The Midgley-Bohn Misalignment

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dean Robbers--

Have you been reading the new Mopologetic publication, the Mormon Interpreter? I know that you've been talking more specifically about the Book of Mormon on this thread, but I think some of the material in the MI has a bearing on this discussion as well. In particular, I'm thinking of the new piece by Roger Nicholson, which actually asserts (and my mind was blown by this) that Wikipedia represents a "Church History that 'Anyone Can Edit.'":

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/Mormon ... -can-edit/

Interestingly, Nicholson doesn't seem the least bit upset or angry about the possibilities offered by Wikipedia. He sees the editing process as a kind of "Holy War" with non-LDS Christians and ex-Mormon critics, but he doesn't seem the least bit bothered at the idea that every armchair apologist on the planet can now help to re-write Church history. In fact, he seems to be celebrating this fact. I have to admit to you that I was dumbstruck when I read his article, and yet the more I think about it, the more it seems inevitable. After all, I know how familiar you are with the Mopologists' freewheeling use of Peter Novick's That Noble Dream, what with its insistence on the claim that history cannot be "objective," but this, I believe, represents a real watershed moment. The Mopologists are taking it to the streets. I wonder if the day will come when we will praise Nicholson as a genius in much the same vein as we are doing now with Hardy.

[_Gadianton]

Gadianton: I don't think this is exactly what you are talking about, but what do you think of all the so called "postmodernist" defenses of Mormonism that keep popping up so much lately? Take, for example, this recent thread on MD&D If you can read it (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58445-is-mormonism-and-science-compatible-attn-bcspace/page__hl__bcspace) especially focusing on posts from Kevin Christensen and mfbukowski. You can also hear similar arguments made by folks like Philip Barlow and Richard Bushman (see Barlow's recently posted Mormon Stories interview). Is it related to the point you are making above that I quoted or is that a separate issue?

Blixa called it "vulgar" postmodernism in a chat discussion recently, and I think that is indeed the perfect word for it.

Blixa is the one to tell you. I have posted way too much on this than the topic deserves in the past, but basically, I think these defenses are the laughing stock of Mopologetics. The work of the first two characters you mention can be outright dismissed. Their arguments amount to: thanks to postmodernism, there is no such thing as truth, so we can believe whatever we want! And science is false too!

It's a good thing God had Joseph Smith restore the purity of the Gospel down to the exact wording of the sacrament prayers eh?

Bushman probably is among the crowd I was referring to in that quote, but I imagine he's very careful about how he plays the game. Unfortunately, I'll have a hard time accepting the output of any of them as anything but secondary to the master project of promoting the Church. Perhaps that's a flaw in me, but that's the way I roll.

[_Cicero]

Blixa is the one to tell you. I have posted way too much on this than the topic deserves in the past, but basically, I think these defenses are the laughing stock of Mopologetics. The work of the first two characters you mention can be outright dismissed. Their arguments amount to: thanks to postmodernism, there is no such thing as truth, so we can believe whatever we want! And science is false too!

It's a good thing God had Joseph Smith restore the purity of the Gospel down to the exact wording of the sacrament prayers eh?

Bushman probably is among the crowd I was referring to in that quote, but I imagine he's very careful about how he plays the game. Unfortunately, I'll have a hard time accepting the output of any of them as anything but secondary to the master project of promoting the Church. Perhaps that's a flaw in me, but that's the way I roll.

I'm a relative newcomer here and I hate the search function, but I will try to find your previous posts on this topic. As preached by folks like Christensen and mfbukowski, these types of vulgar postmodernist arguments are indeed reducible to laughable caricatures. Take, for example, this recent gem from mfbukowski to me:

Moroni 10:4 is not about epistemology, it is about what gives your life meaning.

Then there are others like Bohn (and Bushman I believe) who use such arguments with far more care and sophistication. These types of arguments also keep popping up from believers of other faiths in response to zealous "new atheists" like Harris and Dawkins (who in my opinion set themselves up for fairly easy deconstruction in their zeal to sell books, but I digress . . .). You may believe that you have said more than the topic deserves, but I think we are only going to see the use of these types of arguments increase as the Church is forced to deal with the rise of "Internet Mormonism." How else will the Church deal with increased knowledge of unpleasant facts than by denigrating the whole notion of "fact" in favor of faith?

[_Blixa]

Thanks for the kind words, guys. I found that T&S thread to be of interest principally for the entertaining comments. Here we see Bryce Haymond coming to his own. And what of the lovable "freud is bad" christine? If the heyday of mopologetic smear-as-scholarship is over, and it certainly seems to be winding down, that's enough to cheer me up. What it's replaced with it is of interest to me, but not of as much interest as some issues in Mormon Studies.

