Correcting the Record

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps I should have been clearer - I'm talking about something that happened several years ago - perhaps as much as 15 years.

Oh, I know you were. I was using your post to update the situation. This happened within the last few days.

[Gadianton]

I don't think the Brethren have the moral capacity nor the incentive to "correct" Mopologetics. That has already happened to some extent, but I don't believe for a second that the Brethren authorizing the good intention of authorities at BYU represented any moral insight, I think the Brethren are completely self-serving and self-preserving. Mopologetics isn't bad for the Church leaders morally, but in terms of public perception, because the apologists come across as a band of unhinged lunatics. Well, at this point, it's really not on the radar anymore so it doesn't rise to being concerned about by the Brethren.

But I will say this. Church leaders will always side with those who are loyal to them, and for the most part, old-school FARMS is loyal. The leaders aren't going to be morally concerned about people critical of the Church getting their feelings hurt. For the same reason the Church leaders handle alt-Right presence in the Church minimally as possible -- only as it touches on a public perception problem -- they will never see the need to "handle" apologists who are fundamentally loyal to them, no matter how nasty they get.

If I were one of the Brethren weighing Kishkumen's complaint, I'd be thinking, if apologetics were reigned in, would that bring Kishkumen back to Church in a fundamentally committed and believing capacity? Probably not. If so, if there were a group of disaffected members hurt by Mopologetics who would return with full belief in Joseph Smith and complete loyalty to Church leaders -- and with particular fond memories of Boyd KKK Packer -- then sure, they'd have a dilemma. In full honesty, if I were a consultant to the Brethren seeing to the material ends of the Church, I would advise to continue to turn a blind eye to the bad stuff and be somewhat supportive privately of Interpreter's pseudoscience while maintaining full deniability publicly.

[Marcus]

Criticism from some posters here may sting apologists more than criticism from others, because it is harder for the apologists to dismiss. I think Kishkumen may be especially frustrating for them in that way. He can't be brushed off for not knowing enough about Mormonism or its Scriptures; he can't be ignored for not being a professional academic; and he's male.

And we should perhaps recognise that, in some respects, that last, though true, is a sad statement.

Yes it is. Thank you for noting that.

I am quite sure, however, that the insult of having a professional academic female document dozens of the plagiarisms of a certain apologist was also a quite frustrating sting, and equally difficult to brush off. The femaleness of the academic who documented the plagiarism may matter to bigots--and only to bigots-- but the facts are irrefutable. In the end, that's all one needs to consider. Bigotry has no place, except, as Gadianton sadly noted, in the quiet protection of the bottom line.

I don't think the Brethren have the moral capacity nor the incentive to "correct" Mopologetics... In full honesty, if I were a consultant to the Brethren seeing to the material ends of the Church, I would advise to continue to turn a blind eye to the bad stuff and be somewhat supportive privately of Interpreter's pseudoscience while maintaining full deniability publicly.

[Kishkumen]

I don't think the Brethren have the moral capacity nor the incentive to "correct" Mopologetics. That has already happened to some extent, but I don't believe for a second that the Brethren authorizing the good intention of authorities at BYU represented any moral insight, I think the Brethren are completely self-serving and self-preserving. Mopologetics isn't bad for the Church leaders morally, but in terms of public perception, because the apologists come across as a band of unhinged lunatics. Well, at this point, it's really not on the radar anymore so it doesn't rise to being concerned about by the Brethren.

But I will say this. Church leaders will always side with those who are loyal to them, and for the most part, old-school FARMS is loyal. The leaders aren't going to be morally concerned about people critical of the Church getting their feelings hurt. For the same reason the Church leaders handle alt-Right presence in the Church minimally as possible -- only as it touches on a public perception problem -- they will never see the need to "handle" apologists who are fundamentally loyal to them, no matter how nasty they get.

