The Best of the 2010s: A Mopologetic Decade in Review

[_Doctor Scratch]

To the OP...

I enjoy the listing. I appreciate that such list making is subjective. I would, though, be remiss if I did not note one thing that strikes me.

After reading the explanations that have been posted, I think that the Hamblin-Jenkins debate should be #1, and the Second Watson Letter in the slot that Hamblin-Jenkins was originally in.

I was not around during the Second Watson Letter era. The Hamblin-Jenkis debate however was a real game changer. It seemed to have taken all the apologetic wind not only out of Hamblin's sails, but those of DCP as well. Since those debates, DCP just nibbles on crumbs and lobs the occasional personal attack, unwilling to weigh in on meaty criticisms of the LDS Church.

I read those 20 pages of the Hall of Fame thread on Second Watson Letter. (I wished I'd have started at the back at page 19, beginning with a re-cap post about an "mfb" at 10:57 pm on Dec 26, 2009.) One of the linked posts also had a re-cap that helped too. While that incident may have been the pulling of a thread that caused things to unravel, the near deafening silence since the debates shows me that it was the dagger to the hearts of the apologists.

Interesting thoughts, HG. I agree with you that things did seem to go rather quiet following the Jenkins/Hamblin debate. (It's weird to me that that happened clear back in 2015--it's strange to think that it happened that long ago.) All that said, I think we've seen a very slight "resurgence" this past year, in terms of levels of nastiness from them--especially Midgley. And I don't know that Prof. P. has *ever* really "weigh[ed] in on meaty criticisms of the LDS Church." For example, has he ever publicly given a defense of the Book of Abraham? Well, in fairness, I guess we might count his recent multi-part series called "LDS Inc.," where he is trying to defend the Church's massive accumulation of wealth. But I've never seen him, e.g., try to even defend the nitty gritty of the LGT. He would always just steer people towards old issues of FROB, or else he'd engage in innuendo and gossip, sort of like what he does in those 2nd Watson Letter threads. His argument is never that the LGT is true; instead, his argument is basically a bunch of "insider" gossip about who has connections with whom, and who has a copy of whichever letter has the best provenance, etc.

I can't say that I really blame him: some of this stuff is flat-out indefensible. And, on the few occasions when he has ventured out and tried to do something, he's gotten roasted for it. (E.g., Added Upon.) And I think that the events of 2012 took an enormous toll on him, and that he largely just doesn't have the energy to go on the attack like he did back in the day.

[_Shulem]

And I don't know that Prof. P. has *ever* really "weigh[ed] in on meaty criticisms of the LDS Church." For example, has he ever publicly given a defense of the Book of Abraham?

Nope.

Peterson is chicken-shit when it comes to the Book of Abraham. I'd love to debate him on that subject right here on Mormon Discussions in front of everyone.

What do you say, Dan, are you up to that? You so need to have your Book-of-Abraham ass kicked. Come to Mormon Discussions so I can kick it!

[_Doctor Scratch]

And I don't know that Prof. P. has *ever* really "weigh[ed] in on meaty criticisms of the LDS Church." For example, has he ever publicly given a defense of the Book of Abraham?

Nope.

Peterson is chicken-shit when it comes to the Book of Abraham. I'd love to debate him on that subject right here on Mormon Discussions in front of everyone.

What do you say, Dan, are you up to that? You so need to have your Book-of-Abraham ass kicked. Come to Mormon Discussions so I can kick it!

I think you should invite Dr. Midgley, too, Shulem. Happy New Years!

[_Dr. Shades]

I will also not soon forget the kind notes—sent to my work email— from our recently departed acquaintance Bill Hamblin.

I respectfully request that you give us the details of what those e-mails contained.

Now we see that the LDS narrative is but one of a plethora of Mormon narratives. . . Now being LDS is only one circle on a giant Venn diagram of Mormon identity and practice.

With the former as preface, that latter statement is a very profound one, Reverend. Congratulations for attaching such an apropos visual to the concept.

Doctor Scratch, may I be so bold as to predict the overarching themes of the upcoming 20s vis-à-vis Mopologetics?

