Steve Smoot demonstrates M2C tactics

Brother Smoot responded to my comments on his blog with a long post that deserves a detailed response, but the format on his blog doesn't allow interlinear comments, so I'll do that here.

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/07/seven-reasons-why-letter-vii-is-not-a-heartlander-silver-bullet.html#comment-5537

I had sincerely hoped for a breakthrough because Brother Smoot is smart and articulate and purported to be open-minded and intellectually honest. But now we see that Brother Smoot likely won't even read this because he copes with criticism by avoidance.

Nevertheless, I'm posting my response because it's instructive for anyone interested in the outcome of the training provided by the M2C intellectuals. Brother Smoot has incorporated their tactics and groupthink quite well, as you'll see.


_____

Jonathan,

You have abundantly proven that you are not somebody who can have a rational argument in good faith with an “M2C intellectual.” 

This is the classic avoidance coping: "You're too mean to talk to." 

I've had plenty of rational arguments in good faith on many topics with all kinds of people. The only group I'm aware of that shies away from open, rational argument, debate, and even discussion are the members of the M2C citation cartel. That's what makes them a cartel. They hurl unfounded accusations, attack straw men, and claim their repudiation of the prophets is sanctioned by Church leaders, but they refuse to engage with those who criticize their positions.

I hoped you were both intellectually honest enough and self-confident enough to have a rational argument in good faith, but now the world sees you are not. 

You have, repeatedly, demonized and belittled and cast aspersion on anybody who doesn’t accept your dogmatic interpretation of early Mormon historical sources relevant to Book of Mormon geography. 

This list of absolutes and misrepresentations of my positions is at least consistent with the rest of what you've written. Next time, provide a citation so everyone can see to what you're referring.

This isn’t just a matter of having differences of opinion. As your blog posts have more than demonstrated, you have a personal vendetta against the “citation cartel” (which is, in reality, peer reviewed academic scholarship, as opposed to your own brand of trashy Internet pseudo-scholarship) and anybody who is out of step with your narrow and uncompromising Heartland apologetics.

Actually, my blog posts repeatedly explain that I respect and admire the members of the citation cartel on an individual basis. None of this is personal from my perspective. To characterize my position as "narrow and uncompromising" is yet another straw man. I'm the most flexible person involved with this issue, as you would know if you actually read my work. You keep forgetting (or deliberately refrain from acknowledging) that I'm a recovering M2C'er myself. 

As for "peer-reviewed academic scholarship," you apparently lack experience in a real academic environment, but the M2C publications are so replete with logical fallacies and unchallenged assumptions that they would not be accepted by any publication whose editors were not pushing the M2C agenda. That's why I started this blog in the first place.

I suspect I know why you are so personally angry and upset at “M2C intellectuals.” 

This is pure projection on your part. As we both know, you are angry and you express that anger frequently. I have zero anger because (i) none of this is personal, (ii) for me this is an intellectual exercise, and (iii) I'm retired so I don't care what anyone thinks and I'm not seeking to establish a career. I empathize with members of the citation cartel who, like you, take all of this personally and view it as part of your academic career, but I don't think that's an excuse for misleading people and refusing to confront criticism.

It must be very frustrating that your pseudo-scholarship which you’ve invested so much time and energy into is not making mainstream inroads in Mormon studies. 

Think about the contradiction you've just expressed. On the one hand, according to you, I'm "upset and angry" at the M2C intellectuals (an assertion I find amusing) and I have a "personal vendetta" against the citation cartel. But on the other hand, I'm supposedly frustrated that I'm "not making inroads" into these same groups. If you had actually read my work instead of misrepresenting it, you would know that I don't care what others think and I'm certainly not vying to work for CES/BYU/COB. 

You would also know that my purpose is to help expose the dogma of the M2C citation cartel and the tactics they use to perpetuate it (and I thank you for demonstrating these tactics in your post and response).

The last thing I'd want to do is join the citation cartel. I have also made it clear that I don't expect the citation cartel to change their minds. They have too many sunk costs, as I described here: https://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2018/05/sunk-costs-and-m2c.html. 

It must be frustrating to be a laughingstock at the Church History Department and amongst BYU faculty. 

I expect as much from those who are disciples of the M2C scholars. Laughing is another way to deal with cognitive dissonance, just like your avoidance coping. If I cared what they think I certainly wouldn't have awarded them the Gold Cup for the Benjamin Winchester Award. But those who are not disciples of the M2C scholars are realizing some long-held assumptions have been a mistake.

It must be frustrating that the best you can do is publish semi-coherent ramblings on obscure personal blogs or with no-name presses. But just know that it isn’t anything personal: it’s because both your Mormon history and your Book of Mormon geography are nonsense and you’re a deeply unpleasant person to interact with..

Ha-ha, my blogs reach far more people around the world than any printed publication, which is why I write them. You claim my views are "nonsense" as a substitute for rational exchange because you are unable and unwilling to address them on the merits, with any specificity, or with any citations. And, actually, I've never interacted with you before you attacked me in your blog post, at least not that I recall, so your judgment is based on your own imagination. I'm the nicest guy you'll ever meet.

I don’t know why you have chosen to become such a fanatic over this one issue, but I will say that it is genuinely sad that your testimony is so fragile that even the slightest contradiction of your pet theory causes your cognitive dissonance to flair up like lights on a Christmas tree.