If I were one of the Brethren weighing Kishkumen's complaint, I'd be thinking, if apologetics were reigned in, would that bring Kishkumen back to Church in a fundamentally committed and believing capacity? Probably not. If so, if there were a group of disaffected members hurt by Mopologetics who would return with full belief in Joseph Smith and complete loyalty to Church leaders -- and with particular fond memories of Boyd KKK Packer -- then sure, they'd have a dilemma. In full honesty, if I were a consultant to the Brethren seeing to the material ends of the Church, I would advise to continue to turn a blind eye to the bad stuff and be somewhat supportive privately of Interpreter's pseudoscience while maintaining full deniability publicly.

Well, yes. Of course my hypothetical was designed to illustrate how, contrary to the claim that my criticisms mean nothing because of who I am, I say that at the end of the day who I am does not matter. The question should concern the truth. For me the principles and truth matter. The idea that one would want loyalty regardless of principles and truth is abhorrent to me.

1. Oh say, what is truth? ’Tis the fairest gem
That the riches of worlds can produce,
And priceless the value of truth will be when
The proud monarch’s costliest diadem
Is counted but dross and refuse.

2. Yes, say, what is truth? ’Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire.
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies,
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies:
’Tis an aim for the noblest desire.

3. The sceptre may fall from the despot’s grasp
When with winds of stern justice he copes.
But the pillar of truth will endure to the last,
And its firm-rooted bulwarks outstand the rude blast
And the wreck of the fell tyrant’s hopes.

4. Then say, what is truth? ’Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o’er.
though the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore.

[Gadianton]

The idea that one would want loyalty regardless of principles and truth is abhorrent to me.

And yet, that is what following the Prophet literally means.

[Kishkumen]

And yet, that is what following the Prophet literally means.

It does in the LDS Church today, yes. I don’t think it will necessarily always mean that.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think we often dispense some of our harshest criticisms towards people and institutions that we actually hold in high regard.

It’s often an unfortunate and visceral reaction to someone or something not adhering to the standard we believe them capable of.

[toon]

I was amused by the addendum. The DMOB proprietor referred to this board as “elsewhere.”

Not "erewhon"?

Nowhere? Or the trendy, overpriced LA market, where you can get Hailey Bieber's Strawberry Glaze Skin Smoothie for $18?

https://shop.erewhonmarket.com/products

[Kishkumen]

I think we often dispense some of our harshest criticisms towards people and institutions that we actually hold in high regard.

It’s often an unfortunate and visceral reaction to someone or something not adhering to the standard we believe them capable of.

Agreed. I believed and internalized the values I was taught at church. Finding out that there was a cabal of bullies who enjoyed attacking fellow members from their perch at FARMS was a real blow to me. To this day I vehemently oppose these activities and behavior. The latest iteration is this Neville-Nevilleland nonsense and the alt-right Mopologetic antics of Robert Boylan. I think the Old Guard bears a big responsibility for nurturing this ugliness.

[Alphus and Omegus]

You’ve consistently been one of the most even headed posters here. It blows my mind that DCP compared you to gollum.

I can’t think of anything else that highlights DCP’s deranged view of critics better than that.

I do find it revealing, especially when you consider that guys like Kiwi57 and Midgley are fully embraced as warm friends. This is why I think that defending LDSism is the pass these guys give themselves to behave in frankly appalling ways.

The ends justifies the means in so many fundamentalisms. I think the record is very clear that people on this board do criticize fellow posters whom they believe to be acting wrongly. There are all kinds of disagreements here and it's healthy that they're had in public rather than behind closed doors. How often does Dan criticize his comrades? I confess I don't know because I don't read his blog posts except when they're mentioned here.

Mormonism has a very serious problem with free thinking, one which DCP frequently exhibits with Heartlanders and other people he doesn't like. I'm glad the church is avoiding taking a position on geography and some other literalist topics. That's a sign of ecclesiastical maturity. Dan should follow the brethren on this.