A Brief Homily For The Purposes Of Ministrations To Daniel Peterson.

[DrStakhanovite]

( OP’s theme song)

Salutations my learned friends, curious and anonymous onlookers, and the Right Worshipfuls, the Worshipfuls, Wardens, and dearest Brethren, of Cassius University. I stand beneath the carved ouroboros of the Brutus Rectory, the storehouse of wandering souls, betwixt Poimandres and Hermes, and offer each of you embryonic divinities my sincere obeisance.



It has been a season since I’ve strolled the manicured grounds of my beloved Cassius University and I am delighted to see the Summer break is in full swing. Already I hear the soft murmurs of undergraduates diligently memorizing the formal definition of a tetracategory; I do believe they are already on the U₅ٖ₂ unit condition! And there are the sonorous performances of Donne’s ‘Death’s Duel’ in Western Farsi that hits the ear just so.

I have been away on business for the Borgesian Archives of Moral Science, visiting Universidad de Sevilla, carefully examining the known property of the prelate Juan de Zúñiga in a determined search for an early copy of ‘Introductiones latinae’ by Aelius Antonius Nebrissensis that I suspect contains important marginal notations. The former was once Grand Master of the Knights of Alcántara before becoming Archbishop of Seville and Nebrissensis enjoyed a productive 17 years under such sublime patronage.

On the transatlantic flight back from Andalusia I took the liberty of catching up with our Peterson Obsession Board and quickly found myself in Moksha’s thread whereupon I fell into a bit of melancholy. I’ve commented on Daniel’s abandonment of philosophy in the past and now I fear I’m watching his worldview collapse in real time. It is a common ailment you see in the works and life of the Mormon intelligentsia; a slow and meandering abandonment of the grand Western canon that inevitably ends in a lonesome coffin forged in Hamblinesque misery. Thankfully there is an antidote to such a state of affairs and if my dearest mentor Daniel cares a whit for our parasocial arrangement, he too might find something of probative value for his religious convictions.

As proper red blooded conservatives, Daniel and I don’t need to seek recourse at the National Review and we ought not to do so. Why not reach back into the history we both seek to carefully preserve and learn from those distant luminaries? Surely our predicament is not unique to us and once we experience what Edmund Wilson called “the shock of recognition”, it’ll become readily apparent that our struggles with the current Republican party are not bound to this contemporary age. If anything, our resolve will be fortified knowing we are merely being carried along the stream of history grappling with the moral laxity within our own ranks as all generations do.

And where do we native English speakers begin? We begin with John Milton’s ‘Areopagitica’:

I grant that the behaviour of books, like that of men, must be watched. Books are not absolutely dead things; they have a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are. But then they are more than living; a good book is the precious life-blood of a master-spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life.

The shade I seek to summon is none other than Marcus Tullius Cicero himself and that should come to little surprise to those of us with an actual gospel to proclaim. Strewn across various works Cicero can’t help but return to the theme that philosophy done properly animates one to a public life, albeit in very Roman terms.

I’ll start with ‘De natura deorum’ and pick a spot that will be very familiar to Daniel:

Now, with regard to my own works, which within a short space of time I have put forth in considerable number, I notice that a good deal of comment of different kinds has been spreading, proceeding partly from those who wondered whence I had acquired this sudden enthusiasm for philosophy, and partly from those who wished to know what definite convictions I held upon particular points.

Much like Cicero, Daniel is fairly prolific and puts out a ream of digital material and like every writer who isn’t doomed to total obscurity, often finds himself misunderstood.

Well, upon these counts I can pacify friendly objectors and confute malignant fault-finders in a way which will make the latter repent of having taken me to task, and the former glad that they have learnt the truth, for those who admonish in a friendly spirit deserve to be instructed, while those who assail in an unfriendly spirit deserve to meet with a repulse.

Far be it from me to behave as a fault-finder and I hope Daniel views this in the same friendly spirit as I offer it; seeking instruction from my mentor in all things Mopologetic.

Now I have not turned suddenly to philosophy, and from an early period of life I have expended no little attention and care upon that study, and when I seemed least devoted to it I was in reality most so. This is shown by the frequency with which the opinions of philosophers occur in my speeches, and by my friendship with the learned, an honour which my house has always enjoyed, and by the fact of such leading men as Diodotus, Philo, Antiochus and Posidonius having been my teachers. If, moreover, all the precepts of philosophy have a bearing upon life, I consider that both in my public and private capacity I have carried out what reason and principle prescribed.

