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

[Guest]

Dearest Friends and Colleagues:

With the end of the year, one always wants to size things up, and take account of everything that happened. It's a moment where, on the one hand, you look backwards, to see where you've been, and you also look forwards, to the future: What New Year's Resolutions will you make? How will things be different? Sure: there is time for merriment, too: oysters and caviar, of course, are always highlights of the Dean's New Year's parties--along with the odd jeroboam or two of Bollinger that he keeps socked away.

But this year is special because not only is it the end of 2019; it is also the end of the second decade of the 21st Century: the 2010s. Indeed, if I may engage in a bit of self-reflection: this is the first complete decade in which I've been lucky enough to serve as the B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies. I have to tell you: it has been an incredible honor. I want to thank Dean Robbers for appointing me to this position, and I need to give thanks to my many colleagues at Cassius University.

What does one say about an entire decade of Mopologetics? Did it change in that time? What were the crucial moments? Who emerged as a key player? Who disappeared from the scene? Most importantly: What is it that ultimately defined Mopologetics during the 2010s? To answer that question, we have to look back through the annals of time. Hindsight, the old saying goes, is 20/20. And indeed, in my scrutiny of the past ten years, I discovered a great many things. It's thus in that spirit of research and discovery that I share my scholarly peregrinations with you.

What follows are my very humble selections for the 10 most important moments in Mopologetics from the past decade....

10. The Ghost Committee (2012-Present)

Number 10 on this list is what has come to be known as the "Ghost Committee," a theory that appears to have been generated primarily by Royal Skousen in connection with his work on the language of the Book of Mormon: Skousen's work on the "Book of Mormon Critical Text Project." The baffling chief finding of Skousen's research, to date, is that Early Modern English (i.e., English phrases dating from the Early Modern period) is present in the text of the Book of Mormon.

The Ghost Committee subsequently became something of a modern classic: a case of Mopologetic inventiveness in the service of defending Mormonism. (Granted, the competition isn't exactly stiff: the lone other doctrinal theory the Mopologists offered during the 2010s with any real seriousness was the LGT.) Classic because it was certainly original, but also because of its stunning absurdity. Why, you might ask, would there be Elizabethan English in the Book of Mormon, which the Mopologists swear up and down is an ancient text, written in a semitic language in Latin America? No one within their camp seemed willing to challenge Skousen's basic claim: i.e., that the language is simply there. No one amongst the Mopologists disputes this. Thus, it becomes a matter of explaining *why* it is there.

I suppose that Skousen et al. deserve some credit for offering up a spiritual explanation: one that exists far, far outside the norms of even fringe humanities scholarship. It showed them genuinely leaning into the notion of being frankly and openly religious, rather than constantly trying to maintain the facade of legitimate scholars and academics. (Or, even worse, their non-stop prattling about how these two things--scholarship and religion--are perfectly compatible.) But the explanation was perhaps even more dire than the findings themselves. Here's the poster named "Garbo," reporting on a fireside that s/he attended:

The fireside was interesting. I wasn't aware, beforehand, that Skousen is actually quite the orthodox/fundamentalist when it comes to the translation of the Book of Mormon. He actually believes, for example, that Joseph Smith read words off of a rock in a hat and read them out loud. He believes that the words were given exactly the way Smith read them, and that even the bad grammar was "revealed" on the rock Smith read them off of. The direct quotes from the KJV? They were words that appeared on the rock and Smith read them and his scribes recorded them, word for word.

Skousen says that Joseph Smith didn't even have (or own) a Bible when he was translating the Book of Mormon. He says there is evidence of this and that he didn't own a KJV Bible until Cowdery bought one after the Book of Mormon was translated.

Let's see .. what else ...

The words appearing on the rock weren't even from the 19th century, but from the 16th and 17th century. He said that the Book of Mormon was actually translated about 150 years before Joseph Smith was born and that the translation done in about 1600 A.D. was "delivered" to him in 1829. I don't really understand that, but it is what he said. I"m sure I didn't misunderstand. That is what he said: the Book of Mormon was translated 150 years before Joseph Smith was born! Huh? Is anyone else aware of this argument and do you understand it better than I did?

Interestingly, this all took place in July of 2012: scarcely a month after the Mopologists were ejected from the Maxwell Institute. And, of course, it was Mormon Interpreter that assumed chief stewardship over Skousen's project, and indeed, as Tom has usefully informed us, they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on it. The project has been a topic of interest at more than one of the FAIRMormon Conferences this past decade, notably in 2016, when Dan Peterson erupted with indignation over the fact that critics had zeroed in on the strangest aspects of Skousen's findings:

I think I may, in a few firesides some years back, have helped this nonsense along by relating a humorous anecdote about a conversation I had with Professor Skousen. When he first began to tell me about the evidence he was finding for the unexpected presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon, I was mystified. “What does this mean?” I asked him. “How do you explain it? What would account for it? Where did it come from?” He responded, with a smile, that maybe William Tyndale was on some sort of committee in the spirit world. “Are you serious?” I asked? “Oh, I don’t know,” he answered. “Maybe half-way.”

That’s it.

He’s never actually tried to account for the puzzling linguistic phenomena that he and Dr. Carmack have been identifying. He simply reports what they’re finding.

I hereby offer a personal check of $100 to anybody who can locate any passage in any published writing by either Dr. Skousen or Dr. Carmack in which either of them seriously advocates the proposition that the Book of Mormon was rendered into English by a mysterious spirit-world committee of translators, with or without the leadership of William Tyndale.

Let's face it: people are going to want answers for the fact that "puzzling linguistic phenomena" from the Early Modern Period are present in a book that the Mopologists claim above all else is an ancient book written in a semitic language. You have to wonder: did anyone stop to think what sort of impact this might have on the average Chapel Mormon / Sister in Parowan?

And therein lies the richness of "The Ghost Committee" as a piece of Mopologia. It's so revealing because here you actually see them candidly engaging in apologetics for Chapel Mormons. You so seldom ever see them addressing that particular audience. Normally, their writings are intended for other academics--both LDS and Non---or aimed at perceived enemies or critics: and yes, I realize that these categories can overlap. But here, we all got to see, with our own eyes, a case of what their explanation would be to a wavering "Chapel Mormon"-type person: "Sure, you have believed all your life that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text (which is surely is!), and so it may seem weird that there is stuff from the Early Modern period in it. But no need to worry, kiddo: Dr. Skousen thinks that this was being done from the spirit world. So that explains it."

