Indeed the notion of the "uncanny" has been on my mind a lot lately, especially after Dean Robbers hosted a special screening at the Grant Palmer Auditorium of the 2004 film, The Polar Express, featuring a digitized version of beloved actor Tom Hanks:
Is it just me, or does Hanks look sort of strange in this image? Indeed, that was one of the chief complaints about the film: Stephanie Zacharek, the film critic for Salon, put it this way: "I could probably have tolerated the incessant jitteriness of The Polar Express if the look of it didn't give me the creeps." The Toronto Star's Geoff Pevere, meanwhile, writes that "If I were a child, I'd have nightmares. Come to think of it, I did anyway." Ouch. Not exactly the reception would one hope for for a holiday film, is it?
The film's plot, for what it's worth, involves (you guessed it) a mysterious train named (unsurprisingly) The Polar Express, which happens to be headed to (can you guess?) the North Pole, in search of Santa Claus, and wouldn't you know? There are some kids who happen to find their way on board this train. Of course there are mishaps along the way: one kid loses her ticket. Another kid is bummed out about being poor. Hot chocolate is involved at one point. There is also, believe it or not, a hobo character. The whole thing, with its uncanny valley visual look, feels heavily allegorical, and also weirdly Mormon (can you still get into the Celestial Kingdom if you forget your "ticket"?).
In the end, though, I agree with Zacharek, Pevere, and the others who saw the film primarily as an evocation of uncanny creepiness... Rather like Mopologetics. There is a scene is The Polar Express where the titular train jumps the rails and veers off onto a frozen lake, utterly out of control. Now, does *that* remind you of anything?
In the end, the Polar Express offers up a dumb and schmaltzy and completely unpersuasive ending about "belief," (i.e., the boy gets a bell that falls off one of Santa's reindeer, temporarily loses it, only to recover it on Christmas Day--wrapped in a present!--and to find that adults cannot hear it, because they have grown out of their "belief"). Does that ring any bells for you? Would you happen to know any other groups of "believers" who are almost unbearably creepy, reckless, and hell bent on enforcing "belief"? Hmmmm.....
Well, in the spirit of Christmas giving, all of us at Cassius University would like to offer up the entire Mopologetic family a very special gift:
Yes, friends, that's Sprite Boy, and he'd like to give the Mopologists a Coke. Is Coke still forbidden per Mormon teachings? Who knows! 2018 was, among other things, a year in which the Mopologists reminded us that no one seems to know anything about Mormon theology. And in the absence of anything resembling real moral guidance, chaos will reign.
Thus, without any further ado, I welcome you to join me as we close out the year in true celebratory form. Friends and Colleagues, I give you the Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics for the Year of Our Lord, 2018:
10. John Gee's Blog is Misspelled
Longtime students of Mopologetics will recall that, some years back, a handful of the most prominent Mopologists--including DCP, Hamblin, Schryver, and Gee--launched blogs as a means of advancing "The Cause," with mixed results: Hamblin and Schryver's blogs are apparently defunct; Midgley never launched one, presumably because he couldn't figure out how to "work the damn thing"; Peterson's blog is mainly just an exercise in self-promotion and excuses to attack Gemli. So that leaves, Gee, whose blog "Sporn Foll Spira" was dealt a devastating blow:
Symmachus wrote:As for John Gee, Forn Spǫll Fira is not very active, certainly not in Mormon apologetics, and its quality is reflected in the blog title itself: it's misspelled (as is a recent blog post on the "Odessey") and mistranslated. A minor philological quibble not worthy of comment, really, except that I do find the misspelling (or perhaps I should write "mispelling") ironic for two reasons: 1) the old FARMSians pride themselves on their mastery of languages, which is one of the main ways that they establish their authority, and 2) Gee in particular portrays himself as a rigorous scholar and writes in that condescending style of people who would never make such sloppy, stupid mistakes. But of course it turns out, as usual, that sloppy, stupid mistakes are an apologetic specialty.
