How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Kishkumen »

Thank you, Doctor Scratch. It is always a privilege to have the kind of access to the world's leading authority on Mopologetics that DM, like MDB previously, does. Your devotion to the subject is truly inspiring and a real service to all who encounter this odd phenomenon. I can now see in what way you identify Royal Skousen's project "Mopologetic." On the one hand, there is the clear enthusiasm scholars who engage in Mopologetics have for the project, and then, on the other hand, the implicit appropriation of doctrinal authority involved in this enterprise. Yes, within our discourse about Mopologetics at MDB, I see how this is "ticking the boxes."

On the other hand, I would argue that in important ways Royal Skousen's project is not at all Mopologetic. What I am saying in arguing this is that I am utilizing a narrower sense of the term Mopologetic. For example, I would exclude things that can incidentally be used for apologetic purposes as Mopologetic when their primary purpose was not Mopologetic. Allow me to expand upon my idea of what Mopologetics is. I understand that I am a mere student talking to the real expert, but fortunately you are a long-suffering and kind expert.

Here are some of my criteria for what constitutes Mopologetics:

1. Ignores or misrepresents evidence or arguments that do not support LDS truth claims.
2. Bolsters evidence or arguments that are obviously inferior or even misleading in support of LDS truth claims.
3. Ideologically motivated in ways that take advantage of the cover supporting LDS truth claims provides.
4. Dismisses or minimizes any questions the doubting members have about LDS truth claims, and may even treat doubters as enemies of the faith.
5. In communications with doubters and external or internal critics largely mimics the views of LDS leaders, even when those views are untenable.
6. May, however, fraudulently claim support of the Brethren to use as a cudgel against those who disagree with their pet theories.
7. Habitually assume a posture of disdain, heavily rely on sarcasm and insults, and generally treat those at odds with LDS positions and authorities in any way as inferior or stupid.
8. Engage in fruitless communications that quash any productive dialogue with sincere questioners or critics.
9. Refuse to give an inch even in matters that are obviously uncertain.

The list could go on, but I think I have made my general point, and most of this is already known to you. These characteristics I see as being largely missing from Skousen's behavior and his project. Certainly he falls within the orbit of Mopologetics, but his elliptical only crosses the Mopologetic frame here and there. Is the funding really important? Yes. Are the people who are most guilty of Mopologetics supportive of Skousen? Yes. However, producing a critical text of the Book of Mormon, on its face, is just a good, old-fashioned scholarly activity. Whether any particular person wants it done or not, if done well, a critical text of the Book of Mormon is absolutely crucial in order to understand what is a crucial document for understanding Mormon history, a not insignificant object of research for students of American religion. Moreover, Skousen really just does not engage in the fruitless, petty, childish, and dishonest rhetoric and argumentation most Mopologists, when acting as Mopologists, do.

And, I would say that, while almost everything connected to Mopologetics in a substantive way will ultimately defeat itself and prove to be little more than a historical footnote, scholars may use a decent critical text of the Book of Mormon for generations to come. So, I would say that, Mopologists support Skousen because, not only are they inherently interested in Mormonism and the Book of Mormon, they are acknowledging that in order to make any truly lasting contribution of worth, they better support projects that are minimally Mopologetic or not Mopologetic in any way.

That's just my view.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Kishkumen »

Wonhyo wrote:
Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:25 pm
Skousen's work on the Book of Mormon language is, perhaps, the most useless scholarship on anything Mormon-related in the entire history of the religion. And that is saying something.

All that money spent to support Skousen's research, and the conclusion is that a ghostly committee of King James-era Englishmen translated the plates and then projected their work onto Joseph seer stone?!?

Fool me once...
The Ghost Committee is a fun send-up of one odd speculation that cropped up in the process of trying to understand the results of serious study of Book of Mormon language. The value of studying Book of Mormon language, on the other hand, is potentially immense. There is a lot of potential in such a study to look into non-standard usages in early 19th century America. One can see how Smith's choices compare with what others did when consciously trying to mimic the King James Bible or speak in a religious register. So, I would disagree with you. There are serious reasons, linguistic, historical, and religious studies-related, to study Book of Mormon language.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Wonhyo
Star B
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:29 am

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Wonhyo »

Kishkumen wrote:
Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:48 pm
Wonhyo wrote:
Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:25 pm
Skousen's work on the Book of Mormon language is, perhaps, the most useless scholarship on anything Mormon-related in the entire history of the religion. And that is saying something.

All that money spent to support Skousen's research, and the conclusion is that a ghostly committee of King James-era Englishmen translated the plates and then projected their work onto Joseph seer stone?!?

Fool me once...
The Ghost Committee is a fun send-up of one odd speculation that cropped up in the process of trying to understand the results of serious study of Book of Mormon language. The value of studying Book of Mormon language, on the other hand, is immensely fascinating. There is a lot of potential in such a study to look into non-standard usages in early 19th century America. One can see how Smith's choices compare with what others did when consciously trying to mimic the King James Bible or speak in a religious register. So, I would disagree with you. There are serious reasons, linguistic, historical, and religious studies-related, to study Book of Mormon language.
Thanks for shining additional light on the value of the project for me.

I am still learning... 📚
"There is no path to happiness. Happiness is the path.”
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Kishkumen »

Wonhyo wrote:
Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:51 pm
Thanks for shining additional light on the value of the project for me.

