Stephen Smoot's Vendetta

[Doctor Scratch]

Wasn't that this conversation? viewtopic.php?t=135385. I remember that beating.

No--this was a separate incident. What you've linked to was the fallout from the 2014 FAIR Conference. What happened was that DCP had posted some insulting thing on "SeN," directed at the "new" Maxwell Institute, and Blair Hodges--who was their communications person at the time--didn't take kindly to it. Hodges confronted DCP at the FAIR Conference and called him a "coward." In response, Dr. Peterson told Hodges to "go to hell!" and it was a whole big blow-up: a classic moment in the history of Mopologetics. That link details Bill Hamblin's mocking commentary on the whole thing.

The Hamblin/Jenkins debate, If I recall correctly, occurred during the summer of 2015.

[Marcus]

I don't think that it's Rappleye. You'll notice that that comment is from 2015, and that was around the time that Hamblin was getting his ass kicked by Phillip Jenkins. At one point, Rappleye attempted to challenge Jenkins, and Jenkins took him to the woodshed and completely humiliated him. After that, Rappleye was a lot more low-key and tended to stick to publications that were more "scholarly" in tone. He has tended to avoid the more hostile interactions that are at the heart of Mopologetics. If he *has* continued with the hostile activities, it has escaped my notice...

You're right, thanks for the reminder. now that you've reminded me, If I recall correctly, Jenkins interacted with him in the comment section, then wrote a DCP-style blog entry disparaging Jenkins, and he infamously ended up with a Jenkins blog post about his mopologetic approach.

it would be safe to say that that humiliated him so badly he stopped following the mopologetic behaviors of DCP, Midgley, et. al.

It's one of the few times, at least that I am aware of, that the mopologetic technique was thoroughly taken down by an academic. Hamblin being the most infamous one of course.

for a taste, here's an excerpt:

Apples, Oranges and Nephites
JULY 12, 2015 BY PHILIP JENKINS

Neil Rappleye is a Book of Mormon apologist. He recently did a piece about me at his blog, under the title The Goose and the Gander, and he is fully entitled to take issue with me on anything and everything. I don’t intend to respond to every criticism or comment he makes, but I am responding to this one because it raises interesting issues about methodology, and the relationship between authentic history and pseudo-history....

I have had a couple of exchanges with Neal Rappleye in the past. Then as now, he strikes me as smart and literate. I am no less struck by the puzzling disconnect between the articulate nature of what he writes, and the startling lack of sophistication of his arguments. By far his weakest spot concerns his use of far-fetched and wildly unconvincing analogies, which instantly destroy the credibility of his arguments – more on that shortly. This may all reflect the fact that Book of Mormon apologists really never engage with mainstream scholars. Virtually no mainstream academic takes his cause seriously enough to be worth arguing with, so an apologist never has an opportunity to test his/her arguments in that setting.

... your views depend entirely on alleged religious revelation, and that is why you are constantly scrambling to find real world confirmation. That is also why your views are irrelevant to any kind of scholarship, other than theology. What bothers me is not that you are preaching religion and revelation – heaven knows! – but that you don’t recognize or acknowledge the fact. If you believe or preach differently, you are deluding yourself.

Night and day, black and white, apples and oranges.

Neal should be ashamed to post an offering like this....

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbe ... d-oranges/

[Doctor Scratch]

I thought that one of the comments from Michael Hoggan was quite interesting:

I think Dr. Scratch wants to promote a fundamentalist view of scripture and history. I suspect he considers fundamentalism easier to refute than dealing with the statements (both past and present) that don't support fundamentalism.

This remark earned upvotes from both DCP and Peter Pan. I'm curious, though: what do they think "fundamentalism" actually is? By implication, they seem to be referring to the Heartlanders--i.e., believing that the Book of Mormon took place in the U.S., the Heartlanders are "fundamentalists." Meanwhile, just earlier today, Dr. Peterson posted a new blog entry in which he argues that there cannot be "any valid evidence against the Church." So does that invalidate the LGT? It conflicts with the "fundamentalist" view that the Book of Mormon took place in the U.S. And he and Smoot/Pan and other Mopologist have been waging a decade-and-a-half war trying to tear down that theory. Doesn't that mean that *they* have "valid evidence against" the 'fundamentalist' view of the Church?