The Old Norse should be "Forn Spjǫll Fira," and it means not "The Ancient Tale of Man" but "Ancient tales of men." It is from the first stanza of the Vǫluspá from the poetic Edda, wherein a female seer addressing Odin recounts the creation of the world and (in one manuscript) its end in the violent cataclysms of Ragnarǫk. When I first saw Gee's blog, I wondered about the title: was this going to be a blog devoted to a new apologetic theory involving the pre-Christian religion of Iceland (perhaps a lost tribe of Israel)? Would "ancient document Mormon scholar" and ethnic Scandinavian Erik Einarson finally get some long-deserved recognition from the employed ancient Mormon document scholars? The only answer to these expansive possibilities was a shrinking disappointment. Its brief posts are mostly links to news stories or other blogposts covering news from antiquity. I guess "Forn Spjǫll Fira" is just supposed to be a way of saying "news about ancient humans." Since the cleverness was bungled, I have to assume we're not supposed to read anything more into it. Of course, why should John Gee know Old Norse at all? It's not his area. But then I have to wonder how any "critic" bold enough to misspell his/her blog with, say, incorrect hieroglyphs would fare at the hands of apologists. Volenti non fit iniuria.
9. The Mopologists Target the Mormon Transhumanists
Evangelicals. The FIRM Foundation. The Open Stories Foundation. RfM. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. Mormon Feminists. The Mormon Studies Crowd. What would the Mopologists be without a group to hate? In 2018, the Mopologists of the Mormon Interpreter blog trained their sights on a well-meaning, niche LDS group known as the "Mormon Transhumanists." Notorious Mopologetic smear-artists Gregory L. Smith was recruited to carry out the "hit," and the reactions from the mild-mannered MT'ers was typical:
Lincoln Cannon wrote:This article is a mischaracterization. Read the original paper. https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2015/07/ ... at-is.html
Smith shot back with an accusation of his own:
Greg 'The Goat' Smith wrote:Many of the complaints I have seen or heard seem to be from people who have not read what I have written very closely. This is a good example:
“Unfortunately for Greg Smith, the way he characterizes the MTA, using one article from one person, is indeed a mischaracterization”
I completely agree that it would be wrong to characterize the MTA or all its members based on one paper. That’s why I said in the paper:
So, I make no claim that the analysis here applies to all Transhumanists, all Mormon Transhumanists, or even all that Cannon has written and said elsewhere. This review serves as a preliminary study, by a newcomer to these ideas, of a single introductory paper intended to help beginners get up to speed. [p. 164]]
It is amazing to me how many people have ignored this. I don’t know how I can make it more clear.
As did Dr. Midgley:
Woody Midgley wrote:I am delighted that Greg Smith, given his remarkable gifts, has chosen to address crucial issues raised by a Mormon Transhumanist movement currently operating on the fringes of the LDS intellectual community. He offers sound assistance for those even a tad bit tempted to enter what seems like a path that is likely to yield only a mere illusion of a wisdom about human and divine things, and thereby lead eventually away from the necessity of being purged, or liberated from the rubbish in this world, and thereby becoming, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, genuinely sanctified genuine Saints.
Meanwhile, Dr. Peterson attempted to clear the air:
DCP wrote:I just noticed the comment above. Perhaps some history will help.
I was approached by a prominent Mormon Transhumanist with the idea of his submitting an article to us on the topic. I was open to the idea. Some of my editorial board, however, were not happy about it, since they have strong disagreements (on both theological and scientific grounds) with elements of MT. I suggested that we run two articles concurrently or in close succession, one by the advocate and one by a non-advocate. As it happens, the proposed article from an MT perspective never materialized, while the non-MT article was submitted. We waited, I encouraged completion of the proposed MT article, and then we went ahead and published what we had.
This didn't begin at our initiative. We don't feel "threatened." There is no "insecurity" among those awful "apologists." We weren't acting as "the boundary maintenance police." A prominent advocate of MT suggested that Interpreter cover the subject. He promised an article. He didn't write it.
Ah, right. But things didn't stop there, though: later, perhaps due to editorial malfeasance or oversight (more on that later), the blog known as Mormon Interpreter published what appeared to be a counter-attack to Smith's "hit piece." Who knows where this will lead? Regardless, the incident shows the apologists up to their old tricks: playing a game of "divide and conquer," otherwise known as "boundary maintenance," wherein they attack other Latter-day Saints who don't view Mormonism in the same way that they do.
