The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2012

[_Chap]

...freighted with a woe all out of proportion to circumstances.

That is the part that gets me. Here we are, engaging in banter about the possibility that the informal name of this somewhat new journal might allude in some way to the informal name of the place where these guys once worked. Such antics are entirely in keeping with evidence they have happily provided us in their own writings. And, it is not all that consequential. Yet the very suggestion of the possibility sends him over the edge and into some rhetorical death spiral, which consists of a canned speech concerning my personal evil and unfairness that he reproduces, almost word for word, on such occasions.

It is bizarre.

I think the poor man has been under some strain for a number of years.

He is an intelligent and highly educated member of the CoJCoLDS, who has read most if not all of what the best informed critics of church positions have written.

'Nuff said, I think.

[_Kishkumen]

The fun continues over at "Sic et Non," where Dr. Peterson carries on his correspondence with us thusly:

LOL. On the message board where (so far as I’m aware) most of this nonsense goes down, they’re now laughing, in their usual grimly humorous fashion, about my supposed persecution complex, the “rhetorical death spiral” of my comments about their claims, and my alleged obsession with this matter, and they’re insisting — and, sadly enough, this last point seems to be completely true — that inventing false claims almost daily about things both great and small and then accusing me and others of lying about them is just their idea of good, clean, harmless fun. What a weird place it is. But they’re so completely used to it that, I really think, they no longer perceive its weirdness. (Which is, I suspect, why I in turn find them and their antics so fascinating, in an amusing-minor-hobby sort of way. This particular issue, in itself, is of essentially no consequence. That they double down even on IT, though, speaks volumes.)

I'll tell you what is weird. It is truly weird to elevate passing speculations about someone's motivations--speculations that are perfectly in line with their history of verbal fun--into some kind of horrible smear on one's character. I would say that, at most, it is probably worth a "nuhuh," a shrug, and dropping it. It is the inordinate response to such mundane trivialities that practically guarantees they will start to become issues.

Another fine example of this self-defeating behavior is the Time Lightbox debacle, which resulted in the expunging of scores of belligerent exchanges between Dr. Peterson, his apologetic allies, and numerous critics and bemused and annoyed LDS bystanders that were generated by his own very public and ill-advised speculations about the anti-Mormon motives of an ex-Mormon photographer. Evidently, according to Herr Peterson, the fellow was deliberately depicting his own family as troglodytic Appalachian rube-types in order to make the LDS Church look bad.

It was a theory with much less in the way of plausibility than our little detour into speculating about the Mormon Interpreter, but that did not prevent Dr. Peterson from writing a pit halfway to China in order to insist that the whole affair really made everyone else but him look strangely obsessive.

As always it is captivating and somewhat troubling viewing.

[_RockSlider]

...(Which is, I suspect, why I in turn find them and their antics so fascinating, in a compusive-addictive-self-destructive sort of way...

There, fixed that for ya Dan.

And yes Kish's bringing us back the found memories of your Time Lightbox "fascination" highlights this behavior well.

[_Chap]

Another fine example of this self-defeating behavior is the Time Lightbox debacle, which resulted in the expunging of scores of belligerent exchanges between Dr. Peterson, his apologetic allies, and numerous critics and bemused and annoyed LDS bystanders that were generated by his own very public and ill-advised speculations about the anti-Mormon motives of an ex-Mormon photographer. Evidently, according to Herr Peterson, the fellow was deliberately depicting his own family as troglodytic Appalachian rube-types in order to make the LDS Church look bad.

One of the oddest things about that business was the fact that the family in question seemed, according to the photographs, to be a perfectly normal bunch of people, such as any of us on this board might be related to. What on earth could DCP have thought that anybody might have had against them?

It was, like:

Guy: "Hi everybody: here's some pictures of my folks!"

DCP: "Why do you hate Mormons?"

Guy: "Excuse me?'

DCP: "Aha! So you hate me too, do you?"

And so on ... and on ...

[_Doctor Scratch]

The fun continues over at "Sic et Non," where Dr. Peterson carries on his correspondence with us thusly:

LOL. On the message board where (so far as I’m aware) most of this nonsense goes down, they’re now laughing, in their usual grimly humorous fashion, about my supposed persecution complex, the “rhetorical death spiral” of my comments about their claims, and my alleged obsession with this matter, and they’re insisting — and, sadly enough, this last point seems to be completely true — that inventing false claims almost daily about things both great and small and then accusing me and others of lying about them is just their idea of good, clean, harmless fun. What a weird place it is. But they’re so completely used to it that, I really think, they no longer perceive its weirdness. (Which is, I suspect, why I in turn find them and their antics so fascinating, in an amusing-minor-hobby sort of way. This particular issue, in itself, is of essentially no consequence. That they double down even on IT, though, speaks volumes.)

I'll tell you what is weird. It is truly weird to elevate passing speculations about someone's motivations--speculations that are perfectly in line with their history of verbal fun--into some kind of horrible smear on one's character. I would say that, at most, it is probably worth a "nuhuh," a shrug, and dropping it. It is the inordinate response to such mundane trivialities that practically guarantees they will start to become issues.

