SHIELDS: The Ugly Stepchild of Mopologetics

[_Jason Bourne]

Perhaps the most noteworthy offspring of FAIR is the rarely mentioned organization known as SHIELDS, which is an acronym for "Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-Day Saints."

A small correction for you. SHIELDS preceded perceded FAIR by a number of years. Thus SHIELDS is not an offspring of FAIR and my have even inspired the original founders of FAIR.

[_Mister Scratch]

Perhaps the most noteworthy offspring of FAIR is the rarely mentioned organization known as SHIELDS, which is an acronym for "Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-Day Saints."

A small correction for you. SHIELDS preceded perceded FAIR by a number of years. Thus SHIELDS is not an offspring of FAIR and my have even inspired the original founders of FAIR.

Well.... FAIR enough. ; ) I suppose what I should have said was that the amorphous FARMS/FAIR/Maxwell Institute "conglomerate" was the "source"of SHIELDS.

[_dartagnan]

I remember once FAIR advertised that it had "merged" with SHIELDS. I didn't see that helping either organization in any way, and apparently they decided the same.

[_Mister Scratch]

I remember once FAIR advertised that it had "merged" with SHIELDS. I didn't see that helping either organization in any way, and apparently they decided the same.

Yes, that would seem to be the case. Perhaps it was a precursor to FAIR's distancing itself from the MB that eventually became MAD. However, at the very least, it would seem that both DCP and Bill Hamblin both view SHIELDS as a useful apologetic outlet for their various petty frustrations.

[_Infymus]

Scratch, I've always seen SHIELDS as a sort of "sand box" for Mopologists - like Wyatt and Peterson. It is a place out of the way where they can go and post things they wouldn't get away with on their own sites (like FAIR or FARMS).

Remember that SHIELDS authors Louis Midgley and Matt Roper entered the Utah Light Ministry bookstore and confronted Sandra Tanner. Two men against one woman - they began harassing Sandra - and were successful. They then hopped and skipped back to SHIELDS and wrote up an entire article about the situation - placing disparaging remarks about Sandra and showing how they had "trapped" Sandra in lies.

This is EXACTLY how SHIELDS operates: Confront, anger, and then run off and write about it.

Peterson baited me again and again. When I told him I wouldn't bite, he said I already had simply because I had a large section on him over on the Mormon Curtain. Finally, I told him to F* off. That is exactly what he wanted. He ran back to SHIELDS and post that section.

Now when you search for my name (not my alias) on the Internet, you find SHIELDS on the first page, of course, under Samuel The Utahnite's explosive tirade about me.

Mormons still use SHIELDS. If you can discredit the author, you can discredit their entire works.

[_Jason Bourne]

Really? SHIELDS still updates their site from time-to-time? I thought they were completely defunct.

They are nearly defunct, but not quite. They seem to be hanging on by little more than a thread. Personally, I hope they hang on, as their site is a rich source of Mopologetic material. I do think, however, that SHIELDS, along with ZLMB, is indicative of a larger trend in LDS apologetics---namely, that they are undergoing a slow retreat. Truly, the best apologetics (for what it's worth) that you will find are being put out principally by one driving force: FARMS Review editor Daniel C. Peterson. This is why I have been saying for a while that he exceeds Hugh Nibley in terms of his significance in the history of Mopologetics.

Another note. SHIELDS seems to be a part time effort by some that are mere hobby apologists. As I think through your comments I find them rather condescending. Certainly you do not know too much of the history of the site when you got it so clearly wrong that it comes after FAIR. As I noted, it does not. Next, if the arguments are so easily dismissed take them and do so. Your post, which is more and more typical, seems just a chance to belittle.

And how do you know the site is defunct? Maybe the owners are just busy living life and feeding their family. You may had an abundant of time to nit pick and belittle. Others may have more important duties to attend.

by the way, I have seent he site and visited it. While there are things not complete there are items on there that are helpful and beneficial to those seeking for answers to some questions.

[_Mister Scratch]

Really? SHIELDS still updates their site from time-to-time? I thought they were completely defunct.

They are nearly defunct, but not quite. They seem to be hanging on by little more than a thread. Personally, I hope they hang on, as their site is a rich source of Mopologetic material. I do think, however, that SHIELDS, along with ZLMB, is indicative of a larger trend in LDS apologetics---namely, that they are undergoing a slow retreat. Truly, the best apologetics (for what it's worth) that you will find are being put out principally by one driving force: FARMS Review editor Daniel C. Peterson. This is why I have been saying for a while that he exceeds Hugh Nibley in terms of his significance in the history of Mopologetics.

Another note. SHIELDS seems to be a part time effort by some that are mere hobby apologists.

Hi, Jason. That seems to be the reality, but the fact is that the site's operators, as it were, boast about how much work they are just on the verge of producing. Further, as I noted in my OP, one of the original founders is now an ex-Mormon.

As I think through your comments I find them rather condescending. Certainly you do not know too much of the history of the site when you got it so clearly wrong that it comes after FAIR.

Huh? I noted above that it sprang from the same basic raw materials as FAIR. Nowhere have I claimed to be an "expert" on the history of SHIELDS. I merely felt that it would be worthwhile to re-examine SHIELDS, and what it has become. At one point, after all, it was apparently quite an active site. Not so anymore.

As I noted, it does not. Next, if the arguments are so easily dismissed take them and do so. Your post, which is more and more typical, seems just a chance to belittle.

I'm not sure why you think this, Jason. I offered up my honest assessment of SHIELDS. Nowhere in my post did I say "the arguments are so easily dismissed." Moreover, as Infymus has indicated, the bulk of "arguing" done on SHIELDS is smearing of critics. [/quote]

And how do you know the site is defunct? Maybe the owners are just busy living life and feeding their family. You may had an abundant of time to nit pick and belittle. Others may have more important duties to attend.

I did not claim it was "defunct." I said it was nearly defunct. My evidence for this, which I posted in my OP, is the fact that they have only added four updates in all of 2007, whereas elsewhere on the site, Stan Barker and et. al. boast about adding new content every day.

by the way, I have seent he site and visited it. While there are things not complete there are items on there that are helpful and beneficial to those seeking for answers to some questions.

That's terrific, Jason.