8. The Mopologists Fail to Clarify Theological Questions
2018 was a year wherein a number of people were very curious about LDS theology--particularly some of the more far-flung questions dealing with (e.g.) topics such as the method for impregnating the Virgin Mary. In the past, some of the Mopologists--notably Dr. Peterson--have suggested that this was done via some kind of "artificial insemination" (rather than in the "natural" sense, as Brigham Young implied). Of course, this raises yet more questions, such as how the "sample" was procured. The point being: despite such questions being raised, and despite their frenetic online activity, the Mopologists of 2018 failed to answer these questions in a satisfactory way.
Take Dr. Peterson's long-running fascination with near-death experiences (NDEs), for instance. Enormous amounts of space were taken up on Sic et non for the sake of quoting from books on the phenomenon, and yet there was little to no discussion on the way that the notion of NDEs squares with LDS notions of heaven and the afterlife.
Perhaps even worse for the Mopologists was their reluctance to engage with Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith's notion of the so-called "TK smoothie." Some speculated that the apologists fully embrace the notion, perhaps so much so that it helps to fuel their endeavors: i.e., if Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Walter Martin and others are condemned to a genital-free post-mortal existence, then all their hard work and "suffering" will have been worthwhile.
Eventually, though, Dr. Peterson, in an exasperated and heavily distorted rant, dismissed the idea:
DCP wrote:I apologize for its somewhat gross character: Several months ago, at the principal place where my most obsessive critics spin their fantasies about me, it was revealed that I believe that those who fail to gain the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom in the hereafter — the males, anyway — will be mutilated, that they will literally be anatomically emasculated, in the resurrection. And I’m supposed to relish this, and to find it enormously funny. As it happens, I had never even heard the idea before. I’ve never thought any such thing, never imagined any such thing, never written about such a thing — not so much as a line, at least until I felt that I needed to deny holding such an opinion — and I absolutely don’t believe it. Period. More recently, though, several in that exceedingly weird place have taken to using the “fact” of my gleeful anticipation of the neutering of unbelieving men, including several specific, prominent, agnostic scientists of the past generation or so, as a revealing window into my allegedly cruel and vengeful soul.)
While the clarification on this Mopologist's views is welcome, it only served to raise additional questions: for example, does this mean that Pres. Fielding Smith was wrong? And is it really true that Dr. Peterson--who has ridiculed wavering members for their lack of knowledge of obscure doctrines--didn't know about this concept?
Regardless, these series of incidents underscored the Mopologists inability and unwillingness to engage with facets of LDS theology.
7. The 2018 FAIR Mormon Conference
Once again, the annual FAIR Mormon Conference provided a lot of fodder for discussion (at least one item of which we'll revisit later in this list). Of special note were two items, one of which involved a (sadly not uncharacteristic) public outburst from Dr. Louis Midgley:
The Reverend Kishkumen wrote:Interesting intel has come to light on the extent to which Mopologists might be said to fall short of Christian standards in their anger toward fellow Mormon scholars.
At the most recent FAIRMormon Conference, John Gee said the following in his presentation:There is more evidence for the Book of Abraham than the Documentary Hypothesis.
Which caused the irascible Midgley to erupt with:”BOKOVOY!!!!
This kind of rage is not, as the evidence indicates, rare.
Some time ago, at another FAIRMormon Conference, DCP showed a slide bearing a quote from Loyd Ericson, at which sight the Mopologists collectively shouted, “GET HIM!!!”
Other board participants have their accounts to share. Who can forget Midgley’s bad behavior at the Tanners’ bookstore or at Deseret Book? Many more incidents come to mind. I thought it important, however, to document these events for Cassius’ database of Mopologists behaving badly. If ever you wonder why the Maxwell Institute marginalized Mopologetics, review these records and wonder no more.
Gee's talk, it turns out, was a shabby performance indeed. When pressed on whether he would respond to Robert Ritner's (quite devastating) critique on the Book of Abraham, Gee demurred, asking, "Who cares?"
The 2018 FAIR Mormon Conference, perhaps more than any other in the Conference's history, showed the Mopologists at their sloppiest and most unhinged. Who knows--will the 2019 edition somehow eclipse this one?
6. Daniel Peterson Says that Most Students "Aren't Very Good"
There is something of a tradition with this annual Top Ten list: namely, that some seemingly crucial event in Mopologists happens in the final few weeks of the calendar year, thus just barely missing out on being included. This time around, that event involved the apologists' fundamental attitude towards students, learning, and education.
