business and profit even when it is well meant or profoundly believed in.

I understand we’re in a grey area here. The business in question is specifically related to this culture of faith. But so is a lot of the other questionable activity that leverages this common language of faith. And in the end, we’re still talking about business products: seminars, tours, membership in an enterprise. To use testimony-related artifacts like patriarchal blessings and talking about fasting and prayer in a letter meant to sell a business product –which product is marketed as the only one that spiritually follows prophetic counsel—goes beyond the analogy of two gentlemen disagreeing about science in a faith discussion.

And this is where I think we have diverged. It’s why I asked you about the evidence. You say that the evidence doesn’t convince you. Well, if you think that then your conclusion about him and his rhetoric is inescapable. Because whether Greg is a cad or whether he’s exposing one likely depends on your view of that evidence.

Thoughts?

[_Kishkumen]

Well said, J Green. My only problem here is that, while affinity fraud is an appropriate touchstone for coming to an understanding of Meldrum, in this case the product is the teaching itself. It is not, at least as I understand it, that Meldrum is trying to get these folks to invest in his hedge fund or what have you. As it is the case that the teaching is the product, I am not sure that the dividing line between him and a Church with a massive investment portfolio and a mega-mall with upscale shopping and condos is as clear as others, like Greg Smith perhaps, like to believe.

For the average believer, the issue of authority makes all the difference. Clearly Meldrum is not selling his teaching with the clear blessing of LDS authorities. He has not been hired to teach in CES, and he does not have a calling from the Brethren to do what he does. But it seems to me that there is no absolute injunction against trading on one's ecclesiastical bona fides (how many people trumpet their callings on the jacket of a book?). Meldrum's example is extreme in that he pulls into the public eye things that Mormons usually know to hold sacred (patriarchal blessing). I agree that this is problematic in terms of LDS sensibilities. But, as you say, isn't this more of a gray area, and are people like Greg Smith absolutely justified in tearing this guy a new one in lieu of the Church taking appropriate action, if necessary?

This is where I have a problem. I find the implications of Meldrum's teachings in terms of nationalism and ethnic tension to be disturbing, so I am not a huge fan. At the same time, I would think that if there is a real problem here, it is the part of the priesthood to settle. It is not for a Greg Smith to come along and publish a hit piece through a BYU journal. That seems underhanded to me. It would perhaps be different if the Church was a large umbrella like the Roman Catholic Church with its semi-independent orders, liberal publications, and the like. But in an organization with a consciously top-down hierarchical structure that is as tight as the LDS Church? A Greg Smith hit piece just looks like a chicken crap, stealth attack where a disciplinary action would be the more stand-up option.

I find it impossible to respect this way of dealing with difference of opinion. If Meldrum is an apostate, he should be treated like one straight out. If not, he should be left alone. If Greg Smith wants to publish his hit pieces, let him do them in some independent journal, not one that is closely associated with a university whose board is made up of apostles.

[_J Green]

Kish,

As always, you make good points that will give me something to think about for the next few days. These deal not with the evidence but but with the propriety of the venue in which that evidence is dicussed and the moral or ecclesiastical authority with which to discuss it. And this naturally raises additional questions for me as I consider this from your perspective:

For example, do the same issues you raise about the propriety of Greg discussing this apply to the media as well? Could the Trib publish concerns about the way a business is being marketed publicly in Utah using religious terminology and ideas normally considered sacred by the faith tradition of the majority of its citizens? What about an academic business journal or, say, the Kennedy Instute of Ethics Journal published by Johns Hopkins University Press? Could they raise these concerns appropriately? In other words, do you believe that the Church is the only entity who can comment publicly on this concern? If so, why don't the public business and academic aspects of the enterprise in question allow for public scrutiny? And If you think others can discuss it appropriately, where do you draw the line between what is an appropriate venue and what isn't?

I have a few other questions that you've raised for me, but perhaps we can start there. Better to keep this in bite-size morsels.

