Mormon Interpreter Guns for the MI

[_moksha]

The war that Paul and Adam both participate in cannot be won anymore than two rival Sancho Panza’s can triumph over Quixote’s giants.

Well said. The two of them might as well exit stage left until the hero reaches center stage and begins to sing:

It is I, Daniel Peterson, the Lord of Orem
Destroyer of Evil am I,
I will march to the sound of the trumpets of glory
Forever to conquer or die

Hear me heathens and critics and stalkers of sin
All your dastardly doings are past
For a sacred endeavor is now to begin
And apologetics shall triumph at last!

[_Meadowchik]

Through Plato and Aristotle we see a withering critique of the world in which we find ourselves, a world in which we do not have to succumb to its follies, as opposed to Mason’s proposed embrace of what our scriptures teach is a debased and fallen world. Plato and Aristotle are of particular value precisely because they are not of the modern world.

I sat in the foyer today where a companionship of missionaries taught a young adult investigator. They spoke about our fallen state, about the Lord making weak things strong, and about the priesthood. I sat there quietly reading as they introduced these problems and solutions, deftly passing over deep philosophical chasms in their reasoning with an over-arching commitment pattern.

No deep consideration or pains were taken to acknowledge the vast territories being rhetorically skipped over. This is not the exception now, but the norm. It has chiefly become a loyalty religion more and more devoid of intellectual rigor, and with that all the ethical and moral implications sidelined.

I get that that is a very Aristotelian way of putting it, but it does make me wonder: is there anything inherent in Mormonism that can develop? Is Mormonism, as a formulation and an articulation of human life, ever going to mature into something not just beyond what it is now but from what it is in general? My inclination is to say "no" because it is too tied to the historical moment of its conception in the early 19th century American frontier .

Yes, it is too tied to the fragile historical claims of divine authority and far too dependent on that divine authority. And this presents more than philosophical weakness, but a structural one. Mormonism developed in polygamy in a way to most effectively enforce it, that being the authoritarian nature of the leadership. It has not yet shed this authoritarianism which is so ubiquitous that 18 year old boys are telling a 20 year old foreign student with a background completely foreign to them what she needs to do to be happy. It seems to me that the church is wiping away the lofty philosophical aspirations and just clamping down on group loyalty tactics, where there is little to no spiritual depth.

[_Gadianton]

2) level-headed or not, very few will ever notice the Maxwell Institute because it has nothing to offer them. It is not advancing knowledge or understanding in a way that anybody else in any other field can actually learn from. The New School is simply taking all its cues from the prevailing academic culture, so to people already in possession of that culture, there is no need to pay attention. Besides, it is still housed in a university and a church that everyone knows is deeply conservative and hostile to the social and political views of nearly 100% of people who work in the social sciences and humanities, so why should those people bother to look at what they're saying?

So much good material but since this has been in the back of my mind -- You're coming at this from two angles (as I'm understanding it), one is that the MI doesn't do anything that interests the outside, such as advancing knowledge, and the other is that rather than renovating Mormonism, they're bringing in trucks and just paving over it.

What I'd been thinking about is the failure of the Old MI to have a serious research program, and I'd wondered if the New MI is doing any better. The disconnect with the real world, as you point out, is important. It's very difficult to imagine a team of BYU archaeologists going out on digs and and interpreting findings within a faithful context while ignoring the real world -- it's possible, but not likely for something like that to happen. The LGT is dead not precisely because it's false, it's dead not precisely because external academia has no interest, but it's dead because internally, nobody is pursuing it. The reason nobody is pursuing likely has something to do with its credibility to the outside world, but not necessarily.

Take the Old English/Ghost Hypothesis. It's going to be the same thing. A handful of fans will read those books coming out, but who is going to pursue it after Skousen is gone? Who is going to work on their doctorate at BYU on the Book of Mormon as a 15th century document? Ten years from now they might say, there was this interesting idea and 10 books were published, and no critic really even tried to answer, but likewise, only about four believers out of all those who bought the volumes even finished them, let alone published on the topic. Maybe external respectability counts as a reason for internal lack of interest, but the real problem is lack of internal sustainability, whatever the reasons are.

I think you point out that the New MI is doing something that does connect with the outside world, but perhaps its a transient thing. As new ideas surface, there's a fresh round of papers to incorporate the new idea into interpreting Mormonism. But how sustainable are any of these ideas coming out, vs. the momentum to keep incorporating new angles? Are we trying to really figure out something or just change the wallpaper every spring?

I think there could be an empirical answer to this question in the form of, how many back and forth papers are there on any given topic? Is there a conversation? And if there's a conversation, is it sustainable as a research program, even if only internally among other Mormons? Are other Mormon philosophers flowing with ideas after reading Miller, and they just have to respond and that spawns five more papers from others; or maybe some grad student does a Phd on strand that Miller didn't really explore in depth?

