Is DCP Accusing the Brethren of Censorship?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm sure that everyone by now has heard the news that John Gee's book, Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith, has been pulled from shelves. Unsurprisingly, the Mopologists aren't happy about this, and indeed, the the bellyaching continues apace:

That brief sentence comes forcibly to my mind as I contemplate the situation summarized and endorsed by Jana Riess:

“Controversial Latter-day Saint book pulled from publication”

She has the advantage over her readers, of course, and very much has the advantage over John Gee, since his book has been effectively silenced and suppressed — at least temporarily. In some quaintly antiquated circles, it continues to be imagined that the best method for responding to a bad book, or to a book that one dislikes or with which one disagrees, is to rebut it. (“I disapprove of what you say,” Voltaire is often though probably inaccurately supposed to have said in response to a government-directed book-burning, “but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”). However, making a book utterly disappear is plainly a far more effective and efficient method of response. Still, we can be grateful that, for the most part, we currently tend to burn neither books nor their authors.

On the one hand, this seems like Dr. Peterson's usual exaggeration and mischaracterization, but I wonder if he's wandering into dangerous territory here. Who, exactly, "[made] a book utterly disappear"? Remember: the book was apparently pulled from both Deseret Book and the BYU Religious Studies Center. Is the idea that both of these institutions--overseen by the General Authorities--are swarming with "apostate scum"? If the book was pulled from Latter-day Saint bookstores, then you sort of have to assume that the decision to do so was at least tacitly supported by the General Authorities. If that's true, it means that Dr. Peterson, in essence, is accusing the Brethren of being the equivalent of book-burners--akin to the Nazis, as it were.

And it's worth pointing out that this is just plain hypocritical. How much effort did Midgley expend attempting to get one of Rodney Meldrum's book pulled from Deseret Book? And what about Midgley's campaign to have D. Michael Quinn's books eliminated from the Tanners' bookstore? Quite hypocritical, if you ask me.

[_Gadianton]

He'll say to trust him, the General authorities are on the side of Gee, but some other bureaucratic reality nonetheless sustains the action, for now. The same bureaucratic reality that prevents a reversal of the MI.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Any sane person can see the Brethren are not interested in the most controversial material of that book being debated. I'd wager there do exist GAs yet who agree with Gee. It's not about who is right or wrong, it's about hashing out and debating a hugely controversial topic that is already showing the leaders in a bad light. It's the same reason that he bans critics from Sic et Non. Why not be consistent, and rebut Dr. Shades, Moksha, and Dr. Exiled? Why rely on censorship? He's thinking it causes an image problem for the blog -- he won't link to "anti-lit" for the same reason.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Indeed, Dean Robbers. You are very right to point out the censorship/banning of Dr. Shades, Moksha, Dr. Exiled, and even yourself, if I'm not mistaken. (Imagine: banning a *Dean*!) But here is another detail that I don't quite get: Why not publish it through "Interpreter"? Wouldn't that sidestep nearly all the problems they're encountering? And yet, I'm sure they see the dilemma: if they publish through "Interpreter," it will be seen as insular and self-serving, and yet if they go outside of the "inner circle," there is a risk that their ideas will be subjected to actual peer review.

[_consiglieri]

I think Professor Peterson is blind to the fact that he leaves no effort unexpended in defending the very church authorities responsible for his cashiering from the Maxwell Institute.

The people who do Dan dirt can't possibly be the people in charge. It must be members of a shadowy and low-brow Nicolaitan band operating under the radar.

This seems like more along the same lines.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, as some have been fond of reminding me, the LDS Church is not a democracy. It is a theocracy. And one cannot exclude the possibility that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit guided some priesthood leader to have the book pulled. When a priesthood leader with a divine calling exercises their spiritual gifts to receive revelation guiding people under his stewardship, is it for the blood of Ephraim to gainsay revelation?

Maybe further revelation will supersede this revelation.

[_consiglieri]

The Spirit sometimes works best when public outcry is made.

[Guest]

Dr. Peterson: “[Dr. Gee’s] book has been effectively silenced and suppressed — at least temporarily.”

It has? Strange that one can buy a copy of an effectively silenced and suppressed book through FairMormon and other outlets. The book will be effectively silenced and suppressed when the First Presidency directs members to turn in all copies to be destroyed (see the following link for an apt historical instance of a legitimate attempt by the church to silence and suppress a book: http://jared.pratt-family.org/first-pre ... tions.html).

Dr. Peterson: “Professor Gee’s fundamental and cardinal sin appears to be his willingness — however briefly and passingly, as part of the much wider scope of his overall book — to touch the third rail of the American cultural wars, which is sexuality (and most particularly homosexuality).”

Wrong. Try again. (I trust that Dr. Peterson doesn’t actually believe what he writes above.)

Incidentally, the book from which Dr. Peterson quotes is actually titled The Young Immigrunts, and Dr. Peterson has silently altered the punctuation in the quotation.

A short literary passage that seems to me increasingly apropos to our culture of rising intolerance and cancellation — see this egregiously silly case, for example — appears at Ring Lardner, The Young Immigrants (Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill, 1920), 78:

“‘Shut up,’ he explained.”

[_Kishkumen]

The Spirit sometimes works best when public outcry is made.

The cries of the righteous ascend to heaven!

[_Tom]

I must point out that Dr. Peterson has edited his post to correct the spelling of Lardner’s book, which, if I recall correctly—and I suspect I do—I read in first grade, shortly before I read Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method. I was a well-read child.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You too, Tom? I was a precocious and curious young man. By the age of eight I had devoured Ulysses, Atlas Shrugged (I grew up in a home of entrepreneurs and this was required reading for the children), the Brothers Karamazov, the Shruti, Koran, and of course the Journal of Discourses - all 26 volumes.

- Doc