In a post on "Sic et Non" involving LDS activist Sam Young, Dr. Peterson went about his usual business, attacking Young in the usual fashion, though in the comments section, the discussion took an interesting turn, with several commentators taking him to task for being condescending and dismissive. A posted named Tim Dollin summed up the criticism nicely:
Tim Dollin wrote:That's the best analogy I've seen and it does highlight Dan's dismissive attitude of it never happened to me so it can't be a problem. I think Sam Young is coming from a place of sincere concern, and that Dan has taken the wrong stance on the issue. There seems to be very little of the teachings of Christ in Dan's response- dismissing the pain and harm done to the least of these is the opposite of what the savior taught.
And DCP responded sharply:
Peterson wrote:Tim Dollins: "Dan's dismissive attitude of it never happened to me so it can't be a problem."
It sometimes occurs to me that, after all, most students in school aren't very good. They don't read carefully or accurately, and they do badly on tests.
Then it occurs to me that they probably don't become any better at reading just because they age into their thirties, forties, and beyond.
I don't know your personal history or situation, but that's certainly one possible explanation for the gross misreading of what I wrote that you offer above.
In other words, "You don't my point because you're a dumb rube." Probably not the best comment to come out of the mouth of someone who's supposedly an educator, no? Unsurprisingly, things went from bad to worse in a hurry:
Danny Farnsworth wrote:So, story time. I met my wife in a first year physics class with an amazing and dedicated professor who gave us very difficult homework that pushed our limits. He was well-organized, prepared for his lectures, respectful of students, etc. I regarded this professor as a friend. I took a break, went active duty military, then did some contracting, before coming back almost a decade later. When I did, while in another physics class, I made friends with an engineering student who happened to also have a separate physics class, from this first professor. My friend absolutely hated him, found him to be rude and incredibly condescending. It made zero sense to me and was entirely inconsistent with my own experience. Well, the next semester, I got to take a differential equations course from this professor. He was still dedicated to teaching rigorously, and he was still obviously very knowledgeable, but his temper had become short and his attitude toward students was much more condescending. The students may have been different people, but they weren't any dumber than my first time around. What changed? I don't know. Maybe it was burnout. Maybe it had nothing to do with the students all. But what I do know is that 1) it's obvious when professors have contempt for their students, and 2) contempt seriously undercuts students' willingness to participate, pay attention, or care. The class with my engineering friend, on the other hand, had a disorganized yet incredibly humble and dedicated professor who bent over backwards to help his students succeed. I still love him for the fact that he loved us. He inspired me to do better. And out of a class of ~200, my scores were usually near the top. 200 students, and he learned all our names, even tried to take as many as he could to lunch at the Pendulum Court to get to know them better.
I suspect that the problem is less that "most students in school aren't very good," but that contempt breeds contempt and shuts down any incentive to be invested, even if they are paying tuition for it. Your experience is less likely a reflection of the students than it is of your attitude toward them. I'm sorry to hear it. I know Rate My Professor isn't exactly a scientific survey, and that you probably get much more detailed feedback from the student course evaluations, but your contempt for students is reflected in the comments on the website, so what I'm observing here is consistent with what others observed in your class.
You're obviously intelligent. But having had a variety of teachers and my own variety of successes and failures, I can tell you that intelligence is not mutually exclusive with humility and kindness. If they were, I'd take humility and kindness any day, for the long-term and inspiring impact. People forget calculus and Arabic and the nuances of Shi'ite beliefs in the return of the 12th Imam and how that influences some extremists' decision-making. They sometimes forget the people who treated them with scorn. But they never forget those who were kind. At least, I don't. That's what I take with me, and that's who inspires me to become better. Judging by your reputation (from FARMS and Maxwell Institute and your public response to your disaffiliation from the same), I doubt you'll take any of this seriously, and will instead come up with some witty sarcastic retort. It needed to be said, regardless.
In response to this, Peterson erupts with indignation:
DCP wrote:DF: "what I do know is that 1) it's obvious when professors have contempt for their students, and 2) contempt seriously undercuts students' willingness to participate, pay attention, or care."
And you're absolutely welcome, DF, to inquire whether I have a reputation for holding my students in contempt. If you would like, I can perhaps put you in contact with some of them. Seriously. If you're in the area, come and visit one of my classes. Or linger around just before or just after one or two of them and ask the students.
DF: "I suspect that the problem is less that 'most students in school aren't very good,' but that contempt breeds contempt and shuts down any incentive to be invested, even if they are paying tuition for it."
Your suspicion is without merit, without any basis in fact, and completely unjustified.
And the problem is precisely what I said it was. You just don't understand what I was talking about.
DF: "Your experience is less likely a reflection of the students than it is of your attitude toward them."
My students do fine, and I don't hold them in contempt.
DF: "I'm sorry to hear it."
I'm sorry to see how completely you missed my point.
Candidly, I'm astonished by your comment. I never saw it coming, it's so remarkably tangential, gratuitous, and weird.
DF: "I know Rate My Professor isn't exactly a scientific survey, and that you probably get much more detailed feedback from the student course evaluations, but your contempt for students is reflected in the comments on the website, so what I'm observing here is consistent with what others observed in your class."
You're right. It's not scientific.
I would never use "Rate My Professor" as a weapon against an academic with whom I differed. It would be rather like using comments on Amazon.com as if they constituted a scientific sample.
My BYU student evaluations are generally at or near, and often above, department, college, and university averages.
DF: "You're obviously intelligent. But having had a variety of teachers and my own variety of successes and failures, I can tell you that intelligence is not mutually exclusive with humility and kindness."
Obviously.
You misread and misrepresent me in the deepest and most offensive possible way.
DF: "If they were, I'd take humility and kindness any day, for the long-term and inspiring impact. People forget calculus and Arabic and the nuances of Shi'ite beliefs in the return of the 12th Imam and how that influences some extremists' decision-making. They sometimes forget the people who treated them with scorn. But they never forget those who were kind."
And you believe that you're justified in accusing me of being scornful and unkind toward my students and others.
Good grief.
DY: "At least, I don't. That's what I take with me, and that's who inspires me to become better. Judging by your reputation (from FARMS and Maxwell Institute and your public response to your disaffiliation from the same), I doubt you'll take any of this seriously, and will instead come up with some witty sarcastic retort."
Another scientific sample, no doubt.
DY: " It needed to be said, regardless."
No, it didn't. Your personal attack is off -target and irrelevant, completely unwarranted, and extraordinarily unkind.
And you missed my point.
Perhaps your high school was different from mine, but not everybody in my graduating class went on to college, let alone to top universities. Many were relatively bad at things like English and math. I don't think that my supposed contempt for them had even the slightest effect in that regard.
Not everybody in my undergraduate university classes did extremely well, either. Some didn't get A's. Some wrote bad papers. Some misunderstood textbooks. Some just didn't work very hard. I suppose that my alleged contempt might have been a factor, but I doubt it. I didn't know most of them, and they didn't know me.
In my classes today, not everybody gets an A. But many do. Some of the papers that I read are quite good. Some aren't. Sometimes, the logic is poor. Sometimes people get bad scores on final exams.
I was simply pointing out that people who who weren't careful readers or rigorous thinkers as college freshmen or as high school students don't necessarily become better readers or more rigorously logical simply because they age into their thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, and beyond.
I think about this from time to time when, for example, I read really poorly-reasoned letters to the editor. I think about it, too, when I read some of the comments on my blog.
Finally, let me say once again that I deeply resent your unwarranted personal attack on me. I'm quite confident that, if you were to speak with people who actually know me well, and even with a representative sample of my current or former students, you won't find "scorn," arrogance, "contempt," "unkindness," or "rudeness" among my most prominent characteristics.
Your slanderous public assault on my character was irrelevant and wholly without justification. How dare you? Really. How dare you?
The commentary went back and forth for a while longer, wrapping up with this cry of outrage from DCP:
DCP wrote:Why do I resent your comment? Not because I fear that it might be true but, rather, because -- on the basis of no actual knowledge of me -- your false but very personal assault goes so deeply to the very core of who I am and who people actually acquainted with me know me to be. And because, based on at best flimsy speculation, you've chosen to malign me in my career and employment, which crosses a line that absolutely should not be crossed.
Your observations aren't correct. They're not even close. You don't know me. But you don't mind making them. You don't mind impugning my character. Publicly. You don't mind attacking my professional life. Publicly.