So the way I'm looking at it, I would count a group delusion as farther along than the Old MI got. But a bunch of people getting together to smoke crack could just mean a bunch of independent bad trips, it doesn't necessarily make a rave.

[_Symmachus]

Thanks, Kish, for your generous assessments of my thoughts on this topic. It is true that I am offering only a negative critique; I couldn't find a way to extract anything intellectual meaningful from Mormonism myself, so I certainly couldn't begin to imagine how others might do so. It's obvious when they're not doing it though, and it's not a noble thing to present an invented paradox as an insight (as Hickman's whole talk did; I found it on YouTube and it's even worse than the quotes Peterson picked out).

So much good material but since this has been in the back of my mind -- You're coming at this from two angles (as I'm understanding it), one is that the MI doesn't do anything that interests the outside, such as advancing knowledge, and the other is that rather than renovating Mormonism, they're bringing in trucks and just paving over it.

I wish I could summarize my own thoughts for myself as accurately and epigrammatically you as have here, Gad.

What I'd been thinking about is the failure of the Old MI to have a serious research program, and I'd wondered if the New MI is doing any better. The disconnect with the real world, as you point out, is important. It's very difficult to imagine a team of BYU archaeologists going out on digs and and interpreting findings within a faithful context while ignoring the real world -- it's possible, but not likely for something like that to happen. The LGT is dead not precisely because it's false, it's dead not precisely because external academia has no interest, but it's dead because internally, nobody is pursuing it. The reason nobody is pursuing likely has something to do with its credibility to the outside world, but not necessarily.

The thing is, the Old Guard could have used their talents for respectable work, whether or not they also wanted to do their apologetics. But they put everything into apologetics. Not 50/50, not 60/40 but more like 2/98. Nibley really did do a lot, for example, to build up BYU's materials in ancient studies, there really was a period in the 1960s and 1970s where people like Albright were coming to BYU to give talks and make connections, and there really were a lot of his students who went on to get PhDs from top programs. And then what? The best did the bare minimum (a handful of articles and maybe a forgettable monograph, if that) and then slumped into teaching snoozy Book of Mormon classes (much like Nibley) while publishing some fluff for the fire breathers like Peterson. But the rest wrote horse crap for FARMS full time. Even Peterson, impresario that he is, could have done so much more with METI; innovative in the 90s, it has published few volumes overall and is now eclipsed by projects like the Library of Arabic Literature and a number of series published by Gorgias Press (for Syriac). What a wasted opportunity to put BYU on a map. (I think a few people who still remain at the MI may have resented this...)

I don't even see what these new MI people could potentially offer the outside world. Perhaps the intellectual treasures of Mormonism are hid from view, but if so, these truth-bracketers should get to work uncovering it for us. The application of Slavoj Žižek to the Book of Mormon is not what I would consider a treasure worth digging for.

I think you point out that the New MI is doing something that does connect with the outside world, but perhaps its a transient thing. As new ideas surface, there's a fresh round of papers to incorporate the new idea into interpreting Mormonism. But how sustainable are any of these ideas coming out, vs. the momentum to keep incorporating new angles? Are we trying to really figure out something or just change the wallpaper every spring?

I think there could be an empirical answer to this question in the form of, how many back and forth papers are there on any given topic? Is there a conversation? And if there's a conversation, is it sustainable as a research program, even if only internally among other Mormons? Are other Mormon philosophers flowing with ideas after reading Miller, and they just have to respond and that spawns five more papers from others; or maybe some grad student does a Phd on strand that Miller didn't really explore in depth?

I see none of this going on. To me, it looks like a graduate seminar that just won't go away (of course most conferences are like that, so...). A few externally-funded chairs in Mormon Studies have popped up here and there, but the fact that each one is celebrated as a sign that a real field called "Mormon Studies" is just on the horizon tells you a lot: the assumption is that mere institutional recognition (i.e. the approval of the authorities in power) is the basis for a discipline (hence "seize the organs of power and assert"). I would say, though, that educational institutions are usually late to the party and offer their support because there is already wide recognition that a given topic needs serious study, and thus not to support it could have negative repercussions. I don't see how Mormonism needs serious study to the extent that there should be degrees in it or even academic chairs in it. Evangelicalism and Pentacostalism are much more immediate social forces; even Scientology is probably more relevant. Mormonism is actually only influential in parts of Idaho and Utah. What is there to learn about it? And again: what can anyone actually learn from it? There just isn't that much there there. And of course these chairs are funded by rich people who are Mormons, and since no university turns away money, voilà! YOU get a chair in Mormon studies! YOU get a chair in Mormon studies! YOU get a chair in Mormon Studies!

