SeN: "the crazy woman school of anti-Mormonism"

[Doctor Scratch]

In light of a recent NY Times piece--and a BYU study--showing problems with retention in the LDS Church--particularly amongst younger women--you would think that there might be a bit more room to be circumspect in Mopologetic quarters. But perhaps that's asking too much. Check it out:

Many years ago, there was a very noticeable spate of very poor books, written by women, attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. About that time, the Italian Catholic sociologist of religion Massimo Introvigne visited Brigham Young University, and I was among those who spent time with him. He had devoted considerable attention to the Church (which was why he had come to Utah), and I recall that, referring to the recent books, he referred at one point to “the crazy woman school of anti-Mormonism.” I hadn’t thought of that phrase in many years. For some reason, it has come back to me just now.

Huh. What were these "recent books"? Who were the authors? Just a bunch of anonymous "women" who deserve to be dismissed in this way? It may be worth pointing out that this recollection is tied to a series of links that the Afore also posted, two of which involve alleged crimes--one of which seems to be pretty clearly related to someone going through a severe mental health crisis. You have to wonder: what was his intention in tying these various, women-related threads together? And why did he decide to share this particular recollection with his readership?

Hopefully he'll clarify which "very poor books" he had in mind.

[Marcus]

Wow, DCP is really fishing for attention, isn't he? The irony is he can't help but use his perfected passive aggressive technique of presenting what he says is someone else's sexism so that he can deny he is the author of such a vile statement. What a coward.

[Doctor Scratch]

Unless I'm mistaken, he was recently vacationing in the Vancouver / Victoria area, and yet, I don't seem to recall him saying anything about the local Nobel Laureate. (Granted, I haven't been reading his stuff all that carefully.) Does he even know who I'm referring to? Has he read any of her works? Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen him say anything praiseworthy about a woman writer other than Jane Austen. Lewis, Wordsworth, Chesterton, Churchill: he recycles pretty much the same laundry-list of notable male writers. Maybe he should consider branching out a bit?

[Marcus]

just a note that Peterson is once again using Nazi imagery to talk about people-in this case, women- he doesn't like. here's the lead in to his list of bady behaving women and his supposed quote of Introvigne's sexist slur.

...But now, we move on to matters of a distinctly less pleasant nature, although mention of the Cambodian genocide may have prepared the soil just a bit. And I hope that I’ve chosen a clear enough indicator of the transition:

(An endearing photo of the late Herr Goebbels)[Peterson's description of the photo]

A charming 1942 photograph of Mr. Joseph Goebbels, who served as Germany’s Secretary of Public Information and Propaganda (Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda) during the halcyon years between 1933 and 1945 and who was a notable pioneer in the use of mass media to influence public opinion (Wikimedia Commons public domain photograph)

The popular and (in my judgment) very cynical demagogue Candace Owens deserves all of the criticism that she has received for her recent unhinged conspiratorial blatherings about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — and, in fact, far more than she has received. Here’s a short recent piece from Meridian Magazine: “Candace Owens Just Crossed a Line in Her Rantings on the “Mormon Mafia””

Meanwhile, in other news:

“Utah bride accused of setting fire to Mormon church the day before her wedding: Security footage showed Lenita Joy Moreno allegedly stealing lighters from Ace Hardware store while shopping for wedding decor”

And, in an entirely separate story:

“Woman arrested after allegedly threatening to blow up Mormon church on Indy’s far northwest side”

Many years ago, there was a noticeable spate of very poor books, written by women, attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. About that time, the Italian Catholic sociologist of religion Massimo Introvigne visited Brigham Young University, and I was among those who spent time with him. He had devoted considerable attention to the Church (which was why he had come to Utah), and I recall that, referring to the recent books, he spoke at one point of “the crazy woman school of anti-Mormonism.” I hadn’t thought of that phrase in many years. For some reason, it’s come back to me just now.

it may be possible he intended to be passive aggressive in his sexism, but then his misogyny just boiled out of him in a furious heat, resulting in the above.

...And, of course, the Church itself will not officially endorse or publicize our work...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -help.html

And no one wonders why.

[Marcus]

On a different note, I think the Afore revealed far more about himself in the quote below than he realized.

...Now, it’s entirely possible that the folks who have spoken positively to me about our efforts are merely being polite, not wanting to hurt my feelings by telling me the hard truth. So please don’t try to change my perception of how Becoming Brigham is being received by deluging me now with candid, detailed critiques of our execution of the project, and so forth...

so... he may be wrong, but don't tell him the truth now.

