Torches at High Noon: A Fog Machine, Power Lines, An Angry Extra and Brigham Young’s Electric Boogaloo

[Doctor Scratch]

—

But Doctor Scratch, you have already answered your own conundrum. This isn’t about defending a Church figure, this is about generating content to justify a lifestyle paid for by donations.

I do think the motivations are multi-faceted. The fact does seem to be that he gets to travel and horse around thanks to the generosity of donors. And I think he has been extremely disingenuous/dishonest in the way that he’s tried to portray himself as this “humble” volunteer who’s pumping money into the enterprise and isn’t getting anything back from it.

But the fact is that they could have chosen to focus on all kinds of things other than this BY project. They could have made a series of films trashing critics, for example: like a ten-part takedown of John Dehlin. They could have done a series spelling out the evils of the “new” Maxwell Institute, or gone after the Heartlanders. Or they could have figured out a way for the President to travel repeatedly to Switzerland or some other place that he especially enjoys.

What I’m saying is that, yes: I think he is definitely exploiting the situation so that he can travel for free, but also that the reasons for focusing on BY are complex.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[I Have Questions]

—

But Doctor Scratch, you have already answered your own conundrum. This isn’t about defending a Church figure, this is about generating content to justify a lifestyle paid for by donations.

I do think the motivations are multi-faceted. The fact does seem to be that he gets to travel and horse around thanks to the generosity of donors. And I think he has been extremely disingenuous/dishonest in the way that he’s tried to portray himself as this “humble” volunteer who’s pumping money into the enterprise and isn’t getting anything back from it.

But the fact is that they could have chosen to focus on all kinds of things other than this BY project. They could have made a series of films trashing critics, for example: like a ten-part takedown of John Dehlin. They could have done a series spelling out the evils of the “new” Maxwell Institute, or gone after the Heartlanders. Or they could have figured out a way for the President to travel repeatedly to Switzerland or some other place that he especially enjoys.

What I’m saying is that, yes: I think he is definitely exploiting the situation so that he can travel for free, but also that the reasons for focusing on BY are complex.

Can you expand on what you think the other reasons might be for Peterson’s focus on BY?

[Kishkumen]

He's one of the core focuses of this board, being the most prominent Mopologist. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated quick snips at this board, and ex-Mormons in general. This board often does the same.

Personally I'm not that bothered by it, and I think it's mostly amusing and taken with a big grain of salt on both sides.

When I watch the video, I don't really see the connection with this thread. That's what I am saying. I am not trying to start a beef or make anyone feel bad. I liked the video. I found it informative. It's basically a conversation between Dr. Peterson and two people. It is not even clear to me that the hagiographical video clips at the beginning are coming from the Interpreter Foundation. At one point some other group is thanked for them.

[Kishkumen]

In what way(s) do you now think differently about the murder of Joseph Smith as a result of Episode 1?

I didn't say that it helped me see the murder of Joseph Smith in a new light. Still, there were things discussed in the video that made me go, "Huh, I hadn't thought of it that way!" and that were plausible.

[drumdude]

He's one of the core focuses of this board, being the most prominent Mopologist. He makes a lot of unsubstantiated quick snips at this board, and ex-Mormons in general. This board often does the same.

Personally I'm not that bothered by it, and I think it's mostly amusing and taken with a big grain of salt on both sides.

When I watch the video, I don't really see the connection with this thread. That's what I am saying. I am not trying to start a beef or make anyone feel bad. I liked the video. I found it informative. It's basically a conversation between Dr. Peterson and two people. It is not even clear to me that the hagiographical video clips at the beginning are coming from the Interpreter Foundation. At one point some other group is thanked for them.

They might be from Book of Mormon Central, they’ve been producing similar videos.

[I Have Questions]

In what way(s) do you now think differently about the murder of Joseph Smith as a result of Episode 1?

I didn't say that it helped me see the murder of Joseph Smith in a new light. Still, there were things discussed in the video that made me go, "Huh, I hadn't thought of it that way!" and that were plausible.

Can you share some examples of where it did that?

[Kishkumen]

Reverend—

I definitely appreciate your generosity. And I agree: the film is basically anodyne. And yet, there are aspects of the project that I struggle to overlook. One is the repellent smugness of the Mopologists in light of the “handover” of the temple from the CoC. This BY project is, without a doubt, an anti-CoC project. It’s meant to belittle the CoC’s claims to the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith.

But the fundamental problem, in my view, is what they are defending. I mean: a *YEAR’s* worth of films defending BY? Really? Is this a person who really merits such a thing? Is this really a historical figure who deserves celebrating in that way?

I’m trying to think of an equivalent: Hitler or Stalin, of course, would be dismissed (and rightly so) as over-the-top. So…Pinochet? Andrew Jackson? Like, a project arguing that we need to “raise a voice” for Andrew Jackson, and elevate his status among US statesmen? Pinochet has been unfairly maligned? Sure: these leaders were not as bad as Hitler or Pol Pot, etc. But their track record was seriously problematic—so much so that apologetic efforts at rehabbing their reputations seems…problematic.

I think everyone knows I am not a big fan of Brigham Young, and I generally don't vibe with Dr. Peterson's love of "great men." But that's me, and probably it is another indicator that Mormonism is not, at the end of the day, my kinda thing. I really don't give a crap whether Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were likeable or good people. I don't need heroes to worship. People deserve their due for their accomplishments, sure, but I do not understand investing so much into the good name of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It is not my thing.

After all, I don't fret over the reputation of Julius Caesar or Constantine. I study these people, and they contributed much to Western civilization, but what does it matter that I like them or think they were good people?

I do have a problem with the fixation on the personalities of Joseph Smith and Brigham. Those who endlessly obsess about how bad they were or how good they were just reaffirm my sense that Mormonism is still too much a cult of personality in which one's allegiances are expressed in terms of the personality of the people at the top. That goes for this board, too. Everyone spends way too much time attacking and defending personalities.

[Kishkumen]

Can you share some examples of where it did that?

I was intrigued by the claim that Joseph Smith had become something of an amateur lawyer over the years because of his many brushes with the law.

I was taken with the fact that Willard Richards' eyewitness account of the murders appeared in print not long afterward. This is not really new information, but I am increasingly taken with eyewitness accounts mostly because they are rare in my era of specialization.

I thought Dr. Peterson made a good point justifying Joseph Smith using force to protect his friends as much as himself, in light of criticisms of his martyrdom because he possessed and discharged a weapon at his attackers.

Against the dumb conspiracy theories, I think it is worth pointing out that men stood trial for their role in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

[Doctor Scratch]

Can you expand on what you think the other reasons might be for Peterson’s focus on BY?

Part of it, I think, is that they simply need *some* thing to fixate on that seems legitimately "Mopologetic"--they need a project that involves some aspect of the Church that genuinely needs defending. And BY is a pretty odious figure: he is widely disliked both outside and even within Mormonism. Interpreter's President knows that donors want to see something that resembles "classic-FARMS," "robust defense of the faith"-type of stuff, so this would seem to fit into that category.

I also think that the President sees some parallels between himself--or, more specifically, his reputation--and BY's. If BY's reputation can somehow be rehabilitated, then perhaps his can, too?

Finally, as I noted elsewhere, I think there is an aspect of this that's about "sticking it" to the Community of Christ. The Mopologists have always had a barely-concealed contempt for other faiths, and especially for the CoC, since it is both s more "liberal" version of Mormonism, and because they have a legitimate case on the matter of prophetic succession.