14 Years - have delivered what?

[Limnor]

I owe the Mopologists a huge debt of gratitude, and I think you do, too, Philo Sofee. We used to be real fans of this stuff. It was part of what made us who we are today! Do we still follow it? No, but why attack people who are where we were at one time? I wonder what we would make of seeing younger selves rudely ridiculed by someone online? Would we think it fair, kind?

What do you think would actually have moved the needle for you back then, Kish? When you were convinced by Mopologetics and confident you had the answers, what approach was most effective to gain your attention?

[Kishkumen]

Anyway, Philo is on record with this:

Yes, I do have a piece of advice... absolutely totally without mercy decimate, slaughter, destroy, and annihilate the argument......yet be kind to the person making it. Show no mercy for the stupidity of the argument, using evidence to show its weaknesses, silliness, illogicalness, etc., but still remain humane to the person using the argument. They honestly may not know better.

I would imagine that Philo's reasonable position is about the same.

Thanks, Shulem. Philo is a stand-up guy, and I am not surprised he said this. That is what I would expect him to say, and I know he means it. Philo is one of my dear friends. At least, that is how fond I am of him and in line with my great respect for him.

What do you think would actually have moved the needle for you back then, Kish? When you were convinced by Mopologetics and confident you had the answers, what approach was most effective to gain your attention?

I don't think I was ever long for the Mopologetic fold, Limnor. I was a fan of Hugh Nibley, but I did not thrive in the back-and-forth between LDS apologists and critics or anti-Mormons. Pretty early on, I recognized that LDS apologists sometimes had agendas that did not match the real requirements of faith. Sometimes they were just speculating and repeating their own internal theories on things. Stuff like the Limited Geography Theory. I saw that sometimes the critics and anti-Mormons had solid points to make, but that there was a kind of group commitment among apologists not to admit the facts on some things. So, it did not take me long to come to the conclusion that their goals were not my goals, no matter how much of a fan of Hugh Nibley I had been, and no matter how fascinating some apologetic theories were to me.

That said, I no longer look at the apologists in an oppositional way. Certainly, I am not one of them, and I do not agree with a lot of what they have to say. But that does not make them my enemies or people I will, from here on out, spend a lot of time criticizing. In my view, there are a lot bigger fish to fry out there. I am in favor of LDS people being better at living the core principles of their religion than I am against LDSism. I choose not to affiliate with the LDS Church, largely because I don't see it as meshing well with my personality.

There are people who like to be in organizations like the LDS Church. I am not one of those people. I do not look for someone else to tell me what God thinks and wants me to do. Anyone who looks for guidance from a prophet obviously does. I am not saying the people who do this are bad people, but I am certainly not one of them. That would make it pretty hard for me to go along with LDS apologetics, too. Their primary job is to uphold the authority of the LDS GAs.

[Gadianton]

I was a fan of Hugh Nibley, but I did not thrive in the back-and-forth between LDS apologists and critics or anti-Mormons. Pretty early on, I recognized that LDS apologists sometimes had agendas that did not match the real requirements of faith.

I was a fan of Hugh Nibley and purchased his books republished by FARMS. I purchased a handful of other books by FARMS. I had no idea who FARMS was nor did I know anything about the battles and controversies. For whatever reason, the only FARMS name that became familiar to me was Lou Midgley, probably because "Midgley" sounds like "Nibley". By the time I quit on Nibley, maybe three years into it, I still had no idea what FARMS was until ZLMB.

Sometimes they were just speculating and repeating their own internal theories on things. Stuff like the Limited Geography Theory. I saw that sometimes the critics and anti-Mormons had solid points to make, but that there was a kind of group commitment among apologists not to admit the facts on some things. So, it did not take me long to come to the conclusion that their goals were not my goals, no matter how much of a fan of Hugh Nibley I had been, and no matter how fascinating some apologetic theories were to me.

I knew nothing about the LGT because Nibley said he wouldn't touch Book of Mormon geography with a ten foot pole. I don't think I knew what the LGT was until it got brought up on Z. I'll admit had Nibley not poisoned the well, I likely would have been an uncritical target and I would likely have eaten it up.

That said, I no longer look at the apologists in an oppositional way. Certainly, I am not one of them, and I do not agree with a lot of what they have to say. But that does not make them my enemies or people I will, from here on out, spend a lot of time criticizing. In my view, there are a lot bigger fish to fry out there.

Do you think that the apologist loved Nibley or despised him? I'll admit that I was a full-fledged inductee into a cult of personality. I wasn't very well informed and I'd come to believe Nibley was the greatest scholar on the planet; that he was known and feared by everyone. That the scholarly world wouldn't admit it, but that they secretly feared and envied him. It's my impression in retrospect, that it was Nibley's fame that put FARMS on the map. People got into it for the Nibley worship but didn't expand much from there. And here's the thing, it doesn't appear that the apologists built upon anything Nibley did. The LGT it turns out, was the core of FARMS. Nibley got them the views, but their core interest was the LGT and Sorenson. There was also the wars with critics and even steadying the ark on what other Mormons were allowed to publish, they had a lot of free time on their hands, but if there ever was an intellectual core to FARMS, I think it was the LGT. And that they blew Nibley off. Used him as bait.