Cheers

[_Doctor Scratch]

For all we know, FARMS and FAIR use the "discourse of faith" when they try to get people to donate money. Publicly, though, FARMS doesn't use patriarchal blessings as their preferred "appeal to authority": instead, they point to someone with a PhD from Yale who's defending the Book of Abraham. I think that was the Dean's point: Meldrum is promoting something bogus using Chapel Mormon language; the Mopologists are promoting something slightly different, but still bogus, using the language of academia. FARMS/MI/FAIR is just more sophisticated in the way it goes about doing things. And who knows? Maybe some years down the road, the Church will give Meldrum a professional fundraiser, as it has done with FARMS in the person of Ed Snow. (Just ask Eric about his experience with Ed Snow trying to wring additional cash out of Eric's stepfather, who was already a "Liahona"-level member.)

Or look at something like this:

In the last newsletter we announced the campaign to raise the funds to build the Book of Mormon Research Center [for FARMS].... Your help is needed. Many of you have already responded with generous contributions for which we are grateful, but more is needed. Local building costs are escalating rapidly. Presently the architects estimate the project will cost some seven million dollars.... We invite those of you who have abundant means to be very generous.... Please don't delay

Or this:

The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies is pleased to announce the construction of its new Book of Mormon Research Center.... FARMS scholars approach their research with a firm conviction of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and of the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.... They publicize their findings for the benefit of serious students of the scriptures, as well as those who are investigating the Book of Mormon or who may be questioning its authenticity.... The library will be a resource center containing computers, books, and help for students working on papers and projects about the Book of Mormon.... The lecture hall... will be used for lectures on the Book of Mormon and other scriptural topics... The area will also be designed as a studio for filming lectures and presentations for broadcast and video production.... FARMS also maintains a site on the Internet, where users worldwide can go for answers.... Located on the southern periphery of Brigham Young University, the building will be a house 'set on a hill'... the Book of Mormon Research Center is intended to be a landmark that draws attention to our rich scriptural heritage and invites all to come unto Christ.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no90.ht ... %20DOLLARS

A while back, I was posting somewhat extensively on the financing behind FARMS and FAIR, and someone--Loap, I think--pointed out that "books cost money." Pretty much the same thing can be said about Meldrum. You can counter by saying, "Well, it's just Meldrum that is profiting. With FARMS, the money goes towards the organization." Is that true? DCP probably collects a low six-figure salary, or something very near it. Some of those apologists, due to their connection with FARMS, lead cruise-tours around the world, and they get to go on these cruises for free.

All that said, I don't think that Mopologists are "in it for the money" any more than Meldrum is--at least, there is no real evidence that this is the case. (Or, rather, the evidence is not substantially different.) The key difference, as Kishkumen says, is that Meldrum doesn't (at least as far as I know) publish articles like "Text and Context," "That Old Black Magic," or this hit-piece from Greg Smith. I know that he's made some critical comments about FAIR and the MI's apologetics, but he hasn't engaged in anything remotely like the sustained attacks that have appeared in the publications of those organizations.

ETA: I think it's a pretty huge stretch to label Greg Smith's article as "voicing concern." The piece's rhetoric is clearly structured to paint Meldrum in that light--publicly, and with the imprimatur of FARMS and BYU.

[_Kishkumen]

These deal not with the evidence but but with the propriety of the venue in which that evidence is dicussed and the moral or ecclesiastical authority with which to discuss it.

Well, I don't think your case for affinity fraud is exactly on point either, as I tried to show. Joseph Smith's career presents a much stronger case of affinity fraud than Rodney Meldrum. After all, the Kirtland Safety Society was not exactly money invested for the explicit and direct purpose of spreading the Gospel. Indeed, one might make the case that the early LDS Church was a kind of real estate scheme. If Rodney Meldrum sells books and seminars, which gives him the ability to produce more books and give more seminars, that doesn't strike me as particularly fraudulent.