[drumdude]

On a different note, I think the Afore revealed far more about himself in the quote below than he realized.

...Now, it’s entirely possible that the folks who have spoken positively to me about our efforts are merely being polite, not wanting to hurt my feelings by telling me the hard truth. So please don’t try to change my perception of how Becoming Brigham is being received by deluging me now with candid, detailed critiques of our execution of the project, and so forth...

so... he may be wrong, but don't tell him the truth now.

I don’t think anyone here is obsessed enough to do his homework for him. Becoming Brigham is clearly a mess. Good luck finding someone to help him fix it. None of his sycophants are going to provide anything other than mindless praise.

[Gadianton]

Hopefully he'll clarify which "very poor books" he had in mind.

I have to wonder what the standard is -- is this compared to all the very good good books attacking the church? Since it's inconceivable that he would ever admit a book critical of his church is good, the mere act of writing it makes the book "very poor". So the fact somebody criticized the church immediately gives the afore license to lay down the vitriol against the person.

I agree with Marcus that he recalled an insult presumably uttered by someone else in order to maintain deniability should it be construed as inappropriate. Someone should email Mossimo and ask him if he really did say that.

[I Have Questions]

Hopefully he'll clarify which "very poor books" he had in mind.

I have to wonder what the standard is -- is this compared to all the very good good books attacking the church? Since it's inconceivable that he would ever admit a book critical of his church is good, the mere act of writing it makes the book "very poor". So the fact somebody criticized the church immediately gives the afore license to lay down the vitriol against the person.

I agree with Marcus that he recalled an insult presumably uttered by someone else in order to maintain deniability should it be construed as inappropriate. Someone should email Mossimo and ask him if he really did say that.

I think it’s noteworthy that, of all the things that Massimo did and said during his visit to BYU many years ago, the thing that lodged in Peterson’s memory banks was “the crazy woman school of anti-Mormonism”. This recollection says very little about Massimo, and rather a lot about Peterson.

He’ll be delighted to have generated some new threads about himself on here. It’s been too quiet lately for his liking. When he gets increasingly desperate he will throw in a Nazi reference, or a sexist reference, or something homophonic or racist. He relies on those four things when attention levels hit rock bottom.

[Gadianton]

It's funny IHAQ, it might say more about the afore, but it certainly would say a whole lot about Massimo IF the story is true, and not a fabrication. He has a huge incentive to deny the allegation if it is, in fact, a fabrication. Massimo was a weirdo. He was obsessed with a point-and-click version of postmodernism where any and all modernist power crumbles under a few cliché postmodernist insights. He seemed to side with the apologists because he saw critics as overzealous missionaries of the enlightenment who were obsessed with finding the truth, and he saw apologists as laidback and mature students of postmodernism who knew there was no such thing as truth and free to believe and have faith according to their conscious. It was always a strange position for him to take because he had to completely cherry pick from scant instances where Lou Midgley and I can't remember who else, referenced postmodernism, but other than that, there was nothing postmodernist about FARMS other than the glib fact that they deny the truth. I mean, you can still be a modernist and have a horrible understanding of evidence -- such as FARMS did. In fact, true to point, Interpreter has published articles lambasting postmodernism and the new MI because the new MI has gone the traditional postmodernist route, "off the rails" according to team Dan.

Postmodernism had become a tool of the left. It was wielded for racial equality and feminism more than anything else. And now, the new MI is using postmodernism to understand religion, particularly their own "marginalized" one. But the new MI is the real deal, they have a deep understanding of the subject matter and I can't say I'd be able to follow them. FARMS didn't understand crap about postmodernism, neither it seemed did Massimo. But Massimo did make a stunning prediction that I never took seriously. Massimo did understand that post-truth was on the rise, and predicted that someday society would free itself from the bonds of evidence and science, and that religions like Mormonism would thrive in such times. I think he did predict the political horror of the world today, but he saw this on neutral terms. Society was becoming more post-truth and so religions like Mormonism should do better.

Given that feminism is so intrinsically embedded in postmodern theory, and postmodernism was his bread and butter, it would be shocking if he made a jocular, sexist comment locker-room style with one of his white male buddies on the lowdown. On the one hand, I have a hard time believing he really said it, and he should deny it if he didn't. On the other -- well, as far as Nazism goes, since Dan brought it up, Nazism is an example of post-truth and it seems like Massimo never appreciated just how bad such a situation was. Heidegger well-expressed the deep and subtle theory at home in Nazism, and on a practical level, Nazis lost the arms race in part because of their skepticism of Einstein's "Jew science". Perhaps what Massimo failed to appreciate was that the humorless gridlock of science might feel stifling and unfriendly, but compared to the authoritarians who "believe whatever they want" it's far less socially injust. In other words, what Massimo seemed to be advocating for or at least blind to, was putting the truther-denial power of postmodernism into the hands right-wing libertarians who would use post-truth tactics to advance their own power and undo all the good postmodernism might have done in the first place.