Is this not reminiscent of Daniel? Having to justify his interests in topics like philosophy and science from the likes of us by insisting those have been lifelong pursuits and even name dropping luminaries to drive the point home. Yet, how do the precepts of philosophy have a bearing upon life, both public and private?

To help answer that I’m going to switch over to ‘De oratore’ book 3 sec56:

This faculty, I say, of thinking and speaking, this power of eloquence, the ancient Greeks named wisdom, as in Lycurgus, Pittacus and Solon; and, compared with them, our Coruncanius, Fabricius, Cato and Scipio were perhaps not so learned, but were certainly of a similar force and inclination of mind.

The inheritance of wisdom received from the Greeks: thinking, speaking, and eloquence. As a fellow political conservative, does Daniel not not feel a burning bosom for our collective heritage? Are we not seeing the spoliation of this inheritance? Did we sell it for a pot of beans like so much Esau? Seeing the rise of Trumpism at the expense of sacred principles is more than enough to drive anyone into the self imposed a-politicalism I see on display at ‘Sic et non’.

Nevertheless…

Others, of equal ability, but of different attitude towards the pursuits of life, preferred ease and retirement, as Pythagoras, Democritus, Anaxagoras, and they transferred their attention entirely from civic affairs to the contemplation of nature; a mode of life which, on account of its tranquillity, and the pleasure derived from science, than which nothing is more delightful to mankind, attracted a greater number than was of advantage to the public interest.

I must confess that I took a very similar path as Pythagoras, Democritus, and Anaxagoras in 2016. I simply removed myself from American politics and immersed myself amongst Milton’s master spirits. I was drawn back into politics when the Trump indictments came out and to my horror I saw the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. It was truly a mistake on my part.

Accordingly, as men of the most excellent natural talents gave themselves up to that study, in the enjoyment of the greatest abundance of free and unoccupied time, so men of the greatest learning, blessed with excess of leisure and fertility of thought, imagined it their duty to make more things than were really necessary the objects of their attention, investigation, and inquiry.

I encourage Daniel to review these passages in the Latin in which they were lovingly preserved. You can get a sense of the folly of the sages Pythagoras, Democritus, and Anaxagoras who partook in the same prudentia as the vaunted statesmen and ancient lawgivers and yet squandered it. I think it would strike Daniel as terribly interesting when he would inevitably notice that in choosing prudentia over sapientia, something had gone awry.

Cicero himself telegraphs his intentions when he explains that the sages “transferred” their interests in the affairs of their fellow man to “to the contemplation of nature”. I loathe having to use scare quotes around the word transferred, but Cassius is home to a large contingent of faculty and students who assiduously study the Stoics and you really need to keep an eye on that verb transferre if you want to understand the deep connection between the study of physics and ethics. If that is something Daniel wishes to explore, I’ll happily extend to him an invitation to visit Kishkumen’s special topics seminar this fall, you’ll find it in the course catalog called “The Therapeutics of Stoicism”. I’m sure the Right Reverend would be delighted by his attendance.

Regardless, the sages transtulerunt from politics to cognito rerum because that type of otium is so peaceful and pleasant it draws people away from their own communities. Mere prudentia pales in comparison with a properly understood Ciceronian sapientia and it echoes in his choice of language when he offers a denouncement of frivolous pursuit of topics than is really necessary; “plura quam erat necesse”.

Tully offers us an embarrassment riches that I could invoke a nearly endless parade of texts on this topic, but I’ll restrict myself to just one more: De officiis Book I sec43.

In my opinion the duties derived from the relations of society have a closer adaptation to nature than those which are derived from knowledge, as may be established by this argument, — that should such a life fall to the lot of a wise man that in the full abundance of all things and in entire leisure he could consider and contemplate within his own mind whatever is worth knowing, yet, were his solitude such that he could never see a human face, he would rather die.