For example, do the same issues you raise about the propriety of Greg discussing this apply to the media as well? Could the Trib publish concerns about the way a business is being marketed publicly in Utah using religious terminology and ideas normally considered sacred by the faith tradition of the majority of its citizens? What about an academic business journal or, say, the Kennedy Instute of Ethics Journal published by Johns Hopkins University Press? Could they raise these concerns appropriately? In other words, do you believe that the Church is the only entity who can comment publicly on this concern? If so, why don't the public business and academic aspects of the enterprise in question allow for public scrutiny? And If you think others can discuss it appropriately, where do you draw the line between what is an appropriate venue and what isn't?

Obviously I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that it is slimy for the Church to try to have it both ways, which is exactly what they are doing by housing apologetics at BYU and then trying to disavow or assert a measure of official standing to the product of those apologetics, whenever it suits them. This is especially troubling when one of the clearly foreseeable outcomes of publishing a piece that accuses a member in good standing of being a charlatan or an apostate is that the person could soon be drummed out of the Church.

If Rodney Meldrum is an apostate or a charlatan, then he should be officially disciplined by priesthood authorities. (Likewise Laura Compton.) If he is not, then he should not be publicly slimed in a BYU journal. The latter is, in my book, a cravenly way of addressing the "problem." Never have I suggested that Greg Smith cannot publish his smears in some other unaffiliated forum. Let him. Just don't let him enjoy the imprimatur of BYU, and hence official Church, support.

[_Kishkumen]

ETA: I think it's a pretty huge stretch to label Greg Smith's article as "voicing concern." The piece's rhetoric is clearly structured to paint Meldrum in that light--publicly, and with the imprimatur of FARMS and BYU.

Exactly.

[_Gadianton]

Gad,

...skip to the end, you’ve missed the journey that ties the context of pseudo–science to the issue of profit...Greg is merely pointing this out after the fact. I’ve seen threads here in this forum linking to published articles about the high instance of fraud among LDS wards and how others will use the common culture of faith to advance their own fiduciary schemes. And this issue resonates with me because I’ve had friends and associates lose houses...

And this is where I think we have diverged. It’s why I asked you about the evidence. You say that the evidence doesn’t convince you. Well, if you think that then your conclusion about him and his rhetoric is inescapable. Because whether Greg is a cad or whether he’s exposing one likely depends on your view of that evidence.

Thoughts?

Hi J Green,

It looks like you've been discussing this issue with my esteemed academic colleagues and they've offered much if not all of the substance I could hope to offer in response, nevertheless, I'll use my own words here.

You are correct that "profit" is one motivating factor of a "snake oil" scheme, though, the faithful will never agree that a church directly or indirectly receiving funds in exchange for "blessings" or ordinances constitutes fraud. Strictly speaking, profiting off of faith is not forbidden. And the problem is that a "Martin Luther" sets himself up high on the seat of spiritual judgement. Is this wrong? Well, not necessarily, as Martin Luther became a prophet -- an Elias -- who short-circuited the authority of the Catholic Church. But to cast judgement on Meldrum as an insincere profiteer, that's quite a charge, and he's short-circuiting the authority of the LDS Church to make it, as such charges should come through the proper channels to his bishop. He's a very public figure, and the fact that he has not been shut down indicates he's not considered a financial/spiritual fraud by those who are in proper authority to judge. If I recall correctly, some restrictions involving the use of chapels have been put in effect, and therefore, he is noticed, managed, yet allowed to pursue his core agenda.

I share your general concerns about financial fraud. A very sad incident happened in my ward as a youth and we're talking major consequences for the perpetrator, a man who radiated holiness. But you know what? He was excommunicated. No one needed to publish articles about his misdeeds and send them around the Church to paint him in a bad light. Here's what I think is the right answer, J Green, to address both of our concerns. First, why not dispute the theory side of FIRM in gentlemanly terms without charges along the lines of "pseudoscience"? A strong case will bear out the truth absent the invective. And for the more important matter, if it is believed members are being sucked into a scam, why not open the lines of communications between the MI and the SCMC and report concerning behavior? I believe the two organizations are well-linked. This would allow the MI to make their case while allowing the ordained authorities to weigh the evidence and handle any matters that need handling.

I believe this is fully win-win and I believe the MI's reputation and scope of influence would increase if they were to take my advice here.