1. Now that the initial dust of the Maxwell Institute shake-up is settling, the novelty of the OMIDs being at the Mormon Interpreter will become less and less impressive over the course of the decade and as the events of 2012 fade into memory. People are, and will continue, to view the Mormon Interpreter as just another blog among many, many others. This fact, combined with their upcoming retirements and post-2012 burn-out, will cause the old guard to fade into relative obscurity. Their days of being considered as rock stars by the younger generation will sputter and end.
2. The remainder of the Millennials will enter adulthood, and they are simply too well acquainted with the Internet and the uses thereof for the church's scare tactics to work on them anymore, as Shulem has more or less pointed out. That dynamic will have a domino effect that will lead to the following unintended consequence: The bedrock assumption of Internet Mormonism--that church leaders can't be trusted to tell the truth in cases wherein their facts can be checked--will, to the Mopologists' great chagrin, fully blossom into nearly all of the Millennials adopting the Reverend's Venn Diagram by considering everything out of the prophets' mouths to be one possible interpretation among many, many equally legitimate others. In other words, the Mopologists will get their wish, but will regret having wished for it: An exponential number of members will adopt their methodology, but to the Mopologists' utter surprise, this will result in an entire generation plus of nominal members with far less devotion to the church, not more devotion to it. (i.e., throwing the prophets under the bus in order to save the church won't result in the church being saved; it'll result in the prophets being under the bus.)
3. Thanks in part to the above, I predict that there will be more major revelations unwittingly dropped by Mopologists in moments of off-the-cuff carelessness, especially as the wellspring of such things continues his mental decline, but I also predict that any bigger dust-ups, like the Carla Ogden fax, are things of the past. I predict that it will be more and more difficult for you to identify items worthy enough to place in your Top Ten lists as the years go on. Nothing against you, of course; it'll just be the nature of the beast as both the Mopologists and institutional Mormonism itself become less and less relevant as the decade progresses.

So, Reverend Kishkumen's innocent comment about the church's narrative being one circle among many others in a Venn Diagram will turn out to be what Mormonism, Mopologetics, etc. will look like in actual practice when you do your next retrospective ten years hence.

[_moksha]

OMIDs Their days of being considered as rock stars by the younger generation will sputter and end.

When the torch is finally passed to the new generation of Mormon Apologists, with names like Kwaku and Peter Pan, I hope Drs. Scratch and Shades (or their secondaries) can keep track of them.

[_Shulem]

When the torch is finally passed to the new generation of Mormon Apologists, with names like Kwaku and Peter Pan, I hope Drs. Scratch and Shades (or their secondaries) can keep track of them.

The Book of Mormon iz true because the church iz true.

It'z that simple!



Quack, quack!!

[_Shulem]

Now being LDS is only one circle on a giant Venn diagram of Mormon identity and practice.

The universe has something for everyone.

[_Kishkumen]

Ah, yes. I recall those fond times. Indeed, if memory serves, it was none other than Brother Schryver himself who was tasked with conducting a "peer review" of your Sunstone notes! That pretty much sums up what "peer review" means in the world of Mopologetics: first, who peer reviews notes? Second, why was a hack like Schryver tasked with the job? Third, isn't peer review supposed to be about improving the work, rather than petty and spiteful revenge? Please refresh my memory, Reverend: did you get an apology from someone on the FAIR Board--e.g., Kevin Barney--over how this all went down?

Indeed it was Brother Schryver, Doctor! Yes, first my notes were sent out for peer review without my knowledge or consent, and then amateur “reviewer” Herr Schryver bragged about having rejected the article publicly here on MDB! I was, needless to say, absolutely aghast at the layers of ineptitude and petty spite on display in the process.

Kevin Barney was the other reviewer, and he was, as always, a thoughtful, helpful gentleman.

The person at FAIR who requested my notes did apologize via email. Mind you, I shared my notes with them out of pure good will, and I had no idea what, other than possible curiosity sparked by Kevin Barney’s recommendation, could be in the offing. Kevin saw my talk and approached me to introduce himself afterward.

In any case, I think this is a reasonable example of what peer review must mean on a bad day in the world of Mopologetics. On the best of days you get the same amateurism minus the public announcements.

