Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

[_rcrocket]

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.

Somewhat true; Roberts and Talmadge and Pratt were among the brightest and often obtuse.

However, I just have little respect for Ostler's writings; perhaps he has a rigorous technical expertise in philosophy, but his ability to communicate to the untrained reader is plainly absent.

[_silentkid]

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.

I guess that my main issue with this whole thing is why not? Why doesn't the church get more involved in it's apologetic effort? Why doesn't it fund it directly? I see no harm in it.

I agree with Trevor. The most interesting stuff about the church is coming from the apologists, not the brethren. I probably feel that way because I've always been more interested in the intellectual side of things rather than the spiritual.

[_Trevor]

Somewhat true; Roberts and Talmadge and Pratt were among the brightest and often obtuse.

However, I just have little respect for Ostler's writings; perhaps he has a rigorous technical expertise in philosophy, but his ability to communicate to the untrained reader is plainly absent.

Yes, back in the day there were some interesting minds in the leadership. I am quite fond of Widstoe's Rational Theology.

I am not a fan of Ostler, his reading of the King Follett Discourse, or his theological ideas, but I respect the effort and intelligence that he dedicates to his work.

[_The Nehor]

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.

I guess that my main issue with this whole thing is why not? Why doesn't the church get more involved in it's apologetic effort? Why doesn't it fund it directly? I see no harm in it.

I agree with Trevor. The most interesting stuff about the church is coming from the apologists, not the brethren. I probably feel that way because I've always been more interested in the intellectual side of things rather than the spiritual.

Mercy mostly. If they did direct and/or fund apologetics Scratch would have a fit of glee so intense it might be fatal and the leaders of the Church don't want that on their conscience.

[Guest]

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."

In any event, to quote Lynn Hilton:

"This book grew out of a discovery trip sponsored by the Ensign magazine, and before going, we were set apart by a General Authority for the task."

[_antishock8]

PWNED!

[_Mister Scratch]

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."

Part of the line of inquiry on this thread has been whether or not the Brethren have given blessings to any of the apologists. Given your comments here--i.e., that blessings occur "often," including for new "jobs"--it still seems reasonable, if not imperative, to believe that apologists were given blessings by the Brethren.

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.

Yes, but what does this mean? This has been your standard reply for ages, Dan, and it tells us precisely: nothing. Would you care to explain in more specific detail what you mean? Otherwise, it seems to me that it could very well be interpreted as: the Brethren "occasionally set apart and bless apologists," their "distinctly slight" involvement means that they have tried very hard to maintain "plausible deniability," and they meet with all key apologists on "an individual basis."

Is that what you mean? Or will you clarify? Or, instead, will you skulk back to MAD, hoping to quell the inquiries into this matter?

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.

See? How accurate is this? We know that the Church has supplied the MI with Ed Snow so that funds can be drummed up for more Mopologetic work. Were the Brethren contacted about this in any way? Did the Brethren sign off on production of the FARMS Review? Were the Brethren consulted when FARMS became part of BYU?

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.

Never, ever? In no way, shape, or for whatsoever? I find that rather hard to believe, particularly given what you said about them being involved on an "individual basis."

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.

Seems a bit of a red herring, doesn't it?

And the Maxwell Institute, the work of which is only partially (considerably less than a quarter) apologetic in character

CFR. Apologetics is one of the primary activities listed in the Mission Statement.

, 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.

Right. And the rest of its "basic funding" is drummed up by the Church-employed "fundraiser" named Ed Snow. O, what a tangled web we weave!

[_Mister Scratch]

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."

In any event, to quote the Hiltons:

"This book grew out of a discovery trip sponsored by the Ensign magazine, and before going, we were set apart by a General Authority for the task."

Huh. That's very interesting. I wonder why DCP, appealing to his own memory and his "insider's knowledge" of the Hiltons, would claim that they'd merely been "blessed"? Did he forget, or was he misinformed?

[_silentkid]

In any event, to quote the Hiltons:

"This book grew out of a discovery trip sponsored by the Ensign magazine, and before going, we were set apart by a General Authority for the task."

Huh. That's very interesting. I wonder why DCP, appealing to his own memory and his "insider's knowledge" of the Hiltons, would claim that they'd merely been "blessed"? Did he forget, or was he misinformed?

Nice. I thought it said "set apart". I just figured I was misremembering or misunderstanding or something. I should have checked that link again before my last response. Oh well.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

silentkid---

I think you're raising a very important point. Call this a "sneak preview" if you like, but I have been receiving a flurry of utterly fascinating tidbits lately, pointing to some very strange goings-on that relate to precisely what you're describing. There is a missing document, dating from 1995, which would probably shed a whole, whole lot of light on apologetics: including the extent to which the Brethren are/were involved with FARMS.