It takes a nimble mind to pit learning against sociability, but it rings true does it not? Taking my wits for a walk and mulling over Cantor’s continuum hypothesis can be done in isolation and such an activity isn’t all that far from what Cicero accuses the sages of in Book III of ‘De oratore’. What is the real value of such mental labors if I have nobody to share them with? A simple glance at the scientific literature on the deleterious impact isolation has on mental health buttresses Cicero’s point to make it unassailable.

Then, too, the chief of all the virtues, that wisdom which the Greeks term σοϕίαν/sophian (for prudence, which the Greeks call ϕρόνησιν/phronesin, has another, narrower meaning, namely, the knowledge of things to be sought and shunned), — the wisdom which I have designated as chief of the virtues is the knowledge of things divine and human, which comprises the mutual fellowship and communion of gods and men.

This is such a great passage; Cicero takes the understanding of wisdom (sapientia) as knowledge of things mortal and divine, which is something commonly attributed to practitioners of Stoicism and recasts the Stoic trope to not only include sociability, but frames the fellowship between mortal and divine as the focal point.

But if wisdom is the greatest of the virtues, as it undoubtedly is, it follows of necessity that the duty derived from this fellowship and communion is the greatest of duties. Moreover, the knowledge and contemplation of nature are somehow defective and imperfect, unless they lead to some result in action; and this appropriate action is best recognized in care for the well-being of mankind.

Daniel is a Latter Day Saint, not bound by the strictures of Christian orthodoxy and its various creeds and professions of faith. My hope is that Cicero’s paganism isn’t an affront to his theological sensibilities and that he might immediately recognize this entire post can be easily accommodated by his Church and can be neatly folded into his own Apologetics.

Might I be so bold as to suggest that Daniel set aside the stale apologetics of the Evangelicals and Romanists in favor of picking up a work of more substance to blog about.

AD FONTES!

Amen.

[drumdude]

A++++

I often find myself comparing Interpreter Radio and Mormonism Live. I think they illustrate very well the problems with Daniel’s approach. You need only listen to a few minutes of each to see that one provides a LOT of well reasoned and researched arguments, and the other is just a venue to throw lazy ideas against the wall and see if anything sticks.

Here’s the latest Mormonism Live:
https://www.youtube.com/live/d4DXaXhXBFo

And the latest Interpreter Radio:
https://interpreterfoundation.org/inter ... e-16-2024/

Interpreter Radio for the last year+ has been just going through the church curriculum. Because every Mormon is just yearning for more Sunday School.

[IWMP]

( OP’s theme song)

Salutations my learned friends, curious and anonymous onlookers, and the Right Worshipfuls, the Worshipfuls, Wardens, and dearest Brethren, of Cassius University. I stand beneath the carved ouroboros of the Brutus Rectory, the storehouse of wandering souls, betwixt Poimandres and Hermes, and offer each of you embryonic divinities my sincere obeisance.



It has been a season since I’ve strolled the manicured grounds of my beloved Cassius University and I am delighted to see the Summer break is in full swing. Already I hear the soft murmurs of undergraduates diligently memorizing the formal definition of a tetracategory; I do believe they are already on the U₅ٖ₂ unit condition! And there are the sonorous performances of Donne’s ‘Death’s Duel’ in Western Farsi that hits the ear just so.

I have been away on business for the Borgesian Archives of Moral Science, visiting Universidad de Sevilla, carefully examining the known property of the prelate Juan de Zúñiga in a determined search for an early copy of ‘Introductiones latinae’ by Aelius Antonius Nebrissensis that I suspect contains important marginal notations. The former was once Grand Master of the Knights of Alcántara before becoming Archbishop of Seville and Nebrissensis enjoyed a productive 17 years under such sublime patronage.

On the transatlantic flight back from Andalusia I took the liberty of catching up with our Peterson Obsession Board and quickly found myself in Moksha’s thread whereupon I fell into a bit of melancholy. I’ve commented on Daniel’s abandonment of philosophy in the past and now I fear I’m watching his worldview collapse in real time. It is a common ailment you see in the works and life of the Mormon intelligentsia; a slow and meandering abandonment of the grand Western canon that inevitably ends in a lonesome coffin forged in Hamblinesque misery. Thankfully there is an antidote to such a state of affairs and if my dearest mentor Daniel cares a whit for our parasocial arrangement, he too might find something of probative value for his religious convictions.

