The "New Guard" vs. the "Old Guard" of Mormon Apologia

[_Markk]

the DCP's of the LDS world went from defending LDS thought to defining LDS thought...the common folks were forming their doctrines in the foyer from Internet apologist, who intern formed their ideology from the DCP's.

This is exactly why I've always called the Mopologists the new Prophets of the Mormon Cult. Want to nail down a doctrine? Apostles: "Don't write me a letter! Go talk to your SP!". SP doesn't know, so they send them to FARMS/NWI and where do they end up? With DCP? Doctrine now defined - according to DCP.

And this is why MADB and alike were "stifled", the brethren lost control and because of this more and more young LDS members know way too much about the dark side of Mormon history and doctrines, even if from :
"old Guard" rebuttals, and are neither Internet Mormons, nor Chapel Mormons, but "disoriented Mormons," they don't now what heck to believe. I have many young relatives in Utah that fall in this category, they are certainly Mormon, but they are so confused they are giving up on it.

MG

[_bcspace]

My father associated with Tvedtnes long ago.

[_RockSlider]

I think the Church would like to toss the old guard and not encourage the development of a new one.

I believe they are starting to wise up and realize they need to handle this internally. Of course this is going to take time, but check out the likes of these two men:

Terryl Givens on MAD

Terryl Givens on Mormon Stories

Philip Barlow on Mormon Stories

[_Uther]

the DCP's of the LDS world went from defending LDS thought to defining LDS thought...the common folks were forming their doctrines in the foyer from Internet apologist, who intern formed their ideology from the DCP's.

This is exactly why I've always called the Mopologists the new Prophets of the Mormon Cult. Want to nail down a doctrine? Apostles: "Don't write me a letter! Go talk to your SP!". SP doesn't know, so they send them to FARMS/NWI and where do they end up? With DCP? Doctrine now defined - according to DCP.

Exactly. Pretty much nails the current formation of LDS doctrine.
The mostly correlated utterances of the apostles and seventies contain integrals of common sence, "be nice" bla bla, while what the members find as the bottom line correlation for core doctrine is formed by DCP, Hamblin etc.
Im not sure if the hierarchy is pleased with that.

[_ludwigm]

I'm not sure if the hierarchy is pleased with that.

They are. The buck was passed.

[_Uther]

I'm not sure if the hierarchy is pleased with that.

They are. The buck was passed.

The mantle has fallen on FAIR/FARMS..

[_DrW]

the DCP's of the LDS world went from defending LDS thought to defining LDS thought...the common folks were forming their doctrines in the foyer from Internet apologist, who intern formed their ideology from the DCP's.

This is exactly why I've always called the Mopologists the new Prophets of the Mormon Cult. Want to nail down a doctrine? Apostles: "Don't write me a letter! Go talk to your SP!". SP doesn't know, so they send them to FARMS/NWI and where do they end up? With DCP? Doctrine now defined - according to DCP.

Was a time when I was very skeptical of this claimed de facto process. No more. In my experience, local leaders are not well trained to handle hard questions about Church History, and a lot of them who know about the internet will suggest that folks consider internet apologetics. That is what it's there for.

If local leaders took the time to really come up to speed in this issue, many of them (I believe), would just keep on going - right out the door.

Not sure that the leadership of the Church really cares all that much about all of this (although they seem to be paying more attention lately). As is often pointed out, they have a corporation to run.

Nonetheless, it would appear to be a dangerous situation for the Church, especially with folks like DCP running amok. While it appears that that issue has been addressed for now, there is always the danger of DCP-2.

If the Church thinks it a good idea to keep MI at arms length, how much distance are they going to need from MI-2?

And can they actually get it?

(DCP redux - I shutter to think.)

[_Markk]

Exactly. Pretty much nails the current formation of LDS doctrine.
The mostly correlated utterances of the apostles and seventies contain integrals of common sence, "be nice" bla bla, while what the members find as the bottom line correlation for core doctrine is formed by DCP, Hamblin etc.
I'm not sure if the hierarchy is pleased with that.

I believe a good example of this might be the LGT...I could be wrong here, there are others here who know more about this particular subject, but I know of no statements from any official LDS source that would endorse a LGT, if there is I doubt if it is clear, I suppose their adjusting the Book of Mormon chapter descriptions is more than they liked to do. Yet, it is now a major position in LDS thought, and a "foyer topic." This was introduced by the "Old Guard", and I am sure the brethren don't like having to be put in the position of having to make the choice of saying the LGT is legit, or saying LDS scholars are full of it, and being forced to actually edit the Book of Mormon introduction.

Places like FAIR/MADB/FARMS is in all reality the only place a "thinking" LDS member can get answers and insurance that "all is well" in Zion, and to believe that the brethren do not know this, as DCP has repeatedly claimed, is really being "naïve." The Brethren know this and they acted, and DCP being the "DON" of LDS Internet apologetics; he had to get "whacked."

This may or may not be true, but it certainly makes sense to me.

[_Pahoran]

Chap and I started a side conversation on Scratch's thread about Tvedtnes. Since I didn't think it was fair to derail Scratch's thread any further, I thought any who would care to could continue the discussion here.

I mentioned on the other thread that DCP was disappointed in David Bokyvoy not being appointed to a Professor position at BYU in the Religion department.

There has been a lot of talk about Bradford's releasing of DCP from his MI editorial duties as part of a transition from the "Old Guard" to the "New Guard".

There has also been talk, on this board, in particular, about David Bokyvoy being a top contender as a "New Guard" LDS Apologist.

There has also been talk about contention between the two guards. That being the case, I find it a tad ironic that David Bokyvoy was the FIRST apologist asked by DCP to write an article for his new Internet magazine, "Mormon Interpreter", which, has been referred to, as a "sustaining of the Old Guard".

Comments?

The first comment that comes to mind is that, as usual, Scratch is pulling "theories" out of thin air; and as usual, his adoring fans lack the critical thinking skills to process them.

As you pointed out, DCP likes David Bokovoy, and there is no sign that he regards him as either a threat or any kind of upstart.

More to the point, the notion that Bradford is trying to create some kind of "New Guard" LDS apologetics is an original one, and I have no idea where it comes from. His published articles, along with his antics at the MI, make it clear that he wants to dispense with LDS apologetics altogether and do "Mormon Religious Studies" instead.

Bradford's "vision" is that BYU, with the MI leading the way, should become the premier institution doing Mormon Studies. He sees Mormon Studies as a genteel conversation among top-level academics who all speak the same language; and who, I suspect, have far more in common with each other than with less-educated followers of any faith tradition, anywhere. He also thinks apologetics should not be done by the MI, but by non-affiliated organisations such as FAIR. I personally suspect that he sees religious apologetics as crass, unseemly, unworthy of real scholars and a distraction to the "real" work of the MI, which he sees as garnering intellectual respectability among academic elites.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_moksha]

Bradford's "vision" is that BYU, with the MI leading the way, should become the premier institution doing Mormon Studies. He sees Mormon Studies as a genteel conversation among top-level academics who all speak the same language; and who, I suspect, have far more in common with each other than with less-educated followers of any faith tradition, anywhere.

Regards,
Pahoran

I can see how this must be particularly galling to the valiant battle hardened veterans of the trenches and bio-weapons unit.