Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

Post by _Gunnar »

That quote from Stephen Jones closely mirrors my own eventual disillusionment about LDS truth claims. I haven't studied these issues nearly as extensively as he did, but enough to convince me that Mormonism is far from what it claims to be. The first big chink in my testimony was the realization, as he pointed out, that most, if not all, religions claim with equal fervor that their mutually contradictory testimonies based on their faith in divine inspiration are true and infallible. There can be no stronger evidence than that of the inherent unreliability of that approach to discerning truth!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_Symmachus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

Post by _Symmachus »

You know, I find something rather insidious and distasteful about both projects. Except in a court case as an expert witness, it's not the role of a scholar to testify. The phrase "scholars testify" (on either side of the believing line) seems as ridiculous to me as "rabbis hypothesize" or "pastors prove" or "imams demonstrate."
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

Post by _Gadianton »

Symmachus wrote:You know, I find something rather insidious and distasteful about both projects. Except in a court case as an expert witness, it's not the role of a scholar to testify. The phrase "scholars testify" (on either side of the believing line) seems as ridiculous to me as "rabbis hypothesize" or "pastors prove" or "imams demonstrate."


Right. I mean, if Einstein would have "testified" to the truth of Relativity, would that have strengthened his case? Or pick something of religious significance as people do on either side. If Einstein would have testified that there was no life after death, would that have really advanced the case for what we know about life after death? If it's connected to the scholar's expertise, it's distasteful, and if it isn't, then it's a non-sequitur and probably also distasteful. (why would Einstein have any more credibility as feeling the spirit than anyone else?, for example)

I'd nearly be inclined to give a pass is in the case of passively testifying. I'm a scholar, and despite that I'm part of this religion. That skirts both of those problems above. In the second case, i think it can be done carefully to avoid using scholarly expertise to bolster the unrelated area of religious knowledge or experience.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

Post by _Gadianton »

I did have another thought come to mind. We already know what the most short-sighted aspect of the site was, believing it would be worth doing in the first place in terms of longevity. But what was the most brilliant aspect of the site?

I'll admit I was quite impressed with the cunning brilliance of this when it came to mind. In fact, I almost feel dumb for having thought that the obvious longevity problem was the main or only issue. Sure, it's 9-1 odds that the site would hit the wastebin pretty fast. Was it worth doing on the 10% chance that it would last? At face value, not really.

However...consider how outright, savagely ingenious this was; assuming of course it was premeditated, which I think there is a pretty good chance it was. See if you could have ever come up with this, I'll admit I never would have thought of it. And so I'm very close to reversing my belief that it was a silly exercise, after nearly ten years. The foresight involved on this one is downright scary. Okay, ready for this? I'm not kidding, it's utterly mind blowing.

The testimonies are of one of two kinds: either the testimony reinforces the doctrines of FARMS in some way, and it could be quite direct, such as in the case of Sorenson who testified that the LTG is the only game in town; or the testimony has nothing to do with the Mopologists stock-in-trade.

Big deal, you're thinking, right? We already knew the Meldrums and many others would never have been invited.

But here's the thing: the Mopologists are vastly outnumbered by those on the sidelines with respect to apologetics issues. So what you have, is a growing body intellectual heavyweights pooled together, giving credibility to FARMS. It's a sneaky kind of social warfare. Had the site become a longterm success, it could have seriously hurt any scholars with competing views to FARMS. I'm sure there's a parallel in the advertising world here but nothing is surfacing at the moment.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:I did have another thought come to mind. We already know what the most short-sighted aspect of the site was, believing it would be worth doing in the first place in terms of longevity. But what was the most brilliant aspect of the site?

I'll admit I was quite impressed with the cunning brilliance of this when it came to mind. In fact, I almost feel dumb for having thought that the obvious longevity problem was the main or only issue. Sure, it's 9-1 odds that the site would hit the wastebin pretty fast. Was it worth doing on the 10% chance that it would last? At face value, not really.

However...consider how outright, savagely ingenious this was; assuming of course it was premeditated, which I think there is a pretty good chance it was. See if you could have ever come up with this, I'll admit I never would have thought of it. And so I'm very close to reversing my belief that it was a silly exercise, after nearly ten years. The foresight involved on this one is downright scary. Okay, ready for this? I'm not kidding, it's utterly mind blowing.

The testimonies are of one of two kinds: either the testimony reinforces the doctrines of FARMS in some way, and it could be quite direct, such as in the case of Sorenson who testified that the LTG is the only game in town; or the testimony has nothing to do with the Mopologists stock-in-trade.

Big deal, you're thinking, right? We already knew the Meldrums and many others would never have been invited.

But here's the thing: the Mopologists are vastly outnumbered by those on the sidelines with respect to apologetics issues. So what you have, is a growing body intellectual heavyweights pooled together, giving credibility to FARMS. It's a sneaky kind of social warfare. Had the site become a longterm success, it could have seriously hurt any scholars with competing views to FARMS. I'm sure there's a parallel in the advertising world here but nothing is surfacing at the moment.


Dean Robbers: I'm highly confident that you are right that the site an attempt at social engineering. The apologists were remarkably cagey concerning their motives in this project, and they managed to hold back in the face of our speculations. Of course, one of the obvious and rather dumb points of the site was just a straight-up appeal to authority: "Hey, these folks have got advanced degrees, and *they* believe in Mormonism!" But as you point out, there were clearly other factors at play.