The "Ghost Committee" idea seemingly had everything: it showed us another side of the Mopologists. It served as delicious comedy for multiple years. It was both a hot potato, as Garbo reported (something confirmed by other sources) in the sense that the Brethren took issue with it, doubtless for the same reasons I already named (i.e., they feared it might damage testimonies):

Oh, one other thing. The second question he was asked in the Q/A was why he published his book through Yale and if the "Brethren" approved of his work. He responded that he did it through Yale so it would get out faster than if he'd tried to do it directly through the church. Something like that. He also said no, the "Brethren" do not endorse his work, but they don't disagree with it. They are very aware of it, but they don't officially endorse it and he doesn't know when or if the errors he has discovered will be fixed in the official Book of Mormon.

And just think: this isn't over yet. "Mormon Interpreter" is still paying out tens of thousands of dollars in support of the Skousen project. When will it be completed? What will it mean? Will the Brethren "fix" the errors that have been pointed out to them?

We will have to wait and see.


9. Bill Hamblin Reveals His Home Department Refuses to Recognize Mopologetics as "Scholarship" (2013)

One of the longest-running battles the Mopologists have been waging is one for legitimacy: for decades they have sought to convince the world that there work is truly "scholarly." While their fanbase seems convinced, this is--to no small extent--a case of "preaching to the choir." Their primary audience doesn't seem to understand why something might be considered scholarship whereas something else is pure pseudo-scholarship. Meanwhile, both critics and outsiders (such as Philip Jenkins, who will reappear later in this list) have pointed out that the Mopologists' writings--going clear back to the early days of the FARMS Review, and arguably even earlier, to Hugh Nibley--is mostly crackpot nonsense. They've also argued repeatedly that the Mopologists' work doesn't use a recognizable form of peer review. (In fact, I myself was banned from the old FAIR message board for making this exact argument.)

The wildcard in all of this has always been the Mopologists' fellow academics. What do they think? Not much, it turns out. In a memorable 2013 posting to his blog, the late Bill Hamblin did not hold any punches as he announced his resignation as Executive Editor of the blog known as "Mormon Interpreter":

Why I’m Resigning from Interpreter

Effective immediately, I’m resigning as executive editor of Interpreter for the following reasons.

1- My department told me today in essence that both my editorial work with Interpreter, and publications with Interpreter will not be considered serious scholarship. They explicitly advised me to publish in other venues. (This has been, by the way, the consistent policy of both my department and college for a quarter of a century. I have consistently been told essentially the same thing about not publishing with FARMS by every administrator. The fact that I’ve published with FARMS in the past has directly led to delayed promotion and sub-cost of living pay raises.) I am tired of receiving poor evaluations on my scholarship because publishing with FARMS and now Interpreter is considered unscholarly by BYU.

2- The directors of the Maxwell Institute complained to the administration about my public criticisms of their new policies. The administration, without giving me a chance to see or respond to those complaints, told me to stop criticizing the Maxwell Institute’s new direction.

3- I’m tired of the relentless torrent of abuse from anti-Mormons and apostates, including them sending anonymous slanderous email accusations to university administrators.

4- A person I thought was a friend recently decided to describe me (indirectly) as an apologetic hack instead of a real scholar. (This, by the way, has been the fundamental, most insidious, and perpetual slander of apostates–that a believing LDS scholar don’t do real scholarship. It is also, a classic example of ad hominem.) It’s rather depressing when your friends desert you.

5- I love research and writing. But I literally hate the bureaucratic and editing work required to run Interpreter. I’ve spent a great deal of my free time for six months trying to get Interpreter up and running. I think it is firmly established and viable now. Someone else can take it from here on out.

It’s clearly time to move on. I will have nothing more to say on these matters, and will not be taking phone calls, answering emails, or posting comments on the subject. (Sorry, I need a break.)

I wish Interpreter well, and believe it has a very important role to fulfill in LDS intellectual and spiritual life. The Board of Editors and associates have done a truly miraculous job in producing a journal ex nihilo–the third volume will be published this week. I appreciate all their efforts in creating the journal. I have every confidence that they can move ahead to a great future without me.

The post was significant because it represents a direct admission from one of the most prominent Mopologists that even their own fellow Latter-day Saint academics think that their work is crap. The "Sisters in Parowan," it would seem, are the lone people who look up to them. The worship and respect that they crave so badly will only ever come, evidently, from the kind of folks who pay to attend the FAIR Mormon Conference.


8. Problems with the Limited Geography Theory (Multiple Years)

Our colleague Symmachus has pointed out on more than one occasion that the Mopologists have failed to produce a single "new theory or idea"--except, perhaps, the increasingly moribund "Limited Geography Theory," the main claim of which is that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Latin America, rather than North America, as most Mormons were taught. Indeed, it's very hard to look back at the past 10 years without acknowledging how pivotal the LGT has been to Mopologetics: it is the hill they chose to die on, and it's impossible to underestimate the amount of trouble it has caused them. The LGT has been so bothersome, in fact, that these days, Dr. Peterson insists that it "doesn't matter" to him where the Book of Mormon took place--an argument that likely would have been unthinkable even just a few years ago.

