The Mopologists' War with the Heartlanders is Heating Up

[Guest]

I’m sorry to see contention among members of the Church — especially when that contention centers on what is, after all, an issue of at most secondary importance.

Interesting how as editor of the FARMS review and Interpreter, DCP has overseen the publication of dozens of Mesoamerican Limited Geography apologetic papers, but it's an issue of "at most secondary importance". He even writes apologetics for the LG apologetics!!

Brother Neville is the prolific author of at least twelve books and over sixty blogs (!), most of which expound his theories on the the Book of Mormon.

The Heartland crowd are using a shock and awe-like approach to stake out their territory. Jonathan Neville publishes multiple blogs and books, Dean Sessions makes hundreds of dubious claims in his 800+(!) page Universal Model book, Wayne May publishes countless archaeological forgeries and frauds and Meldrum runs massive Heartland expos with 80+ speakers.

The tactic they are using is a form of Gish Galloping; where so many weak and dubious claims are made its virtually impossible to respond to them. Consequently, ordinary members, keen for positive evidence, think there has to be something in this Heartland model. Sorenson did exactly the same thing for 60 years with his parallelomania apologetics for the Maya in Mesoamerica.

I wish to clarify that I hold no animosity toward Jonathan Neville; I merely wish to demonstrate that his one-note zeal for his theories has caused him to embrace ideas and conclusions that are not warranted by evidence and clear thinking.

—Peter

Jonathan Neville has shared the same warm sentiments before getting the knives out. He says he loves all the Meso apologists, then he rips their theory apart, pointing out how it conflicts with so many things the prophet Joseph Smith said.

This is what worries the Meso crowd the most. The Meso LG assumes Joseph Smith was merely an instrument to produce the Book of Mormon but didn't have a clue about where the events took place in the Americas. All those visits from an angel seared into his memory, except the bit about where the Lamanites were located.

[_moksha]

The same javelin used to take down the Mormon Transhumanists can be used on those pesky Heartlanders.

In the end, there can be only one Mighty Peculiar!

[_Doctor Scratch]

I’m sorry to see contention among members of the Church — especially when that contention centers on what is, after all, an issue of at most secondary importance.

Interesting how as editor of the FARMS review and Interpreter, DCP has overseen the publication of dozens of Mesoamerican Limited Geography apologetic papers, but it's an issue of "at most secondary importance". He even writes apologetics for the LG apologetics!!

This is an important point, Simon. As of right now, there is a thread here on MDB that extends into something like 17 pages--I'm talking about the thread that has utterly dismantled the Dales' paper on the probability of the Book of Mormon being true. Part of that discussion, as you may recall, involved Brant Gardner addressing questions of peer review. Lemmie, who seems to be the foremost expert in these discussions, has said that there is *no way* that this paper could have passed peer review, and Gardner explained that it's difficult to find "peer reviewers" outside the circle of Mopologists (and no, he did not put it that way, but that's what I assume he meant) because non-Mopologists either (a) don't know enough about statistics/archaeology/history/linguistics/etc., or (b) they don't know enough about the Book of Mormon.

The conflict with the Heartlanders, though, sheds further light on the problem with Mopologetics. These are the Mopologists fellow Latter-day Saints. Have Gardner or Wyatt every sought one of them out to conduct a peer review? And why hasn't there ever been a pro-Heartland article published in Interpreter? This *could* be a vigorous, engaging--if sometimes polemical--issue for Mormon intellectuals. Why not set up an actual debate within the blog pages of Mormon Interpreter?

The fact that this hasn't happened tells you so much about what Mopologetics truly is. Rather than taking up the issue (where the Book of Mormon took place), and framing it as an important intellectual issue; rather than having a good, civil, rigorous public debate--either in person or in print; rather than approaching this in a collegial and academic way, they have opted instead to use the tactics of dismissal and outright smearing (remember Greg Smith's article that called Rodney Meldrum a "snake oil salesman"?).

What, are they afraid of the Heartlanders? If money and priestcraft are in any way at the heart of what they do, then they probably *should* be, since it seems like the Heartlanders are really eating into their market share. Are they concerned that the Heartlanders are "stealing" LDS away--taking away their "audience"? The most generous reading in all of this--i.e., that the Mopologists think that the Heartlanders are simply wrong: wrong on the level of truth and intellectual integrity--seems wrong, because if this was the case, you'd expect them to approach this differently (such as by having debates, and tackling the issues in a more balanced way: Why not allow a guest editor from the Heartland camp?). What this shows, sadly, is that our longstanding suspicions about them have been correct. The smears, sniping, and refusal to engage in meaningful ways shows us all what the Mopologists are really all about.