Another fine example of this self-defeating behavior is the Time Lightbox debacle, which resulted in the expunging of scores of belligerent exchanges between Dr. Peterson, his apologetic allies, and numerous critics and bemused and annoyed LDS bystanders that were generated by his own very public and ill-advised speculations about the anti-Mormon motives of an ex-Mormon photographer. Evidently, according to Herr Peterson, the fellow was deliberately depicting his own family as troglodytic Appalachian rube-types in order to make the LDS Church look bad.

It was a theory with much less in the way of plausibility than our little detour into speculating about the Mormon Interpreter, but that did not prevent Dr. Peterson from writing a pit halfway to China in order to insist that the whole affair really made everyone else but him look strangely obsessive.

As always it is captivating and somewhat troubling viewing.

Yes: humor has never been the strong point of the Mopologists--DCP in particular. He's the type of person who only thinks ancient, cliche-riddled "jokes" are funny. Either that, or he gets his kicks off of sadistic, schadenfreude-type ridicule: mocking people and humiliating them for laughs. That's basically what he was up to with the TIME Lightbox thing, it would seem. (And by the way: I wonder why all those comments were deleted? Simple e-housecleaning? Or did the Mopologists petition to have them removed?)

[_harmony]

That's basically what he was up to with the TIME Lightbox thing, it would seem. (And by the way: I wonder why all those comments were deleted? Simple e-housecleaning? Or did the Mopologists petition to have them removed?)

Geez, I hope so. They horribly embarrassing to any member of the Church.

[_Tom]

In the midst of B. Hamblin's crowing blog post regarding the Maxwell Institute and the Interpreter Foundation, he writes:

The Maxwell Institute, by the way, has a dozen full-time people on its staff, an annual budget in the hundreds of thousands, and an endowment in the millions.

Good to know. I'm waiting for the release of the Interpreter Foundation's expense reports for October and November 2012.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The Maxwell Institute, by the way, has a dozen full-time people on its staff, an annual budget in the hundreds of thousands, and an endowment in the millions.

Imagine how embarrassing it must be to admit to other people that you work full-time trying to prop up bogus religious claims using obfuscation and pseudoscience. Reminds me of that old joke about the kid who tells people his father plays piano in a whorehouse because he's ashamed to admit his father is a lawyer. I'd say the legal profession is far more respectable than is the mopologist career.

[_Doctor Scratch]

In the midst of B. Hamblin's crowing blog post regarding the Maxwell Institute and the Interpreter Foundation, he writes:

The Maxwell Institute, by the way, has a dozen full-time people on its staff, an annual budget in the hundreds of thousands, and an endowment in the millions.

Good to know. I'm waiting for the release of the Interpreter Foundation's expense reports for October and November 2012.

MFBukowski asked this in the "Comments" section:

Are there any tithing funds supporting the Maxwell Institute directly or indirectly? Office space? Salaries? Pencils?

Hamblin's reply, in stark contrast to what apologists have said in the past in response to this exact same question, was this:

Yes. the MI is part of BYU and is largely funded by BYU, and hence tithing funds.

This means that "The Widow's Mite" was used to fund the various hit-pieces and smear articles that appeared in the Review under DCP's editorship. That's pretty shocking, and pretty disappointing (though of course, most of us have long suspected that this was the case.)

Hamblin did make a rather interesting point elsewhere in his post, though:

When Dan was dismissed six months ago, Gerald Bradford, the current director of the Maxwell Institute, promised “a new beginning for the Mormon Studies Review”–an interesting way to entitle an obituary. During the subsequent six months, Bradford has produced … a meeting. There is no new Mormon Studies Review. There is no editor. There is no journal. No articles have been submitted and accepted. Nothing is being edited. No issue is in production. Nothing has been published, and there is no timetable for future publication. The Maxwell Institute, by the way, has a dozen full-time people on its staff, an annual budget in the hundreds of thousands, and an endowment in the millions. The difference is stark and striking. And, quite frankly, there is no excuse for Bradford’s failure to revive the Mormon Studies Review, in whatever form he envisions.

How true is this, I wonder? And if this *is* true, does it really suggest a failure on Bradford's part? Or, instead, is this a sign that the Brethren have been wanting to dismantle the Maxwell Institute?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

On Tuesday night, going by a tip from the concierge at the place where we’re staying, we took our son and his wife to a nearby place called “Ciao Italia,” a ristorante Italiano where I had the best Vitello Alla Marsala (veal marsala) that I’ve ever tasted. And, at her suggestion, the group of us went with a friend to Bosphorous, a Turkish restaurant, on Wednesday night.

For a man who "never made a dime" from his Mopologetic work at the Maxwell Institute, despite its funding by BYU reported to be in the millions, he certainly enjoys a rather lavish lifestyle!

V/R
Dr. Cam