But let's roll the clock back a bit: as early as 2011, Dean Robbers announced that "The LGT is Dead", quoting from a Mormon Studies Review article (at the time, the journal had just recently been re-named) by John Clark:

This essay abridges my critical evaluation published twenty-two years ago of two Book of Mormon geographies by F. Richard Hauck and John L. Sorenson. I recognized at the time that proposals for real-world (external) settings for Book of Mormon lands and cities come and go with the regularity of LDS general conferences or market forces

(emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, the Mopologists were fighting a protracted battle with Rodney Meldrum and the so-called "Heartlanders," who argue--contra the Mopologists--that the Book of Mormon took place in North America. More on this later, but suffice it to say that there were rumors that Midgley attempted to get one of Meldrum's books banned from both the BYU bookstore and Deseret Book; Midgley angrily confronted Meldrum at a conference, even shoving his finger in Meldrum's face, as recounted by Dr. Shades:

as he [Meldrum] was leaving, Louis Midgley came up, stuck his finger in Meldrum's face, and said, "Are you that Rod Meldrum guy?" Then Midgley "went off" on him [his words, not mine], eventually getting so worked up that he whacked his own head and spun around a few times(!). Such a display is bound to attract attention, and Meldrum said that eventually 30 to 40 people were standing around, watching Midgley's "gymnastics" [again, his words, not mine]. Once he was done, Midgley stormed off and accosted Elder [Hartman] Rector, going off on him, too. After they had cleared out, Rector's wife told Meldrum that she'd never seen her husband treated with so much disrespect.

Of course, it was Midgley who also defended the LGT in a strange and protracted blog posting for "Mormon Interpreter." In the article, he seemed not to notice that his arguments concerning the Maori don't really seem to align with the basic claims of the LGT.

Later, a pseudonymous poster using the alias "Peter Pan" began authoring posts on a blog called "Neville-Neville Land" that were devoted solely to personally attacking Heartlander Jonathan Neville, and these blog entries got heavy publicity from Dan Peterson on "Sic et Non." All the while, the headaches continued to pile up: problems with DNA evidence; lack of material evidence of any kind; problems with analyses of the languages spoken by the indigenous people. Indeed, the LGT is the source of the unflattering nickname given to Dr. Peterson: "Tapir Dan," thanks to a wayward Mopologetic speculation that the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon may have actually been referring to tapirs (or deer), since horses did not exist in pre-Columbian Latin America.

As you will see, the LGT runs like a toxic thread through the entire past decade of Mopologetics (it will feature prominently in two more of the Top Ten), but a truly devastating blow was dealt out to the theory this year, thanks to "SeN" commentator SReed:

Here in this 1924 book by RLDS Louise E Hills: https://babel.hathitrust.or...

It’s a total fraud created by the RLDS Church. Page 131, Hills mentions a Elder HA Stebbins, who was born in 1844, the year Joseph Smith was murdered. This is Stebbins autobiography: http://www.latterdaytruth.o...

See page 194 where Stebbins came up with his Central America theory from John Lloyd Stephens’s book. This was in 1894 or so. Stebbins Book of Mormon lectures are here wherein he mentions his Central America theory: https://babel.hathitrust.or...

Then the RLDS Church created a Committee on American Archaeology about the same year. This is its report: https://babel.hathitrust.or...
And the map from that report, created by a RLDS member residing in Michigan, based on Stebbins’s lectures, is here:
https://www.worthpoint.com/...

Then in the 1920s when the RLDS Church couldn’t afford to purchase the New York Hill Cumorah, RLDS Louise E Hills came up with the original Hill Cumorah in Mexico, noted in his 1924 book, p. 131
https://babel.hathitrust.or...

Thus the fraud, to keep the RLDS legit, since it also believed in The Book of Mormon but didn’t own the Hill.

Dr. John L. Sorenson mentioned RLDS Hills, in his 1991 publication: “The Geography of Book of Mormon Events, A Source Book,” noted in the archive below:

https://archive.bookofmormo...

Thus, Sorenson, Welch, Magleby, Peterson, know the source of the Mesoamerica Two-Cumorah geography theory for The Book of Mormon, is a RLDS fraud, but they promote it anyway.

And:

Louis E Hills is mentioned by Alan C Miner in his blog here
https://stepbystep.alancmin...
“1917^ Louis Edward Hills The Geography of Mexico and Central America from 2234

B.C. to 421 A.D. (Independence, Missouri)
A member of the RLDS Church, Louis Edward Hills is credited with being the first to develop a Book of Mormon geography model that was strictly limited to Mexico and Central America (see illustration below).

“For him the hill Cumorah was in central Mexico, the first place ever suggested other than New York.”

The illustration is the yellow map I’m using for my profile.

Alan C. Miner, Dentist, sold his Springville, Utah building to Kirk Magleby, which is now the headquarters of “Book of Mormon Central” co-owned by Jack Welch, you’re good friend. This is publicly available on Utah County land records, even for those residing outside of Utah. Should I bore you with the details? Ok. http://www.utahcounty.gov/L...

To date, there has been no serious response to SReed's comments, and one wonders if we can close the book on the LGT and dismiss it as the made-up hoax that, per SReed, it actually is. At any rate, it's unclear what future--if any--the LGT has. There is still the larger issue of whether or not the Book of Mormon should be regarded as an actual history, but embracing that as the primary argument would entail an agreement with the Heartlanders, and where would the fun be in that?


7. The Late War (2013) and Added Upon (2019)

In the past decade, there were arguably two crucial books that shed revelatory light on the nature of Mopologetics: Gilbert J. Hunt's 1816 book The Later War and Nephi Anderson's fictional rendering of heaven, Added Upon. The first book was revealed to MormonDiscussions.com readers by the Revered Kishkumen in the fall of 2013, and to date, the thread in question has over 300,000 views, meaning that it is very likely the most-read thread of all time on the board. You can (and should) read the thread for yourself, but suffice it to say that The Late War, at this point, seems very likely to have served as source material for the Book of Mormon. The Mopologists, to date, have not supplied an adequate response/explanation for the hundreds of similarities between the two books.

Meanwhile, Added Upon supplied much-needed clarification on the Mopologists' theological views, with Dr. Peterson extolling the novel for its depiction of the afterlife, calling it "the most exciting thing I had ever encountered, the most magnificent vision of human destiny imaginable." Of course, the book depicts heaven as an elitist, Social Darwinist patriarchy in which the weak are humiliated and weeded out. Naturally, the Mopologists would gravitate to this.

But the point is clear: to understand Mopologetics in the 2010s, familiarity with these two books is an absolute must.


