Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _Bond James Bond »

Mister Scratch wrote:The scatology and coprophagia continue over on the aptly named MADboard. According to a tipster, Bill Hamblin announced (perhaps jokingly, but who knows?) that he contrived to have installed a kind of special "oracle" in honor of DCP:

William J. Hamblin wrote:A few years ago I donated some money to BYU, and they allowed me to dedicate the "Daniel C. Peterson Memorial Urinal" in the bathroom near his office, complete with his picture painted on the porcelain. Dan was noticeably touched by the honor.


Wow. Is Hamblin saying that DCP relishes the thought of a vicarious "golden shower"? Personally, I find this sort of thing revolting, and think that Dr. Hamblin should feel embarrassed about stooping to this level.


Who was the urinal cake dedicated too?
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _Trevor »

B23 wrote:Who was the urinal cake dedicated too?


It was dedicated to history, and only BKP was allowed to relieve himself on it.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _silentkid »

Trevor wrote:Now we know that Daniel was not set apart as an apologist. I am not surprised. It doesn't mean that no apologist was ever set apart to act as a defender of the faith. In the end, however, I don't think it matters a whole lot. It would be far wiser for the LDS leadership to leave apologetics as they are, tools that you keep around as long as they serve the right purpose, but which you can drop as soon as their usefulness has passed.


I'm wondering if the Maxwell Institute itself was set apart or consecrated or dedicated for the purpose of apologetic research. Aren't new buildings at BYU dedicated by one of the brethren? Also, what happened when FARMS officially became a part of BYU? Who sanctioned that? It wasn't the biology department, that's for sure. DCP insists that he wasn't set apart as an apologist. Fine. I don't think that means that the brethren don't sanction apologetics in other ways. Look at Tom's post a few pages back. The Hiltons were set apart, yet DCP claims he has never heard of it happening. Weird.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _Trevor »

silentkid wrote:I'm wondering if the Maxwell Institute itself was set apart or consecrated or dedicated for the purpose of apologetic research. Aren't new buildings at BYU dedicated by one of the brethren? Also, what happened when FARMS officially became a part of BYU? Who sanctioned that? It wasn't the biology department, that's for sure. DCP insists that he wasn't set apart as an apologist. Fine. I don't think that means that the brethren don't sanction apologetics in other ways. Look at Tom's post a few pages back. The Hiltons were set apart, yet DCP claims he has never heard of it happening. Weird.


I guess I don't get the big fuss about all of this. Sure, the LDS Church is ultimately supportive of apologetic efforts. It does contribute material support to its own defense. Why is that troubling?

If they do support apologetics, if only indirectly, what difference does that make? Are we to understand that they have de facto canonized certain apologetic arguments? Or that they control apologists? Really, I find this whole fixation puzzling.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _silentkid »

Trevor wrote:
I guess I don't get the big fuss about all of this. Sure, the LDS Church is ultimately supportive of apologetic efforts. It does contribute material support to its own defense. Why is that troubling?

If they do support apologetics, if only indirectly, what difference does that make? Are we to understand that they have de facto canonized certain apologetic arguments? Or that they control apologists? Really, I find this whole fixation puzzling.


I don't find it troubling at all. I actually find it more interesting that certain apologists want to claim that the brethren have nothing to do with apologetics...no connection at all. I agree with you. Who cares if the church finances and endorses apologetics? I don't. But certain apologists do. That's what I find interesting. [/chiasmus]
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _Trevor »

silentkid wrote:I don't find it troubling at all. I actually find it more interesting that certain apologists want to claim that the brethren have nothing to do with apologetics...no connection at all. I agree with you. Who cares if the church finances and endorses apologetics? I don't. But certain apologists do. That's what I find interesting. [/chiasmus]


At this point, I'd have to say I am bored with the denials. I think it amounts to one big, "none of your beeswax," which, when you come down to it, is just about right.

My guess is that if the leaders of the Church were really in charge of apologetics, then there would be almost nothing of interest in Mormonism remaining. Really, the apologists' opinions are far more interesting than almost anything one would find in a manual, and I'd wager it is far deeper than anything that happens in a meeting of the Brethren in the Holy of Holies.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

silentkid wrote:The Hiltons were set apart, yet DCP claims he has never heard of it happening. Weird.

I knew the Hiltons well. They were members of the Cairo Branch while I lived there; I was his home teaching companion.

They were given a blessing prior to a long trip in a remote, foreign, and sometimes risky place. (College students are often blessed by their fathers prior to a new semester. I've often given blessings to members of my ward, at their request, when they're starting a new job.) They were not, to the best of my understanding, "set apart."

silentkid wrote:I actually find it more interesting that certain apologists want to claim that the brethren have nothing to do with apologetics...no connection at all.

"Nothing to do with apologetics"? "No connection at alI"? don't know who's claimed that. I haven't.

But the connection is only occasional, distinctly slight, and mostly on an individual basis.

But does the Church set apologists apart or ordain them? No. Does it fund them directly? No. Does it fund them indirectly? In the sense that BYU partially supports the work of the Maxwell Institute, I suppose it sort of does. But much of the work of the Maxwell Institute is volunteer work, in any event. It isn't paid at all. Do the Brethren give us orders or micromanage our work? No. Do they read what we produce? Some do. Some don't. Probably most don't.

silentkid wrote:Who cares if the church finances and endorses apologetics? I don't. But certain apologists do. That's what I find interesting.

Oh, I definitely care. Life would be much, much easier if the Church financed apologetics. As it is, FAIR gets no money from the Church at all. And the Maxwell Institute, the work of which is only partially (considerably less than a quarter) apologetic in character, receives a relatively small portion (considerably less than half) of its basic funding -- e.g., to partially support office functions, but not to support projects -- from BYU, which is largely (but not entirely) funded by the Church.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _Trevor »

Pretty much what I supposed. Thanks.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_rcrocket

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _rcrocket »

Trevor wrote:My guess is that if the leaders of the Church were really in charge of apologetics, then there would be almost nothing of interest in Mormonism remaining. Really, the apologists' opinions are far more interesting than almost anything one would find in a manual, . . .



There is much truth in what you say. If the Church had a say it what apologists wrote and said, half of which writings display limited ability and ignorance, it would take many months to get their writings through correlation . . . .
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

Post by _Trevor »

rcrocket wrote:There is much truth in what you say. If the Church had a say it what apologists wrote and said, half of which writings display limited ability and ignorance, it would take many months to get their writings through correlation . . . .


Good point, but I was thinking more about the absence of interesting ideas coming from the minds of Blake Ostler, Kevin Barney, Daniel Peterson, and others. Those ideas require long, focused study and a vast knowledge base that the GAs probably do not have time to cultivate, no matter how spiritual they are.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Post Reply