Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I had another thought regarding the "Section C" of Smith's intro. What's weird/unprofessional about it is this: he acknowledges that he told Meldrum to be more skeptical, and to quit presenting things as "objective," and yet, in the book, Meldrum seems to be doing exactly that with comments like this, which Smith quotes:

Meldrum: "I do not claim to know that this proposed theory is true" (p. 5). "No level of DNA evidence will ever 'prove' the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon" (p. 45).

Instead of saying, "Hey, this is a step in the right direction." Or, "While not totally satisfactory in light of things that have come before, this is a positive move," Greg Smith goes on to list a boatload of reasons why Meldrum shouldn't be trusted! Meldrum does what Greg Smith asks, and rather than patting him on the back, he goes on to attack him? What's up with that? In a professional journal, if you criticize a colleague for being overly confident in a theory, and then that same colleague scales back on the claims in his next publication, you don't slam him and accuse him of being disingenuous or deceptive. You give him the benefit of the doubt and praise the positives.

I just don't understand what's at stake in this for J Green--why he is so hell-bent insistent on denying what is afoot in all this. Does he really believe that Rod Meldrum in an unscrupulous fraud whose only goal is to part gullible LDS from their cash?

[_Kishkumen]

What's weird/unprofessional about it is this: he acknowledges that he told Meldrum to be more skeptical, and to quit presenting things as "objective," and yet, in the book, Meldrum seems to be doing exactly that with comments like this, which Smith quotes:

Meldrum: "I do not claim to know that this proposed theory is true" (p. 5). "No level of DNA evidence will ever 'prove' the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon" (p. 45).

Instead of saying, "Hey, this is a step in the right direction." Or, "While not totally satisfactory in light of things that have come before, this is a positive move," Greg Smith goes on to list a boatload of reasons why Meldrum shouldn't be trusted! Meldrum does what Greg Smith asks, and rather than patting him on the back, he goes on to attack him? What's up with that?

You are exactly right, Doctor. I had the very same thought. The fix was in, so to speak. Meldrum couldn't do anything to appease the apologists at this point. He tried to temper his message in accordance with their concerns, as is appropriate when an expert cautions you on certain aspects of your work, but they went looking around for other, external evidence that he was not toeing the line.

If I were a Meldrum apologist, which I am not inclined to be, I would chalk up the FIRM marketing methods to spiritual enthusiasm that God was moving Meldrum to do a certain work, not that he was definitively approving the results of that work, which is an important distinction, I think. I mean, ultimately I have little sympathy for Meldrum's teaching, but I also really dislike the underhanded methods of this review. The worst part is, the bad aspects of the review are completely unnecessary. Why go out of your way to be an asshole when being right is sufficient?

Bad form.

[_J Green]

Also apropos of nothing, I wonder which is the more effective or meaningful tactic: to simply tell someone to shut up, or to bury it in a Jane Austen reference?

How about dealing with the evidence?

Hey, Scratch. We seem destined to misunderstand each other. No malice intended. I was merely in a silly mood and found the situation humerous. If you took offense, I apologize.

Cheers

[_Kishkumen]

If you took offense, I apologize.

LOL!

[_J Green]

People who want a private conversation should have it via PM.

Hi, Chap.

No private chat intended. I merely found humor in the situation and tried to acknowledge it as benignly and humerously as possible with a literary reference that came to mind and made me smile. If you think based on my track record that it was a nasty piece of business as well, then I apologize to you too.

Regards

[_J Green]

I had a nice long reply to J Green written out when my computer freaked out and backspace erased everything I had written, and then proceeded to back through my browsing history. Ugh.

Sorry to hear that, Kish.

J Green, you either feel confident to speak on the topic of what constitutes an academic book review or you do not.

I believe I’ve been fairly clear that I do not.

Please do not feign lack of qualification, which, when it boils down to it, amounts to little more than an admission that you do not feel comfortable speaking for Daniel Peterson or Greg Smith.

Are these mutually exclusive? I think I’ve gone out of my way to say both things very clearly several times. I’m pretty sure I don’t have the qualifications to address the larger issues of academic book reviews from a management/editorial perspective. And I think I’ve been fairly clear that I couldn’t speak for Dan or Greg even if I wanted to. I wonder at what qualification you think I’m feigning.

