Discussion and meta-discussion

[_Trevor]

OK, I have only recently returned to Mormon Discussions. And, to be honest, I wasn't here that long in the first place.

When I did find it, however, I was excited by the concept of the 'three kingdoms' of discussion, each with its own tone and approach. If you want to curse the MA&D people relentlessly, or totally trash the LDS Church nine ways to Sunday, complete with expletives, then Telestial is probably for you. And it works up to the more genteel conversation of the CK.

I have an observation to make, an 'outsider's view,' if you will. It seems to me that in the recent thread on Gee's review of Larson's book the topic consistently wandered. OH MY, not wandered!?!?!?! No big deal, but there was also a consistent pattern to its wandering. Often we were talking more about people's honesty, integrity, probity, or what have you, than the topic at hand.

There is this history of the boards. You could all tell it better than I can. The rise of the Tanner board, the exodus to and from ZLMB, the supposed retreat to FAIR, and the spin-off to MA&D, and to LDSforums, which is associated with the MGF. There is a LOT of history there, and much of it revolves around Byzantine scenarios (minus the eunuchs, I guess) in which someone sent an email, made an accusation, got banned, got someone else banned, etc. I have indulged in this as much as others, although I don't have as storied a tale as some of you.

What strikes me is that this history often becomes central to a conversation to which it is actually peripheral. I find myself watching a back and forth about who really are the bad guys of this epic story: the apologists or the critics (excuse the polarization of roles here, as it is also part of the problem).

As someone whose IP address was blocked by MA&D, I understand how the freedom of MoDis is liberating, and allows us to continue a conversation without fearing that someone named after a fatty snack cookie or a minor Greek deity will close the thread before we can see it through. The danger of all of this sweet, succulent freedom, however, is that we do seem to wander from the topic more. And the worst way of wandering, IMHO, is something like the Dan Peterson or Kevin Graham is the Anti-Christ narrative (not to pick on these guys in particular).

Frankly, I am not interested in those threads. At the same time, I like the clicker more than the censor, so I will just emigrate when it turns to that. But I will note that the people who are doing this are often the very people I would most like to read substantive things from. And I feel like I am being robbed of their thoughts by the fracas. I do not expect that people will always agree or even trust each other to write in good faith, but it seems better to me to let it drop, in some cases, than to repeatedly rub things in each other's faces.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe there need to be meta-threads that comment on threads and can simply be spun off when things get too far off topic. Anyway, that's my 'outsider's view.' Take it for what it is worth.

[_Runtu]

There's the rub. At some point, I realized that these discussion boards were not so much about discussion as they were about personalities and groups and histories. I figure that substantive conversations are wonderful, but they aren't generally the focus, unfortunately.

[_Yoda]

Thanks, Trevor, and you're right.

Bond, Shades, and I actually do try to split threads when they get way too off-topic.

However, we have been criticized for doing so on occasion.

The problem is that any time you split a thread, there is still continuity lost. It also takes a tremendous amount of time to do, particularly when it's a long thread.

To be honest, I've actually thought about splitting the thread you're talking about, but have just been too lazy to go through it an parse it together. LOL

I'm a bad Mod.

;)

If there is a general consensus, I'll be happy to take a look at that thread and split it. I might not be able to get to it until tomorrow because of work commitments, so if Bond or Shades want to attack it sooner, be my guest.

[_Trevor]

I'm a bad Mod.

;)

I can't imagine how much effort it would take to be a mod, and I didn't want to place this all on the mods. Much of what turns a thread into a mudslinging campaign could be excised in advance by self-control.

Not to beat a common LDS talk trope to death, but I will add "I know I am as guilty as anyone, but...", or "I feel unworthy when I say x, but I really learned by giving this talk." So, I am making an observation that comes from my months of absence from the conversation, really.

Selfishly, I am simply interested in seeing what these much learned and clever ladies and gents have to say about the issues instead of what they have to say about each other's halitosis or what have you.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Trevor, I agree with you. The threads here get way off course, and I'm guilty sometimes of continuing the derailments.