Though I must say, it still really frosts my turkey, in the inimitable words of George Miller, to see watered-down postmodernism splashed about in in the shallow end of the pool.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Thanks for the kind words, guys. I found that T&S thread to be of interest principally for the entertaining comments. Here we see Bryce Haymond coming to his own. And what of the lovable "freud is bad" christine? If the heyday of mopologetic smear-as-scholarship is over, and it certainly seems to be winding down, that's enough to cheer me up. What it's replaced with it is of interest to me, but not of as much interest as some issues in Mormon Studies.

Though I must say, it still really frosts my turkey, in the inimitable words of George Miller, to see watered-down postmodernism splashed about in in the shallow end of the pool.

I'm not sure I could stomach reading an attempt to wed Mormonism and postmodernism. It sounds like the punch line to a rejected New Yorker cartoon. I did read mfbukowski's "response" (I use the term loosely) to the series of postmodern threads that were hashed over here a while back. I wasn't impressed.

[_lulu]

Mormons don't have agendas, only other people do.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Levinas is so cash

[_Gadianton]

Dean Robbers--

Have you been reading the new Mopologetic publication, the Mormon Interpreter? I know that you've been talking more specifically about the Book of Mormon on this thread, but I think some of the material in the MI has a bearing on this discussion as well. In particular, I'm thinking of the new piece by Roger Nicholson, which actually asserts (and my mind was blown by this) that Wikipedia represents a "Church History that 'Anyone Can Edit.'":

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/Mormon ... -can-edit/

Interestingly, Nicholson doesn't seem the least bit upset or angry about the possibilities offered by Wikipedia. He sees the editing process as a kind of "Holy War" with non-LDS Christians and ex-Mormon critics, but he doesn't seem the least bit bothered at the idea that every armchair apologist on the planet can now help to re-write Church history. In fact, he seems to be celebrating this fact. I have to admit to you that I was dumbstruck when I read his article, and yet the more I think about it, the more it seems inevitable. After all, I know how familiar you are with the Mopologists' freewheeling use of Peter Novick's That Noble Dream, what with its insistence on the claim that history cannot be "objective," but this, I believe, represents a real watershed moment. The Mopologists are taking it to the streets. I wonder if the day will come when we will praise Nicholson as a genius in much the same vein as we are doing now with Hardy.

Are you saying the "MI" suggests that might will eventually equal right? If enough conscripts take to the task of editing Wikipedia, then it can eventually be faith-promoting?

[_Gadianton]

Then there are others like Bohn ...

My opinion is that he and Midgley are careless and may very well be the Mopologist Generals in the vulgar Pomo war with critics. I hope I didn't imply I thought highly of their work. I do credit them for bringing Pomo to the MI, they started it but were apparently, finished by it.

There appear to be a growing number of LDS "Mormon Studies" types with respectable backgrounds in continental phil. Those types are less likely to go around calling critics "positivists". Bohn's oversimplification seems to have caused him issues assessing the MI reorg properly, as I explained above in the OP. By the "misalignment" of these two, I mean, superficially it seems like they are among the ranks of the Mormon Studies crowd based on their Pomo interests and given their early appearance on the scene going the Pomo route, but in reality they belong to the camp you see them currently supporting. They aren't postmodernists at all, but rather, apologists who wield a different style of blunt weapon against the critics than their peers.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dean Robbers--

Have you been reading the new Mopologetic publication, the Mormon Interpreter? I know that you've been talking more specifically about the Book of Mormon on this thread, but I think some of the material in the MI has a bearing on this discussion as well. In particular, I'm thinking of the new piece by Roger Nicholson, which actually asserts (and my mind was blown by this) that Wikipedia represents a "Church History that 'Anyone Can Edit.'":

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/Mormon ... -can-edit/

Interestingly, Nicholson doesn't seem the least bit upset or angry about the possibilities offered by Wikipedia. He sees the editing process as a kind of "Holy War" with non-LDS Christians and ex-Mormon critics, but he doesn't seem the least bit bothered at the idea that every armchair apologist on the planet can now help to re-write Church history. In fact, he seems to be celebrating this fact. I have to admit to you that I was dumbstruck when I read his article, and yet the more I think about it, the more it seems inevitable. After all, I know how familiar you are with the Mopologists' freewheeling use of Peter Novick's That Noble Dream, what with its insistence on the claim that history cannot be "objective," but this, I believe, represents a real watershed moment. The Mopologists are taking it to the streets. I wonder if the day will come when we will praise Nicholson as a genius in much the same vein as we are doing now with Hardy.

Are you saying the "MI" suggests that might will eventually equal right? If enough conscripts take to the task of editing Wikipedia, then it can eventually be faith-promoting?

Well, no... Not quite (at least not in the sense I think you mean), hence why I felt that this article belongs in this thread, what with your observations about postmodernism and the "shifting of power." Take at look at Nicholson's closing remarks:

This is not a “call to arms” for massive numbers of Latter-day Saints to go and attempt to edit Wikipedia articles about the Church. The nature of Wikipedia is such that an LDS-themed article will never be considered “faith promoting.” What is needed is for intelligent and well-read Church members to calmly participate in the editing process, joining a number of such LDS editors who already participate heavily in this process.