As proper red blooded conservatives, Daniel and I don’t need to seek recourse at the National Review and we ought not to do so. Why not reach back into the history we both seek to carefully preserve and learn from those distant luminaries? Surely our predicament is not unique to us and once we experience what Edmund Wilson called “the shock of recognition”, it’ll become readily apparent that our struggles with the current Republican party are not bound to this contemporary age. If anything, our resolve will be fortified knowing we are merely being carried along the stream of history grappling with the moral laxity within our own ranks as all generations do.

And where do we native English speakers begin? We begin with John Milton’s ‘Areopagitica’:

I grant that the behaviour of books, like that of men, must be watched. Books are not absolutely dead things; they have a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are. But then they are more than living; a good book is the precious life-blood of a master-spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life.

The shade I seek to summon is none other than Marcus Tullius Cicero himself and that should come to little surprise to those of us with an actual gospel to proclaim. Strewn across various works Cicero can’t help but return to the theme that philosophy done properly animates one to a public life, albeit in very Roman terms.

I’ll start with ‘De natura deorum’ and pick a spot that will be very familiar to Daniel:

Now, with regard to my own works, which within a short space of time I have put forth in considerable number, I notice that a good deal of comment of different kinds has been spreading, proceeding partly from those who wondered whence I had acquired this sudden enthusiasm for philosophy, and partly from those who wished to know what definite convictions I held upon particular points.

Much like Cicero, Daniel is fairly prolific and puts out a ream of digital material and like every writer who isn’t doomed to total obscurity, often finds himself misunderstood.

Well, upon these counts I can pacify friendly objectors and confute malignant fault-finders in a way which will make the latter repent of having taken me to task, and the former glad that they have learnt the truth, for those who admonish in a friendly spirit deserve to be instructed, while those who assail in an unfriendly spirit deserve to meet with a repulse.

Far be it from me to behave as a fault-finder and I hope Daniel views this in the same friendly spirit as I offer it; seeking instruction from my mentor in all things Mopologetic.

Now I have not turned suddenly to philosophy, and from an early period of life I have expended no little attention and care upon that study, and when I seemed least devoted to it I was in reality most so. This is shown by the frequency with which the opinions of philosophers occur in my speeches, and by my friendship with the learned, an honour which my house has always enjoyed, and by the fact of such leading men as Diodotus, Philo, Antiochus and Posidonius having been my teachers. If, moreover, all the precepts of philosophy have a bearing upon life, I consider that both in my public and private capacity I have carried out what reason and principle prescribed.

Is this not reminiscent of Daniel? Having to justify his interests in topics like philosophy and science from the likes of us by insisting those have been lifelong pursuits and even name dropping luminaries to drive the point home. Yet, how do the precepts of philosophy have a bearing upon life, both public and private?

To help answer that I’m going to switch over to ‘De oratore’ book 3 sec56:

This faculty, I say, of thinking and speaking, this power of eloquence, the ancient Greeks named wisdom, as in Lycurgus, Pittacus and Solon; and, compared with them, our Coruncanius, Fabricius, Cato and Scipio were perhaps not so learned, but were certainly of a similar force and inclination of mind.

The inheritance of wisdom received from the Greeks: thinking, speaking, and eloquence. As a fellow political conservative, does Daniel not not feel a burning bosom for our collective heritage? Are we not seeing the spoliation of this inheritance? Did we sell it for a pot of beans like so much Esau? Seeing the rise of Trumpism at the expense of sacred principles is more than enough to drive anyone into the self imposed a-politicalism I see on display at ‘Sic et non’.

Nevertheless…

Others, of equal ability, but of different attitude towards the pursuits of life, preferred ease and retirement, as Pythagoras, Democritus, Anaxagoras, and they transferred their attention entirely from civic affairs to the contemplation of nature; a mode of life which, on account of its tranquillity, and the pleasure derived from science, than which nothing is more delightful to mankind, attracted a greater number than was of advantage to the public interest.

I must confess that I took a very similar path as Pythagoras, Democritus, and Anaxagoras in 2016. I simply removed myself from American politics and immersed myself amongst Milton’s master spirits. I was drawn back into politics when the Trump indictments came out and to my horror I saw the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. It was truly a mistake on my part.

