The Politics of Religious Apostasy

[_beastie]

I'm sure the powers that be can help you out. Unless they've changed their minds.

Maybe, but as far as I can tell, there is no way to contact the powers that be without logging on to the board.

This is a trend in LDS apologetics that became a huge turn off for me. Kerry Shirts does this too often, and the new guy taking the helm in this dept. is David Bokovoy.

In one of his recent posts he cites an JBL article (available online) and then cites references from within the article separately (as if he stumbled across them separately) in order to stack the deck with citations.

About five years ago JP Holding decimated Kerry Shirts' article that consisted mainly of snippets from textual critics. His purpose was to make the Bible seem like an entirely untrustworthy document, in order to make critics look like hypocrites for criticizing the Book of Mormon for having textual problems.

Kerry is a nice guy, but he is sloppy. I'm hardly well informed on the Book of Abraham issues, but even I caught him using a silly source to support his assertion that human sacrifice was well known in ancient Egypt, or something along those lines. His source turned out to be a goofy nineteenth century popular writer who wrote ghost stories.

[_Ray A]

This is a trend in LDS apologetics that became a huge turn off for me. Kerry Shirts does this too often, and the new guy taking the helm in this dept. is David Bokovoy.

In one of his recent posts he cites an JBL article (available online) and then cites references from within the article separately (as if he stumbled across them separately) in order to stack the deck with citations.

About five years ago JP Holding decimated Kerry Shirts' article that consisted mainly of snippets from textual critics. His purpose was to make the Bible seem like an entirely untrustworthy document, in order to make critics look like hypocrites for criticizing the Book of Mormon for having textual problems.

And now his podcasts ...

I don't want to derail beastie's thread, but I think omission is definitely a big problem in apologetics. David Bokovoy seems like he wants to become another Nibley, and he's very learned, also working towards a Ph.D. But all the learning in the world cannot reduce facts to rubble. Anyone who does even a basic study of the history of Judaism will come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is totally anachronistic, and therefore very unlikely historical, unless you go with some version of Ostler's theory (first proposed in 1987 in Dialogue), but even that is problematic. It's a Christian text woven into 600BC. Another Nibley wannabe, one David Wright, realised the problems, and concluded that the Book of Mormon is not history. His original Sunstone article (which exacerbated his problems with the hierarchy, eventually leading to his excommunication), went into a lot of detail comparing the Book of Mormon with ancient Judaism, or Old Testament studies. Even as an amateur I could see the problems, and Wright's loss of belief in historicity was thorough, he didn't even think there was a chance it could be historical after years of study, and also re-reading all of Nibley's works. After that re-reading he said it still made no sense, if you look at the facts. Not even postmodernism can change this.

So all I can think is that selectivity is what keeps faith going so strong. It's always the never-ending hope that "something will turn up". Nibley's article "Strange Ships and Shining Stones" is a good example of trying to salvage the Titanic. I think the Church should declare the Book of Mormon its non-historical scripture. Until then, people like Vogel and Metcalfe are just playing with apologists. Perhaps this should be for another thread.

[_beastie]

So all I can think is that selectivity is what keeps faith going so strong. It's always the never-ending hope that "something will turn up". Nibley's article "Strange Ships and Shining Stones" is a good example of trying to salvage the Titanic. I think the Church should declare the Book of Mormon its non-historical scripture. Until then, people like Vogel and Metcalfe are just playing with apologists. Perhaps this should be for another thread.

It would be interesting to start a thread and see what interest it incurs. As you know, Ray, from our previous conversations, I am also of the opinion that the LDS needs to declare the Book of Mormon non-historical. As for the believers who seem to go into hysterics over the idea, they should be reminded that if they accept the Bible as scripture, they are already accepting pseudographia as scripture.

[_Ray A]

It would be interesting to start a thread and see what interest it incurs. As you know, Ray, from our previous conversations, I am also of the opinion that the LDS needs to declare the Book of Mormon non-historical. As for the believers who seem to go into hysterics over the idea, they should be reminded that if they accept the Bible as scripture, they are already accepting pseudographia as scripture.

As for the believers who seem to go into hysterics over the idea, they should be reminded that if they accept the Bible as scripture, they are already accepting pseudographia as scripture.

True beastie. This was pointed out in Truman Madsen's 1979 pubication, Reflections on Mormonism, where eleven non-Mormon scholars could not give the thumbs up to the Book of Mormon as history, but as being "in the pseudepigrapha genre". I have no doubt that all of them held the Book of Mormon in high regard, but as pseudographia, and patterned after many non-canonical writings which had some status before the Council of Nicea.

Yet, despite all this, Truman Madsen did not budge in his belief in literal historicity. I am not talking about "mere scholars", who did this assessment, but they were world recognised experts in their respective fields, including James Charlesworth. By the way, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to make assessments of what David Bokovoy believes. I do believe he has, at some stage on FAIR (before it became MA&D), actually supported the idea of a non-historical Book of Mormon. But that's not what I'm seeing in his recent posts. If he's writing for FARMS, who hold to literal historicity, then he will have to subdue this view, but I am certain I saw posts from him inferring that the Book of Mormon need not be literal history. I also understand that Ostler may have retracted on some of his "modern expansion" theories. But I can't be certain of all this, as I only have it anecdotally, and I'd like more evidence to satisfy my own mind about where they actually stand. The Book of Mormon has an enormous "emotional tug" for some of us, and sometimes that can lead one to deny or omit the problems regarding historicity. But no matter how appealing a book may be emotionally, it has to pass the tests of historicity, and rigourous scholarship. Not "we expect evidence to turn up".