Threads would be better if the derailments were split, but I don't expect the mods to be able to always accomplish that task. Perhaps we should all take care to stay more on topic.

KA

[_Bond...James Bond]

Talking as a poster here.....I think the Celestial Kingdom should be where alot of threads in the Terrestrial Kingdom threads belong......but I usually don't push the issue about moving threads because posters like the Terrestial due to the wider guidelines for posting here and because it gets more traffic. Very scholarly threads that often descend into whatever fun or backbiting probably wouldn't happen as much in the Celestial. The Celestial has seen some very good discussions with only minor hiccups in decorum (see the Dan Vogel/Uncle Dale thread or the current thread by Tarski/Gad/marg/JAK as evidence), and I think it's the best place for the super-scholarly discussions.

Talking as a mod.....I usually don't hack threads apart unless a poster (usually a thread starter) PM's me asking to take a look at something about splitting a thread or whatever (which happens rarely!), but I don't really want to make more moderating work than there already is. If the thread starter of the recent Gee article post were to PM me asking me to try to split off the BS from the scholarly attempts...I'd look at it and try to do it, but I'm not going to moderate every thread that needs it, cause I (and the other mods) just don't have the time.

Sometimes I'll ask posters (usually on the thread where everyone can see in my red ink) if they'd like me to move a good discussion that's gone a while (usually at least 15-20 posts) to the Celestial Kingdom so that it can continue without descending into whatever. When I've moved threads at the bare minimum I obtain the thread starters' permission and other major posters' (on a particular thread) agreement. If someone says no to the option of moving a thread.....I drop it. I'm here moderating more as a guide than as a referee. Steering threads and posts to their appropriate place rather than being a referee on what behavior is correct or incorrect is my philosophy on the matter. Which is inline with Shade's moderating philosophy. (I think)

[_Some Schmo]

Here's the thing...

As much as the desire is expressed that the conversations don't devolve into something else, it's the very fact that they have that makes a thread so popular.

People love controversy, and they love it even more if they feel like they know the parties involved. I run a board too, and the threads were some controversy is happening are always the ones that get the most views and the most replies. It's just the way people are.

The other thing is that these topics have all been done to death. What's really left to discuss? It's not like anyone is going to convince anyone else of anything, so what's it really all for?

For me, it boils down to simple entertainment.

[_moksha]

I moderate on three different LDS forums where we encourage free speech still but do not allow profanity or abusive behavior. That approach seems to work quite well.

[_Trevor]

Here's the thing...

As much as the desire is expressed that the conversations don't devolve into something else, it's the very fact that they have that makes a thread so popular.
.....
For me, it boils down to simple entertainment.

And it is true that I am not the only person here. My take on everything isn't authoritative. You may find the 'controversy' entertaining. I am not sure there is much controversy where there is so little evidence (like: did they close the thread at MA&D for this reason or that? Is Dan really behind it? Is it a mod shielding Dan without his knowledge?). Even where one does have evidence for such a thing, like a documented pattern of action that can be placed out for everyone to see, showing that doesn't make a difference to those who are interested in seeing things another way.

For example, I am absolutely convinced that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century. Every time I see an apologist say, "but what about this place in Arabia that has a name like x in the Book of Mormon?" or some such, I simply think to myself, why are we even looking for stray bits of ancient evidence when we have so little reason to entertain its antiquity? To me, it's plain as day. As an ancient historian, I just don't see it. And yet you have guys who are really, really smart, who know that they are smarter than I am, and who are utterly convicted of that book's antiquity.

Where am I going to get in an argument with these folks? Nowhere.

I came to this conclusion when in an argument with Brant Gardner on FAIR, he basically said to me that we should not expect to find evidence of the Book of Mormon's antiquity in the New World outside of the text, which must be taken as our best, if not only, evidence for its own antiquity. At that moment, I saw clearly that with these kinds of evidentiary standards, there was really no point arguing with him. Not to pick on Brant, really. I just know that for *me*, there is no point in arguing with someone for whom that is a satisfactory basis for argument. Maybe it is I who am the dense one here, but I think I know when I have had enough.