It is further irksome when you tell me that you are not an academic, that I am more qualified to speak to these matters than you are, and then proceed to tell me, erroneously I might add, that my criticisms have the scatter-shot approach of an unfocused undergrad essay. If that is how you respond psychologically to the authority you appeared to grant me based on my experience, then we should probably stop this conversation before it really gets out of hand.

Two thoughts here:

First, my stipulation about not being an academic had reference to understanding the larger issues behind running an academic journal and what’s permissible in terms of scope. I didn’t intend to imply that I couldn’t understand an argument or how an essay is constructed. I think these two issues are distinct. It’s why I felt comfortable looking at Greg’s arguments from a reader’s perspective. So I do think that I am capable at looking at a thread and assessing whether or not the essence of the postings support the thesis or not.

Second, if I gave you the impression that I was criticizing you specifically or that I was referring to your work as an undergrad essay, I apologize. My intent was to point out that when the thread opened and everyone started contributing, not all the evidence appeared to adhere tightly to the thesis of tone. Taken as a whole, I still feel that what little I saw of the thread wasn’t very tight in terms of a focused persuasive argument. That’s all. As I’ve told you before, I think you’re one of the more eloquent personalities here.

Being nasty like Oscar Wilde instead of Andrew Dice Clay only slips under the radar when your reader is too stupid to figure out what is going on. Your little Jane Austen reference to Doctor Scratch was more of the same.

I’m not sure I understand how I’ve been nasty. I try fairly hard to contribute a civil tone to the discussion, even if there is disagreement. And if you feel the Jane Austen reference was nasty, then I’m afraid we have widely varying definitions of the word. I was merely in a silly mood (e.g., references to Manchurian author and quashing anti-FARMS factions). I’m actually quite disappointed (more than you know) that given our interaction so far you suddenly feel I’ve been uncivil to you.

And be careful about encouraging me to undertake a more focused and formal critique of LDS apologetics, because you may just get your wish. I am not sure your apologist friends would like that very much. In any case, I will continue to argue this point, because I believe in it passionately. The Church should not support, even indirectly, slams of its members in good standing.

Kish, I think that you should always continue to do something if you’re passionate about it. And whatever your thoughts are of me, my respect for you continues unabated. I wish you the best.

[_MrStakhanovite]

J Green,

Do you add anything? I get this sense you create this persona of really wanting to contribute, but when you step up to the line, it's just some boring commentary on how DCP isn't really that much of a fool.

[_J Green]

J Green,

Do you add anything? I get this sense you create this persona of really wanting to contribute, but when you step up to the line, it's just some boring commentary on how DCP isn't really that much of a fool.

I probably don't add much, Stak. My posting count is what it is precisely because I don't think I have much to contribute. I apologize if I've given a different impression or if you've expected more from me.

Cheers

[Guest]

Part of the disconnect between us, I think, is that, where it regards the quoted passage above, you have your LDS sensibilities cap on, whereas I have both my academic and LDS sensibilities caps on. I "get" why Meldrum's marketing using answers to prayers, his patriarchal blessing, references to GAs, and the like is problematic. What I don't get, as an academic, is why this is included in a review of Meldrum's book. That it is raises big red flags for me.

I acknowledge my biases. I do think you raise good questions, and I enjoy pursuing them with you. But I also have to say that from the same reader's perspective, so far I'm not impressed with the organization of the material being used to prove the overall thesis against FARMS. I think it a bit scattered and disorganized, which dilutes the power of any argument. Similar to the paper of a freshman who doesn't understand how to stay on point in a persuasive argument. And if you cull the herd to make your case focused, you may weaken your overal argument of scope and trends. But I'll be interested to watch your progress.

Regards

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying here, but it looks to me like the pronoun "you" is directed at me specifically, not some general group of people. You are, after all, addressing me and quoting something I wrote. That something was very specific. In any case, I don't want to belabor the point.

If you are speaking to all of us as a group, well, I have no idea why our complaints should be as monolithic as FARMS should not be expected to be. If five guys can write reviews, many of which are of questionable quality, of one book and publish them with FARMS it strikes me as odd that you would expect an online discussion group to be more "focused."

It is a strange, but obvious, double standard.

As for my pique, it will pass. It has been a long day.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I probably don't add much, Stak. My posting count is what it is precisely because I don't think I have much to contribute. I apologize if I've given a different impression or if you've expected more from me.

Cheers

I won't accept your apology till you wax on a bit more about how much your respect for me with grow exponentially and unabated. I’m only 98% convinced you are either up to something or can’t tell the difference between humility and condescending groveling.