I may do a separate thread on this later.

[_beastie]

by the way, I went ahead and just registered a new screen name on MAD. It won't be hard to figure out.

[_Mister Scratch]

Some thoughts on the exchange over on the fittingly named MAD board.

1. What is this "other" text of Mauss's juliann is referring to---i.e., the one where he supposedly says that "the Internet has changed everything"?
2. I propose that somebody demand that juliann supply evidence that most exmos "go away quietly." I am convinced that no such evidence exists. Unless juliann or someone else can supply evidence that this is the normative behavior for exmos, I think she and the other apologists are going to have to concede that the exmos on, for example, RfM, are---or at least ought to be considers as possibly being---the standard model, rather than the exception. She and Nighthawke both seem anxious to maintain that they are only talking about "a very small group" of exmos. I say, "Prove it." Wade was unable to supply any evidence for "Mr. Ds," and I doubt juliann will be able to either.
3. Insist that juliann explain how RfM fits Johnson's "apostate" definition. Especially, insist that she explain how RfM and its ilk constitute a "moral campaign" against the LDS Church.
4. Call for a clarification of the term "attack" as it's being used by Orpheus. In other words, what constitutes a genuine "attack" on the Church? Is there a difference between genuine criticism and attack? Is there a difference (and now I cannot help but refer back to another classic Wade thread) between "venting" and attack?

for what it's worth, I think these are key issues.

[_beastie]

Good points, scratch. I'll include them in a later post.

[_Mister Scratch]

Good points, scratch. I'll include them in a later post.

Thanks. I have been enjoying the threads very much. I also think Nighthawke should be called on her leap in logic---i.e., her presumptuous conflation of "criticism" with "anger."

There is also the issue of "visibility"---i.e., the "visibility" of the "critic"/"apostate"/"whistleblower." How can one very well claim that the anonymous posters of sites like RfM or thefoyer are "visible"?

[_Mister Scratch]

I have noticed, after reading the more recent additions to the thread, that juliann is floundering pretty badly. She has been painted back into a corner where now only folks such as Steve Benson and Bob McCue are, technically speaking, "apostates." Does this mean, then, that she's going to have to abandon all her "captivity narrative" stuff as it pertains to the average thefoyer or RfM poster? Does a person such as T-bone fit into a different category now? Moreover, are the "captivity narratives" (if you can call them that) of McCue and Benson really, actually "pain-by-the-numbers" stories as described by juliann's pet scholars? (Given that Benson is the grandson of ETB, I sort of doubt it.)

[_Ray A]

Does a person such as T-bone fit into a different category now?

She doesn't consider T-Bone to be an apostate. Her definition seems to be that anyone who speaks out in criticism, whether on the Internet or through other media, is apostate. Roger Loomis, incidentally, was threatened with court action by the Church if he didn't remove the missionary discussions from his site. He removed them to avoid an expensive court battle. So it seems the Church is monitoring blogs and sites. Loomis said he wanted people to understand more about the Church before joining. I don't have a problem with what Loomis was doing, and neither did The Free Expression Policy Project:

LDS is not for Loomis

Even with a basic understanding of fair use (and a reasonable fair use defense), one of the people we interviewed still acquiesced in the demand to remove allegedly infringing information. Roger Loomis, a former Mormon, had established his site (www.LDS4U.com) as an "unauthorized investigator's guide to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in order to share his thoughts on the Mormon Church. Mr. Loomis's Internet Service Provider (ISP) received a cease and desist letter from attorneys for Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (IRI), which demanded the immediate removal of copyrighted "missionary discussions." When the ISP forwarded the letter to Mr. Loomis via e-mail, it requested that he "remove the items … ASAP."2

The missionary discussions in question included text quoted from official lessons young Mormons are asked to discuss with people they encounter on their travels. Those discussions are aimed at informing non-Mormons about the Mormon faith.

When asked why he acquiesced and removed the quoted text, Mr. Loomis said that it was much easier to remove the material than to get into a "big battle," especially since he was worried about paying the IRI's legal fees if he received an unfavorable ruling. The risk of paying those fees was not worth the "emotional time commitment." At the same time, he thought that he would have had a fair chance of prevailing if he had been able to afford a good lawyer.

Mr. Loomis's decision not to risk paying legal fees and his desire to avoid the emotional toll involved in a legal fight are sentiments shared by many cease and desist letter recipients.

http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/ ... sist2.html

The Free Expression Policy Project:

The Free Expression Policy Project (FEPP), founded in 2000, provides research and advocacy on free speech, copyright, and media democracy issues. In May 2004, FEPP became part of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

FEPP's primary areas of inquiry are:

r Restrictions on publicly funded expression - in libraries, museums, schools, universities, and arts and humanities agencies;

r Internet filters, rating systems, and other measures that restrict access to information and ideas in the digital age;

r Restrictive copyright laws, digital rights management, and other imbalances in the "intellectual property" system;

r Mass media consolidation, public access to the airwaves, and other issues of media democracy;

r Censorship designed to "shield" adolescents and children from controversial art, information, and ideas.