Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

[_Doctor Scratch]

This was where The Good Professor, rather famously, declared that "not one dime of [his] salary" came from apologetics. Well, we now know this is a whopper. In fact, over $20,000 of his teaching salary was diverted over to his Chairmanship of FARMS. Retrospectively, then, it was DCP who contacted Infymus in order to try and perpetuate this falsehood about apologists not receiving money.

The “not one dime” statement may be inaccurate, but I doubt that apologetics is financially rewarding, even minimally. Offenders For a Word is also now online, and again I very much doubt that it was widely read, even by grassroots Church members.

I agree, Ray. I don't think it's "financially rewarding." But, it bugs me that the Mopologists tell these whoppers about "not one dime" and then turn around and attack poorly funded Christian ministries for being in it solely for the money.

That income supports apologetics, apologetics I mostly disagree with by the way, doesn’t particularly bother me because I don’t think that even a $million a year is going to make apologetics any more effective. It already has what I consider “fatal flaws”, and money can’t rectify fatal flaws. As I’ve said before, I’m more concerned with the Meldrum-type apologists who offer Caribbean cruises where they give lectures on “Book of Mormon archaeology”. That’s worth investigating far more than FARMS.

Really? Hmm. I'm not quite sure I agree. At least Meldrum is doing stuff that correlates with traditional doctrine. And, as far as I know, he hasn't engaged in the same kinds of aggressive smear tactics as the apologists.

What’s even weirder is that they don’t even believe that the Book of Mormon occurred in Mesoamerica!!

Well. Recall that there was some kind of cruise to Alaska, of all places, that was supposed to be Church-related.

I'm not sure. My sense is that The Mormon Curtain had begun to draw attention (it covers a whole range of ex-Mormon topics; I think you'll agree that it is among the most in-depth clearinghouses for ex-Mormon-related information), and that's why DCP emailed Infymus. While he (i.e., DCP) used the occasion to try and diffuse the (at base true) claim that he gets paid for apologetics, I'm sure that he was also interested in trying to bait and attack Infymus, perhaps in the hopes of getting material for SHIELDS.

The latter is mind-reading, Doctor. I’m not at all sure that was his motive.

What do you think his motive was, Ray?

I accept legitimate, fair and balanced criticism, Doctor, but we need something we can really get our teeth into, not finances, not exchanges with Infymus, or endless discussions of SHIELDS. The least we can aim for is more accuracy and less exaggeration. What are we supposed to do at the end of all this? Stamp his forehead with “corrupt and untouchable”?

It's not necessary to do that. The proof is in the pudding.

And with 42 entries on one man, you have to wonder who’s trying to demonise who. Has the FROB ever focused this much attention on one man?

Ask Brent Metcalfe. Or Mike Quinn. In terms of word count, I'd be willing to bet that the two are pretty darned close.

Look, Ray: I don't think we disagree on Infymus or The Mormon Curtain. Yes; there is quite a lot of anger and "exaggeration" and what have you on that site. But does that alone justify the SHIELDS material? Is there really anything wrong with criticizing the apologists who played a part in all of this? I can understand your desire for more pragmatic results. Sure: it'd be great to have something to "get our teeth into." However, as I think this thread shows, that is going to be a problem for some of us. I don't know about you, but I personally don't really want to have some John Tvedtnes-type emailing my job in an effort to get me demoted, or fired, or whatever else. As you noted above, the apologists seem to be more or less "untouchable," and so that puts us (well, *some* of us) at something of a disadvantage, in my opinion.

[_Ray A]

I agree, Ray. I don't think it's "financially rewarding." But, it bugs me that the Mopologists tell these whoppers about "not one dime" and then turn around and attack poorly funded Christian ministries for being in it solely for the money.

I tend to agree. Over the years I’ve read many of the attacks on the Tanners for being “professional anti-Mormons”, and living off “filthy lucre”. We all have to live off “filthy lucre”.