[_Johannes]

I don't see how Mormonism needs serious study to the extent that there should be degrees in it or even academic chairs in it. Evangelicalism and Pentacostalism are much more immediate social forces; even Scientology is probably more relevant. Mormonism is actually only influential in parts of Idaho and Utah. What is there to learn about it? And again: what can anyone actually learn from it? There just isn't that much there there.

I'd guess that that's because it's so indebted to anti-intellectualism (and a specifically American form of anti-intellectualism at that). The message of the Mormon narrative is that the whole enterprise of "learning" is misconceived, at least in any recognisable, worldly form. Joe Smith is the ultimate slap in the face to the pointy-headed Ivy League élite. He is the Homer Simpson of biblical pseudepigrapha. He was a living example of how a farmboy who ain't got no book-learnin' could unveil wisdom beyond the dreams of overeducated scholars - a genuine history of ancient Mesoamerica, the actual writings of Abraham from Egypt - relying not on language learning and study but on a process of "translation" that bypassed the methods and tools of worldly scholarship. The place of Charles Anthon in the Mormon creation myth is interesting here. SO is the way that Professor Gee provocatively distanced himself from accepted academic norms and values in that essay of his.

Where I disgaree with you is that I think Mormonism is more worth studying than Evangelicanism and Pentacostalism because it succeeded in forming not merely a sect, but a society and a state. THis was surely unique in the AMerican experience. But then, I suppose that's an argument for studying 19th century Deseret rather than today's LDS Church.

[_Symmachus]

I'd guess that that's because it's so indebted to anti-intellectualism (and a specifically American form of anti-intellectualism at that). The message of the Mormon narrative is that the whole enterprise of "learning" is misconceived, at least in any recognisable, worldly form. Joe Smith is the ultimate slap in the face to the pointy-headed Ivy League élite. He is the Homer Simpson of biblical pseudepigrapha. He was a living example of how a farmboy who ain't got no book-learnin' could unveil wisdom beyond the dreams of overeducated scholars - a genuine history of ancient Mesoamerica, the actual writings of Abraham from Egypt - relying not on language learning and study but on a process of "translation" that bypassed the methods and tools of worldly scholarship. The place of Charles Anthon in the Mormon creation myth is interesting here. SO is the way that Professor Gee provocatively distanced himself from accepted academic norms and values in that essay of his.

I very much agree with you, and I hadn't realized how important the Anthon example is, but that little germ of anti-intellectualism has borne its fruit in FARMSian apologetics: try to win the approval of learned of the world, but if they don't tell you what you want to hear, just lie about them and attack their character.

I wonder, Johannes (and I would love to get MSJack's views on this too): is Mormonism an example of fideism? With Nibley, Mormonism has its Tertullian (an analogy first coughed up by Sterling McMurrin), but I can't imagine Mormonism ever having its Thomas Aquinas, for two reasons:

1) As I say, I don't think there's much there to work with. The most substantive intellectual material is not characteristically Mormon but characteristically Christian, and there's no need to reinvent the cross.

2) Despite all the claims of the Religious Studies crowd, there is simply no way to talk about Mormonism without talking about the Church. It is not a body of belief nor a structure of practices that make up Mormonism and Mormon identity; it is the body of belief and a structure of practices as mediated by the LDS Church that make it up. The deviations from that are understood precisely as deviations, and when they are not, they are little more than insignificant hobbyists, criminals, and tiresome book clubs. That being the case, one must grapple with the fact that, as you say, the Church itself and its most devoted members are quite hostile to reason. Note well Paul Peterson's first gripe in the MI piece. This Festschrift is titled "to be learned is good," but this really raises his ire, because that is a mere possibility that depends conditionally upon a central claim of Mormonism, both in practice and in theory: "if they hearken unto the counsels of god." Peterson is right in his reading, and as usual, the New School are most distinguished for their refusal or inability to read what is on the page. The reason there isn't a genuine theological tradition in Mormonism (i.e. a tradition for developing ways to talk about god) is that the Church won't allow one to develop beyond the domain of hobbyists and tiresome book clubs. When would-be theologians to attempt to move beyond that, the Church treats them as criminals.

Where I disgaree with you is that I think Mormonism is more worth studying than Evangelicanism and Pentacostalism because it succeeded in forming not merely a sect, but a society and a state. THis was surely unique in the AMerican experience. But then, I suppose that's an argument for studying 19th century Deseret rather than today's LDS Church.

