Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:44 pm
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.
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.