Shame on you. Shame on you.
Of course, despite his protests, it's hard to look past Farnsworth's criticism. After all, how many acolytes--or "students"--do the Mopologists really have left? There is Smoot, and Rappleye... But are there any others?
5. Mormon Interpreter Radio is a Train-Wreck
In addition to their flagship blog, the folks at Mormon Interpreter attempted to make headway in other media during 2018, most notably via their radio program, broadcast across the Wasatch Front. Most observers concurred that the program was an unmitigated disaster: a thoroughly amateur effort with no real point or structure. As Dean Robbers put it, the show amounts to little more than "BS sessions they call a "radio show" where they spend most of the time saying "nervous guy on air" stuff."
That doesn't mean that the program was devoid of entertainment value, however, or interesting nuggets of revelation. Allen Wyatt, for instance, related a fascinating story about consuming 11 pounds worth of M&M candies over one Christmas holiday, while Dr. Peterson seemed on the verge of tears over the fact that a number of people call the Mormon Interpreter blog a "blog." The show was a place for the apologists to express their hesitant support for the Skousen/Carmack "ghost committee" hypothesis, and a kind of bullhorn for the increasingly dyspeptic John Gee.
In another episode of the program, Dr. Peterson explained how he'd inadvertently contributed to the stereotype that Mormons are not real Christians, since the Bible is (at best) only of secondary importance as scripture:
DCP wrote:Frankly, uh, this is a minor consideration, but I used to be involved in putting on displays--designing displays that were held at the American Academy of Religion / Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting, and people would come by and they'd look at all this Mormon stuff, which is what we were putting out--[dismissively] or LDS stuff or whatever it is now--and, um, they'd say, "Well, don't you do the Bible?" Well, now, that's the kind of reaction I had not anticipated. We'd sort of had turned that over to everybody else. If Evangelicals, and the Jews, or whoever--whatever group wants to do a commentary on a Biblical book, we'll use that, for our particular purposes, but we weren't doing our own Biblical commentaries. And that led to a perception that sort of reinforced the perception in some circles that we're not really Christian.
Meanwhile, Gee took off the gloves to go after (of all people) Richard Bushman, slamming the eminent historian for his coverage of the Book of Abraham:
John Gee wrote:You're not going to find a lot in there, but they avoided some pitfalls. And... although I kind of hate to mention this, the treatment of the Book of Abraham in, say, Rough Stone Rolling, is very disappointing. It's hard to find anything that Richard Bushman got right on the topic. And his short introduction, or very short Introduction to Mormonism is much worse on the Book of Abraham. It's...you should sort of black out anything that he says, because it's all wrong. Saints doesn't have that problem. I didn't find any false statements or problematic statements on the Book of Abraham.
In some ways, then, the "Interpreter Show" was just more of the same, though it also helped to demonstrate how deep certain tendencies run in the Mopologists.
4. Brian Hauglid Betrays the Mopologists
The Book of Abraham is one of the most troubling dimensions of the Mopologetic universe: a never-ending problem that seems almost impossible to defend. And in 2018, that difficulty once again came into sharp focus, as the poster Noel revealed that former Mopologist supporter Brian Hauglid has come out as being completely opposed to Mopologetic positions on the Book of Abraham:
noel wrote:On Facebook Brian Hauglid seems to agree with the content of the latest video by Dan Vogel on the Book of Abraham. " For the record, I no longer hold the views that have been quoted from my 2010 book in these videos. I have moved on from my days as an "outrageous" apologist. In fact, I'm no longer interested or involved in apologetics in any way. I wholeheartedly agree with Dan's excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos. I now reject a missing Abraham manuscript. I agree that two of the Abraham manuscripts were simultaneously dictated. I agree that the Egyptian papers were used to produce the Book of Abraham. I agree that only Abr. 1:1-2:18 were produced in 1835 and that Abr. 2:19-5:21 were produced in Nauvoo. And on and on. I no longer agree with Gee or Mulhestein. I find their apologetic "scholarship" on the Book of Abraham abhorrent. One can find that I've changed my mind in my recent and forthcoming publications. The most recent JSP Revelations and Translation vol. 4, The Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (now on the shelves) is much more open to Dan's thinking on the origin of the Book of Abraham. My friend Brent Metcalfe can attest to my transformative journey. " Interesting journey. Reminds me of the path of Ray Matheny. Anubis can be restored to his rightful place with his face restored. When you look at Fac 2 don't it look like he started off with some ideas on identifying the figures and got bored and run out of ideas? Could the current prophet gives us the solution to figures 12 to 21?