With your caveat, I actually do agree with you. I just think that field is well covered under the umbrella of American history and its subfields. There is no reason to conjure up a "studies" field just to study one relatively thinly populated region of the United States that had an uncharacteristic political culture for about 50 or 60 years. Mormonism has no significantly discernible influence beyond its historical core region. The one exception is probably the fight over same-sex marriage, but even then it was because Mormon interests aligned with those of the Christian right (made up of Evangelicals and Pentecostals) and the Catholic church.

[_Johannes]

Mormonism as fideist? That's an interesting question. The notion of having a testimony and "I know with every fibre of my being" implies an epistemology which resembles fideism.

A Mormon Aquinas would be an interesting sight, although one destined to be marginal in his (her?) own community. I suppose Bruce McConkie produced the closest thing that the LDS Church has ever had to a Summa. It was systematic, but what did it systematise, beyond literalistic readings of the scriptures and McConkie's own theories? I've always struggled with Aquinas, but at least he engaged with peope like Maimonides from outside his own communion. The idea of McConkie quoting someone like Martin Buber, even to rebut him, is risible.

[_Philo Sofee]

Mormonism as fideist? That's an interesting question. The notion of having a testimony and "I know with every fibre of my being" implies an epistemology which resembles fideism.

A Mormon Aquinas would be an interesting sight, although one destined to be marginal in his (her?) own community. I suppose Bruce McConkie produced the closest thing that the LDS Church has ever had to a Summa. It was systematic, but what did it systematise, beyond literalistic readings of the scriptures and McConkie's own theories? I've always struggled with Aquinas, but at least he engaged with peope like Maimonides from outside his own communion. The idea of McConkie quoting someone like Martin Buber, even to rebut him, is risible.

McConkkie for the majority of his information went to Farrar and Talmage. He was more or less a James E. Talmage on steroids was my impression.

[_Gadianton]

Supposing that Mormonism were significant enough to analyze outside of American history, there is still a huge problem when it comes to that analysis being done by Mormons. Okay, bias is a universal problem to a degree, but for Mormons studying Mormonism, there's nothing but pure unmitigated bias. There is no interest whatsoever in learning a damn thing about anything, only to substantiate faith by one strategy or another. That strategy may include admitting x, y, and z, because it would be difficult not to own up on those, but that's a fair trade for not admitting u and v. Bizarre method p could be applied to Mormonism, not because that will tell us anything interesting about the world, but other scholars apply p to other subjects and so this should do something to legitimize Mormonism to scholars who like p.

I was going to disagree with this:

The reason there isn't a genuine theological tradition in Mormonism (i.e. a tradition for developing ways to talk about god) is that the Church won't allow one to develop beyond the domain of hobbyists and tiresome book clubs. When would-be theologians to attempt to move beyond that, the Church treats them as criminals.

But maybe this is another way of saying once theologians are actually interested in getting to the bottom of something, the strong likelihood is it won't be faith promoting.

So here's what is possibly a weird dilemma: On the one hand, faithful scholars are practiced in sniffing each other out. A key concern is if the scholar in question is working within a faith-promoting framework. The same twenty-five words written by a scholar suspected of not having a testimony mean something totally different than when written by a fellow believer. The implication is that I wonder if Peterson might make room for a more philosophical approach if he were convinced a solid testimony were at the foundation (it might get a little political here due to power struggles; there is an incentive to wrongly classify scholars competing for resources). As a potential Aquinas, within the last several days, SeN seems to have nominated Blake Ostler. The staff writer discussing this went back and forth on the right level of intellectualism and the right kind of faith orientation -- we don't want rubes, but we don't want sophists either, we certainly don't want wolves in sheep's clothing, and so the counter to the new MI sophists seems to be Blake Ostler. So there you have it, straight from the highest internal authority on Mormon apologetics.

I got sidetracked and forgot about the other hand -- on the other hand, because they know that faithful scholarship ultimately is rigged scholarship, while they most certainly want it, and it alone, produced, they really aren't that interested in learning that much about it. And so my theory is that apologists aren't all that interested in the details of what their fellow apologists are doing, only that they be proper fellow apologists. If this is right, then we'd tend to see a lot of independent theories with comments here and there, but no substantial building upon each other's work. The closest thing to a research project may have been the LGT, but as I said before not even that was pursued in a serious way. In the back of my mind I'm contemplating ways to test this. Funny enough, Migdley made a comment that supports what I just said on the latest Interpreter piece about unique names in the Book of Mormon. He basically said Mormon scholarship is like a herd of cats, and it was good to see a collaborative effort. He said he'd like to live long enough to see what comes of it. But, in full support of me, he also said that he only '"glanced"' at the essay -- even he knows what the conclusions will be after reading the first sentence from the abstract, and so why bother getting into the nuts and bolts?