Bryce Haymond and the New Mopologist Cinema

[_Polygamy-Porter]

OMG

What a circle jerk.

Seriously?

[_Bob Loblaw]

OMG

What a circle jerk.

Seriously?

You'd better stop using language like that, or they might invite you to publish something.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm still debating whether or not I should attempt to review the sequel.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I'm still debating whether or not I should attempt to review the sequel.

Please review the sequel, Dr. Scratch.

It would really be great if you would sign up for your own youtube channel. It would be priceless watching you comment on on these videos much like Mystery Science Theater 3000 would comment on awful B movies.

[_Gadianton]

This is a fascinating piece of research and scholarship professor Scratch. I am once again humbled by your objectivity and sensitive treatment of the subject matter you review.

I agree with you that getting the visuals of the apologists' personal spaces was fascinating. It reminded me of the game Clue. You've got a study, a bedroom, a living room; quite a variety of spaces, that ultimately compliment a diverse arsenal of scholarly "weapons" that can be used against critics. How will the next critic find his metaphorical demise? Will it be Bill Hamblin, in the Library, with a turgid discourse on medieval warfare?

McGuire seems to be set up as the antagonist in this film

Yeah, it was interesting, after he made some remarks about the literary complexity of the Book of Mormon, someone, I think H, quickly interjected and made sure it was understood that the Book of Mormon is a literary marvel but also real history.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is a fascinating piece of research and scholarship professor Scratch. I am once again humbled by your objectivity and sensitive treatment of the subject matter you review.

I agree with you that getting the visuals of the apologists' personal spaces was fascinating. It reminded me of the game Clue. You've got a study, a bedroom, a living room; quite a variety of spaces, that ultimately compliment a diverse arsenal of scholarly "weapons" that can be used against critics. How will the next critic find his metaphorical demise? Will it be Bill Hamblin, in the Library, with a turgid discourse on medieval warfare?

McGuire seems to be set up as the antagonist in this film

Yeah, it was interesting, after he made some remarks about the literary complexity of the Book of Mormon, someone, I think H, quickly interjected and made sure it was understood that the Book of Mormon is a literary marvel but also real history.

I think your Clue metaphor is incisive and powerful, Dr. Robbers. Did you notice how Dr. Peterson mentions a "dog" at one point? Do you think that this is a trained attack-dog? And what of the mysterious bottled tincture that sits atop Hamblin's bookshelf? Is it poison? Booze? He can be seen taking draughts of an unidentified beverage throughout the film. I appreciated the fact that they kept this a mystery.

Re: McGuire--I predict big things from him. He's clearly a dark horse, talent-wise. The way he desultorily laces his fingers together across his chest speaks to his composure and sense of self--his special brand of detached viciousness. Do you remember Elijah Woods's stone-faced cannibal from Sin City? McGuire manages to project something similar--a special brand of Mopologetic ennui, if you will.

[_Kishkumen]

And what of the mysterious bottled tincture that sits atop Hamblin's bookshelf? Is it poison? Booze?

Calomel. Probably the calomel that killed Alvin Smith.

[_Gadianton]

A newbie called "Neil" over on MDD dealt a devastating criticism to the "Roundtable". He observed,

I think it would have been nice to get people building on other comments, responding to others comments, even disagreeing and countering each other's comments and offering a different take/perspective.

Is it even possible to conceive of the old-Guard veterans of Mopologetics disagreeing with each other?

At any rate, Brant Gardner responded with something I'd never have expected. I'm blown away by what he says here:

I think that the current intent is to give a little bit of enrichment to Gospel Doctrine teachers, and so I'm not sure how they would understand a scholarly debate over the topics.

What do you guys make of this? Is the roundtable at heart a Mopologetic coup to take control of the Church's Sunday School program? If successful, will they then have bargaining power again with the brethren to re-establish their throne of power? Is Brant admitting that the "MI" is not scholarly, but rather faith promoting, where the image that "All is well in Zion" takes priority over the truth?

Well, this one statement is loaded with so many possibilities I don't know where to begin.

[_Gadianton]

In other news, I took a gander at the next installment of the Roundtable, eager to learn of the mopologists' designs for controlling the information flow in Gospel Doctrine class.

has already made a sequel, though, which I haven't seen.

If you gave the first installment anything less than three stars, you'd better bring a flashlight to find your way around the parking lot after viewing Episode 2.

I'm not taking satisfaction in this, believe me, as a critic of Mopologetics, I kind of need material to critique.

The recent book published was the material that should have been in the next Review and of solid quality -- within the standards of the genre -- but the Roundtable isn't giving me much hope that the "MI" will make it through the new year. There will be no coup.

With their new freedom, a big problem will be self-regulating and setting worthy goals. They can't fall into the trap of publishing idle thoughts and brainstorm sessions just because they can now. They need a plan. I could give some suggestions on how to make the Roundtable better, there's enough talent there to pull it off, but I don't think they'll be interested. Well, I hope they'll put some effort in and improve it.