The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2016

[_Kishkumen]

An excellent presentation, Herr Doktor.

The only surprising thing about the demise of Mopologetics is that it took so long. It seems to have been a reaction to the Evangelical counter-cult apologetics of the 70s and 80s. Mopologetics is as much a product of that time as Rubiks cubes, Charles in Charge, Reagan lapel pins and the original Star Wars. The real question is how DCP and his friends managed to hold out at the MI until the 2010s.

Amen, Johannes. But, then, we are talking about a culture in which the writings of Cleon Skousen remain oddly in vogue.

[_Kishkumen]

A brilliant strategy, yes. Except for this. Anyone who has ever really had a strong point to make, about anything, will recognize that the wall-of-text strategy is something no-one would use if they had a strong point. If you have a strong point, you can't spit it out fast enough; and far from hedging and hiding, you don't mind oversimplifying, because you know that as soon as anybody grasps the basic idea, they'll see how the nuances fall into place.

Fantastic post, PG.

[_Kishkumen]

But if they're going to prove what they want to prove, they'll have to do a better job on the side of showing why this kind of thing couldn't have been mimicked successfully in the 19th century.

Exactly.

[_Doctor Scratch]

An excellent presentation, Herr Doktor.

Why thank you, Johannes.

The only surprising thing about the demise of Mopologetics is that it took so long. It seems to have been a reaction to the Evangelical counter-cult apologetics of the 70s and 80s. Mopologetics is as much a product of that time as Rubiks cubes, Charles in Charge, Reagan lapel pins and the original Star Wars. The real question is how DCP and his friends managed to hold out at the MI until the 2010s.

I would argue that Mopologetics evolved. You are right that a major focus early on were the "hit pieces" that were aimed at the EV counter-cult material--what Midgley once called "the old cash nexus" (to this day, you can still see a great deal of sensitivity on the part of the classic-FARMS crew when this same criticism is directed at them). In the early part of this century, though, I think we began to see a shift away from focus on EVs and instead being directed at atheist/secular critics, and, eventually, even fellow LDS like Rodney Meldrum and John Dehlin (who was technically still a full-fledged LDS when they began attacking him). It probably goes without saying that the decision to start slamming other Latter-day Saints was a key aspect of their downfall. But I think you're right that they kept trying to use techniques which were somewhat successful when they were dealing with Ed Decker et al., and noticeably less successful when dealing with atheist or secular critics like Michael Coe or Philip Jenkins, or even the various atheists/secularists on the various message boards.

[_moksha]

... that was the "real story", (in bold) and it has been told in all the events that played out over the last few years.

Sort of like the two wings of the Sein Fein. The Maxwell housed both the Academic Wing and the Combat Ballistics Wing.

The Academic Wing sought to let others know about Mormonism and the Combat Ballistics Wing sought to plant the flag of Mormon truth by battling those who disagreed with that truth.

BYU decided to exclusively embrace the Academic Wing and distance itself from the combat action. The Combat Ballistics Wing sought to regain the fort but the walls were too high to breach. However, a few expert snipers have remained to teach those Academics the cost of walking the high road.

[_grindael]

I would argue that Mopologetics evolved...

Yeah, into this... here is the new Mopo (Same as the old Mopo) in all its glory... http://debunking-cesletter.com/

I mean, Scratch... just look who is laughing on the front page...

[_Johannes]

In the early part of this century, though, I think we began to see a shift away from focus on EVs and instead being directed at atheist/secular critics, and, eventually, even fellow LDS like Rodney Meldrum and John Dehlin (who was technically still a full-fledged LDS when they began attacking him). It probably goes without saying that the decision to start slamming other Latter-day Saints was a key aspect of their downfall.

This is a really interesting phenomenon, and not one confined to Mormonism: the desire to attack fellow church members for not being orthodox enough. It's a really troubling phenomenon, as well as being a waste of time and energy. How much energy has gone into attacking the likes of John Dehlin or Kate Kelly, as opposed to attacking the much more fundamentally threatening work of, say, Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett? Why are liberal LDS even close to the top of the list of priority targets?

[_Physics Guy]

[A] 19th century author mimicking Early Modern English is the most plausible explanation.

Not even this, I think. To me the obvious explanation is that a 19th century author was trying to mimic the King James Version, but failing. The overdone archaism of this incompetently faked dialect then gets it falsely classified, by linguistic methods that are designed for dating natural language, as an English dialect older than King James.

I am not a linguist at all, let alone a specialist in English dialects, so I can't say that this theory really fits whatever Skousen and Carmack have found. I have a highly qualified linguist in my family, however, and as fellow academics we have often talked shop. I have enough of a grasp of how linguistic analysis works to be sure that the theory of falsely dated overdone archaism is an immediately obvious suggestion to raise.

If your position has an immediately obvious apparent weakness but you have a convincing counter-argument, you shout that counter-argument out right away, and pound the table. You don't expect people to overlook an elephant in the room out of respect for your credentials. And so if a really competent linguist had really firm evidence for this Early Modern English Book of Mormon stuff, their second sentence introducing it would be of the form, "We know this is not just falsely dated overdone archaism because X, Y, and Z."

In other words, if there existed a solid rebuttal to the overdone archaism theory, it would have been shoved down my throat by now. It hasn't been, so I doubt it exists.

[_Chap]

To me the obvious explanation is that a 19th century author was trying to mimic the King James Version, but failing. The overdone archaism of this incompetently faked dialect then gets it falsely classified, by linguistic methods that are designed for dating natural language, as an English dialect older than King James.

(My emphasis)

That is a very strong point that I have never heard made before.

[_EdGoble]

I predict Steve Smoot will become a cultural Mormon in the near future, I do think there is a descent chance he stops believing in the LDS church, or at least in apologetics. Why? Four reasons

1. Some years ago Smooth was having some doubts about the church.
2. Smoot is not a conservative, he is liberal. Liberals are more likely to lose faith in religion.
3. Smoot is young, so it's not impossible that he changes his mind.
4. Smoot has professors without a Mormon bias. I hope that his university courses on Egyptology open his eyes.

My hope is that Smoot will come to see things, as far as the forensic evidence of the Book of Abraham goes, more along the lines of what Hauglid sees.

If he does this, this would put him in the realm of Book of Abraham defenders more like myself who do not believe in the missing papyrus theory. I am always cautiously hopeful for allies of this kind, who do not subscribe to Gee's or Muhlstien's type of apologetics.