The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2016

[_Doctor Scratch]

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...

That's certainly a fair point, though my inclination is to call that a "de-evolution" rather than an evolution. I mean, they have pretty much abandoned even the pretense of scholarship on that site. (My favorite touch is the quotes from the anonymous users, as if this is some trashy product being marketed on late-night cable.) The last vestiges of the old FARMS are to be found primarily on the "Comments" section on blogs like "Sic et Non." Even Mormon Interpreter had basically given up on doing "negative apologetics."

Speaking of "Sic et Non" and Mormon Interpreter, there was a recent posting from the Editor/Author in Chief that I found interesting:

Very nearly four years ago a very confident pseudonymous critic on a small, extraordinarily nasty, and mostly atheist ex-Mormon message board presumed to prophesy:

“By Jan. 1, 2014 Interpreter will be dead. . . . Either totally dead or down to token ‘blog’ style postings.” (Bond James Bond, 25 January 2013)

I hope he kept his day job.

The Interpreter Foundation was launched almost precisely 231 weeks ago. This Friday will mark the 230th consecutive week that it has published at least one article — which is not to mention its books, its blog, its nearly two hundred posted scripture roundtables, and so forth.

That poor “Mr. Bond’s” prediction was proved wrong is entirely due to generous donations of time and labor and, yes, money from a great many people, to all of whom I’m deeply grateful. Our operation is almost entirely volunteer. Although our bylaws allow the Foundation’s top leadership to draw up to $500 annually for their services, none has ever taken anything. Nor are our authors paid. This is a labor of love, passion, and commitment.

(italics in the original)

For one thing, Bond was right: Mormon Interpreter consists almost entirely of blog postings (they are *long* blog postings, but that's nonetheless what they are). The Mopologists have never offered up any concrete explanations or evidence that would suggest otherwise. He cites "books, its blog, its nearly two hundred posted scripture roundtables." Okay. But the roundtables are watched by so few people that it's hard to really see these as accomplishments. If a few of us from MDB got together and filmed some of our Skype conversations, it wouldn't be a whole lot different from what they are doing. I will say a bit more about the "books" momentarily, but did want to point out once again that doing something over and over again--keeping something going--isn't really something to brag about, though if that's all DCP has got, then okay. I mean, I assume that he's managed to breathe for 230 consecutive weeks. At one point he boasted that Mormon Interpreter gets more web traffic that the Maxwell Institute, but that's a line of argument that they have seemed uninterested in exploring.

This also says that "none [i.e., the "top leadership"] has ever taken anything." Is this true? The public, IRS tax documents show that someone was compensated thousands of dollars for "editing" work, but the documents don't indicate who this person or person(s) was/were. It's an interesting premise: you get to publish books, thus showing everyone that your eviction from the Maxwell Institute hasn't slowed you down, plus you get to claim that you are waiving the $500 dollars that the Bylaws allow you to collect, and meanwhile, you quietly pay yourself $10,000+ in "editing" fees and don't have to tell anyone about it. I freely admit that this is speculation on my part, but hey: the folks at Interpreter could clarify those tax line items if they wanted to.

[_Philo Sofee]

Johannes:

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?

Man isn't that the truth! I would think it would be the atheist authors whom the apologists would want the most to convert and discuss things with actually. From my own experience the atheist arguments are far stronger against the very core of Mormonism than anything Dehlin or Kelly ever presented. If the apologists would do some good for the world they should be reviewing and engaging the discussions against God and Jesus such as Nicholas Everitt in his very fine analysis "The Non-existence of God," Routledge, 2004, or one of the strongest arguments I have still yet read Matthew S. McCormick, "Atheism and the Case Against Christ," Prometheus Books, 2012. Those two texts alone could keep apologists quite busy. An add on bonus I would add is James A. Lindsay, "God Doesn't, We Do," 2012, still one of the most powerful of books I have read in atheist thinking, among dozens I have read through the last few years. If the apologists could refrain from ad hominim and just refute the actual arguments and evidences with coherent, valid and logical evidences and arguments of their own, they would do wonders to rehabilitate their sagging if not deceased reputations. But alas, I only have the dream of actual engagement with atheists and apologists in the ring. One of the more humane and level headed discussions is by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse, "Reasonable Atheism, A Moral Case for Respectful Disbelief," Prometheus Books, 2011. They don't like the Dawkins approach, but they also show that the new atheists are not wrong so much as just turning people off. But the new atheists do not represent atheism, since there is not just an atheism anymore than there is just a Christianity. There are simply *hundreds* of places apologists could do much more good in spreading the so-called "good news" if it actually can stand up to real issues, by destroying the atheist arguments. All I seem to be hearing is crickets.