As to Hoggan's suggestion: I think that both the LGT and the Heartlanders' ideas are "easy to refute," since their is virtually no evidence to support either of them. Really, the best evidence that either theory is true is the one that Dr. Peterson has been aggressively hawking--i.e., the testimonies of the witnesses. But those are about as valid as a group of people claiming to have been abducted by UFOs, or to have seen a sasquatch, etc.

The approach to the Book of Mormon that makes the most sense to me is the so-called "inspired fiction" idea--or the "Grant Hardy Approach"--that begins to move away from an insistence that the Book of Mormon is literal history. (Hardy, as you may recall, said at one of the FAIR Conferences that he doesn't think that belief in a literal Book of Mormon is necessary for entry into the CK.) "Inspired fiction" is a "liberal" idea, and it used to be prominently in the crosshairs of the Mopologists--partly due to their anger over having gotten ejected from the MI (the new version of which has, historically, been friendlier to the "Inspired Fiction" model)--but lately they've abandoned that tack in favor of attacking the Heartlanders.

At base, though, the fundamentalist view is the one that insists that the Book of Mormon is real, literal history, and that any deviation from this will tear down the entirety of the Church's truth-claims. Dr. Peterson and Steve Smoot are every bit "fundamentalist" as Rod Meldrum and Jonathan Neville.

[Kishkumen]

Really, the best evidence that either theory is true is the one that Dr. Peterson has been aggressively hawking--i.e., the testimonies of the witnesses. But those are about as valid as a group of people claiming to have been abducted by UFOs, or to have seen a sasquatch, etc.

Agreed. The witnesses are witnesses to supernatural/spiritual events. Subjective. The witnesses had no expertise to proclaim the plates to be an authentic ancient American antiquity. So their witness is of no value in establishing the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. It is a fine witness to their conversion to Joseph Smith's message and claims. In response to his claims, they had a witness or spiritual confirmation of the truth of what he claimed.

Period.

They chose to follow him in faith, and their endeavor had nothing to do with ancient history.

[Dr Exiled]

I thought that one of the comments from Michael Hoggan was quite interesting:

I think Dr. Scratch wants to promote a fundamentalist view of scripture and history. I suspect he considers fundamentalism easier to refute than dealing with the statements (both past and present) that don't support fundamentalism.

This remark earned upvotes from both DCP and Peter Pan. I'm curious, though: what do they think "fundamentalism" actually is? By implication, they seem to be referring to the Heartlanders--i.e., believing that the Book of Mormon took place in the U.S., the Heartlanders are "fundamentalists." Meanwhile, just earlier today, Dr. Peterson posted a new blog entry in which he argues that there cannot be "any valid evidence against the Church." So does that invalidate the LGT? It conflicts with the "fundamentalist" view that the Book of Mormon took place in the U.S. And he and Smoot/Pan and other Mopologist have been waging a decade-and-a-half war trying to tear down that theory. Doesn't that mean that *they* have "valid evidence against" the 'fundamentalist' view of the Church?

As to Hoggan's suggestion: I think that both the LGT and the Heartlanders' ideas are "easy to refute," since their is virtually no evidence to support either of them. Really, the best evidence that either theory is true is the one that Dr. Peterson has been aggressively hawking--i.e., the testimonies of the witnesses. But those are about as valid as a group of people claiming to have been abducted by UFOs, or to have seen a sasquatch, etc.

The approach to the Book of Mormon that makes the most sense to me is the so-called "inspired fiction" idea--or the "Grant Hardy Approach"--that begins to move away from an insistence that the Book of Mormon is literal history. (Hardy, as you may recall, said at one of the FAIR Conferences that he doesn't think that belief in a literal Book of Mormon is necessary for entry into the CK.) "Inspired fiction" is a "liberal" idea, and it used to be prominently in the crosshairs of the Mopologists--partly due to their anger over having gotten ejected from the MI (the new version of which has, historically, been friendlier to the "Inspired Fiction" model)--but lately they've abandoned that tack in favor of attacking the Heartlanders.