So here's the problem with that alleged locker-room comment. If he said it, it makes it look like he didn't take the achievements of postmodernism up to that point seriously, and was looking for a cheap way to give white male authoritarians their power back. (I'm not saying this because I hate white males, as I am a white male myself, or feel guilty, I don't feel guilty, but even if I were being completely selfish, white male authoritarianism does plenty to undermine the quality of life of white males. If your best hope in life is to become a low-ranking member of the FSB, it isn't much of an advancement for white males.)

[I Have Questions]

It's funny IHAQ, it might say more about the afore, but it certainly would say a whole lot about Massimo IF the story is true, and not a fabrication. He has a huge incentive to deny the allegation if it is, in fact, a fabrication. Massimo was a weirdo. He was obsessed with a point-and-click version of postmodernism where any and all modernist power crumbles under a few cliché postmodernist insights. He seemed to side with the apologists because he saw critics as overzealous missionaries of the enlightenment who were obsessed with finding the truth, and he saw apologists as laidback and mature students of postmodernism who knew there was no such thing as truth and free to believe and have faith according to their conscious. It was always a strange position for him to take because he had to completely cherry pick from scant instances where Lou Midgley and I can't remember who else, referenced postmodernism, but other than that, there was nothing postmodernist about FARMS other than the glib fact that they deny the truth. I mean, you can still be a modernist and have a horrible understanding of evidence -- such as FARMS did. In fact, true to point, Interpreter has published articles lambasting postmodernism and the new MI because the new MI has gone the traditional postmodernist route, "off the rails" according to team Dan.

Postmodernism had become a tool of the left. It was wielded for racial equality and feminism more than anything else. And now, the new MI is using postmodernism to understand religion, particularly their own "marginalized" one. But the new MI is the real deal, they have a deep understanding of the subject matter and I can't say I'd be able to follow them. FARMS didn't understand crap about postmodernism, neither it seemed did Massimo. But Massimo did make a stunning prediction that I never took seriously. Massimo did understand that post-truth was on the rise, and predicted that someday society would free itself from the bonds of evidence and science, and that religions like Mormonism would thrive in such times. I think he did predict the political horror of the world today, but he saw this on neutral terms. Society was becoming more post-truth and so religions like Mormonism should do better.

Given that feminism is so intrinsically embedded in postmodern theory, and postmodernism was his bread and butter, it would be shocking if he made a jocular, sexist comment locker-room style with one of his white male buddies on the lowdown. On the one hand, I have a hard time believing he really said it, and he should deny it if he didn't. On the other -- well, as far as Nazism goes, since Dan brought it up, Nazism is an example of post-truth and it seems like Massimo never appreciated just how bad such a situation was. Heidegger well-expressed the deep and subtle theory at home in Nazism, and on a practical level, Nazis lost the arms race in part because of their skepticism of Einstein's "Jew science". Perhaps what Massimo failed to appreciate was that the humorless gridlock of science might feel stifling and unfriendly, but compared to the authoritarians who "believe whatever they want" it's far less socially injust. In other words, what Massimo seemed to be advocating for or at least blind to, was putting the truther-denial power of postmodernism into the hands right-wing libertarians who would use post-truth tactics to advance their own power and undo all the good postmodernism might have done in the first place.

So here's the problem with that alleged locker-room comment. If he said it, it makes it look like he didn't take the achievements of postmodernism up to that point seriously, and was looking for a cheap way to give white male authoritarians their power back. (I'm not saying this because I hate white males, as I am a white male myself, or feel guilty, I don't feel guilty, but even if I were being completely selfish, white male authoritarianism does plenty to undermine the quality of life of white males. If your best hope in life is to become a low-ranking member of the FSB, it isn't much of an advancement for white males.)

My view, based on what Massimo has written before, and interviews he has given, is that he is highly unlikely to have made such a trite, glib gender-based dismissal of a group of authors writing about counter Mormonism topics. He was smarter and more educated and more considered than that. So I think Peterson is...let's be generous and say...misremembering. Which is why I think it says a lot about himself.

Perhaps Peterson can furnish us with the books that Massimo supposedly gave the comment about...but I'll bet we don't ever see such a list provided. He could always get Massimo to corroborate the anecdote…