That's an interesting point, actually. If you'd read my work, you'd know that I was once like you, a follower of the M2C intellectuals because of my training at BYU. It wasn't until decades later that I realized these intellectuals had employed Orwellian tactics of censorship, obfuscation, and plain old sophistry to persuade me that there were two Cumorahs, that the Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica, and that the prophets were confused speculators who misled the Church with their incorrect personal opinions.

It was the abusive treatment of Rod Meldrum and Wayne May by FARMS and other members of the citation cartel that caught my attention. The academic arrogance in those attack articles was astonishing, but the logical fallacies they used were so blatant and their defensiveness so apparent that I figured something was going on behind the scenes. When I realized that I shared the M2C beliefs with these abusive academics, I began re-examining my assumptions and what I had been taught. It soon became apparent how deeply I had been misled by the M2C intellectuals, so I decided to expose their tactics to help others who were falling for M2C the way I had (and the way you have). 

If that makes me a fanatic, fine. 

But you are projecting again when you claim my testimony is so fragile, etc. I'm completely open about what I think and I'm willing and able to discuss the pros and cons with anyone, including not only the "the slightest contradiction" of my theories but the most direct and forceful contradictions. 

By contrast, you've shown you are not willing or able to do the same. 

Is that because your theory is too fragile to withstand scrutiny? Or is that because you lack confidence your theory? Or because you haven't yet faced up to the cognitive dissonance you sense between your declared support for the prophets and your declared repudiation of those same prophets? 

Besides being unable and unwilling to defend your own positions, you are unwilling and unable to even criticize my actual work (which you can't even cite because you haven't read it), so resort to broad generalizations and straw man arguments instead.  

I am content with what I wrote in my post and in the KnoWhy, 

That clause, in a nutshell, epitomizes the M2C citation cartel. Being content. Avoiding scrutiny. Avoiding discussion, argument, and debate. Avoiding comparisons. Obfuscating. Censoring. But mainly, being content.

and I’ll allow readers to decide for themselves which explanation they find more persuasive. 

This is the inevitable codicil to the previous clause. M2C intellectuals always claim they want readers to decide for themselves, but they refuse to do a side-by-side comparison, have a give-and-take discussion or debate, or allow their readers any access to ideas, facts and rational arguments that challenge M2C.

I will not, however, waste further time or attention on your shenanigans. 

Avoidance coping, again.

Like I said, since you refuse to engage people who disagree with you in good faith, and since you’re a close-minded fanatic, it would be utterly pointless for me to engage you any further.

ha-ha, everyone who reads this can see that I'm the one who proposed a good faith exchange and that you're the one who refused. I'm the one open to any ideas and facts and rational argument, while you want to shut it down because you're "content" with what you wrote.

I will just say this one thing: for all of your self-righteous preening about how you accept the apostles and the prophets, and how “M2C intellectuals” are subversive apostates, it is breathtakingly hypocritical for you to lambast the Church History Department and BYU faculty and Seminaries & Institutes faculty for not kowtowing to your theories, since all of them are ultimately hired by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. 

I did a blog post on this fun accusation here:

http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-employees-have-spoken-thinking-is.html

It is astoundingly hypocritical for you to criticize the “Correlation Department” of the Church, which approves “M2C” artwork and videos and articles in Church publications, when, again, the First Presidency and the Twelve are a part of Correlation. 

I always distinguish between the employees in the Departments and the prophets who serve on the Committees. I've never been asked to sustain the employees as prophets, seers and revelators, and I wouldn't do it if asked anyway. 

I've also explained that if President Nelson formally repudiates his predecessors and explains they were wrong about Cumorah in New York, I'd accept what he teaches. 

But the M2C intellectuals have already repudiated President Nelson's predecessors wholesale. Are you saying that if President Nelson reaffirms Letter VII and the New York Cumorah that you will accept it, or will you say he, too, is misleading the Church with his erroneous opinion like all of his predecessors because you believe your M2C leaders instead?  

It is monstrously hypocritical of you to accuse Saints of being “revisionist history” attempting to deceive people about Book of Mormon geography when Saints has been authorized, reviewed, and approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve.

Instead of making this bald assertion, why don't you address the merits? Can you cite anything I've written about Saints that is incorrect?

So please, Jonathan, spare us all the self-righteous BS about how “M2C intellectuals” are trying to get people to disbelieve the prophets and apostles.

Wait. This is interesting. Are you saying you are not trying to get people to disbelieve the prophets about the New York Cumorah? That's a major development if so. Please elaborate.

Because guess what: as long as you keep doing what you’re doing, you are, in fact, doing the exact same thing. 

Here's an example of how peer review would have helped you avoid writing a bewildering claim. You are claiming I'm teaching people to disbelieve the prophets by teaching them to believe the prophets!

The ones teaching people to disbelieve the prophets are the M2C intellectuals. In fact, you spent an entire Kno-Why and blog post listing all the reasons why people should disbelieve the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

As long as you keep screaming about “M2C intellectuals” ruining the Church, you’re actually telling people to disbelieve the modern prophets and apostles who keep hiring them to work for the Church and guide the Church’s membership in intellectual and historical matters.

You shouldn't have waited until the end to state this. You are actually saying here that the Brethren hire the employees to guide the Church. I've heard this assertion of authority from other M2C intellectuals, but they've never published it and I don't publicize private conversations. Now it's public. This is worth the entire exchange.

When you provide fodder such as this, do you still wonder why I keep blogging?

“Physician, heal thyself!”