There are people who like to be in organizations like the LDS Church. I am not one of those people. I do not look for someone else to tell me what God thinks and wants me to do. Anyone who looks for guidance from a prophet obviously does. I am not saying the people who do this are bad people, but I am certainly not one of them. That would make it pretty hard for me to go along with LDS apologetics, too. Their primary job is to uphold the authority of the LDS GAs.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is really getting guidance from a prophet. It's the main talking point, but who that you know spends substantial time and effort trying to understand and follow the prophet? Those who want to follow a prophet broke off and joined Denver. Actually, better, what is the definition f a prophet? Is a "prophet" really something you can make into an office to rule as the highest state bureaucrat? Joseph and Brigham have likely been the only "prophets" in the true sense of the word.

[Doctor Scratch]

Do you think that the apologist loved Nibley or despised him? I'll admit that I was a full-fledged inductee into a cult of personality. I wasn't very well informed and I'd come to believe Nibley was the greatest scholar on the planet; that he was known and feared by everyone. That the scholarly world wouldn't admit it, but that they secretly feared and envied him. It's my impression in retrospect, that it was Nibley's fame that put FARMS on the map. People got into it for the Nibley worship but didn't expand much from there. And here's the thing, it doesn't appear that the apologists built upon anything Nibley did. The LGT it turns out, was the core of FARMS. Nibley got them the views, but their core interest was the LGT and Sorenson. There was also the wars with critics and even steadying the ark on what other Mormons were allowed to publish, they had a lot of free time on their hands, but if there ever was an intellectual core to FARMS, I think it was the LGT. And that they blew Nibley off. Used him as bait.

For what it's worth: I think that the core group of Mopologists admired Nibley for some of the same reasons that you did--i.e., that he was this "formidable" scholar who was "known and feared by everyone." So much of the energy expended by the Mopologists from the "old school" was devoted to this sort of thing: it was an attempt to bully and intimidate people. The evidence is all over SHIELDS; it's there on the old Z thread and the old FAIRboard threads; and it's on page after page in the old FROB. As for the LGT: recall that the Heartlanders have successfully shown that FARMS stole it from old ideas that originated in the Community of Christ. The Mopologists have never denied that they essentially plagiarized those CoC ideas.

[Kishkumen]

Do you think that the apologist loved Nibley or despised him? I'll admit that I was a full-fledged inductee into a cult of personality. I wasn't very well informed and I'd come to believe Nibley was the greatest scholar on the planet; that he was known and feared by everyone. That the scholarly world wouldn't admit it, but that they secretly feared and envied him. It's my impression in retrospect, that it was Nibley's fame that put FARMS on the map. People got into it for the Nibley worship but didn't expand much from there. And here's the thing, it doesn't appear that the apologists built upon anything Nibley did. The LGT it turns out, was the core of FARMS. Nibley got them the views, but their core interest was the LGT and Sorenson. There was also the wars with critics and even steadying the ark on what other Mormons were allowed to publish, they had a lot of free time on their hands, but if there ever was an intellectual core to FARMS, I think it was the LGT. And that they blew Nibley off. Used him as bait.

The pivotal figures in FARMS in the early years seem to have been Jack Welch and Jon Sorenson. There were plenty of people who would have loved to be Nibley--I was once one of them--and plenty of people who were jealous of Hugh Nibley. He was definitely more of a personality, at the end of the day, than the kind of scholar anyone outside of Mormonism would genuinely be interested in. He came up with the idea of treating Joseph Smith's claims as evidence. To me, that is the original sin of Mopologetics. Once you have made that choice, you are no longer fully part of the global scholarly community, and everyone must suspect that you have another agenda when you undertake an argument. And, I do think that when someone like Kerry Muhlstein argues an Egyptological point, there is some chance that his motivation is the support of Mormonism in some way. I don't think that necessarily invalidates his work, but it should raise questions.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is really getting guidance from a prophet. It's the main talking point, but who that you know spends substantial time and effort trying to understand and follow the prophet? Those who want to follow a prophet broke off and joined Denver. Actually, better, what is the definition f a prophet? Is a "prophet" really something you can make into an office to rule as the highest state bureaucrat? Joseph and Brigham have likely been the only "prophets" in the true sense of the word.

I don't care whether they get guidance from a prophet or not. My point is that the person who goes out looking for that is not on the same page with me. I just don't seek that out. I don't see the need to do so. Who is to say that an octogenarian former lawyer from Utah knows the will of God? I guess he may, but I also think he likely does not. It is the fact that I would be obliged to do what that guy says on the basis of this claim of his divine knowledge that I have a real problem with.