Really? Hmm. I'm not quite sure I agree. At least Meldrum is doing stuff that correlates with traditional doctrine. And, as far as I know, he hasn't engaged in the same kinds of aggressive smear tactics as the apologists.

Yes, I also agree here that he doesn’t resort to below the belt stuff. Not as far as I’m aware. “Traditional doctrine” is mostly what we exmos criticise (that’s why many of us left), at least I do and feel that most exmos do. If we’re consistent then we should not allow Meldrum to peddle myths. Who is he hurting other than Church members? They will not see it as hurt – until the lid gets blown off and his apologetics stands naked in the cold. It’s better to say nothing, and adopt the stand of the First Presidency that they don’t know where the Book of Mormon occurred. But they are peddling nonsense and speculation, and charging for it!

What do you think his motive was, Ray?

It’s quite likely he wanted to address something that offended him. He had 42 entries to choose from, and could have gone through all of them with rebuttals, just to bring more notoriety for SHIELDS.

It's not necessary to do that. The proof is in the pudding.

I disagree with most of his apologetic views, but I don’t consider him corrupt. That occasional vanity or even hyperbole doesn’t escape him makes him conceivably mortal, just like you and me.

Ask Brent Metcalfe. Or Mike Quinn. In terms of word count, I'd be willing to bet that the two are pretty darned close.

I don’t have to ask Brent. I attacked DCP on ZLMB (you know all about that) thinking I was “standing up for Brent”. What a surprise it was to receive an email from Brent asking me to “back off”. These were things, he said, he would prefer not to constantly rehash.

Look, Ray: I don't think we disagree on Infymus or The Mormon Curtain. Yes; there is quite a lot of anger and "exaggeration" and what have you on that site. But does that alone justify the SHIELDS material? Is there really anything wrong with criticizing the apologists who played a part in all of this? I can understand your desire for more pragmatic results. Sure: it'd be great to have something to "get our teeth into." However, as I think this thread shows, that is going to be a problem for some of us. I don't know about you, but I personally don't really want to have some John Tvedtnes-type emailing my job in an effort to get me demoted, or fired, or whatever else. As you noted above, the apologists seem to be more or less "untouchable," and so that puts us (well, *some* of us) at something of a disadvantage, in my opinion.

I’m not asking you to stop, Doctor. It’s a free board, and you can post what you will.

I’ve only given my opinion, and my opinion is that your investigative capabilities could and should go beyond what must seem to some to be a too narrow focus, and a fixation on DCP. And no, I don't like the idea of apologists hunting me down because of what I post on forums, or what I've said about my private life. Fortunately, I haven't been subjected to that, even when I had my "anti-Mormon" blog up. The worst that happened was getting banned from By Common Consent.

[Guest]

Scratch is accusing me and many of my friends and colleagues of actually seeking to destroy the lives of other people and that slips right past you as unobjectionable while, instead, you attack me for something that didn't even happen?

I was annoyed by your response, because it wasn't on point. Not that you are obligated in any way to be on point.

And, I have spoken up against the unfair treatment of you and other LDS apologists numerous times. I am not obligated to do it every time it occurs.

I am also deeply troubled by what Tvedtnes did. I would hate to think that someone would do the same to me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Really? Hmm. I'm not quite sure I agree. At least Meldrum is doing stuff that correlates with traditional doctrine. And, as far as I know, he hasn't engaged in the same kinds of aggressive smear tactics as the apologists.

Yes, I also agree here that he doesn’t resort to below the belt stuff. Not as far as I’m aware. “Traditional doctrine” is mostly what we exmos criticise (that’s why many of us left), at least I do and feel that most exmos do. If we’re consistent then we should not allow Meldrum to peddle myths. Who is he hurting other than Church members? They will not see it as hurt – until the lid gets blown off and his apologetics stands naked in the cold. It’s better to say nothing, and adopt the stand of the First Presidency that they don’t know where the Book of Mormon occurred. But they are peddling nonsense and speculation, and charging for it!