But then I would extend my criticism to the entire world of Mormon Studies, at least to a degree. It is an immature and underdeveloped field. Despite the fact that there are plenty of smart, nice, and interesting people involved in it, Mormon Studies is a real mixed bag. Religious devotion breeds a high degree of sensitivity about scholarly hypotheses. I tend to be of the “God must have a great sense of humor” persuasion, but we are by no means in the majority.

[_Kishkumen]

I should think that fat belongs within the Mormon circle as well as the Christian. I credit Mormonism with my slender physique. J/k

The universe has something for everyone.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Now we see that the LDS narrative is but one of a plethora of Mormon narratives. . . Now being LDS is only one circle on a giant Venn diagram of Mormon identity and practice.

With the former as preface, that latter statement is a very profound one, Reverend. Congratulations for attaching such an apropos visual to the concept.

Doctor Scratch, may I be so bold as to predict the overarching themes of the upcoming 20s vis-à-vis Mopologetics?

Dr. Shades, I certainly wouldn't bet against you. Let me address the points you're making:

1. Now that the initial dust of the Maxwell Institute shake-up is settling, the novelty of the OMIDs being at the Mormon Interpreter will become less and less impressive over the course of the decade and as the events of 2012 fade into memory. People are, and will continue, to view the Mormon Interpreter as just another blog among many, many others. This fact, combined with their upcoming retirements and post-2012 burn-out, will cause the old guard to fade into relative obscurity. Their days of being considered as rock stars by the younger generation will sputter and end.
   

Yes, I'm sure that this will wind up being true to some extent. How long will they hold out? They have already arguably held out way longer than they ought to have. Another ten years, though? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The remainder of the Millennials will enter adulthood, and they are simply too well acquainted with the Internet and the uses thereof for the church's scare tactics to work on them anymore, as Shulem has more or less pointed out. That dynamic will have a domino effect that will lead to the following unintended consequence: The bedrock assumption of Internet Mormonism--that church leaders can't be trusted to tell the truth in cases wherein their facts can be checked--will, to the Mopologists' great chagrin, fully blossom into nearly all of the Millennials adopting the Reverend's Venn Diagram by considering everything out of the prophets' mouths to be one possible interpretation among many, many equally legitimate others. In other words, the Mopologists will get their wish, but will regret having wished for it: An exponential number of members will adopt their methodology, but to the Mopologists' utter surprise, this will result in an entire generation plus of nominal members with far less devotion to the church, not more devotion to it. (i.e., throwing the prophets under the bus in order to save the church won't result in the church being saved; it'll result in the prophets being under the bus.)

I think you are probably right about this--in the general sense--as well. We've been told that the Church has been hemorrhaging members from this generation. Given what we've seen from the Mopologists, you wonder where they could possibly fit into this. Well, they aren't really doing anything to manage the Church's transition into the 21st century. The whole thing has failed to adapt, and it has failed spectacularly. By any chance have you read Dr. Peterson's multi-part "LDS Inc." series? Because that represents the best that they've got at the moment. And who is that meant to convince? When Smoot, Kwaku, Rappleye, and the other, younger, Mopologeticially-inclined folks look at that stash of $100 billion, what do they think? Do they accept the argument that paying tithing is just about proving your obedience? Or do they want better answers?

Thanks in part to the above, I predict that there will be more major revelations unwittingly dropped by Mopologists in moments of off-the-cuff carelessness, especially as the wellspring of such things continues his mental decline, but I also predict that any bigger dust-ups, like the Carla Ogden fax, are things of the past. I predict that it will be more and more difficult for you to identify items worthy enough to place in your Top Ten lists as the years go on. Nothing against you, of course; it'll just be the nature of the beast as both the Mopologists and institutional Mormonism itself become less and less relevant as the decade progresses.

So, Reverend Kishkumen's innocent comment about the church's narrative being one circle among many others in a Venn Diagram will turn out to be what Mormonism, Mopologetics, etc. will look like in actual practice when you do your next retrospective ten years hence.

Sadly, I think you're right about this, Dr. Shades. Oh, well: the world turns. At least we were able to appreciate and enjoy it (as it were) while it lasted.