6. The CES Letter (2013/2014-Present)

As the Mopologists are all too happy to remind you, they were given direct orders from Elder Maxwell himself: "No uncontested slam-dunks." Practically speaking, this has translated into a state of affairs where the Mopologists and their followers are forever trying to put out fires caused by critics and others. The major flashpoint of this past decade, though, was Jeremy Runnells's "CES Letter," which consumed a considerable percentage of their energies these past several years. Runnells's piece was framed as an inquiry to a Church Education System Director, and it asked a series of questions about problematic aspects of LDS Church doctrine and history. It immediately went viral, and the Mopologetics worked overtime to prevent it from inflicting "damage" on the fragile testimonies of the "Sisters in Parowan" and other unwitting Chapel Mormons.

Attempts to counter the Letter were multiple, including FAIR Conference keynote talks, blog entries, "Mormon Interpreter" blog postings (more than one, in fact!). Ultimately, though, it would seem that the forces of Satan have triumphed as far as the Letter is concerned. In 2015, Dr. Peterson acknowledged that the Letter was "doing harm", but admitted that he was throwing in the towel in terms of trying to do anything about it:

Reading the “Letter” was, for me, roughly as much fun as undergoing certain very uncomfortable medical procedures. As I went through it, I grew increasingly vexed and annoyed. I could scarcely finish the thing, and haven’t, thus far, been able to muster any enthusiasm for going back to it.

That didn't stop him and other Mopologists from firing off potshots, though, including an apparently false accusation that Runnells was excommunicated--a false statement that Dr. Peterson was later forced to retract. (Peterson was also apparently accused of being "obsessed" with Runnells.)

Indeed, the acrimony has been running high for the better part of the past decade. Arguably the culmination of the whole affair came in the form of Scott Gordon's FAIR conference presentation this past summer, which was described by Rob Terry as a presentation in which Gordon "got emotional and choked up while talking about the effectiveness of this document as an “anti-Mormon” proselyting tool and the gravity of the CES Letter’s impact on the LDS world. Many families have been broken up and many people have had their lives disrupted."

That Gordon--a prominent, weathered, long-time Mopologists--would be reduced to tears by the CES Letter is a testament to the disruptive power that the document has had.


5. Hamblin vs. Jenkins (2015)

For better or worse, the Mopologists seldom engage with other academics in a public way. (See Item #9 for more on this.) Thus, in 2015, students of Mopologetics were treated to what can only be described as the Debate of the Decade when Bill Hamblin, on his blog, "Enigmatic Mirror," threw down the gauntlet and challenged Baylor Professor Philip Jenkins to an online "duel." (A record of the exchange can be found at Jenkins's website.) There is no substitute for reading the exchanges yourself, but some the highlights included Jenkins dismissing "Ancient Book of Mormon Studies" as pseudo scholarship, along with his repeated question:

I offer a question. Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.

No one answered his question then, and no one has answered it since. It was widely agreed that Jenkins made mincemeat out of Hamblin's arguments, and interestingly, none of the other Mopologists (save for young Neal Rappleye) seemed willing to come to Hamblin's aid. (Jenkins mopped the floor with Rappleye, too.) It seems unlikely to me that this sort of thing--a prominent Mopologist openly debating an established academic on Mopologetic topics--will ever happen again. As I noted earlier, this was a case where the apologists were publicly humiliated over one of their key tenets--in this case, the LGT / "Ancient Book of Mormon Studies." Will they inch ever more closely to the dreaded "Inspired Fiction Theory" in the next decade?

We will have to wait and see.


4. The Dehlin "Hit Piece" (2012 & 2013)

The Mopologists had been warned for years about their belligerent tactics, but, with a great deal of arrogance, they continued to ignore the warnings until, at last, it was too late. The definitive "straw that broke the camel's back" came in the form of what was eventually dubbed "The Dehlin Hit Piece." At the time--circa April 2012--rumors began to swirl that Dan Peterson had either authored or commissioned a negative article on John Dehlin, which was to be published in the (newly re-christened) Mormon Studies Review.

These days, Dehlin is something of a "larger-than-life" figure: a prominent advocate for ex-Mormons and for LGBTQ+rights, among other things, and the host of a successful podcast. Back in 2012, though, he was still a fully-fledged Mormon, complete with temple recommend in hand. There were indications that he was slowly but surely transitioning out of the Church, but back then, he was still "in the fold," and doing his best to help people manage their feelings as they encountered the "difficult" aspects of Church history and doctrine: aftershocks from the introduction of the Internet, and the easy access it granted to things that had mostly existed in the shadows of LDS Church culture. (Rock in the hat, anyone?)

The Mopologists had declared all-out war on Dehlin, though, and had begun a campaign--both public and private--to discredit him. Midgley began circulating rumors about problems during Dehlin's mission, and behind the scenes, Greg Smith, Trevor Holyoak, and others began to collect "dirt" off of Dehlin's Facebook page and from other corners of the Internet. Meanwhile, Dehlin himself had become a public figure, and he had allies in Church Headquarters, and when he caught wind of the possibility of a "hit piece" appearing in the pages of the Review he called down a favor from (allegedly) Elder Holland, who intervened and ordered that the article be pulled from the forthcoming issue of the Review.

Although there are doubtless other factors that figured into the decisions that were made, it seems appropriate to refer to the "Dehlin Hit Piece" as the catalyst that ultimately led to the dissolution of "classic FARMS." The "hit piece" was thus important both in a historical sense, but also in a symbolic sense: it is emblematic of the Mopologists' unrestrained impulses towards cruelty and revenge.

Oddly, the "hit piece" was little more than a shadow until the subsequent year, when bits of it were leaked, thus forcing the Mopologists' hand and it was published in the brand-new blog, "Mormon Interpreter," (along with a follow-up piece). At last, readers could see for themselves what had caused the end of FARMS-style Mopologetics at BYU.

As an interesting addendum to the whole affair: while Greg Smith's meisterwerk was published on the blog, it was omitted from the print edition of the journal!