Are you talking about the First Presidency, FARMS, or Meldrum here?

What do you think his motive was, Ray?

It’s quite likely he wanted to address something that offended him. He had 42 entries to choose from, and could have gone through all of them with rebuttals, just to bring more notoriety for SHIELDS.

Whoa, wait a sec. That seems kind of speculative. I was under the impression that DCP was responding only to that very first entry, back in the very very early days of The Mormon Curtain. The "42 entries" would have followed after the posting of the emails on SHIELDS.

Ask Brent Metcalfe. Or Mike Quinn. In terms of word count, I'd be willing to bet that the two are pretty darned close.

I don’t have to ask Brent. I attacked DCP on ZLMB (you know all about that) thinking I was “standing up for Brent”. What a surprise it was to receive an email from Brent asking me to “back off”. These were things, he said, he would prefer not to constantly rehash.

That's fair enough. My point was simply that the apologists have contribute hundreds of thousands of words attacking people, often in very personal and hurtful ways. Or, to put things more simply: I don't think that the "amount" argument is a very good one. Sure: you can say, "Infymus has 42 entries and DCP." Well, many of the apologists have spent the past 3 decades engaging in pretty ruthless, personal assaults on critics. What Bill Hamblin alone wrote on Quinn in "That Old Black Magic" probably dwarfs what Infymus wrote about DCP. So: in my opinion, the "amount" arguments just aren't very good. Just my .02.

I’ve only given my opinion, and my opinion is that your investigative capabilities could and should go beyond what must seem to some to be a too narrow focus, and a fixation on DCP.

Many of the doctrinal issues I have virtually no interest in discussing. For me, most of those issues have very simple answers, and my intention has never been to destroy people's faith. I see very little harm in probably 95% of Mormonism. But apologetics is almost like a very bad alter-ego of Mormonism, and I don't like it at all.

I realize that part of this is just me staying tight-lipped about my life, but like pretty much everyone else on here (excepting, maybe, LifeOnaPlate), I have a life outside of the boards. If I'm going to post on the boards, I'm probably going to discuss what I find interesting, and for me, what's interesting is how utterly degenerate people can become under the influence of this strain of Mopologetics. Honestly, I barely even spend any time "investigating" sources or links, or reading the MADboard. At this point, most of the stuff I comment upon has been sent to me by a variety of different people.

[_Ray A]

Are you talking about the First Presidency, FARMS, or Meldrum here?

All three. in my opinion the FP is better off endorsing neither of them, notwithstanding the “so-called” 2nd Watson letter. I know that in popular Mormon literature Mesoamerica is the preferred “setting”, but short of direct revelation (as suggested by B.H.Roberts) they are better off sticking to the principles and teachings of the Book of Mormon, and leaving geography with those things that “will be revealed later” (See D&C 101), including “how the earth was created”. (Not that I believe any of this myself)

Whoa, wait a sec. That seems kind of speculative.

It was, but based on what I said was the most likely motivation.

I was under the impression that DCP was responding only to that very first entry, back in the very very early days of The Mormon Curtain. The "42 entries" would have followed after the posting of the emails on SHIELDS.

And as far as I know he hasn’t pursued those subsequent entries. He could, theoretically, have had a field day stirring the hornet’s nest looking for more fodder for SHIELDS.

That's fair enough. My point was simply that the apologists have contribute hundreds of thousands of words attacking people, often in very personal and hurtful ways. Or, to put things more simply: I don't think that the "amount" argument is a very good one. Sure: you can say, "Infymus has 42 entries and DCP." Well, many of the apologists have spent the past 3 decades engaging in pretty ruthless, personal assaults on critics. What Bill Hamblin alone wrote on Quinn in "That Old Black Magic" probably dwarfs what Infymus wrote about DCP. So: in my opinion, the "amount" arguments just aren't very good. Just my .02.