One of the things that still bothers me about "Mormon Scholars Testify" is that we don't know the identities of the "defectors." We don't know which Mormon intellectuals turned down the invitation to participate, and we also don't know who it was exactly who withdrew their testimonies. (There were at least a couple of people who originally allowed their testimonies to be posted, only to later have a change of heart and insist that they be taken down.) And there was one poor, hapless woman, who was somehow persuaded to go and start posting on the MAD board, only to realize (after getting into a debate with The Dude, If I recall correctly) how in over her head she was. You could practically see it dawning on her: "Oh, no.... I've been lured into this war that the Mopologists are fighting with the antis." DCP and the FAIR crew were using her--and, indeed, most of the testifiers--as cannon fodder in their war with critics.

Was the site meant as a bulwark against other LDS scholars, though, as you surmise? This I'm less sure about. Recall that, at the time of the site's launch, Bokovoy and other of the "New Guard" scholars were still in the good graces of the Mopologists. And when they were finally ousted from the MI a few years later, they acted as if they had been betrayed--like they didn't see the "coup de grace" coming. (DCP even said something to that effect in his "kiss-off" email to Bradford: he said something along the lines of "I've been checkmated even though I didn't realize I was playing chess.")

Still, your basic point is compelling. I can't help but wonder if the "social warfare," as you call it, was simply a "happy accident" that was the result of the Mopologists' wild flailing about and their lack of concern for who gets hurt in the midst of their attacks. I.e., they've set up the site as something that they can point to in the face of any and all critics; if it so happened that, a few years down the road, their "critics" included other young LDS scholars, well, hey: lesson learned. The Mopologists have always had a sort of "Let's throw everything we've got at the wall and see what sticks." This is true even today--just look at Mormon Interpreter and its steadfast commitment to sheer numbers and volume above all else. All along, they've seemed more concerned with the pageantry of it all, and with sheer quantity with very little regard for genuine quality.

In the end, it's a wash, I guess. We miss out on the analytical opportunities that a robust MST might have provided; then again, there is something richly satisfying about the fact that it failed.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

Doctor Scratch wrote: And when they were finally ousted from the MI a few years later, they acted as if they had been betrayed--like they didn't see the "coup de grace" coming. (DCP even said something to that effect in his "kiss-off" email to Bradford: he said something along the lines of "I've been checkmated even though I didn't realize I was playing chess.")


I forgot that DCP said that to Bradford. Hilarious!

If I recall correctly, many people made the observation years before DCP's ouster that, "Dr. Scratch is playing chess while the Mopologists are playing checkers."

Sounds like DCP finally confirmed this.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Mormon Scholars Testify officially defunct?

Post by _Gadianton »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Dean Robbers: I'm highly confident that you are right that the site an attempt at social engineering. The apologists were remarkably cagey concerning their motives in this project, and they managed to hold back in the face of our speculations. Of course, one of the obvious and rather dumb points of the site was just a straight-up appeal to authority: "Hey, these folks have got advanced degrees, and *they* believe in Mormonism!" But as you point out, there were clearly other factors at play.

One of the things that still bothers me about "Mormon Scholars Testify" is that we don't know the identities of the "defectors." We don't know which Mormon intellectuals turned down the invitation to participate, and we also don't know who it was exactly who withdrew their testimonies. (There were at least a couple of people who originally allowed their testimonies to be posted, only to later have a change of heart and insist that they be taken down.) And there was one poor, hapless woman, who was somehow persuaded to go and start posting on the MAD board, only to realize (after getting into a debate with The Dude, If I recall correctly) how in over her head she was. You could practically see it dawning on her: "Oh, no.... I've been lured into this war that the Mopologists are fighting with the antis." DCP and the FAIR crew were using her--and, indeed, most of the testifiers--as cannon fodder in their war with critics.

Was the site meant as a bulwark against other LDS scholars, though, as you surmise? This I'm less sure about. Recall that, at the time of the site's launch, Bokovoy and other of the "New Guard" scholars were still in the good graces of the Mopologists. And when they were finally ousted from the MI a few years later, they acted as if they had been betrayed--like they didn't see the "coup de grace" coming. (DCP even said something to that effect in his "kiss-off" email to Bradford: he said something along the lines of "I've been checkmated even though I didn't realize I was playing chess.")

Still, your basic point is compelling. I can't help but wonder if the "social warfare," as you call it, was simply a "happy accident" that was the result of the Mopologists' wild flailing about and their lack of concern for who gets hurt in the midst of their attacks. I.e., they've set up the site as something that they can point to in the face of any and all critics; if it so happened that, a few years down the road, their "critics" included other young LDS scholars, well, hey: lesson learned. The Mopologists have always had a sort of "Let's throw everything we've got at the wall and see what sticks." This is true even today--just look at Mormon Interpreter and its steadfast commitment to sheer numbers and volume above all else. All along, they've seemed more concerned with the pageantry of it all, and with sheer quantity with very little regard for genuine quality.

In the end, it's a wash, I guess. We miss out on the analytical opportunities that a robust MST might have provided; then again, there is something richly satisfying about the fact that it failed.


These are frighteningly intellectual insights, professor. I had the fortuitous opportunity of reading your words while listening to Evgeny Khmara's piano interpretation of Armin Van Buuren In and out of Love. Quite a moving experience.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Post Reply