3. The End of FARMS (2012)

The "Dehlin Hit Piece," of course, makes a perfect segue into Item #3. 2012 was a monumental, earth-shattering year in Mopologetics--it was the year that everything came crashing down. In June of 2012, I received word from an "informant" that Daniel C. Peterson, the long-time leader of the Mopologists and Editor-in-Chief of the Mormon Studies Review, had been fired. The key piece of evidence came in the form of a June 14th email, apparently authored by then-MI Director M. Gerald Bradford (who would later be hailed as a hero for his efforts in this regard). At first, the email was met with skepticism, but before long, a second email surfaced--this time from Peterson himself--and it was not pretty:

From: Daniel Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:18 PM
To: <[M. Gerald Bradford] xxx@xxx.xxx> [18 other recipients, redacted for privacy]
Subject: Re: Charting a new course

Dr. Bradford:

You've achieved your goal. I resign.

I resign as Director of Advancement, effective immediately. You've already fired me as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.

My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.

I realize now, too, that you've been plotting this for some time, and that, naïve fool that I am, I didn't even realize that I was playing chess before I had been checkmated.

There is nothing you can do to prevent this from being an absolutely spectacular propaganda triumph for those who oppose the Institute and despise me, so don't bother trying. As a matter of fact -- since the Institute leaks like a sieve -- I had already read today (on an apostate message board) that there was soon to be a shake-up in the editorial leadership of the Review. They know about it, and they're going to feast on this for years to come.

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works. You could have waited a bit so that that conclusion would be less apparent, but, of course, you haven't. Frankly, I'm not surprised.

With my sacking now, and with what I presume to be the simultaneous dismissal of Lou Midgley and George Mitton and my other associate editors, which follows the utter marginalization of the scholars who once made up the board of directors and the complete ostracism of Jack Welch and, most recently, the re-alienation of Bill Hamblin, the process of driving away those who committed so much of their energy to the creation and building of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute continues apace.

You think it healthy. I do not.

And let's not pretend that the delay in this issue of the Review, or the slowness with which recent issues have appeared, is the justification for this move. You've never raised the matter with me before. In fact, your own actions have significantly contributed to the delay of this most recent issue. (It's substantially complete, though, and the Institute owes my associate editors the proper fees for their services. It's no fault of theirs that you're spiking this issue.)

I regard this as an utterly wrong-headed and disastrous decision, and will not pretend to support it. And not merely because it will subject me to enormous and quite undeserved public humiliation. It's a betrayal of Elder Maxwell, who explicitly approved of what we were doing. "No more uncontested slam dunks," he said. But now we're returning to the status quo ante, under which there were and will continue to be plenty of "uncontested slam dunks." It's a brazen repudiation of the mandate given to us by President Packer, who, when he spoke at the dinner during which we were officially entrusted with Elder Maxwell's name, praised two specific aspects of the Institute's work: the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and its apologetic efforts. It's a betrayal of the promises we made to our leading donors, who explicitly asked us to do apologetics and, in some substantial recent cases, gave us major donations based on our assurance that we would continue to do so.

You place me in an extraordinarily difficult situation, as I'm supposed to be an advocate for a Maxwell Institute that, in my view, will soon no longer exist, and to maintain good relations with donors to the Institute to whom, in my opinion, we will now prove to have flatly lied. I cannot do that. I don't know what to do about the forthcoming Development Council Turkey trip that I conceived, since several of the people who are slated to participate in it are going, at least partially, because I persuaded them to do so.

I feel obliged to try to make it a good trip and to go, but it will, I think, be my last effort on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, and I won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors. Given their interests, I think their money should go elsewhere. And, though I won't be so disloyal as to solicit funds from them for anything else during the trip to Turkey, I will feel entirely free to do so thereafter. And I'll be vocal about why I no longer regard the Maxwell Institute as an appropriate recipient of their money. I will explain my resignation, and my reasons for it, in a note to members of the Development Council after the conclusion of the Turkey trip but prior to the October PLC meeting. I do not feel that I can do otherwise and maintain my integrity. I've built up a good relationship with the members of the Smith Family Foundation; good luck in maintaining that.

I agreed to give a private tour to the Holy Land -- the trip that I'm currently on -- partially in the hope of interesting a PLC donor in giving to the Maxwell Institute. We're getting along well, but I'm not going to mention the Institute to him any more. Nursing and Athletics are perfectly adequate continuing recipients of his gifts. And I think I can safely predict that, even without my saying much, you will, with my dismissal, instantly lose one very specific annual donation.

Please note that I have not resigned as editor in chief of METI. I will not let you have that so easily. I founded it. It was entirely my idea. I brought it into the Institute. You'll have to explicitly fire me from that position in order to get rid of me altogether. And I won't take it lightly when you do.

I understand that some contract issues may be affected by my resignation as Director of Advancement. I trust that we can work those out in a civil manner. Pending my dismissal from METI, I will insist that I continue to be compensated as a director in my role, which I will now have more time for, as its editor in chief. I also expect my usual fee as editor of the issue of the Mormon Studies Review that you've killed. It was finished and ready to go.

Very seriously yours,

Daniel C. Peterson
Tiberias, Israel

DCP's ejection as editor of the Review would have been huge, epic news in and of itself, but his angry, barely restrained email was revelatory for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, it showed his "bull in a china shop" approach to disagreeing with others (hence his CC'ing all those additional people). It also revealed how deeply money and Mopologetics are intertwined: notice how he says that he "won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors" and that he "expect[s his] usual fee as editor of the issue of the Mormon Studies Review." One still cannot help but wonder: How large was this "fee"? $2,000? $5,000? More? He is allegedly forgoing such fees altogether now with "Mormon Interpreter," but back in the heyday, it would seem, he was certainly collecting money for doing Mopologetics.

For another thing, in noting that "the Institute leaks like a sieve -- I had already read today (on an apostate message board) that there was soon to be a shake-up in the editorial leadership of the Review," Peterson admitted that he'd made a number of enemies on "the inside" (cf. item #9 on this list) and had effectively pissed off his colleague so much that they were willing to "leak" information to apostates, critics, and anti-Mormons.

It's also worth pointing out the connection that Peterson himself draws between Dehlin and his removal: even *he* knew that was a key reason (though he and his comrades would later gloatingly celebrate Dehlin's excommunication). It's also humorous to observe, all these years later, Peterson's insistence on the notion of "no uncontested slam-dunks," even as Jeremy Runnells and the Heartlanders have been delivering body-blows to the Mopologists for the better part of the decade. "Uncontested" indeed.

