The Muhlestein/Ritner affair

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Posts: 5253
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Re: The Muhlestein/Ritner affair

Post by MrStakhanovite »

Aristotle Smith wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:55 pm
Insisting on a multi-year, refereed, formal book process is simply the Mopologists proposing something that they know will not be accepted so that they can take their victory lap on their tricycles and slap each other on the backsides.
I'd have to disagree with you here old friend.

I think Mopologists would hail such a publication as a total victory. With Ritner on board they would surely find an eminent academic press to publish their work and the very act itself would be seen as a validation. Mopologists would immediately begin proclaiming that Mormon views of Egyptology are taken seriously by Non-Mormon scholars and how could the degenerate ex-mos argue otherwise? If Ritner and this publisher didn't think so, why would they bother to publish this at all?

Muhlstein could literally write an essay that was nothing but a lengthy sermon about the glory of the Restored Gospel as gleaned in the Book of Abraham that would fit right in at Meridian Magazine that absolutely refused to engage Ritner or even address the issues and DCP would be hailing it as the next piece de resistance of Faithful LDS Scholarship of the 21st century.

To most literate people outside Mopologetics it would look like a Goliath wailing away on a David, but the Mopologists and their audiences would see a titanic struggle of epic proportions between two diametrically opposed worldviews.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: The Muhlestein/Ritner affair

Post by Doctor Scratch »

That's a good point, Mr. Stak. I'm reminded of the way that Owen and Mosser's "How Wide the Divide?"--published in the FARMS Review--was exploited repeatedly--mainly be DCP--as evidence that the Mopologists actually care about interfaith dialogue. Of course, in the same issue that "How Wide the Divide?" was published, they also published, like, 5 hit pieces meant to trash Owen and Mosser, so the actual intent here comes across pretty transparently.

That said, I agree with Dr. Smith that one of the goals here is to try to seize ownership of the "narrative." The Mopologists--the more cunning and savvy among them, anyway--seem to understand that they will never win the war, and so the best strategy is to aim for small victories that can be milked for maximum effect.
"[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

Post Reply