Hamblin definitely went overboard with Quinn. But you know what, in my opinion he did more damage to his own credibility with that than he did to Quinn’s as a historian. I think of Quinn as a real historian. I think of Hamblin as an apologist first, a historian second.

Many of the doctrinal issues I have virtually no interest in discussing. For me, most of those issues have very simple answers, and my intention has never been to destroy people's faith. I see very little harm in probably 95% of Mormonism. But apologetics is almost like a very bad alter-ego of Mormonism, and I don't like it at all.

You might be surprised to learn that there’s only one point I disagree with you about here, that Mormonism is 95% “harm free”. I don’t believe it harmed me, but I have seen incalculable harm done to BIC ex-Mormons, and I admit this is only a fairly recent awakening (thanks to Postmo). Fortunately I wasn’t born into Mormonism, and I didn’t have to defend myself every day of life post-Mormonism to any Mormon relatives. In fact when I left I got closer to my non-Mormon family.

I realize that part of this is just me staying tight-lipped about my life, but like pretty much everyone else on here (excepting, maybe, LifeOnaPlate), I have a life outside of the boards. If I'm going to post on the boards, I'm probably going to discuss what I find interesting, and for me, what's interesting is how utterly degenerate people can become under the influence of this strain of Mopologetics. Honestly, I barely even spend any time "investigating" sources or links, or reading the MADboard. At this point, most of the stuff I comment upon has been sent to me by a variety of different people.

Each to his/her own. I think you start some very thought-provoking threads, and I think you should continue to question apologetics, its means and methods, but I’m not into trying to turn individuals into corrupt monsters. I can read Steve Benson as much as DCP without making either into demigods of Mormonism or ex-Mormonism. Some of Benson’s writings are captivating, and some of DCP’s writings are equally captivating. I see them as individuals expressing a personally fervently held point of view, both oppositional, but I wouldn’t associate their point of view with their morals or ethics, nor consider them “corrupt”. I guess I’ve gone beyond the simplistic “good/evil” thinking.

I think I can appreciate your view on “aggressive apologetics”, but there’s an equally counter-productive phenomenon called “aggressive anti-Mormonism”. Infymus doesn’t strike me as a very tolerant individual, and my aim has mostly been to keep clear of such aggression. While I think some apologetic arguments are absolutely stupid, I can’t imagine someone like Brant or Ben Mc Guire telling me where to go because I disagree with them. So you have to look at this from both sides. For every aggressive apologist, there’s an equally aggressive critic. I guess they learned nothing from Gandhi.
The more you try to force your opinion on people, the less credibility you will have in their eyes.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think it's "financially rewarding." But, it bugs me that the Mopologists tell these whoppers about "not one dime" and then turn around and attack poorly funded Christian ministries for being in it solely for the money.

Not one dime of my salary comes from doing apologetics. If I never wrote another apologetic line, I would still earn the same salary.

I have never attacked any poorly funded Christian ministry (nor any other, to the best of my recollection) for being in it solely for the money.

Well. Recall that there was some kind of cruise to Alaska, of all places, that was supposed to be Church-related.

If you're talking about me, you're wrong. I have never done a Church-related cruise to Alaska, nor ever considered doing one.

I'm not sure. My sense is that The Mormon Curtain had begun to draw attention (it covers a whole range of ex-Mormon topics; I think you'll agree that it is among the most in-depth clearinghouses for ex-Mormon-related information), and that's why DCP emailed Infymus.

Your sense is wrong.

While he (i.e., DCP) used the occasion to try and diffuse the (at base true) claim that he gets paid for apologetics

The claim continues to be false.

I'm sure that he was also interested in trying to bait and attack Infymus, perhaps in the hopes of getting material for SHIELDS.

Nope. It was only when Infymus made an utterly uncalled-for grossly obscene remark about my wife that I thought of making his behavior public.

Finally, I think that Professor Hamblin's review-essay on Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View was both substantive and excellent, and that treating it as if it were the Mormon equivalent of Infymus's remarks about apologists goes billions of light years beyond ridiculous. Here is a link to Professor Hamblin's review-essay:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=364

All here are entirely welcome to read it for themselves.