And take a look at Peterson's aggressive challenge to Bradford:

Please note that I have not resigned as editor in chief of METI. I will not let you have that so easily. I founded it. It was entirely my idea. I brought it into the Institute. You'll have to explicitly fire me from that position in order to get rid of me altogether. And I won't take it lightly when you do.

Of course, Bradford never attempted such a thing. Instead, roughly a year and a half later, Peterson himself chose to resign as
Editor-in-Chief of the Middle Eastern Text Initiative:

Last month, amidst the continuing aftereffects and fallout of the events that took place within the Maxwell Institute in the middle of June 2012, seeing literally no alternative and no way to function, I finally resigned as editor-in-chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative.

The end of FARMS was a huge, devastating blow to the Mopologists, and in spite of the fact that they immediately scrambled to establish "Mormon Interpreter," they've never fully recovered from what happened in 2012. As Peterson himself put it, concerning critics of Mopologetics: "they're going to feast on this for years to come." Yes, and I doubt that anyone has quite gotten their fill just yet.

There is one other thing that DCP noted in his missive, and it will serve as a great segue into the next item:

you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion

2. Schryvergate (2011)

William Schryver was a polarizing figure in the world of Mopologetics: liked by some due to his aggressive tactics, but also viewed cautiously due to his tendency to cross lines of respectability. In 2010, he made a noteworthy presentation at the FAIR Conference, and he seemed poised to become the next important defender of the Book of Abraham, thanks to his "cypher theory" (it was later squelched by Chris Smith, Andrew Cook, and others). Trouble was brewing, though. Schryver had a tendency to make threats and to use vulgar, un-Christian language. In fact, he even insinuated that his penchant for vulgarity was viewed with approval by DCP and other Mopologists (a fact that, in light of some of Midgley's recent comments, seems increasingly likely to be true):

I also happen to know that these particular friends are acutely conscious of the semantic distinctions between a circle jerk as an activity engaged in by adolescent boys (it has nothing to do with homosexuals, contra cksalmon’s frequent misrepresentations thereof) and a circle jerk as "a pompous, self-congratulatory discussion."

Then again, these are educated men who also know the difference between intercourse as "sexual contact" and intercourse as "connection or dealings between persons or groups." As also the difference between incestuous as ” sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry” and incestuous as meaning simply ”excessively or improperly intimate or exclusive”. As also the difference between whore as ”a promiscuous or immoral woman” and whore as “a venal or unscrupulous person”.

In the final analysis, when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

And I choose my words carefully.

Thus, when I characterize Mr. Scratch as a wanton whore whose diseased stench afflicts every corner of this wretched place, that is precisely what I mean. Neither more nor less.

That I have friends (“in high places” as it were) who occasionally find my comments amusing is less attributable to their vulgarity (or my own, for that matter) than it is to their familiarity with the nuances of the English language and their admiration for someone who knows how to wield it with a certain savoir faire. Indeed, much of their amusement is attributable to the motivated ignorance of the majority of the posters here in the GSTP™, and the banal ways in which that apparently-intentional ignorance manifests itself in the comical reactions to the things I say.

A "wanton whore"? Hmmm. Prior to this, Schryver was apparently posting using the pseudonym "Wheat," and making threats directed at Runtu and others:

I only regret that the Danites are currently disbanded, otherwise we could effect an quick and permanent solution to the problem of PostMormons. We would start with the pseudo-intellectuals like [Blixa] and then work our way down to the double-minded “change like the wind” panderers like Ray A.

Oh, for the good old days …

At first I thought it was a joke, but knowing Wheat like I do, I'm not sure.

Joking? Heck no. Daniel Peterson and I have been cleaning our assault rifles and loading special rounds for several days now. Just waiting for the word … ;^)

What do you imagine DCP thought of all of this? Publicly, it seemed that Schryver was in the good graces of the BYU apologists, but this all came crashing down in 2011, thanks to an epic effort of reporting by Ms. Jack, in which she demonstrated at length the full range of Schryver's toxic views--especially his abrasive and misogynistic attitudes towards women. MsJack's now-legendary thread has had over 200,000 views and 77 pages' worth of comments, and is of enormous historical value. (It even includes an incursion from a Schryver sock puppet or two in an effort to put out the flames.) Behind the scenes--rumor has it--Dan Peterson had begun a quiet campaign to discredit Schryver: referring to him to at least a couple of people as a "loose cannon." MsJack's thread had real consequences: as Peterson pointed out in his message to Bradford, it helped lead to Schryver's publication getting squelched, due to fears about associating with someone with such a nasty online reputation.

Mopologetics is notoriously tribalistic, and many observers have wondered just how far any given Mopologist would be allowed to go. Some thought that Pahoran, with his trademark cruelty and lack of empathy, was the poster child for bad behavior and an indication of the apologists' unwillingness to ever chide one of their own. Schryver was a bridge too far, though, even for them--at least seemingly. There were rumors that Brian Hauglid (now a persona non grata with the Mopologists) had urged the Maxwell Institute leadership to give Schryver the heave-ho. And it is worth pointing out that there has never been a public rebuke of Schryver by the Mopologists. Indeed, as you can see in Peterson's message to Bradford, he complains about Schryver's work being "suppressed," and in the early days of "Sic et Non," DCP posted pictures of himself spending time with Schryver in southern Utah. (They were all standing about, sporting pairs of special eclipse-viewing goggles.)

In the end, Schryver was apparently banned altogether from even setting foot in the Maxwell Institute. :

At some point in early 2011, I made mention of these forthcoming articles in an online message board post. Not long after this announcement, the same group of people who had attempted to suppress my FAIR conference presentation the previous year resurrected their scheme, and posted on their message board a seemingly well-researched exposé entitled Mormon Apologetics and Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver.9

In addition, this same group of militant anti-Mormon activists11 began to secretly plot to have my forthcoming articles removed from the publication agenda of the JBMORS. They were aided by two or more individuals with close association to the Maxwell Institute, as well as an influential member of the FAIR Board of Directors, who, on this second attempt, was apparently persuaded that the allegations against me had merit: to whit, that I am a notorious misogynistic thumper who has made vicious ad hominem attacks upon women a staple of his online literary oeuvre. They framed their presentation as a sincere concern for the welfare of the women involved in "Mormon Studies," should they have the misfortune of being ambushed by me on the field of rhetorical combat.