[_Gadianton]

Doctor scratch,

Thank you for your comments about the success of interpreter. In my way of looking at things, an earth-shaking event that proved it was basically a blog with a friend at a vanity press was when Will Schryver didn't jump at publishing his Book of Abraham stuff with interpreter.

I mean, the MI was clearly overrun with apostates right? They passed on his stuff due to the influence of satan. So all the better! The equally renown or superior Interpretor surely was ready to step up.

I will admit the Interpretor is a success if any author prior to this post can reasonably prove their article could have been published in a peer reviewed journal but instead, the author chose Interpretor.

[_Philo Sofee]

Gadianton:

I will admit the Interpretor is a success if any author prior to this post can reasonably prove their article could have been published in a peer reviewed journal but instead, the author chose Interpretor.

An excellent challenge, however, an apologist would simply note that it is peer reviewed, by its own inside peers. That was how FARMS materials were done. It was all inside job when I published the two articles I did with the review. John Gee was the one who peer reviewed my stuff on Egyptology, and we ended up corresponding about it. They change the meaning of peer review in the same manner they change the term "translation" to insure Joseph Smith comes out of the dog fight of the Book of Abraham unscathed. Once you change the concept, wala! You can then claim it works just like in academia. It's their modus operandi.

[_Gadianton]

Philo,

I totally agree but my challenge stands. As I remember it, value is defined by opportunity cost -- the best forgone alternative. In other words, the mopoligists can define themselves into godhood, but they need to find another institution that claims peer review that would have published their blog post to meet my challenge.

I highly doubt they will cite another vanity press that claims peer review, and I can explain that later.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Gadianton:

I will admit the Interpretor is a success if any author prior to this post can reasonably prove their article could have been published in a peer reviewed journal but instead, the author chose Interpretor.

An excellent challenge, however, an apologist would simply note that it is peer reviewed, by its own inside peers. That was how FARMS materials were done. It was all inside job when I published the two articles I did with the review. John Gee was the one who peer reviewed my stuff on Egyptology, and we ended up corresponding about it. They change the meaning of peer review in the same manner they change the term "translation" to insure Joseph Smith comes out of the dog fight of the Book of Abraham unscathed. Once you change the concept, wala! You can then claim it works just like in academia. It's their modus operandi.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that John Gee CORRESPONDED with you while the review was in progress??? The very fact that you knew outright that the reviewer was Gee shows just how far they have departed from normal peer review. (Does the term "double-blind" mean anything to them?) But if he was sort of "coaching" you while the review was ongoing.... That is *incredibly* damning in terms of the authenticity of their process.

[_Physics Guy]

Peer review is just a minimum standard. It's highly fallible—and everyone knows that. Lots of garbage gets published, while good papers can easily encounter idiot reviewers at one journal and end up published in another. If a paper couldn't get through peer review, it's not worth reading, but just because it did get through peer review doesn't mean that it's right. So there's no good excuse for not having reasonable peer review, just because an article may have religious implications or associations.

Accepting a paper about Early Modern English grammar in the Book of Mormon, for example, would by no means be tantamount to confessing that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Few if any academic linguists would have any qualms about approving a sound analysis just because it happened to concern a religious text from 1830. A peer reviewer could sign off on that in much the way that a Scoutmaster could approve the boots and backpacks of a troop that was proposing to hike into Mordor. Your gear is in order, boys. I make no judgement on your destination. Say Hi to Sauron!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Those are fair points, Physics Guy. That said, if I am understanding Philo Sofee correctly, he's saying that the Mopologists don't do *any* peer review at all. Rather, what they are doing would more properly be described as "coaching" or "meddling." And it would mean that they have been knowingly deceiving their audience all this time.

[_Lemmie]

Those are fair points, Physics Guy. That said, if I am understanding Philo Sofee correctly, he's saying that the Mopologists don't do *any* peer review at all. Rather, what they are doing would more properly be described as "coaching" or "meddling." And it would mean that they have been knowingly deceiving their audience all this time.

I remember reading that DCP felt that, because peer review is indeed highly fallible, his organization did not see the need to use it in its commonly accepted sense. He implied that he should be trusted that his organization evaluated everything with the highest standards possible and therefore their process was better than peer review.

(Which process, apparently, he has decided should be called peer review, whether it fits the standard definition or not. Like, for example, the definition of horses/tapirs.)

Of course, that violates the exact principles upon which peer review is based. I agree it can be fallible, but the key issue is that it is a minimum requirement, not an optional requirement, for academically acceptable research.

[_Dr. Shades]

He implied that he should be trusted that his organization evaluated everything with the highest standards possible and therefore their process was better than peer review.

Then shouldn't that be more properly called, "editorial review?"