Accordingly, as men of the most excellent natural talents gave themselves up to that study, in the enjoyment of the greatest abundance of free and unoccupied time, so men of the greatest learning, blessed with excess of leisure and fertility of thought, imagined it their duty to make more things than were really necessary the objects of their attention, investigation, and inquiry.

I encourage Daniel to review these passages in the Latin in which they were lovingly preserved. You can get a sense of the folly of the sages Pythagoras, Democritus, and Anaxagoras who partook in the same prudentia as the vaunted statesmen and ancient lawgivers and yet squandered it. I think it would strike Daniel as terribly interesting when he would inevitably notice that in choosing prudentia over sapientia, something had gone awry.

Cicero himself telegraphs his intentions when he explains that the sages “transferred” their interests in the affairs of their fellow man to “to the contemplation of nature”. I loathe having to use scare quotes around the word transferred, but Cassius is home to a large contingent of faculty and students who assiduously study the Stoics and you really need to keep an eye on that verb transferre if you want to understand the deep connection between the study of physics and ethics. If that is something Daniel wishes to explore, I’ll happily extend to him an invitation to visit Kishkumen’s special topics seminar this fall, you’ll find it in the course catalog called “The Therapeutics of Stoicism”. I’m sure the Right Reverend would be delighted by his attendance.

Regardless, the sages transtulerunt from politics to cognito rerum because that type of otium is so peaceful and pleasant it draws people away from their own communities. Mere prudentia pales in comparison with a properly understood Ciceronian sapientia and it echoes in his choice of language when he offers a denouncement of frivolous pursuit of topics than is really necessary; “plura quam erat necesse”.

Tully offers us an embarrassment riches that I could invoke a nearly endless parade of texts on this topic, but I’ll restrict myself to just one more: De officiis Book I sec43.

In my opinion the duties derived from the relations of society have a closer adaptation to nature than those which are derived from knowledge, as may be established by this argument, — that should such a life fall to the lot of a wise man that in the full abundance of all things and in entire leisure he could consider and contemplate within his own mind whatever is worth knowing, yet, were his solitude such that he could never see a human face, he would rather die.

It takes a nimble mind to pit learning against sociability, but it rings true does it not? Taking my wits for a walk and mulling over Cantor’s continuum hypothesis can be done in isolation and such an activity isn’t all that far from what Cicero accuses the sages of in Book III of ‘De oratore’. What is the real value of such mental labors if I have nobody to share them with? A simple glance at the scientific literature on the deleterious impact isolation has on mental health buttresses Cicero’s point to make it unassailable.

Then, too, the chief of all the virtues, that wisdom which the Greeks term σοϕίαν/sophian (for prudence, which the Greeks call ϕρόνησιν/phronesin, has another, narrower meaning, namely, the knowledge of things to be sought and shunned), — the wisdom which I have designated as chief of the virtues is the knowledge of things divine and human, which comprises the mutual fellowship and communion of gods and men.

This is such a great passage; Cicero takes the understanding of wisdom (sapientia) as knowledge of things mortal and divine, which is something commonly attributed to practitioners of Stoicism and recasts the Stoic trope to not only include sociability, but frames the fellowship between mortal and divine as the focal point.

But if wisdom is the greatest of the virtues, as it undoubtedly is, it follows of necessity that the duty derived from this fellowship and communion is the greatest of duties. Moreover, the knowledge and contemplation of nature are somehow defective and imperfect, unless they lead to some result in action; and this appropriate action is best recognized in care for the well-being of mankind.

Daniel is a Latter Day Saint, not bound by the strictures of Christian orthodoxy and its various creeds and professions of faith. My hope is that Cicero’s paganism isn’t an affront to his theological sensibilities and that he might immediately recognize this entire post can be easily accommodated by his Church and can be neatly folded into his own Apologetics.

Might I be so bold as to suggest that Daniel set aside the stale apologetics of the Evangelicals and Romanists in favor of picking up a work of more substance to blog about.

AD FONTES!

Amen.

Probably need that translated lol.

But I just wanted to say, if that is your normal writing style, then you have the most beautiful writing I've seen.

[Gadianton]

Thank you for these succinct words of wisdom, Dr. Stak. I'm sure that so-and-so shall appreciate your efforts to build bridges.