Indeed, that is how I feel about most apologetic arguments these days. Same goes for the Book of Abraham. I am quite convinced that the text was penned by Joseph Smith. In fact, Don Bradley and I are working on composition issues right now. Working from the position that the text was written by Joseph, we are finding far more insight into the text, as a text, rather than as a spiritual guide, than we ever did when we believed in its antiquity. But we are who we are, and we carry our own interests. I do not feel like mocking people for whom Mormon scholarship is, in some ways, a fundamentally different excercise from what it is to me. If you are convinced that the LDS Church is true, and you find that greatly rewarding, you will find the study of Mormon texts alongside ancient texts rewarding. You will probably treat the Mormon texts as ancient texts out of your spiritual convictions.

There is a reason people loved The Birth of Tragedy, The Golden Bough, The Myth of the Eternal Return, The White Goddess, and The Hero with a Thousand Faces. People look to the past for more than a simple reconstruction of events that happened. They sometimes look to it for meaning, and they try to understand their own world through that past, which, thanks to certain continuities in human behavior, can be quite worthwhile. I see what I do in apposite terms, but, in addition to the constraints of my more limited 'genius', I have decided upon a different method from those of a Frazer, Eliade, or a Nibley.

I see some of what FARMS is doing, when it is not engaged in apologia, in those terms. I do not mean this as an insult, and I hope no one who is fond of, or involved in, FARMS takes it that way. I am describing what I see, from my perspective, with fondness, respect, and without intending at all to be patronising. In fact, I think it is a mistake for people to denigrate other ways of viewing the past. Long ago I told a friend of mine that Hugh Nibley was the last great mythographer of Mormonism, and I meant that in the best possible sense. At his best, he expanded Mormonism beyond the sometimes provincialism of its people. The man was a genius.

Where we trip up, I think, is in our humanity and limitations. Nibley had them too. I think "No Ma'am That's Not History" was Nibley at some of his worst. It is that spirit of closing off other kinds of inquiry that I do not like. For some reason that I do not fathom, many more experienced people than I think this kind of thing is positively necessary. I do not, but then I am writing to you as someone who represents what the LDS Church does not want to produce: a completely inactive, unbelieving, non-tithe-paying member. Still, I would not trade what I have to be the ideal happy Mormon priesthood holder, and that has much to do with my personality.

I think serious, non-believing scholars of Mormonism should cultivate the best possible relationship with believing scholars. Some of these guys are really interesting thinkers, and they have lots of value to share. We don't hear them sharing it when they are tied in knots repulsing and offering insults. Believing scholars can also gain from interacting with the non-believers. Sometimes in their zeal to protect the faith, I think they are unnecessarily dismissive of views they do not share. I would recommend to any believing apologist to compare Jan Shipps review of "Refiner's Fire" with Dan Peterson's review of the same book.

Not to bag on Dan, but personally I gained a great deal more from Shipps' review. She pretty much hit on the precise problem with that book, but she did so with such scholarly acumen and grace that I walked away from that review educated. With all due respect to Dan, and Louis Midgley, I have not walked away from a number of their reviews with a lot more than "don't read this book, it is methodologically unsound." In almost every case, when I read the book they trashed, I learned *something* very interesting and worth knowing. Shipps acknowledged the place of Brooke's book, what it brought to the discussion, and then she *critiqued* it masterfully. Different strokes for different folks? Something more?

I have picked on some prominent apologists here, and in fairness I would say that for every document the Tanners shared with the world, they said a great deal that was downright cartoonish in its inaccuracy. Frankly, much of the back-and-forth that we find here is far worse.

Anyway, I have carried these thoughts around for a while, and they practically spilled out of me. I promise not to be so wordy all the time. It can be a bore. And for those who are happy with the insults and gotchas, that is cool that you get something out of it. Maybe I am just a buzzkill.

[_Blixa]

Wow. Thanks for the load of insight, Trevor. Your post gave me a lot to think about said with a graciousness and tact I often find lacking in myself.

I plan to email Don when I get to SLC (and have regular internet access--probably within the week). I'd like to hear more about the work you are collaborating on.