[_Maksutov]

This is an important point, Simon. As of right now, there is a thread here on MormonDiscussions.com that extends into something like 17 pages--I'm talking about the thread that has utterly dismantled the Dales' paper on the probability of the Book of Mormon being true. Part of that discussion, as you may recall, involved Brant Gardner addressing questions of peer review. Lemmie, who seems to be the foremost expert in these discussions, has said that there is *no way* that this paper could have passed peer review, and Gardner explained that it's difficult to find "peer reviewers" outside the circle of Mopologists (and no, he did not put it that way, but that's what I assume he meant) because non-Mopologists either (a) don't know enough about statistics/archaeology/history/linguistics/etc., or (b) they don't know enough about the Book of Mormon.

The conflict with the Heartlanders, though, sheds further light on the problem with Mopologetics. These are the Mopologists fellow Latter-day Saints. Have Gardner or Wyatt every sought one of them out to conduct a peer review? And why hasn't there ever been a pro-Heartland article published in Interpreter? This *could* be a vigorous, engaging--if sometimes polemical--issue for Mormon intellectuals. Why not set up an actual debate within the blog pages of Mormon Interpreter?

The fact that this hasn't happened tells you so much about what Mopologetics truly is. Rather than taking up the issue (where the Book of Mormon took place), and framing it as an important intellectual issue; rather than having a good, civil, rigorous public debate--either in person or in print; rather than approaching this in a collegial and academic way, they have opted instead to use the tactics of dismissal and outright smearing (remember Greg Smith's article that called Rodney Meldrum a "snake oil salesman"?).

What, are they afraid of the Heartlanders? If money and priestcraft are in any way at the heart of what they do, then they probably *should* be, since it seems like the Heartlanders are really eating into their market share. Are they concerned that the Heartlanders are "stealing" LDS away--taking away their "audience"? The most generous reading in all of this--i.e., that the Mopologists think that the Heartlanders are simply wrong: wrong on the level of truth and intellectual integrity--seems wrong, because if this was the case, you'd expect them to approach this differently (such as by having debates, and tackling the issues in a more balanced way: Why not allow a guest editor from the Heartland camp?). What this shows, sadly, is that our longstanding suspicions about them have been correct. The smears, sniping, and refusal to engage in meaningful ways shows us all what the Mopologists are really all about.

Fascinating post, Doctor Scratch. It's also interesting to me that the Meso folks don't call the Heartlanders out on their association with avowed racists like Wayne May's buddy, Frank Collin (now calling himself "Frank Joseph").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Collin

[_Holy Ghost]

Why are heartlanders any more prone to being or becoming a cult, to having had or perhaps experiencing a schism, with "the church" than the LGT'ers? Seems to me "the church" has said geography should not be any member's concern, to just focus on the 'message' of the Book of Mormon. The only ones then that aren't cultish or in a schismatic state with respect to "the church" re the Book of Mormon geography are those that don't trifle their time or attention on where the Book of Mormon events might have occurred.

Of course, don't get me wrong, I think the geography is important, and another nail in the coffin of the Book of Mormon's veracity as a record of actual events that have occurred. I suppose that is what is at the heart of the thought processes that have compelled John Sorenson and his LGT followers, just as it is what has driven Neville and Heartlanders. Not to mention many a GA, such as Joseph Smith, who over the last 150 years has commented about where specifically Book of Mormon "events" took place.

[_Simon Southerton]

This is an important point, Simon. As of right now, there is a thread here on MormonDiscussions.com that extends into something like 17 pages--I'm talking about the thread that has utterly dismantled the Dales' paper on the probability of the Book of Mormon being true. Part of that discussion, as you may recall, involved Brant Gardner addressing questions of peer review. Lemmie, who seems to be the foremost expert in these discussions, has said that there is *no way* that this paper could have passed peer review, and Gardner explained that it's difficult to find "peer reviewers" outside the circle of Mopologists (and no, he did not put it that way, but that's what I assume he meant) because non-Mopologists either (a) don't know enough about statistics/archaeology/history/linguistics/etc., or (b) they don't know enough about the Book of Mormon.

Gardner knows all about lack of peer review. He reviewed Sorenson's magnum opus "Mormon's Codex" in 2013. Of course he gave it a big thumbs up BUT this was after he had suggested readers skip several chapters because they were so poor and to read a few more with "caution". Gardner wrote a book in 2007 in which he surveyed the evidence against Quetzalcoatl being Christ and Sorenson totally ignored it in his major work and just added more dubious parallels.

