The Mopologists' War with the Heartlanders is Heating Up

[_Gadianton]

Here's a question for all the students of Mopologetics out there--Who is the greater enemy of the Mopologists: The Heartlanders? Or the Transhumanists? Or the "literary" Book of Mormon people? (a.k.a., the "New" Maxwell Institute?)

I think the literary Book of Mormon people are the least of the enemies. Rather, they are unwanted enemies, mainly because of their academic legitimacy. The apologists would be head over heels if the literary folks accepted them and elated beyond words if the literary folks said, "here brothers, let us together cast stones upon the apostates."

The other two represent those that the old guard wishes to define themselves against. The heartlanders are of course, the greater threat, due to the legitimacy of their claim, the Book of Mormon happened where Joseph Smith said it happened and are greatly annoyed over the lack of graduate degrees in their crowd.

For the size of the Transhumanists, I think they do win in terms of sheer prejudice against them. You're the greater scholar here, so I ask, do you recall much proactive animosity from the old guard towards Meldrum prior to the Heartlanders revealing the apostasy of FARMS? An incident or two the the Mig?

I mean, given the Heartlanders have gone straight to the core doctrine of Mopologetics, the LGT, it's surprising that the old guard hasn't dealt with them more aggressively. In a sense, I think the old guard wishes they'd just go away, and they really have no interest in their ideas.

The preemptive strike against transhumanists is quite unparalleled, given the transhumanists are so remote in terms of any threat or even shared domain of interest with the old guard.

[_Simon Southerton]

You know, this is fascinating. What do you suppose the odds are that Gardner--then the "junior tier" Mopologist--was called on the carpet for this? It's not that often that you see the Mopologists openly picking at each other like this, so this is a real find.

I know that for many years Sorenson ruled the roost at FARMS. Back in 2000 he wrote two brief papers on DNA. The first one was a glowing endorsement because he thought the paper added evidence to his belief that Polynesians were descended from Native Americans. The same year he wrote a scathing review of DNA technology because it supported the theory that humans evolved in Africa. John Tvedtnes told me there was no internal review for these. He just barged on through, so you can imagine how peer review works among apologists.

LOL! What a devastating blow to all of them, especially (recently) Wyatt and Gardner. Sheesh. Here, let me propose a challenge to them: explain, in the interest of transparency and moving forward, how the current Mormon Interepreter peer review is different compared to the non-existent "peer review" that was done for Sorenson?

Let's not ignore the real culprit here. Daniel Peterson was the editor of the FARMS Review from 1990 to 2002. John Sorenson bulldozed his two "New Light" papers into each of the 2000 issues of the FARMS Review. Peterson didn't have the courage to say "Hang on a minute Prof Sorenson, let's get these reviewed by qualified molecular geneticists at BYU". Nope, he allowed them to be published in the Review. Now we are seeing clear evidence of a lazy editor at the helm of Interpreter. Daniel Peterson strikes again.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Here's a question for all the students of Mopologetics out there--Who is the greater enemy of the Mopologists: The Heartlanders? Or the Transhumanists? Or the "literary" Book of Mormon people? (a.k.a., the "New" Maxwell Institute?)

I think the literary Book of Mormon people are the least of the enemies. Rather, they are unwanted enemies, mainly because of their academic legitimacy. The apologists would be head over heels if the literary folks accepted them and elated beyond words if the literary folks said, "here brothers, let us together cast stones upon the apostates."

The other two represent those that the old guard wishes to define themselves against. The heartlanders are of course, the greater threat, due to the legitimacy of their claim, the Book of Mormon happened where Joseph Smith said it happened and are greatly annoyed over the lack of graduate degrees in their crowd.

For the size of the Transhumanists, I think they do win in terms of sheer prejudice against them. You're the greater scholar here, so I ask, do you recall much proactive animosity from the old guard towards Meldrum prior to the Heartlanders revealing the apostasy of FARMS? An incident or two the the Mig?