[_Ray A]

Finally, I think that Professor Hamblin's review-essay on Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View was both substantive and excellent, and that treating it as if it were the Mormon equivalent of Infymus's remarks about apologists goes billions of light years beyond ridiculous. Here is a link to Professor Hamblin's review-essay:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=364

All here are entirely welcome to read it for themselves.

I think Professor Hamblin's essay reflects poorly on Mormonism, and very poorly on him as a "historian". I'm really not interested in reading that unmitigated apologetic trash again.

Thanks anyway.

[_Trevor]

I am inclined to be critical of Hamblin's review of Quinn. Although I agree that Quinn probably overstated his case, it would be difficult to deny the importance of his work as seminal in regards to its investigation of Joseph Smith's involvement in folk magic. Like many pioneering works, it is flawed in exactly the way I described.

Hamblin's approach to the book implicitly denies it almost any significance at all, which is both uncharitable and inaccurate. I will say that the second edition was mistakenly conceived as a rebuttal to the provocative criticisms coming out of the FROB. Quinn should not have pursued that course, because it ended up damaging his book. Hamblin's strident rebuttal is in keeping with the tone that the initial reviewers set, and Quinn unfortunately stooped to in his book.

As a final note, let me add that Hamblin's argument about Hyrum Smith and the dagger by reference to the Benjamin Hoyt case is stupid. Saying that Hyrum couldn't order Hoyt to cease using a divining rod while possessing his own magical implements is like saying that Joseph couldn't use a seer stone while ordering the destruction of Hiram Page's. Ludicrous.

Finally, I think that Professor Hamblin's review-essay on Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View was both substantive and excellent, and that treating it as if it were the Mormon equivalent of Infymus's remarks about apologists goes billions of light years beyond ridiculous. Here is a link to Professor Hamblin's review-essay:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=364

All here are entirely welcome to read it for themselves.

I think Professor Hamblin's essay reflects poorly on Mormonism, and very poorly on him as a "historian". I'm really not interested in reading that unmitigated apologetic trash again.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think Professor Hamblin's essay reflects poorly on Mormonism, and very poorly on him as a "historian". I'm really not interested in reading that unmitigated apologetic trash again.

We disagree very, very strongly on this one.

I am inclined to be critical of Hamblin's review of Quinn. Although I agree that Quinn probably overstated his case, it would be difficult to deny the importance of his work as seminal in regards to its investigation of Joseph Smith's involvement in folk magic. Like many pioneering works, it is flawed in exactly the way I described.

You're entirely within your rights, of course, to be critical. Such is the stuff of academic discussion. To find Quinn valuable but flawed, to think that Hamblin makes a point but goes too far -- these are among the the kinds of judgments that academics routinely make (and disagree about).

However, to continually, obsessively, dismiss Professor Hamblin's essay as nothing but a "smear piece" -- as, in fact, Scratch has also done even to things I haven't yet written [!] -- and, when pressed somewhat about the collected works of Infymus, to damn them by comparing them to Professor Hamblin's essay, is simply ridiculous, and utterly unserious.

Here is a link to Professor Hamblin's review-essay:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=364

All here are entirely welcome to read it for themselves.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doctor Scratch,

I might be a little remiss to bring this up, but I'm not aware of any other academic insitutions that would consider Mormon apologia important enough outside of Brigham Young University to create an institute in order to explore it. Thus, this task is left to Brigham Young University. I'm not sure why someone would hold an academic grudge, as it were, if one's university, Cassius in this instance, has created a department for the study of Mormon apologia. The singular field of study should not, I think, be diminished simply because one university is explornig it at this time. The work Cassius University does in this relevant and very revealing field of social psychology is at a minimum on par intellectually, and perhaps surpassing Brigham Young University's efforts in a scientific sense.

Chin up, good fellow.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me