Davis article in Dialogue Journal

[Doctor Scratch]

I'm sure the Mopologists will dismiss this without even bothering to read it. For one thing, it was published in Dialogue, and they will write it off for that reason alone. And it also undercuts some of their main theories, and really hammers them on the whole "parallelomania" thing. I.e., "Look at all these coincidences! Look how similar Davis's stuff is to Joseph Smith's!" Yeah, he's right. But his methodology, ironically enough, has certain "parallels" with the Mopologists.

And I just have to say: I found the whole "How could an uneducated farm boy do this?" thing unpersuasive even when I was a kid. If a 9-year-old kid can see through this argument, then maybe it's time to find something better, no?

[Lem]

. But his methodology, ironically enough, has certain "parallels" with the Mopologists.

in my opinion, he used mopologist's techniques deliberately to show how unsound and weak a methodology it is.

The embedded reliance on naturalistic arguments, however tangential, therefore presents the uneasy and troubling possibility that a portion of one’s faith rests upon a foundation of limited mortal assumptions, constrained within the narrow and finite compass of an individual’s personal knowledge, hopes, needs, and experience. As such, the presumably solid rock foundation of faith turns out to contain a lot of destabilizing sand.

...Moreover, such a comparative exploration alerts us to the problems of invoking arbitrary criteria in a strategic effort to privilege the work of a favored candidate.

And from his conclusion, he further shows how little he thinks of the mopologist "impress and entertain" strategy:

persistent valorization of such projects, which ultimately compete with the development of authentic faith and potentially threaten whatever faith may already exist, should therefore make us pause and question their real value. Though such catalogues of criteria aim to impress (and entertain) an audience of believers, and though they might initially appear to strengthen faith, their effects prove ultimately unreliable and illusory.

'Such a project' as the upcoming witnesses movie comes to mind.

[Doctor Scratch]

. But his methodology, ironically enough, has certain "parallels" with the Mopologists.

in my opinion, he used mopologist's techniques deliberately to show how unsound and weak a methodology it is.

The embedded reliance on naturalistic arguments, however tangential, therefore presents the uneasy and troubling possibility that a portion of one’s faith rests upon a foundation of limited mortal assumptions, constrained within the narrow and finite compass of an individual’s personal knowledge, hopes, needs, and experience. As such, the presumably solid rock foundation of faith turns out to contain a lot of destabilizing sand.

...Moreover, such a comparative exploration alerts us to the problems of invoking arbitrary criteria in a strategic effort to privilege the work of a favored candidate.

And from his conclusion, he further shows how little he thinks of the mopologist "impress and entertain" strategy:

persistent valorization of such projects, which ultimately compete with the development of authentic faith and potentially threaten whatever faith may already exist, should therefore make us pause and question their real value. Though such catalogues of criteria aim to impress (and entertain) an audience of believers, and though they might initially appear to strengthen faith, their effects prove ultimately unreliable and illusory.

'Such a project' as the upcoming witnesses movie comes to mind.

I still don't understand why an official trailer hasn't been issued yet. They seem ashamed of what they've made.

[Shulem]

I still don't understand why an official trailer hasn't been issued yet. They seem ashamed of what they've made.

It's possible that there is shame held by the members responsible for that work, individually and/or collectively. Generally speaking, how ashamed do you suspect or think "they" may be based on everything you've been able to observe?

1 is mildly ashamed and 10 -- utterly repulsed:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

[Doctor Scratch]

I think I'd go with either a 6 or a 7.