I mean, given the Heartlanders have gone straight to the core doctrine of Mopologetics, the LGT, it's surprising that the old guard hasn't dealt with them more aggressively. In a sense, I think the old guard wishes they'd just go away, and they really have no interest in their ideas.

The preemptive strike against transhumanists is quite unparalleled, given the transhumanists are so remote in terms of any threat or even shared domain of interest with the old guard.

Very hard to disagree with anything you've said here, Dean. I admit that I'm still kind of baffled at the Transhumanist thing. There was that weird exchange between Lincoln Cannon and DCP, but you could really tell that the Mopologists were holding back: like they were trying to cover up the fact that they had deliberately targets the MTHs with a smear.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I know that for many years Sorenson ruled the roost at FARMS. Back in 2000 he wrote two brief papers on DNA. The first one was a glowing endorsement because he thought the paper added evidence to his belief that Polynesians were descended from Native Americans. The same year he wrote a scathing review of DNA technology because it supported the theory that humans evolved in Africa. John Tvedtnes told me there was no internal review for these. He just barged on through, so you can imagine how peer review works among apologists.

LOL! What a devastating blow to all of them, especially (recently) Wyatt and Gardner. Sheesh. Here, let me propose a challenge to them: explain, in the interest of transparency and moving forward, how the current Mormon Interepreter peer review is different compared to the non-existent "peer review" that was done for Sorenson?

Let's not ignore the real culprit here. Daniel Peterson was the editor of the FARMS Review from 1990 to 2002. John Sorenson bulldozed his two "New Light" papers into each of the 2000 issues of the FARMS Review. Peterson didn't have the courage to say "Hang on a minute Prof Sorenson, let's get these reviewed by qualified molecular geneticists at BYU". Nope, he allowed them to be published in the Review. Now we are seeing clear evidence of a lazy editor at the helm of Interpreter. Daniel Peterson strikes again.

Good points, Simon. (Though of course you mean "2012"--not "2002." We are, in fact, approaching the 7-year anniversary of the Mopologists' ejection from the Maxwell Institute.) I think you're right when you say "Daniel Peterson strikes again," though of course, as we learned from "The Interpreter Radio Show," Peterson is *not* the hands-on editor at the moment; instead, it is the non-credentialed Allen Wyatt. Wyatt has boasted about his status as "Editor in Chief" of Interpreter, and he also tends to pipe up anytime someone questions their peer review process, which, as he has repeatedly reminded us, he personally oversees. I guess we might say that Wyatt is a "protege" of DCP's, and that Peterson has basically "molded" him into something like a simulacrum. Recall that Peterson, on that same episode of "The Interpreter Show," openly mocked Wyatt's speaking voice--basically making him sound like a whinnying panty-waist--and this was *on the air*! I think they later claimed that the show was reaching a theoretical audience of tens of thousands (likely an exaggeration, but still...), so just think about all the interpersonal power dynamics that are embedded in everything that's going on here. Think about the degree of manipulation and influence that has made this (i.e., this "proxy editorship") possible.

[_Markk]

Does anyone other than a few BYU folks, and the few here even read the Interpreter?

For me it seems like two buggy whip manufacturers...LGT, and HLT, discussing how to make the best buggy whip, in that to the very most TBM they simply do not care to care.

I still occasionally discuss these issues with internet TBM’s on different boards. And while many have an opinion...when pressed they quickly show they don’t know why they have that opinion. Many times the two views bleed into one another with the same tired talking points.

If DCP were to in anyway accept the HLT as being the model, then he would out of necessity first have to prove Tapirs lived in upstate NY.

So in my opinion, for what it is worth, pride is the real reason that monologists are staining the fire hydrant in this contest.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does anyone other than a few BYU folks, and the few here even read the Interpreter?

That's a great question, Mark. It's interesting that they don't boast about their circulation/subscription figures. Part of this is complicated by the fact that Mormon Interpreter is primarily a blog; still, they could share information about how many times the site is visited. I would be especially interested to know which articles get the most views.

I still occasionally discuss these issues with internet TBM’s on different boards. And while many have an opinion...when pressed they quickly show they don’t know why they have that opinion. Many times the two views bleed into one another with the same tired talking points.