Take a close look at Nicholson's word choice in the part I underlined. Note that he doesn't say that it "never will be faith promoting." He says, "never considered." "Considered" by whom? you might ask. Well, the answer certainly isn't "secularists" or "non-LDS Christians." And it's probably not "Chapel Mormons," either. Instead, instead, this whole project seems to be about "sneaking in" the right message, and about making sure that critical viewpoints get squelched. Make no mistake: the apologists view this as a war of attrition. Take a look at this:

Editing LDS articles requires a significant investment of time and patience, particularly when dealing with editors who do not demonstrate any amount of respect for The Church of Jesus Christ or the faith of Latter-day Saints.

Equally important is the need for wiki editors to be educated on the subject being edited.

That's how ambitious they are: they want to redefine and control the very act of "being edited."

A good deal of the article is given over to Nicholson's accounts of the various battles with hostile, non-LDS editors, such as John Foxe of Bob Jones U. In one of the penultimate paragraphs, Nicholson really seems to relish this moment of chagrin for Foxe:

The account remained active on other, noncontroversial articles and behaved in a respectable manner until Foxe’s sock puppetry was confirmed by Wikipedia administrators in August 2011, almost two years later. This resulted in the Hi540 account being permanently banned and the Foxe account being given a [Page 188]two-week suspension. Foxe apologized to LDS Wikipedia editor Alanyst:

I’m greatly embarrassed about my behavior in editing with two accounts at Joseph Smith during the thirteen months between September 2008 and October 2009. It was especially painful to read my promise not to create a sock puppet nine months before using one. (At least the record bears out my memory that I created Hi540 a year before I actually used the account illegitimately.) I apologize to you personally and to the community at large.

Nicholson's account of all this suggests that part of the "significant investment of time and patience" for Mopologist editors involves tracking down and ferreting out sockpuppets.

But this brings me back to my initial point, which is that Nicholson is basically arguing that Mopologists need to join the Wiki editing team in greater numbers in order to continue on in the war with critics, and, presumably, to "correct" Chapel Mormons. Part of his admonitions are aimed at the "dumbasses" who don't "understand" Church doctrine:

Acquiring a thorough knowledge of the available sources is the key to success on Wikipedia. Editors’ own opinions should not remain in Wikipedia articles; cited facts will stand a much better chance of remaining.

What he seems to be calling for is a sophisticated cadre of editors who can successfully navigate around Wikipedia's rules in order to create "faith-promoting" (and here "faith-promoting" = Internet Mormonism) entries. In one sense, the Wiki rules actually work out in their favor:

One might assume that believers could simply add supporting references from LDS scholars to balance out critical ones. Unfortunately, LDS scholars are often reclassified by critical editors as “LDS apologists.” Sources such as any LDS Church-sponsored publication are often classified as “biased” and unacceptable by Wikipedia standards.

They "can't" rely on Church-published material, so they get to re-write this stuff according to their own whims.

* * * *

This was perhaps one of the more interesting quotes from Nicholson's article:

In a recent (and excellent) article in the Journal of American History (June 2006), “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” the author, Roy Rosenzweig, notes how “academics and other highly-qualified people” who were initially excited by the project were “slowly worn down and driven away by having to deal with difficult people.” I refuse to be worn down and driven away.7

Doesn't this echo past battle cries from The Review? "We did not start this fight with the Church's critics, but we will not back down from it"?

Anyhow, as I was saying: the battleground for Mormon doctrine these days is the public arena, and just as with some of your observations about the Maxwell Institute, it seems that some of the same issues are playing out on Wikipedia. Here, it's not the institutional Church or the Brethren who are working to make popular-on-Google-searches Wiki entries more LDS-friendly; it's not even BYU or the Maxwell Institute. Instead, it's Roger Nicholson and his pals--and Nicholson was once awarded a "Defender of the Faith"-type award from FAIR! (Note that there has been at least one, and perhaps more, articles written about Nicholson's exploits by Michael De Groote of the Deseret News. De Groote is noteworthy for having penned a number of very Mopologist- and FAIR-friendly articles over the years. De Groote is also apparently on very chummy terms with Bro. Scott "Scotty Dog" Lloyd.)

We may have been seriously overlooking a key development, Dean. It may very well be that FAIR has been surreptitiously assuming full-blown control of Mopologetics, with all of these MI antics being smokescreen for the actual battle at hand.

So, to answer your question: yes. The MI seems to think this is the case, with the usual caveats. It won't be "faith promoting" to secular readers, and it won't be "faith promoting" to Chapel Mormons, either. But, if they succeed, it will represent a coup for Internet Mormonism: an utter reshaping of what is perhaps the most popular and accessible free source of "legitimate" information on the planet.