“A particularly important example is Sorenson’s elaboration of his support for the parallels between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus Christ. Perhaps because Sorenson has isolated himself from the work of other LDS scholars, he has missed a wider study of the Quetzalcoatl material that explicitly denies the correlation.33

The citation is to Gardner’s books which Sorenson doesn’t cite - ouch. It's inexcusable for a scholar in such a tiny field, to ignore a colleague.

I know that for many years Sorenson ruled the roost at FARMS. Back in 2000 he wrote two brief papers on DNA. The first one was a glowing endorsement because he thought the paper added evidence to his belief that Polynesians were descended from Native Americans. The same year he wrote a scathing review of DNA technology because it supported the theory that humans evolved in Africa. John Tvedtnes told me there was no internal review for these. He just barged on through, so you can imagine how peer review works among apologists.

The conflict with the Heartlanders, though, sheds further light on the problem with Mopologetics. These are the Mopologists fellow Latter-day Saints. Have Gardner or Wyatt every sought one of them out to conduct a peer review? And why hasn't there ever been a pro-Heartland article published in Interpreter? This *could* be a vigorous, engaging--if sometimes polemical--issue for Mormon intellectuals. Why not set up an actual debate within the blog pages of Mormon Interpreter?

What, are they afraid of the Heartlanders? If money and priestcraft are in any way at the heart of what they do, then they probably *should* be, since it seems like the Heartlanders are really eating into their market share. Are they concerned that the Heartlanders are "stealing" LDS away--taking away their "audience"? The most generous reading in all of this--i.e., that the Mopologists think that the Heartlanders are simply wrong: wrong on the level of truth and intellectual integrity--seems wrong, because if this was the case, you'd expect them to approach this differently (such as by having debates, and tackling the issues in a more balanced way: Why not allow a guest editor from the Heartland camp?). What this shows, sadly, is that our longstanding suspicions about them have been correct. The smears, sniping, and refusal to engage in meaningful ways shows us all what the Mopologists are really all about.

The FARMS/Interpreter cabal has invested everything in Mesoamerica. They would look like a bunch of idiots if they were to acquiesce. Meso is ludicrous, but Heartland takes it to another level.

[_Simon Southerton]

Gardner explained that it's difficult to find "peer reviewers" outside the circle of Mopologists (and no, he did not put it that way, but that's what I assume he meant) because non-Mopologists either (a) don't know enough about statistics/archaeology/history/linguistics/etc., or (b) they don't know enough about the Book of Mormon.

He missed out the most important criteria. (c) They must have concluded the Book of Mormon is true history before they start.

[_Holy Ghost]

The FARMS/Interpreter cabal has invested everything in Mesoamerica. They would look like a bunch of idiots if they were to acquiesce. Meso is ludicrous, but Heartland takes it to another level.

The FARMS/Interpreter cabal ought to appreciate the Heartlanders. It is only by contrast to the Heartlanders and being outdone by them that the FARMS/Interpreter cabal don't 'take the cake', the ludicrous cake.

[_Lemmie]

What, are they afraid of the Heartlanders? If money and priestcraft are in any way at the heart of what they do, then they probably *should* be, since it seems like the Heartlanders are really eating into their market share. Are they concerned that the Heartlanders are "stealing" LDS away--taking away their "audience"?

The tours DCP headlines for seem to be doing their best to keep their own part of that audience.

Under a headline "Book of Mormon Comes Alive in Mesoamerica" Cruiselady tours advertises this upcoming event:

Victor Ludlow will delight and uplift our group with humorous insights and informational talks on sea days. Join us on our optional private tours to make the most of your cruising adventure. Our local LDS guides in Mexico add to our experience in Cozumel as we tour the beautiful seaside ruins of Tulum. In Belize, we offer an exciting river boat ride through the jungle to see the magnificent ruins at Lamanai...

inserted from: "Book of Mormon Comes Alive in Mesoamerica"
http://www.cruiselady.com/tours/book-of ... soamerica/

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is an important point, Simon. As of right now, there is a thread here on MormonDiscussions.com that extends into something like 17 pages--I'm talking about the thread that has utterly dismantled the Dales' paper on the probability of the Book of Mormon being true. Part of that discussion, as you may recall, involved Brant Gardner addressing questions of peer review. Lemmie, who seems to be the foremost expert in these discussions, has said that there is *no way* that this paper could have passed peer review, and Gardner explained that it's difficult to find "peer reviewers" outside the circle of Mopologists (and no, he did not put it that way, but that's what I assume he meant) because non-Mopologists either (a) don't know enough about statistics/archaeology/history/linguistics/etc., or (b) they don't know enough about the Book of Mormon.