Prior to May 2010, I had no idea that this group of people had been in contact with Dr. Bradford or anyone else at BYU. Indeed, I was entirely convinced that no one associated with the Maxwell Institute was interested in, let alone persuaded by, these outrageous ad hominem attacks. My research and writing had continued unabated. I had met with Professor Hoskisson on multiple occasions to discuss the future publication agenda for the series of articles I was preparing, and therefore, when he requested another meeting for May 16, 2010, I assumed its purpose was to further discuss these matters. I drove from Cedar City to Provo that morning for a lunch meeting with him. I arrived at the Maxwell Institute offices about noon, and was invited to join him in his office. There he succinctly informed me that Dr. Bradford had ordered that my scroll-length article be removed from the forthcoming issue of the JBMORS. He also informed me that Dr. Bradford had taken steps to prevent my being published by any journal associated with BYU, and that I was no longer welcome in the offices of the Maxwell Institute.

Not long after this, Schryver effectively disappeared from the scene, and he has not been a major player in Mopologetics since that time. Still, we can still sense the reverberations of his antics. He was polarizing, but in many ways he was also representative: he was the Mopologist par excellence--willing to openly revel in all of the Mopologists' worst and most offensive impulses. In that regard, Schryver was the Mopologist unmasked: vulgar, dirty, vicious, violent-minded, cruel, misogynistic, angry, and so on. He was a walking exemplar of their deepest beliefs and attitudes, and you can still routinely see vestiges of it in the "Comments" section of "Sic et Non," especially from Dr. Midgley.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if MsJack hadn't posted her thread. It seems obvious in retrospect that this was one of the things that ultimately led to the end of FARMS (along with the "Dehlin Hit Piece," and the next item on this list), but the case of Will Schryver--a tragedy, in certain regards--really has to be seen as one of the most crucial events that happened in Mopologetics during the 2010s.


And that brings me to the most important event of the decade. It is always a difficult task to try to zero in on one thing that sums up an entire ten years' worth of activities. What is it that brings everything into alignment? What is it that crystalizes our thinking about the movement, and shows us, with sharp focus, the meaning of Mopologetics? I thought long and hard about it, and ultimately, it could really only be one thing.

The most important Mopologetic event of the past decade was:


1. The 2nd Watson Letter (2009-2010)

In 1990, a well-meaning bishop named Darrell L. Brooks (how is this guy not famous?) of Oklahoma City wrote a letter to the First Presidency, asking about the location of the Hill Cumorah. The reply he received, from First Presidency Secretary F. Michael Watson, provided this now-infamous response:

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours,

(signed)

F. Michael Watson
Secretary to the First Presidency

This would seem to settle the matter then: the Hill Cumorah is in "western New York," just as Meldrum and the Heartlanders insist. Of course, this flies the face of the Mopologists' pet theory--the LGT, and so they set about trying to correct the "problem." Thus, later, in 1993, Bill Hamblin published "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon" in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. In that article, Hamblin writes that:

Michael Watson, secretary to the First Presidency of the Church, has recently clarified the Church's position on Book of Mormon geography.

"The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site." 70

(pg. 181)

Perusal of footnote 70 provides us with this clue:

Correspondence from Michael Watson, Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993.

In other words, the Mopologists apparently had managed to obtain a 2nd Watson Letter--one that would effectively "undo" the problematic clarification of doctrine that was contained in the 1st Watson Letter. (And, incidentally, this would also undercut the main arguments of the Heartlanders.) But where was the letter? There were facsimile copies of the 1st Watson Letter circulating around the Internet; when asked for a similar scan of the 2nd Watson Letter, however, the Mopologists refused to comply. DCP, Hamblin, and others taunted critics: "What, you think we're lying?" they said. They challenged people to write directly to Bro. Watson and request a copy of the letter for themselves. And, in fact, more than one person apparently actually did so. But it was to no avail.

At least, it was until very late in 2009. The entire edifice of lies was about to come crashing down. Thanks to a series of blunders (and thank, at least in part, to continued pressure from critics), some junior-tier apologists took it upon themselves to actually hunt down the actual "2nd Watson Letter" in order to lay the whole matter to rest once and for all. Unfortunately, it turned out that there *was no "2nd Watson Letter"*; instead, the document in question was a fax from somebody named "Carla Ogden." Recall that in Hamblin's published, allegedly "peer reviewed" article, he claimed that he'd received "Correspondence from Michael Watson," *not* "Carla Ogden."

The issue immediately blew up and led to one of the best, and most interesting threads ever to appear on MormonDiscussions.com (it is very rightly included among the "Hall of Fame" threads). There are also excellent summaries and re-examinations of the affair which you can read here and here. Critics immediately pounced on the fact that the text did not apparently originate from Watson, but the issue kept getting more and more bizarre. After several exchanges on the old MAD board, Brent Metcalfe eventually came forward and pointed out that the text of the "2nd Watson Letter" is a nearly verbatim copy of a passage from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The phraseology of the text quoted by Hamblin in his 1993 article as from the 2nd Watson Letter, and the identical text in the Ogden Fax, apparently originates from Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), s.v. CUMORAH. Ludlow had mentioned Mesoamerica location for Cumorah as one of the 'other possible explanations or locations' for Cumorah that might be better fits than New York state, before explaining that in LDS doctrine "there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested".

So, did the apologists simply plagiarize the Encyclopedia of Mormonism? Not quite, it turns out. Later on, Dr. Peterson claimed that there was "an internal document" that served as the basis for both the Encyclopedia *and* the "Ogden Fax":

For what it's worth, by the way, after a meeting today on several completely unrelated subjects (don't want to feed the conspiracy theorists who would otherwise leap to the conclusion that this was a crisis-management council convened to help us master our panic on this epochal issue), I ran into a colleague who knows something about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

I mentioned the manufactured Watson-letter teapot-tempest to him, and he replied that, as he understood it, the text that shows up in both the Carla Ogden fax and the Michael Watson letter had already been circulating for several years, and that, if he was not mistaken, the text of the Encyclopedia's "Book of Mormon Geography" article postdates that First Presidency text, and its language was deliberately worked into the Encyclopedia article at the suggestion of Elder Oaks and/or Elder Maxwell.