At base, though, the fundamentalist view is the one that insists that the Book of Mormon is real, literal history, and that any deviation from this will tear down the entirety of the Church's truth-claims. Dr. Peterson and Steve Smoot are every bit "fundamentalist" as Rod Meldrum and Jonathan Neville.

I like the last two paragraphs (and the others) but the last two hit the bullseye. Inspired fiction is where the church will ultimately land, probably after the hard core mopes/heartlanders are no longer with us. The literal historical view is dead and the mopes along with the heartlanders don't or aren't incapable of realizing this.

[Doctor Scratch]

“Neville-Neville Land” hasn’t missed a beat. The most recent entry has Smoot/Pan criticizing Neville for criticizing a Chuch-approved publication. Of course, this neatly avoids the fact that DCP and John Gee were called on the carpet by the Brethren for their criticism of the JSPP in “Interpreter,” but hey: there can be no valid criticism of the Church, right?

[Philo Sofee]

Dr. Scratch
By implication, they seem to be referring to the Heartlanders--i.e., believing that the Book of Mormon took place in the U.S., the Heartlanders are "fundamentalists." Meanwhile, just earlier today,Dr. Peterson posted a new blog entry in which he argues that there cannot be "any valid evidence against the Church." So does that invalidate the LGT? It conflicts with the "fundamentalist" view that the Book of Mormon took place in the U.S. And he and Smoot/Pan and other Mopologist have been waging a decade-and-a-half war trying to tear down that theory. Doesn't that mean that *they* have "valid evidence against" the 'fundamentalist' view of the Church?

I would propose, yet again, another checkmate here. This is powerfully said Dr. Scratch.

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m bumping this thread. For one thing, it may be helpful to the folks who are sorting through the Nygren/Parker details. But I also wanted to top it because all of this is giving me a bit of “deja vu” in terms of the way this resembles the lead-up to implosion of FARMS at the Maxwell Institute. Back then, the Mopologists were howling with laughter about how “wrong” I was—saying I was being lied to, or making things up. In the end, though, Dr. Peterson confirmed that there was indeed a “leaker” within the Maxwell Institute.

I’m not going to go so far as to say that I have been vindicated yet again, but I will say that, if the recent commentary about Smoot’s involvement with Neville-Neville Land is true, then I was awfully close!

And I have been debating on whether to say anything or not (I have been waiting for confirmation from an “informant”), but if what I’ve been told is true, there is a *new* “mole” within the Interpreter Foundation! It is somebody close enough to the goings-on that they apparently know specific details about the President’s absurd plans for future filmmaking endeavors. I will say more if/when I am able to.

[Kishkumen]

Interesting how the “good guys” keep turning their own people against them.

[Marcus]

I’m bumping this thread. For one thing, it may be helpful to the folks who are sorting through the Nygren/Parker details. But I also wanted to top it because all of this is giving me a bit of “deja vu” in terms of the way this resembles the lead-up to implosion of FARMS at the Maxwell Institute. Back then, the Mopologists were howling with laughter about how “wrong” I was—saying I was being lied to, or making things up. In the end, though, Dr. Peterson confirmed that there was indeed a “leaker” within the Maxwell Institute.

I’m not going to go so far as to say that I have been vindicated yet again, but I will say that, if the recent commentary about Smoot’s involvement with Neville-Neville Land is true, then I was awfully close!

And I have been debating on whether to say anything or not (I have been waiting for confirmation from an “informant”), but if what I’ve been told is true, there is a *new* “mole” within the Interpreter Foundation! It is somebody close enough to the goings-on that they apparently know specific details about the President’s absurd plans for future filmmaking endeavors. I will say more if/when I am able to.

Same reason I am bumping this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=151621&start=10