Enormously gratifying, on multiple levels. Kudos to Dr. Cam for the find, and kudos to Dr. Avance for her superb scholarship, and on earning her doctorate from such a prestigious university. I'd like to note a few things that stand out, such as this:
Quote:
In a scathing letter (40) in which he resigned from his position of Director of Advancement
at the Maxwell Institute, Peterson referred to the event as "my public crucifixion" (Peterson 2012)
and in August, during a question-and-answer session at FairMormon's annual conference, he
expressed disappointment with the involvement of General Authorities in the debacle, saying it
had felt like he, rather than Dehlin, "was the one being disciplined" (Daniel Peterson, FairMormon
conference remarks, 3 August 2012)-- a term implying ecclesiastical sanction emanating directly
from Church leadership.
(emphasis mine)
Wow! Did DCP really say that? This radically contradicts what he has been saying ever since--i.e., he has sworn up and down that there was *NO* G.A. involvement, and yet here we have this UPenn-approved dissertation saying that, no, in fact Peterson himself told *the entire FAIR Conference* that a GA was involved! I guess back then, so close to him getting canned, when emotions were still raw, he was willing to openly tell the truth. Later, though, he re-affixed his Mopologetic hat and the spin-doctoring has proceeded in full ever since.
This bit, from pg. 135, was classic:
Quote:
This paradox -- relying on institutional authority and simultaneously ignoring it-- is part of a deeper paradox at the heart of these groups. In their quest for authority, these communities ooze what I call "Mormon machismo"-- an attempt to surpass and ignore the so-called "feminine" qualities of Mormonism as an affective faith that values spiritualism and sensitivity (that Mormon "burning in the bosom") with the "masculine" qualities of scientific discourse: logic, argument, and debate. But in practice, empiricism in these groups occasionally gives way to affect of another type: their rhetoric enacts violence and evokes war and plunder. In the case of FARMS and Mormon Stories, "personal attacks" and "hit pieces" pitted one side against the other in an ongoing, territorial struggle for control over the narrative of Mormon identity.
Avance presents a very convincing argument supporting what I and other have repeatedly said: that FARMS was dissolved on account of its aggressive rhetoric and tactics--what she terms "Mormon machismo." She also writes, on pg. 137:
Quote:
Of course, any speculation on the relationship between Bott's censuring and his retirement is merely that. But where there are parallels between his situation and that of FARMS and Daniel Peterson, they support a reading of the Mormon institution as invested in policing even its most ardent and loyal supporters to ensure that even they do not detour from the approved discursive course. Daniel Peterson's punishment was not ecclesiastical, but because it came as it did in the context it did, it served the same function.
I was just thinking of Randy Bott the other day--this was the BYU Prof. who was fired after he made embarrassing comments to the press concerning LDS teachings on "the Mark of Cain." I was thinking of Bott in connection with the now-rather-lengthy thread concerning a well-known Mopologist's repeated plagiarism: if that were to go public in the same way as Bott's case, what would happen? Further, how might we analyze this in light of Dr. Avance's scholarship? Maybe the plagiarism would be given a free pass so as to not alienate the Mopologists' "fan club"? (How extensive is that fan club, I wonder?)
In any case, the argument is summed up beautifully on pg. 138:
Quote:
For Daniel Peterson and John Dehlin, public censuring acted as visible discipline for their overt Mormon machismo, reigning in dangerous displays that challenge institutional authority. The scale and type of discipline varied, with the culturally heterodox excommunicated and the conservatives publicly humiliated and brought to heel. But in both cases, the institution asserted its ever-watchful eye and ultimate disciplinary power over all participants in its cultural system.
(emphasis added)
Yes, indeed. I would argue that there were some "flare-ups," most notably the Mopologists' attacks on David Bokovoy, Ben Park, and other members of the "New Guard"/ Mormon Studies crew, but that has pretty much completely died down. I mean, who is left these days? I've heard nothing from Greg Smith in years. Following the thorough butt-kicking he endured from Philip Jenkins, Bill Hamblin has been completely silent (and there have been unsubstantiated rumors that he is no longer attending church). Schryver no longer posts or participates. Gee is pretty much a non-entity. The lone place where you see anything even remotely like the Mopologetics of yore is on
Sic et Non, but DCP's style is watered-down and emasculated compared to what he used to do: it's as if the Brethren confiscated his testicles. Midgley pops up occasionally, but I don't think anyone takes him seriously--least of all the Brethren.
That, ultimately, is the greatest support for Avance's argument re: the Mopologists being "brought to heel": they just don't act the way they used to. (I still maintain that, perhaps, the "icing on the cake" moment for all this was Grant Hardy publicly humiliating the classic-FARMS people by saying, at the FAIR Conference, that you don't need to believe in a historical Book of Mormon to get into the CK.)
I will be anxiously awaiting to see if
Sic et Non or
Mormon Interpreter will muster a reply to this devastating critique. If Avance is correct, then DCP would be so terrified of crossing the Brethren or doing anything to upset the apple cart that no reply (or only a banal and wimpy sort of reply) will be forthcoming.