As proper red blooded conservatives, Daniel and I don’t need to seek recourse at the National Review and we ought not to do so.

Oh he wasn't. That link was sent to him by a "friend" who really, really liked the article. We totally don't know what Afore thought of it. He refused to say.

Cicero himself telegraphs his intentions when he explains that the sages “transferred” their interests in the affairs of their fellow man to “to the contemplation of nature”.

Are you suggesting Afore (think of this nomenclature as similar to Desein in its unique application) take up a seven volume project that deals with the natural theology of light and springing forth?

not bound by the strictures of Christian orthodoxy and its various creeds and professions of faith.

Not sure I can agree. I see a longing for the strictures and creeds, as those are accompanied by tradition and academic respectability in the oldest halls of scholarship.

[Kishkumen]

Salutations my learned friends, curious and anonymous onlookers, and the Right Worshipfuls, the Worshipfuls, Wardens, and dearest Brethren, of Cassius University. I stand beneath the carved ouroboros of the Brutus Rectory, the storehouse of wandering souls, betwixt Poimandres and Hermes, and offer each of you embryonic divinities my sincere obeisance.

Talk about a greeting that knocks it out of the park!

[Kishkumen]

Thank you this illuminating post, Dr. Stak. I always love revisiting the mighty thoughts of our conservator reipublicae, Cicero. I should think that his wisdom here would be attractive to many Mormons.

[DrStakhanovite]

Hey Drumdude,

I want to say from the start that when I mentioned in the OP that I consider Daniel a mentor, I actually do mean it. I like to poke fun at the various controversies and petty struggles that Mopologists have engaged in over the decades, but the world of Higher Education is actually rife with similar examples. Mopologists are not unique in their virtues and talents; nor are their flaws and peccadilloes unique. They are just human beings stumbling through this life and pretending they can manage it like the rest of us.

That being said…

Interpreter Radio for the last year+ has been just going through the church curriculum. Because every Mormon is just yearning for more Sunday School.

There are two reasons why I suspect this is the case.

The first one that came to mind is that ecclesiastical organizations with a strong top-down authority structure, such as the Brighamite church there in Salt Lake City, tend not to encourage people outside the ecclesiastical structure to teach doctrine or history too deeply. The more uniformity that is enforced reduces the chance of charismatic teachers gaining popularity and then breaking away from the Church when conflict arises.

John Dehlin is actually a really good example of this. Mormon Stories was originally more of a community of believers struggling with completely understandable doubts and frustrations with their Church. Over the years though the “stay in the Church and make it work” vibe began to fade, especially when conflicts with fellow believers and Church authorities began to take place and was eventually eclipsed by the current vibe of “we are here to help you to transition into a non-LDS existence”. Denver Snuffer is another example too.

Really though, the rise of charismatic schismatics is baked into Mormon theology and history. Admiration of Joseph Smith can naturally lead to emulation of Joseph Smith; knowing what we do of the guy, it is a recipe for disaster and entertainment.

The second reason is a bit more speculative. In all my years of consuming Mopologetic material, I’ve never gotten the sense that any of these gentlemen were particularly concerned with pedagogy. John Gee in particular seems to loathe teaching while Louis Midgley comes across as completely ambivalent towards it.

Back in the 80s and 90s, I think the Mopologists could get away with not being overly concerned with equipping their readers with the actual tools they needed to navigate a so-called “faith crisis” and simply relied on their educational achievements and institutional authority at places like BYU to do the heavy lifting. Now that social media is ubiquitous and a truly staggering amount of information is obtainable at all hours of the day via our personal phones, Mopologists have really struggled to stay the least bit relevant.

Now neither pedagogy nor being competent in managing social media is easy, both are skills that have to be learned over an extended period of time, so I think their failure at both isn’t something that automatically reflects poorly on them. Sometimes luck just doesn’t break your way.

[DrStakhanovite]

But I just wanted to say, if that is your normal writing style, then you have the most beautiful writing I've seen.

Thank you for the compliment and I have to say, I'm surprised to see a reply from you. When I first became active here so many years ago, I recall seeing your original “Im Washing My Pirate” account. I think you had just gone inactive and we never really interacted, but it is neat to see you return all these years later.