I am still learning... 📚
No worries, Wonhyo! I am just sharing my opinion. I am always open to correction and could be wrong about things.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1672
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Doctor Steuss »

Tom Quoting Dr. Peterson wrote:
Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:39 pm
2) The appearance of Early Modern English . . . in the original English dictation of the Book of Mormon. Once again, though, neither the early Latter-day Saints nor anybody else noticed for several decades. And, also once again, it becomes difficult to explain away. It’s very strange for believers, but, for those who seek a naturalistic explanation for the appearance of the Book of Mormon in the late 1820s, it’s virtually impossible.
I'm obviously missing something. The people who lived around the time that the text was written (or translated) saw nothing noteworthy or unordinary in the presence of Early Modern English; therefore, it's virtually impossible for there to be a naturalistic explanation?

That they saw nothing noteworthy or unordinary in the language seems to be a naturalistic explanation in itself for the presence of the language, no?
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Kishkumen »

According to my understanding, for some time now the claims for the significance of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon have been greatly tempered. I have no idea why DCP would put it forward as some great miraculous thing. It is as miraculous as boar's tusk helmets appearing in the Iliad. In other words, it isn't miraculous at all. It is a deliberately archaizing mechanism that was consciously worked into the oral dictation process. When studied carefully, Early Modern English will not appear miraculous at all, at least to those who have anything like a reasonable standard for what constitutes a miracle that will stand up to general scrutiny.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Dr Moore »

Doesn’t every scholar get paid to research stuff they find intellectually titillating?
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Kishkumen wrote:
Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:44 pm

Here are some of my criteria for what constitutes Mopologetics:

1. Ignores or misrepresents evidence or arguments that do not support LDS truth claims.
2. Bolsters evidence or arguments that are obviously inferior or even misleading in support of LDS truth claims.
3. Ideologically motivated in ways that take advantage of the cover supporting LDS truth claims provides.
4. Dismisses or minimizes any questions the doubting members have about LDS truth claims, and may even treat doubters as enemies of the faith.
5. In communications with doubters and external or internal critics largely mimics the views of LDS leaders, even when those views are untenable.
6. May, however, fraudulently claim support of the Brethren to use as a cudgel against those who disagree with their pet theories.
7. Habitually assume a posture of disdain, heavily rely on sarcasm and insults, and generally treat those at odds with LDS positions and authorities in any way as inferior or stupid.
8. Engage in fruitless communications that quash any productive dialogue with sincere questioners or critics.
9. Refuse to give an inch even in matters that are obviously uncertain.

The list could go on, but I think I have made my general point, and most of this is already known to you. These characteristics I see as being largely missing from Skousen's behavior and his project. Certainly he falls within the orbit of Mopologetics, but his elliptical only crosses the Mopologetic frame here and there. Is the funding really important? Yes. Are the people who are most guilty of Mopologetics supportive of Skousen? Yes. However, producing a critical text of the Book of Mormon, on its face, is just a good, old-fashioned scholarly activity. Whether any particular person wants it done or not, if done well, a critical text of the Book of Mormon is absolutely crucial in order to understand what is a crucial document for understanding Mormon history, a not insignificant object of research for students of American religion. Moreover, Skousen really just does not engage in the fruitless, petty, childish, and dishonest rhetoric and argumentation most Mopologists, when acting as Mopologists, do.

And, I would say that, while almost everything connected to Mopologetics in a substantive way will ultimately defeat itself and prove to be little more than a historical footnote, scholars may use a decent critical text of the Book of Mormon for generations to come. So, I would say that, Mopologists support Skousen because, not only are they inherently interested in Mormonism and the Book of Mormon, they are acknowledging that in order to make any truly lasting contribution of worth, they better support projects that are minimally Mopologetic or not Mopologetic in any way.

That's just my view.
I appreciate your thoughts, Reverend. I suppose that I only disagree with you somewhat re: the latter portions of your comment here--or, at least, I'm curious how other details might fit with your view. For example, what are your thoughts on Brant Gardner's work? Gardner is among the nicest and most decent of all Mopologists, but he's been one of the primary advocates for the LGT, which is central to Mopologetic thinking. I suppose it would fit under points 1, 2, and 3 in your list? And what about somebody like John Welch, and his chiasmus work? Welch tends to stay out of the fray, but he's rumored to be every bit as "mean" as Peterson, Midgley, and the others. I recall a podcast interview with Will Bagley, who described Welch as "extremely belligerent." Is Welch more squarely in the Mopologist category due to that alleged "belligerence"? Or is it because of the emphasis places on chiasmus being "proof" that the Book of Mormon is ancient? (And if it's this latter point, isn't that what the Mopologists are doing with Skousen's project? Because how could Joseph have known! It defies explanation!)

Finally, this point is intriguing:
The Reverend wrote:they are acknowledging that in order to make any truly lasting contribution of worth, they better support projects that are minimally Mopologetic or not Mopologetic in any way.
But they are very selective, no? They absolutely hate the Heartlanders. And they are antagonistic towards the "new" Maxwell Institute, and the Mormon Transhumanists, and so on. So why choose to support this project of Skousen's?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
consiglieri
Prophet
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:48 am

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by consiglieri »

Is it possible the early modern English Skousen finds in the Book of Mormon might be less a divine prank, and more a clue as to what books other than the Bible young Joseph read with sufficient assiduity as to incorporate the language into his magnum opus?
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:37 pm
Doesn’t every scholar get paid to research stuff they find intellectually titillating?
Sort of. Usually, in the beginning, there is a "filter" in place. If Skousen was a graduate student or an adjunct trying to get a full-time position at an academic institution, I can only imagine how this project would go over with the typical hiring committee.

You're right that academic is rife with all sorts of silly projects like this, but this is slightly different in that it's being funded by a Mopologetic organization. And maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any validation of his work from other "serious" Mormon scholars. I mean, have Givens or Hardy or Bushman stepped up to proclaim how great Skousen's Early Modern English "discovery" is? What about the Maxwell Institute?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply