Did Allen Wyatt Get 'Demoted' at Interpreter?

[_Doctor Scratch]

My "Spidey Sense" is tingling. Look: I just have to be honest and speak my mind. If Allen Wyatt abandons the Mopologists, it will be *the* most significant defection in the history of Mopologetics. More important than Hauglid. More important that Kerry Shirts. More important than Kevin Graham. That's how pivotal Wyatt is in this whole narrative--I hope that he realizes that. And if he were to go full-on "turncoat" and reveal all their secrets? Wow. He would be the toast of the Mormon podcast circuit! He could probably drum up a sizable readership for a tell-all biography: something that would earn far, far more money than the measly sum that his "more than 60 books" have returned.

I guess he's going to have to think long and hard about how much his loyalty to the Mopologists is worth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As expected, a new “article” (about Joseph Smith taking psychedelics, no less) was posted to the “Interpreter” blog today. Also as expected, there was no public mention nor thanks expressed for Allen Wyatt’s role in overseeing this publication. By my admittedly casual count, this is the third or fourth week in a row in which he hasn’t been publicly acknowledged or thanked.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hey, what do you know? Allen Wyatt actually got a "thank you" today:

We’re just back from a catered dinner party at which the volume was presented to Stephen. I’m delighted to say that, somehow, we kept the whole thing entirely secret from him. He thought that he was coming to an “adults dinner” for his annual family reunion. We held the gathering in a park in Provo, outdoors, under a pavilion, masked except when we were actually eating and drinking, physically distanced from each other. Not how we had imagined it, but it still went well. (Thanks to Allen Wyatt for seeing to the printing up in Wyoming and driving the finished books down to Utah Valley.)

Interesting that, even with the "thank you," DCP is also implicating Wyatt in participating in this epidemiologically inadvisable event. (How many people were at this gathering?)

[_I have a question]

Hey, what do you know? Allen Wyatt actually got a "thank you" today:

We’re just back from a catered dinner party at which the volume was presented to Stephen. I’m delighted to say that, somehow, we kept the whole thing entirely secret from him. He thought that he was coming to an “adults dinner” for his annual family reunion. We held the gathering in a park in Provo, outdoors, under a pavilion, masked except when we were actually eating and drinking, physically distanced from each other. Not how we had imagined it, but it still went well. (Thanks to Allen Wyatt for seeing to the printing up in Wyoming and driving the finished books down to Utah Valley.)

Interesting that, even with the "thank you," DCP is also implicating Wyatt in participating in this epidemiologically inadvisable event. (How many people were at this gathering?)

Alan Wyatt drove to Wyoming and then to Utah Valley during the current pandemic just to hand deliver a few books?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm sad to report that, even though there was the usual Friday announcement about a new "Interpreter" article, there was no mention whatsoever--nor any "Thank you"--for Allen Wyatt. It may be because this weeks article was authored by Dr. Peterson himself, so I assume that no peer review was utilized this time around.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hey, what do you know? Allen Wyatt actually got a "thank you" today:



Interesting that, even with the "thank you," DCP is also implicating Wyatt in participating in this epidemiologically inadvisable event. (How many people were at this gathering?)

Alan Wyatt drove to Wyoming and then to Utah Valley during the current pandemic just to hand deliver a few books?

Yes. Once again he is being cast in the role of the "toady." He put his own life at risk in order to do this: i.e., deliver books celebrating somebody else.

[_Gadianton]

I'm sad to report that, even though there was the usual Friday announcement about a new "Interpreter" article, there was no mention whatsoever--nor any "Thank you"--for Allen Wyatt. It may be because this weeks article was authored by Dr. Peterson himself, so I assume that no peer review was utilized this time around.

Because the author of the article heaped such praise upon himself for writing what one from the junior tier called a "devotional piece" (as opposed to real scholarship), I checked it out to see if it was really as "nice" as it had been billed.

"There is no greater sense of peace, security, and assurance than in knowing how the play ends — that, in the old sense of the word, it’s a comedy with a happy ending, not a tragedy — knowing that our team will win the game and that the good guys will win the war, knowing that evil will fail and be defeated, knowing that, if we’re on the Lord’s side, his certain victory will be ours, as well."

A little desperate to win, aren't we? Okay, but I suppose you can't fault anyone for hoping the "good guys" win. Well, how many people aside from the most broken and deranged hope that the "bad guys" win? It's not really saying much to hope the good guys win. The difficulty is in figuring out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. And so for the sake of this article, who are the good guys and who are the bad?

The author is very careful to draw the lines.

"God will be involved. It won’t be mere chaos; He will be in charge. And those who align themselves with God will, in the end, be safe and secure and blessed."