Now *that* is an exceptionally provocative point. I think you are spot on: I don't think I've ever heard the *Mopologists* explain why they believe the LGT over the HLT! I understand why they'd avoid doing so (it would entail them having to openly dismiss things that Joseph Smith said), but still: you would think that there would be something, somewhere on the record that has them explaining this. (And maybe I missed it?)

And let me be clear: I'm not talking about the pro-LGT articles in the vein of what Sorenson and Gardner do. Yes, of course these show that the Mopologists prefer the LGT. What I have in mind is the decision-making process; as far as I know, we've never seen this. They could have equally opted to "study" the Heartland. You, Mark, and Simon, and pretty much the entire rest of the world can see that there is paltry evidence for both theories. (Though Simon seems to think that the Heartland Theory is even "loonier" that the LGT.) Apples to apples, if you ask me: trying to puzzle out if Chichen Itza is connected to Zarahemla in some way doesn't seem that different that trying to link the Mound Builders to the Lamanites. The Mopologists approach all this in a way that relies on the detail-oriented apparatus of scholarly writing, but at the end of the day, both theories are fundamentally stupid.

Still, like I said, at some point they decided that they would be better off looking to MesoAmerica. Why? Why did they choose MesoAmerica over the Heartland? Those here can give (and have given) all kinds of explanations, but I want to see an explanation from an actual Mopologist. Why have they chosen MesoAmerica?

[_Simon Southerton]

Good points, Simon. (Though of course you mean "2012"--not "2002."

I thought this as well, but then I noticed Lou Midgley edited an issue. When I checked, after 2003 DCP shared the editing role with Midgley and George Mitten. DCP was still the predominant editor. But from 1990 to 2012 it was all DCP, (under the thumb of Sorenson of course).

[_Markk]

Scratch wrote...Still, like I said, at some point they decided that they would be better off looking to MesoAmerica. Why? Why did they choose MesoAmerica over the Heartland? Those here can give (and have given) all kinds of explanations, but I want to see an explanation from an actual Mopologist. Why have they chosen MesoAmerica?

Could it be as simple as because back in the days of the early boards, the HLT was attacked, and evidence, or lack of, was a fairly easy argument for critics to tear apart, while adopting a pre DNA LGT was far more defendable? A simple question like...”why isn’t there evidences of large battles at and around the HC “ could have been the reason the LGT was chosen.

The HLT was by faith alone, while the LGT, pre DNA, actually gave plausibility and a basis for their faith.

If DNA studies we as advanced as they are now, I have to believe the LGT would not have been adopted by the Monologist.

[_moksha]

Here, let me propose a challenge to them: explain, in the interest of transparency and moving forward, how the current Mormon Interepreter peer review is different compared to the non-existent "peer review" that was done for Sorenson?

This one is quite easy. The personal physician of the Selection Committee, being concerned for his blood glucose levels, no longer permits powdered donuts to be served when examining submissions.

[_Simon Southerton]

Scratch wrote...Still, like I said, at some point they decided that they would be better off looking to MesoAmerica. Why? Why did they choose MesoAmerica over the Heartland? Those here can give (and have given) all kinds of explanations, but I want to see an explanation from an actual Mopologist. Why have they chosen MesoAmerica?

Could it be as simple as because back in the days of the early boards, the HLT was attacked, and evidence, or lack of, was a fairly easy argument for critics to tear apart, while adopting a pre DNA LGT was far more defendable? A simple question like...”why isn’t there evidences of large battles at and around the HC “ could have been the reason the LGT was chosen.

The HLT was by faith alone, while the LGT, pre DNA, actually gave plausibility and a basis for their faith.

If DNA studies we as advanced as they are now, I have to believe the LGT would not have been adopted by the Monologist.

I'm pretty sure the major reason Sorenson settled on Mesoamerica generally, and the Maya specifically, is that they represent the pinnacle of New World civilisations and they are the only Native American groups with a written language. Sorenson dismissed all other geographical theories as inadequate when he introduced his in 1950.