So the Encyclopedia of Mormonism text would, in that case, be dependent upon the text that appears in the Ogden and Watson communications -- or, more precisely, on some Church-generated document that was created prior to both of them, and from which both of them drew -- and not the other way around.

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it makes complete sense to me.

And to confuse matters even further, DCP later related some correspondence from Hamblin in which Hamblin claimed that his original text actually *was* a letter and not a fax, and that he had actually received the letter "while still in graduate school =before 1985." (How this was possible, given that the 1st Watson Letter did not appear until five years later, is anybody's guess.)

With the "2nd Watson Letter," we see the intersection of so many things that define Mopologetics: lying; distortion of the facts; "correcting" the Brethren; dictation their own version of doctrine; and so on. (Here's a trivia question for you: What connection, if any, did Daniel Ludlow, editor of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism have with the old FARMS?) It is also very tempting to view the 2nd Watson Letter incident as setting the stage for everything that would happen in the decade to come. Consider how outside observers might've interpreted what happened: that the Mopologists were lying was obvious. But during the discussions, readers were reminded of something DCP said back in 2001 on the ZLMB message board:

The First Presidency certainly doesn't need FARMS approval for their statements. But their secretary perhaps needed to be clued in on the real issues somewhat before he wrote a letter expressing the long-standing, commonsensical, but probably incorrect idea that the location of the final Nephite battle was in modern-day New York state.

So, they were boasting about dictating doctrine to the First Presidency's Secretary? Not a good look. The apologists had grown too big for their britches. Publicly lying (and getting caught), and making the First Presidency look incompetent? There was no way that that was going to be allowed to stand. Within the space of two years, we get Schryvergate (the epitome of Mopologetic nastiness) and then, of course, the end of FARMS. Was the 2nd Watson Letter the thing that set everything in motion? I'm inclined to think that it might have been. At minimum, it seems beyond dispute that it was one of the most important events from the last decade of Mopologetics.

* * * * * *

It really has been a fascinating ten years, hasn't it? I have to say that I do not have high hopes for Mopologetics in the coming decade. There are so few people left to carry on the torch once the current crop of Mopologists moves on, and it's hard to see much benefit for Smoot or Rappleye or any of the very few younger folks who would stand to "inherit the mantle," as it were. Still, one can always look to the future with a smile in one's heart.

Lest I be accused of having overlooked your favorite incident from the past ten years (and it is inevitable that I will), I humbly offer up this additional list of Honorable Mention moments:

--DCP is Repeatedly Accused of Plagiarism (2017-Present)
--Dr. Peterson Watches a "Hot booty shaking" Video (2012)
--The Time Lightbox Fiasco (2011)
--Launching of Interpreter (2012)
--Dr. Peterson Posts Photos of Black People Being Lynched as a "Joke" (2013)
--Blair Hodges Gets into a Fight with DCP at the FAIR Conference (2014)
--Dr. Midgley Admits that He Assaulted a Junior High Classmate (2019)
--Dr. Moore Offers the Mopologists $10,000 if They Can Refrain from Being Mean, and They Blow It (2019)
--Dan Peterson Attempts to Doxx Everybody Wang Chung (2013)

Is there anything I missed?

With that being said, Happy New Year! I hope your celebrations are festive, and that 2020 dawns with all the promise that a new start entails. Here's to what one can only hope will be another decade of spirited craziness in the world of Mopologetics.

[_Jersey Girl]

Is there anything I missed?

I would have liked to have seen some acknowledgement for the apologist who switched sides and joined us here.

[_Shulem]

2. Schryvergate (2011)

William Schryver was a polarizing figure in the world of Mopologetics: liked by some due to his aggressive tactics, but also viewed cautiously due to his tendency to cross lines of respectability.

Hi William!

Have a blow for ur nose!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Is there anything I missed?

I would have liked to have seen some acknowledgement for the apologist who switched sides and joined us here.

Well, there has been more than one, no? Philo is perhaps the most prominent, though if I'm not mistaken, Darth J "went over to the dark side" during this period as well. And there is also Stem. There may be others I've overlooked, but you are right that they deserve acknowledgment. Their contributions have been appreciated.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, those too. Thank you.

[_Philo Sofee]

Don't forget Kevin Graham and some dude called Paul Osborne.....

[_Jersey Girl]

Don't forget Kevin Graham and some dude called Paul Osborne.....

But...he's doing the decade.

I wouldn't mind seeing a write up of all who crossed over regardless of time period.

[_Dr. Shades]

WOW, what an unexpected, and amazing, treat! You've truly outdone yourself (in a good way) this time, Professor Scratch.

--Blair Hodges Gets into a Fight with DCP at the FAIR Conference (2014)

It probably ought to be clarified that the "fight" was verbal, not physical. :-)

I wouldn't mind seeing a write up of all who crossed over regardless of time period.

One prominent crossover who went the other direction--from critic to believer--was Don Bradley. I can't think of any others in this decade who did the same, though.

[_Stem]

What a meticulously crafted, marvelously noted and researched summary of the past ten years of mopologetics!

I would like to add a challenge. Can those folks amounting to what seems like the people who make up the Interpreter (and Book of Mormon Central if they do not all overlap) come up with the corollary to this fine piece of history rendering? What might they say has been the cause of all the events that have unfolded over the past decade, perhaps the most embarrassing decade they have faced? They must have a narrative crafted that exonerates them and places them squarely as the victims of satan's clever and subtle dealings. They just must. Their related history might make the church's history books if in the coming decades their work gets the appreciation they seek. Often, as it were, genius is lost on the current generation.

How does one receive a lifetime award then refusing to rest on such laurels turn around and delight us with such award meriting material?

[_grindael]

What about the Anonymous Church Essays in response to the CES Letter? They employed about every Mopologist in the Church to contribute to them. They have had a huge impact on the Church and critics. Overall, an interesting and informative read. Thank you, Scratch.