DiscussMormonism.com

This may have appeared elsewhere, but I happened upon this only recently. In the Mopologetic cess pit known as SHIELDS, Lou Midgley has at last issued a very formal apology for the infamous "Metcalfe is Butthead" acrostic which appeared in an issue of the FARMS Review some fifteen or so years back. This may mark quite a landmark moment in apologetics, since as far as I know, no apologist has ever sincerely apologized for anything.

Interestingly, it seems that the posting was done due to the fact that the story had at last spread to some listserve where it was wreaking a good deal of havoc. In any case, here's the link to the SHIELDS blog entry:

http://shields-research.org/WP/

I was sort of amazed to read this entry. The meta-layers of apologetics on display here are truly astonishing. So convoluted and bizarre are capo Midgley's explanations that the piece begins to seem as if it had been written by Borges. This is how it begins:

For many years cultural Mormons and critics of the LDS Church have repeatedly trotted out something they believe to be the defining point of LDS Apologists and specifically evidence that FARMS (now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship) is mean and nasty. The critics claim that much of what FARMS writes is ad hominem (we link to the definition because it seems those making such claims do not really understand the meaning of the phrase.) As recently as March, 2009, these people have brought up the issue again.

Who are "these people"? Just critics in general? I wish that the author of this intro had been more specific. He continues:

The issue is an acrostic that was included in a FARMS Review from 1994. Louis (Lou) Midgley discusses this issue and the absurdity of it continually being used to bash FARMS instead of actually attempting to deal with the writings of some 230 authors that have been published in the FARMS Review over the years.

Huh? I think this writer has it backwards. Rather, it is the apologists who are trotting out this "230 authors" red herring in order to avoid "attempting to deal with" the very serious, well-supported charge that the FROB is loaded with ad hominem attack and character assassination.

Here is another curious tidbit which provides a clue as to what prompted the apology:

Lou asked that his response be posted on the LDS-Library list where the issue was being hashed over yet again.

"LDS-Library" list? What is that, I wonder? Given the name, it makes me suspect that the acrostic story had penetrated some inner sanctum of TBM-dom, and that it had begun to erode the Mopologists standing, and thus, capo Midgley's apology was an act of desperation.

The author of the intro (I assume this is Stan Barker) wraps things up thusly:

Although much discussion has ensued, to the best of our knowledge, no one has as yet responded to the points Lou makes. What a shame for those who represent themselves to be superior to the rest of us “mean and nasty” people.

On a personal note, I would like to make two points:

1. My copy of that issue of FARMS Review does not contain the acrostic, and
2. The acrostic certainly did not affect my opinion of Brent Metcalfe.

Well, given that "The Midge" has know gotten down on his knees and apologized---now that he has approached the issue with a contrite, broken spirit, perhaps the "points" will be "responded to."

In any event, the bulk of Midgley's message is a case study in Mopologetic technique. Above all, he tries to defend the acrostic, arguing that it had legitimate scholarly and rhetorical merit:

Midgley wrote:Hamblin fashioned that acrostic for the purpose of demonstrating that Metcalfe’s assertion about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is simply wrong-that is, that those inverted parallelisms simply cannot be accidental any more that “Metcalfe is Butthead” was accidental. But this point has never once been addressed by those who seek to divert attention from an intellectually interesting issue to an essentially lame joke.

I thought the chiasmus issue had been dealt with rather thoroughly? Oh, well. On we go:

Now I agree with those who at the time were involved with what was called FARMS that the particular message buried in that acrostic was tasteless and inappropriate. I also wish to apologize for whatever real, and not merely imagined offense, this might have been to Brent. All of those involved with the old FARMS and now the Maxwell Institute, of course, deeply regret any emotional strain this put upon Brent by that acrostic, and everyone regrets the choice of a popular cartoon figure that has provided critics an excuse for not addressing any of the relevant arguments, analysis or evidence offered by Hamblin in his essay responding to Brent’s essay in Dialogue or any of the other essays responding to Brent’s book contained in that 650 page issue of the Review.

Well, at least he admits it was "tasteless and inappropriate," but I cannot help but wonder why he has to add on all these endless layers of excuses. Why not just apologize and be over with it? Why this endless need to claim that critics use the incident as a "distraction"?

A bit further on, Midgley commits a major-league gaffe when he slips up and admits that a large-scale cover-up effort was underway at FARMS:

he fact that, when it was discovered, a very serious effort was made to suppress it, shows the good intentions of all involved in the publication of the Review.

LOL! Yes, committing this rather disgusting bit of attack and then attempting to lie about it and cover it up really demonstrates "good intentions." Wow. I can scarcely believe that Professor Midgley was stupid enough to write that sentence. What a devastating blow to the Mopologists.