Gardner knows all about lack of peer review. He reviewed Sorenson's magnum opus "Mormon's Codex" in 2013. Of course he gave it a big thumbs up BUT this was after he had suggested readers skip several chapters because they were so poor and to read a few more with "caution". Gardner wrote a book in 2007 in which he surveyed the evidence against Quetzalcoatl being Christ and Sorenson totally ignored it in his major work and just added more dubious parallels.

“A particularly important example is Sorenson’s elaboration of his support for the parallels between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus Christ. Perhaps because Sorenson has isolated himself from the work of other LDS scholars, he has missed a wider study of the Quetzalcoatl material that explicitly denies the correlation.33

The citation is to Gardner’s books which Sorenson doesn’t cite - ouch. It's inexcusable for a scholar in such a tiny field, to ignore a colleague.

You know, this is fascinating. What do you suppose the odds are that Gardner--then the "junior tier" Mopologist--was called on the carpet for this? It's not that often that you see the Mopologists openly picking at each other like this, so this is a real find.

I know that for many years Sorenson ruled the roost at FARMS. Back in 2000 he wrote two brief papers on DNA. The first one was a glowing endorsement because he thought the paper added evidence to his belief that Polynesians were descended from Native Americans. The same year he wrote a scathing review of DNA technology because it supported the theory that humans evolved in Africa. John Tvedtnes told me there was no internal review for these. He just barged on through, so you can imagine how peer review works among apologists.

LOL! What a devastating blow to all of them, especially (recently) Wyatt and Gardner. Sheesh. Here, let me propose a challenge to them: explain, in the interest of transparency and moving forward, how the current Mormon Interepreter peer review is different compared to the non-existent "peer review" that was done for Sorenson?

The conflict with the Heartlanders, though, sheds further light on the problem with Mopologetics. These are the Mopologists fellow Latter-day Saints. Have Gardner or Wyatt every sought one of them out to conduct a peer review? And why hasn't there ever been a pro-Heartland article published in Interpreter? This *could* be a vigorous, engaging--if sometimes polemical--issue for Mormon intellectuals. Why not set up an actual debate within the blog pages of Mormon Interpreter?

What, are they afraid of the Heartlanders? If money and priestcraft are in any way at the heart of what they do, then they probably *should* be, since it seems like the Heartlanders are really eating into their market share. Are they concerned that the Heartlanders are "stealing" LDS away--taking away their "audience"? The most generous reading in all of this--i.e., that the Mopologists think that the Heartlanders are simply wrong: wrong on the level of truth and intellectual integrity--seems wrong, because if this was the case, you'd expect them to approach this differently (such as by having debates, and tackling the issues in a more balanced way: Why not allow a guest editor from the Heartland camp?). What this shows, sadly, is that our longstanding suspicions about them have been correct. The smears, sniping, and refusal to engage in meaningful ways shows us all what the Mopologists are really all about.

The FARMS/Interpreter cabal has invested everything in Mesoamerica. They would look like a bunch of idiots if they were to acquiesce. Meso is ludicrous, but Heartland takes it to another level.

So, you think it's largely a matter of embarrassment, then? Your other post, Simon--i.e., this:

Gardner explained that it's difficult to find "peer reviewers" outside the circle of Mopologists (and no, he did not put it that way, but that's what I assume he meant) because non-Mopologists either (a) don't know enough about statistics/archaeology/history/linguistics/etc., or (b) they don't know enough about the Book of Mormon.

He missed out the most important criteria. (c) They must have concluded the Book of Mormon is true history before they start.

...is actually really interesting as a point of comparison.

Here's a question for all the students of Mopologetics out there--Who is the greater enemy of the Mopologists: The Heartlanders? Or the Transhumanists? Or the "literary" Book of Mormon people? (a.k.a., the "New" Maxwell Institute?)

They are really going on the attack against the Heartlanders at the moment, but I wonder if the reason is connected to this Heaven's Gate-esque "Witnesses" film that they're cooking up. If, as some have speculated, the Mopologists are painting themselves into a corner whereby there own movie will indicate "inspired fiction" as a possibility, then maybe it makes sense to shift targets? I.e., you can't take aim at the Inspired Fiction/New MI people at the moment, because you are doing things too similar to them, but your crucial fanbase demands bloodshed, so you go ahead and ramp up the nastiness in the direction of the Heartlanders....

Well, it's fun to speculate, in any case.