I do these kinda posts every now and then as a kind of catharsis. They are meant to be over the top with purple prose, pedantic, and wildly implausible. It is just me screaming into the ether.

[drumdude]

Hey Drumdude,

I want to say from the start that when I mentioned in the OP that I consider Daniel a mentor, I actually do mean it. I like to poke fun at the various controversies and petty struggles that Mopologists have engaged in over the decades, but the world of Higher Education is actually rife with similar examples. Mopologists are not unique in their virtues and talents; nor are their flaws and peccadilloes unique. They are just human beings stumbling through this life and pretending they can manage it like the rest of us.

That being said…

Interpreter Radio for the last year+ has been just going through the church curriculum. Because every Mormon is just yearning for more Sunday School.

There are two reasons why I suspect this is the case.

The first one that came to mind is that ecclesiastical organizations with a strong top-down authority structure, such as the Brighamite church there in Salt Lake City, tend not to encourage people outside the ecclesiastical structure to teach doctrine or history too deeply. The more uniformity that is enforced reduces the chance of charismatic teachers gaining popularity and then breaking away from the Church when conflict arises.

John Dehlin is actually a really good example of this. Mormon Stories was originally more of a community of believers struggling with completely understandable doubts and frustrations with their Church. Over the years though the “stay in the Church and make it work” vibe began to fade, especially when conflicts with fellow believers and Church authorities began to take place and was eventually eclipsed by the current vibe of “we are here to help you to transition into a non-LDS existence”. Denver Snuffer is another example too.

Really though, the rise of charismatic schismatics is baked into Mormon theology and history. Admiration of Joseph Smith can naturally lead to emulation of Joseph Smith; knowing what we do of the guy, it is a recipe for disaster and entertainment.

The second reason is a bit more speculative. In all my years of consuming Mopologetic material, I’ve never gotten the sense that any of these gentlemen were particularly concerned with pedagogy. John Gee in particular seems to loathe teaching while Louis Midgley comes across as completely ambivalent towards it.

Back in the 80s and 90s, I think the Mopologists could get away with not being overly concerned with equipping their readers with the actual tools they needed to navigate a so-called “faith crisis” and simply relied on their educational achievements and institutional authority at places like BYU to do the heavy lifting. Now that social media is ubiquitous and a truly staggering amount of information is obtainable at all hours of the day via our personal phones, Mopologists have really struggled to stay the least bit relevant.

Now neither pedagogy nor being competent in managing social media is easy, both are skills that have to be learned over an extended period of time, so I think their failure at both isn’t something that automatically reflects poorly on them. Sometimes luck just doesn’t break your way.

Very interesting observations and a great perspective to think about.

I agree none of the apologists seem to really enjoy teaching. Dan almost never mentions teaching on his blog. But as you say, that’s not just a Mormon apologetics thing, many professors hate teaching.

[DrStakhanovite]

Thank you for these succinct words of wisdom, Dr. Stak. I'm sure that so-and-so shall appreciate your efforts to build bridges.

You do me much honor Dean Robbers.

Oh he wasn't. That link was sent to him by a "friend" who really, really liked the article. We totally don't know what Afore thought of it. He refused to say.

I took that to be a kind of backhanded way of signaling he agreed with the premise of the article. I may be reading too much into the whole blog entry, but I got the kinda vibes you get when Patty Hearst looks into the camera and delivers a line.

Are you suggesting Afore (think of this nomenclature as similar to Desein in its unique application) take up a seven volume project that deals with the natural theology of light and springing forth?

What I think Cicero was demonstrating (and what I’m starting to warm up to) is that the activity of writing that seven volume project cannot be divorced from either your civic activity nor your personal behavior. Knowledge doesn’t become wisdom when one has simply gathered a certain amount of it, more has to take place.

I think the fellow who comments on a certain blog by the name of Gemli is also an example of this; his literacy in science hasn’t done much for him in my estimation.

Not sure I can agree. I see a longing for the strictures and creeds, as those are accompanied by tradition and academic respectability in the oldest halls of scholarship.

Mormons don’t have the same hang-ups about Pagan literature as traditional Christianity; Nibley gives a permission structure to find value in those kinds of works that might make other types of conservative Christians hesitate. For those who enjoy giving the appearance of academic respectability, you could do a lot worse than using Cicero to that end.