Above: John Tvedtnes patiently awaits orders for his next assignment.
There has been a good deal of discussion lately about SHIELDS, the "Skinny List", and other facets of the Mopologetic infrastructure. Not terribly long ago, I was asked by somebody, "Who is John Tvedtnes?" Well, I think it is high time that we take a closer look at this man who can count himself among the fully-paid, full time apologists (like Matt Roper).
Bro. Tvedtnes (whose name, SHIELDS helpfully explains, is pronounced like "Twetness"), was made an "associate" of SHIELDS on April 6th of this year, and yet this occasion went largely unnoticed in the world of online Mopologetics. This raises the question: If Tvedtnes is intending to involve himself with SHIELDS, does that mean that he has begun to post on various messageboards and blogs using an alias? Or, was the acquisition of Tvedtnes an attempt to restore some credibility to SHIELDS's very badly damaged reputation? Furthermore, is he drawing a paycheck for his services?
In his SHIELDS bio, we learn that he is an apostate from the Catholic Church and (arguably) Assemblies of God:
John A. Tvedtnes was born into a Roman Catholic family in Mandan, North Dakota, on 26 January 1941, and spent his early years living in the states of North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington, part of the time on the farms owned by his grandparents. During part of that time, he attended Bible classes at the Assemblies of God church.
It turns out that he showed religious inclinations at a young age:
(emphasis added)His family moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1949, and it was here that, at the age of 8, he first read the Bible from cover to cover. He was taught by LDS stake missionaries and baptized less than a month before his ninth birthday and was confirmed on New Year’s Day 1950. (No, none of the others joined.)
It is very interesting to observe that he entered his life as a Latter-day Saint completely alone. Can we safely assume that his family disapproved of his new religion? Can we assume that this fact may have, in some way, led to his choses "career" path as an apologist?
Anyways, the SHIELDS bio goes on to take a jab at other faith traditions:
(emphasis added)While studying with the missionaries, he received from his devout Catholic grandfather a copy of the Book of Mormon. (John credits his grandfather with teaching him to pray—real prayers, not rote—and for making him promise to never smoke.)
http://www.shields-research.org/Authors/Tvedtnes.html
Well, I suppose it is positive in some sense that he was able to pull *something" from the faith of his ancestors.
So, where does that leave us today? J. Tvedtnes, former "research assistant" at FARMS, now an "associate" at SHIELDS. What else is there to learn? What, exactly, is his "function"? In another thread, I speculated that Dr. Louis Midgley appears to be a sort of "capo regime" within Mopologetics. Can the same be said for Tvedtnes? While he is not as bellicose and confrontational as Midgley, the answer nonetheless appears to be, "Yes."
It was Tvedtnes, after all, who was responsible for helping to spread the rumor that Brent Metcalfe somehow "swindled" Steve Christenson's widow into forking over crucial Book of Abraham evidence:
dartagnan wrote:Tvetdness is the one who told me Brent obtained the photos after Christensen's widow was swindled, by unknowingly giving them over to wolves in sheeps clothing. So the theory goes, she had no idea Brent and Ashment and George Smith were apostates! When Brent corrected this rumor, John immediately backed away and said he could have been wrong.
Well, at least he has the gumption to admit that he *might* be wrong.
Of perhaps even more interest was Tvedtnes's explosively angry outburst during an exchange involving the Tanners. Here is the first of his "volleys":
(emphasis added)John Tvedtnes wrote:James,
First, let me say that I'm not involved in the discussion of Craig Ray's article. I haven't had time to read it or any of the exchanges about it. But I did pick up on your response to Dan Peterson, in which you said the following:
> In his "First Vision" Joseph Smith said that he saw one being, later >it was two beings. Put the two together and there is a discrepancy.
Joseph Smith NEVER said that "he saw one being." That is the standard interpolation used by critics such as yourself. He said that he saw "the Lord," but didn't say that he saw "no one but the Lord." If I say that I saw my brother yesterday, does that exclude the idea that I may also have seen his wife? If I went to my brother's house and his wife answered the door, but I spent the rest of my time speaking with him, would I be wrong to not mention her appearance at the door? Remember, in Joseph's vision, the Father merely introduced the Son, and the rest of the conversation was between Christ and Joseph.
Why is it that you fault Joseph Smith for the variants in his first vision story but do not fault the apostle Paul for the more numerous variants in his first vision story? (I know the answer; I just want you to think about it and see how your approach to these two men employs a double standard.)
In order for you to understand this situation, I attach, in WordPerfect 5.1 format (which most people, including Mac users, can open), a piece I have written on the first visions of Joseph Smith and Paul. Can you deal honestly with this issue? We shall see. And yes, I am happy to share it with all the people on your e-mail list. Maybe some of them will see the absurdity of the criticisms leveled against Joseph Smith on this issue, or at least acknowledge that the same "problems" exist in Paul's account.
--------------------
John A. Tvedtnes
Brigham Young University
Later, "James" reveals that Tvedtnes has been pressing the issue, and in fact has been harassing people with his endless email campaign:
James wrote:Mr. [Tvedtnes],
I did just mention for the courtesy of others that this subject be stopped. I wouldn't have minded so if you didn't do a reply-all. Then you go and send two emails to the entire list right on top of that. Have some respect and drop the issue, it has gone on 10 days so far. Let's move on.......
James
Apparently, this polite request was too much for Bro. T., who proceeds to lash out explosively (and profanely!):
(emphasis added)J. Tvedtnes wrote:I assumed that you were dropping the discussion of the Tanners and Craig Ray's piece. about which I said NOT ONE WORD in my messages. (I even indicated that I had NOT been a part of the discussion.) Did you, in fact, actually READ my message, which dealt only with Joseph Smith's first vision? Or did you ignore it because you wanted to drop any and all issues?
I sent my message and the attachment (on the first visions of Joseph Smith and Paul) to the entire list to which you had sent information. Since you are disseminating misinformation to this group, I thought it would be appropriate for me to set the record straight to the same group.
I NEVER asked to be included in your e-mails on this or any other topic, but you put me on your list anyway. So please stop bitching about my message; it's damned hypocritical. Check out that beam before you try helping me get rid of my mote.
John Tvedtnes
Wow! Quite a mouth on this chap! Other posters respond to his potty-mouthed outburst immediately:
Mike wrote:Nice Language John! Please do not EVER include me in your foul conversations again. It really is very simple to remove my name from this list, please do so in the future.
Mike Burns
Mr. Tvedtness,
Goodness! What utterly uncalled for language! Its okay to express your disagreement with what Mr. Juris has said, but the foul language is really not necessary. Tisk Tisk!
Sincerely,
Sharon Sandoval
I personally do not appreciate vulgar language. What an example you are.
Kathy
And how does SHIELDS Associate Tvedtnes respond to this tongue lashing?
Bro. T. wrote:Thank you for your input. Which part of my message did you consider vulgar? Was it my allusion to the fact that hypocrites are damned, as Jesus said? (Matthew 23:14)
John T.
The entire exchange can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/lds_research/D ... part2.html
So, in summary: John Tvednes, a "hired gun" for SHIELDS, is also a gossipmongerer with a nasty, foul-mouthed temper. In other words: par for the course, as far as apologetics---especially SHIELDS apologetics---are concerned. Is he as far up the "hierarchy" as capo regime Louis Midgley? I don't think so, but his recent appointment as "associate" would seem to suggest that he is climbing up the ladder.