Those who "align themselves" -- meaning those of 'belief' and 'faith' -- are the ones who are safe and blessed, and therefore, given the sharp contrast of the article, they must also be the "good guys" who win. And that can only mean, the bad guys are those who don't "align themselves" with God.

Well, who doesn't align themselves with God? Naturally, people who don't believe in God. People like Gemli, Richard Dawkins, and secular critics who the author currently despises.

You might think: Can you really write a devotional piece any other way? Well yes, you could. For instance, God himself could be allowed to "be in charge". Suppose "grace" were a factor. In that worldview, God could give hope or peace to someone like Gemli who hasn't aligned himself with God.

[_Tom]

Hey, what do you know? Allen Wyatt actually got a "thank you" today:

We’re just back from a catered dinner party at which the volume was presented to Stephen. I’m delighted to say that, somehow, we kept the whole thing entirely secret from him. He thought that he was coming to an “adults dinner” for his annual family reunion. We held the gathering in a park in Provo, outdoors, under a pavilion, masked except when we were actually eating and drinking, physically distanced from each other. Not how we had imagined it, but it still went well. (Thanks to Allen Wyatt for seeing to the printing up in Wyoming and driving the finished books down to Utah Valley.)

Interesting that, even with the "thank you," DCP is also implicating Wyatt in participating in this epidemiologically inadvisable event. (How many people were at this gathering?)

I’m left wondering why a book published by The Interpreter Foundation and Religious Education, Brigham Young University is being printed in Wyoming. Should Sharon Parq Associates be credited as well?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm sad to report that, even though there was the usual Friday announcement about a new "Interpreter" article, there was no mention whatsoever--nor any "Thank you"--for Allen Wyatt. It may be because this weeks article was authored by Dr. Peterson himself, so I assume that no peer review was utilized this time around.

Because the author of the article heaped such praise upon himself for writing what one from the junior tier called a "devotional piece" (as opposed to real scholarship), I checked it out to see if it was really as "nice" as it had been billed.

"There is no greater sense of peace, security, and assurance than in knowing how the play ends — that, in the old sense of the word, it’s a comedy with a happy ending, not a tragedy — knowing that our team will win the game and that the good guys will win the war, knowing that evil will fail and be defeated, knowing that, if we’re on the Lord’s side, his certain victory will be ours, as well."

A little desperate to win, aren't we? Okay, but I suppose you can't fault anyone for hoping the "good guys" win. Well, how many people aside from the most broken and deranged hope that the "bad guys" win? It's not really saying much to hope the good guys win. The difficulty is in figuring out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. And so for the sake of this article, who are the good guys and who are the bad?

The author is very careful to draw the lines.

"God will be involved. It won’t be mere chaos; He will be in charge. And those who align themselves with God will, in the end, be safe and secure and blessed."

Those who "align themselves" -- meaning those of 'belief' and 'faith' -- are the ones who are safe and blessed, and therefore, given the sharp contrast of the article, they must also be the "good guys" who win. And that can only mean, the bad guys are those who don't "align themselves" with God.

Well, who doesn't align themselves with God? Naturally, people who don't believe in God. People like Gemli, Richard Dawkins, and secular critics who the author currently despises.

You might think: Can you really write a devotional piece any other way? Well yes, you could. For instance, God himself could be allowed to "be in charge". Suppose "grace" were a factor. In that worldview, God could give hope or peace to someone like Gemli who hasn't aligned himself with God.

Indeed. The mask drops.

[_Gadianton]

"which, over in Bizarro World, has now been transmogrified into an expression of fierce joy at the eventual damnation of Richard Dawkins and of non-believers in general. This is, quite obviously, a grossly mendacious misrepresentation of what I wrote and what I think,"

I think that is a misrepresentation of what I wrote and what I think. I took the matter no farther than the author did, and labeled the players spoken of or implied as "good" or "bad". I said nothing about damnation or joy over damnation. To the point, is my very last sentence:

"In that worldview, God could give hope or peace to someone like Gemli who hasn't aligned himself with God."

The authors essay is about the peace that comes from believing in God. Or is that a grossly mendacious misrepresentation? My point is that in a world where grace is a real factor, God could "take charge" and grant peace to an atheist, and allow an atheist to be comforted even though the atheist didn't "align himself" with God.

This "freeloader problem" doesn't set well with many people of faith, but it is just the kind of thing that would make for actual faith, rather than a heavy mental investment in what's simply good for the person who wants to "win". Put a quarter in and slap the big "God" button, and out comes peace and safety -- something that the other guy who didn't give up his quarter can't have.