"The Midge" begins closing up his "apology" with a lament over the way that FARMS's reputation was permanently damaged by this affair:

And it would have been slightly more difficult, but not impossible, given the passions involved, for those who are deeply troubled to find faithful Latter-day Saints defending their faith to use that acrostic as an excuse for bushing aside the essays authored by at least 230 authors that have appeared in the twenty years the Review has been published. But, given the passions involved, I am also confident that some other reason would be trotted out to justify their current stance on their former faith.

What comes next is quite shocking:

I want my remarks to be read as my abject apology for the inclusion of a tasteless cartoon figure in that acrostic. I am confident that I speak for others currently involved with the Maxwell Institute.

Wow, he's apologizing for others currently involved with the Maxwell Institute? Does that include DCP? If not, I hope that The Good Professor is alerted to this, and given the chance to repudiate Prof. Midgley's statement.

In any case, we at last have, in writing, what appears to be a bonafide apology from an apologist. I thought I'd never see the day!
.
.
.
.
.
.

Funny. This doesn't sound much like an apology in the sense of being sorry. Rather, it seems this is one more justification, one more apologia.

And as far as the question of what counts as ad hominem at FARMS, the acrostic is a single, juvenile example. It is the endless, thinly veiled devaluations of arguments based on the identity and position of the author, either real or inferred by a FARMS reviewer, that constitutes the real problem the Review was having.

Yes! He can be taught! Oh wait a minute... it appears I spoke too soon.

As apologies go, this one is pretty pathetic. However, as apologetics go, it's pretty much the standard.

Wonder what prompted this apology. Did one of the Authorities run across mention of this incident and express displeasure at it? Was it borne of the idea that if you can't prove something, create a diversion instead? I suppose this prompting will remain unknowable unless Doctor Scratch has some inside information.

It was a very Apologetic apology, nevertheless an attempt of sorts. Hamblin, however, need not apologise for a genetic trait:

With pit bull tenacity, Quinn continually went after the writers from FARMS, an organization that was unofficially connected to LDS-owned BYU and officially connected to the university in 1997. Even FARMS apologist Daniel Peterson wondered if this move would allow him and other writers to keep their nasty edge. Perhaps it is for this reason that Peterson, who has boasted that some of his fellow writers were born "with the nastiness gene," is Quinn's biggest target.

Why are the writers for FARMS so abusive in their writings? According to Peterson in the eighth volume of FARMS Review of Books, "We did not pick this fight with the Church's critics, but we will not withdraw from it." Peterson has also said," If we have occasionally been guilty of levity at the expense of some of our critics, this has been because they tempted us with irresistible targets. It isn't our fault.... A few of us, indeed, may have been born that way, with the nastiness gene—which is triggered by arrant humbuggery" (p. 329). (Emphasis added)

However:

Listen to the shot Peterson fired at us in footnote number 170, page 77: "McKeever also has the irritating habit, prevalent among many anti-Mormons, of describing those authors with whom he agrees by their academic titles and positions, while referring to those authors with whom he disagrees as 'LDS apologists.'"

MRM.

Ray A wrote:

Listen to the shot Peterson fired at us in footnote number 170, page 77: "McKeever also has the irritating habit, prevalent among many anti-Mormons, of describing those authors with whom he agrees by their academic titles and positions, while referring to those authors with whom he disagrees as 'LDS apologists.'"

Snide is what Daniel does best.

Scratch wrote:Who are "these people"? Just critics in general? I wish that the author of this intro had been more specific.

Honestly, Scratch, I think the author is more than likely referring to you!

Let's face it. Who has been harping on this issue more than you have on this board? Seriously!!

Maybe little insignificant MDB isn't so insignificant to the world of Mopologists after all.

moksha wrote:Wonder what prompted this apology. Did one of the Authorities run across mention of this incident and express displeasure at it? Was it borne of the idea that if you can't prove something, create a diversion instead? I suppose this prompting will remain unknowable unless Doctor Scratch has some inside information.

Moksha---

Based on this blog entry, it seems that some discussion that was occurring on the "LDS-Library list" is what prompted Midgley's "apology." Probably (and I am just speculating here) the anger over the apologists' behavior had begun to spill over into TBM territory, and capo regime Midgley knew he had to act swiftly.

What a treat! A superb article, Doctor Scratch, you are a great asset to our school. After 15 years, it's a little over due, and as the Reverand said, it's really not the incident but the maneuvering, the evading, the apologetics .

Doctor Scratch wrote:

I want my remarks to be read as my abject apology for the inclusion of a tasteless cartoon figure in that acrostic. I am confident that I speak for others currently involved with the Maxwell Institute.

Wow, he's apologizing for others currently involved with the Maxwell Institute? Does that include DCP? If not, I hope that The Good Professor is alerted to this, and given the chance to repudiate Prof. Midgley's statement.

It sure does make it sound as if this was a wide-spread joke with wide-spread participation. It probably spread through the Skinny-L like a wild fire. I too would like to have Dr. Dan weigh in on this.

In any case, we at last have, in writing, what appears to be a bonafide apology from an apologist. I thought I'd never see the day!

My thought is that someone sent a snow cone to hell.