Dr. Peterson responded by attacking Hauglid's credentials:
DCP wrote:Am I supposed to care a lot about what Brian Hauglid thinks on this matter?
If so, why?
Because, perhaps, of his Egyptological expertise?
Interestingly, Hauglid--once a supporter of the apologists, generally--has now come out as an anti-Mopologist, and someone who is willing to openly criticize John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein. But this incident also winds up at the Number 4 spot on this year's list because of the way that it shows the ongoing problems with the Book of Abraham, but also the way that the past simply won't stay in the past, as posters once again re-opened the notion of Will Schryver's mysterious, earth-shattering "article," which, for some reason (no real explanation has ever been given), seems to be unpublishable. Perhaps if we ask Santa extra nicely, we can have it as a gift this year?
3. DCP Delivers the Worst Talk in Mopologetic History
Truly, the 2018 FAIR Mormon Conference was the gift that kept on giving, the highlight of which, arguably, was Dr. Daniel Peterson's unbearably awful keynote talk. Often incoherent, "rambling," and, as Tom demonstrated, cobbled together from bits and pieces of past talks, the keynote this year was an unmitigated and embarrassing disaster--so bad, in fact, that Dr. Peterson himself admitted to its awfulness on "Sic et Non":
DCP wrote:There’s nothing like a transcript of a rambling and semi-coherent oral presentation to ensure that you’re aware of how inarticulate you are. And there are several problems specific to this particular transcription. (I’ve just skimmed through it.) But I won’t complain; I’m grateful for the unpaid volunteers who devote hours and hours to transcribing these speeches.
Sorry, but I don't think that you can simultaneously blame and thank the "transcribers" for "several problems" (what, is this the KEP?). Eventually, some critics suggested that the talk was so bad that the Conference administrators ought to consider offering the attendees a refund. Given the funding that's necessary to support the lavish Mopologetic lifestyle, though, that seems unlikely to happen.
2. Allen Wyatt is the Real Editor of Mormon Interpreter
As I alluded earlier, there were some crucial revelations that emerged from the mostly useless miasma of the "Interpreter Radio Show." Arguably the most shocking of these was the public admission that Allen "The Slug" Wyatt is the real editor of Mormon Interpreter, meaning that he is the one who vets the articles, assigns peer reviewers, and basically mans the help of the Mopologists' flagship publication. This was stunning for a number of reasons: for starters, as far as anyone can tell, Wyatt is "uncredentialed," meaning that he seemingly lacks a terminal degree, and doesn't seem to have any scholarly training that would make him a suitable fit for the position, which leads one to wonder: are viciousness and loyalty the only real requirements for the job?
But Wyatt's position as editor is revealing in other ways, too, as it demonstrates that Peterson, Midgley, Hamblin, and other "heavy hitters" from the Old Guard have effectively abandoned the job. Hamblin has gone silent; Midgley basically only posts crazy rants on "Sic at Non," and Dan Peterson is (evidently) too busy going on vacation after vacation to contribute anything meaningful to the blog.
Indeed, this seems to have led to some tensions in the Editor's Office. On that same episode of the "Interpreter Show," Peterson openly and publicly makes fun of Wyatt's speaking voice, making him sound like a squeaky, cartoon character of some kind: a "sissy," if you will--someone who does all the heavy lifting, but is an object of ridicule nonetheless. And it makes you wonder if this power imbalance has led to some of the more (shall we say) "interesting" editorial choices (e.g., Transhumanists; articles on science fiction) that have cropped up over the past year.
Whatever the case, Wyatt's stalwart efforts as editor helped to earn him the coveted Sampson Avard Golden Scepter Award for the year. Praise be unto Brother Wyatt! Perhaps we can all chip in to buy him a pound or two of M&Ms.
This, of course, brings us to the Number 1 item on this years list. As B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic studies, I find that, each year, the rankings tend to settle into place in a more or less organic way. This year, though, Mopologetics has been such a rapidly evolving beast that I felt a last-minute change was in order. Thus, thanks to some last-minute admissions by the apologists, I give you the Top Happening in Mopologetics of 2018:
1. Explosive Revelations Concerning the Payment of Mopologists
In the wake of Dr. Peterson's extensive, weeks-long travel to Australia (and to dozens of other places around the world, it would seem), some critics began to ask: how it is that a "modestly" compensated academic has the funds to travel so extensively? Some wondered if, perhaps, a fund within the Interpreter Foundation was used to support these travels as a means of helping to grow the non-profit organization, though this was denied by DCP. But the critics' interrogation into the question soon paid dividends.
In a Nov. 24 Mormon Stories interview, LDS scholar and longtime message board participate (and mensch) David Bokovoy made a startling revelation:
Bokovoy on 'Mormon Stories' wrote:As far as I know, Daniel Peterson is still collecting half of his paycheck from the Maxwell Institute
Given the well-known acrimony that Peterson has for the Maxwell Institute, there is good reason to regard this statement with skepticism, and yet there are also reasons to grant it a certain degree of credence. What if DCP *is* collecting a paycheck from the MI, but isn't actually doing any work for them, and is using the money to travel? Is it possible that this is the case? To a certain extent, Bokovoy's allegation raises as many questions as it answers--we are still in need of further light and knowledge. (For example, is it really the case that Peterson has been publicly slamming the MI all this time, despite the fact that--allegedly--he's been drawing half his pay from them? And, of course, there are all those denials about getting paid to do apologetics....)
As if that wasn't enough, Peterson himself made was is arguably an even more explosive admission. In attempting to explain how he finances his lavish travels, he admitted on "Sic et Non" that:
DCP wrote:some very limited Church funds were used to help with my food and lodging in Sydney and Melbourne, where I presented firesides to large LDS audiences and, with Church leaders, met with local representatives of other faiths.
The answer to the question of how DCP pays for this travel seems to be, at least in part, "The Church itself pays for it." Does this mean, then, that the Church is paying him to do Mopologetics? It seems impossible to deny that the answer to a certain extent is, "Yes." If, in his talks, he in any way attempted to "defend" the Church or to push his own version of the Gospel (and let's face it: his commentary on "Sic et Non," some of which is frankly Mopologetic, is interwoven with the things he's doing Down Under).
But this incident is the Top Happening because of the resonance it has across multiple dimensions of Mopologetics, as it is also a commentary on who and what the Brethren support (which kinds of apologetics, which kinds of pet theories), and it raises the specter of the "Good Ol' Boys Club": a scenario where certain Mopologists are given special treatment thanks to the "Buddy-Buddy" relationships they've cultivated (or brown-nosed?) with the General Authorities. Meanwhile, there is the issue of ego and self-aggrandizement, and the sense that one gets that the key Mopologists are in it not for pastoral reasons, but instead so that they can feel like "hot shots," complete with cushy travel arrangements, and a small but loyal fan-base.
Does this sound like the work of Christ to you? I leave it to you to judge.
* * * * * * *
Well, friends, that does it for this year's list. Lucky for us, 2018 blessed us with a wealth of material, so I also offer up these Honorable Mentions:
--The Mopologists exult over Elder Holland's talk at the MI
--DCP is still butt-hurt over Everybody Wang Chung's joke about traveling to the Holy Land
--The apologists admit that they don't understand Mister Rogers
--Stalinist Art becomes a flashpoint for the Mopologists
--Louis Midgley slams non-LDS forms of grieving
--Still more problems with plagiarism
--Pres. Nelson declares that "Mormon" shall no longer be used as the Church's name
Quite a year, no? I understand that Dean Robbers has arranged an evening of Christmas caroling this year: delightful! I promise to bring along a thermos filled with hot wassail if Dr. Darth J will also promise to sing his very special arrangement of "The 12 Days of Christmas." And Dean Robbers, may I please be the one to put the angel atop the campus Christmas tree this year? Although I hate having to ask, the truth is, I've never had the privilege, and would appreciate the opportunity.
Oh, look at that! Are those snowflakes I see? And are those sleigh bells I hear? Happy holidays to one and all! May the season's tidings bring you joy and good will! Farewell, 2018, and here's to hoping for an interesting 2019.
