DiscussMormonism.com

Many here have come know and love the even-keeled, friendly, jocular bonhomie of the poster called "Some Schmo." He is the sort of poster who often includes "LOL" in his posts, and he delights in deflating the sometimes runaway egos of some of the high-minded posters. To my mind, Mr. Schmo is a very easy-going, likable, and down-home kind of a guy. Thus, you can imagine my shock when I discovered that SHIELDS's Stan Barker had targeted Some Schmo on the SHIELDS blog:

http://shields-research.org/WP/?cat=9

This is how Barker begins his hit piece:

When I lived in Lakewood, CO, there were 13 PhD’s in our ward, not to mention many others who held lesser degrees. I mention this because so many people in the world seem to think that Mormons are closed minded ignoramuses. Statements have been put forth that if a PhD was born in the Church he knows nothing else, so he is blind regarding Mormonism.

Notice the trademark angry tone---the stand-offishness and the "attack dog" mindset. This next bit scarcely makes any sense:

The funny thing is, that while many members of the LDS Church don’t know enough about Church history or doctrine, those who do know considerably more than any critic I have ever encountered during the past 40+ years. And please consider how many critics I have encountered as a result of SHIELDS being on the Internet since Feb. of 1997!

As I understand him, Barker is saying:
1. Many Mormons don't know diddly squat about Church history and/or doctrine.
2. Those LDS "who do" "know enough" (and what does that mean, I wonder?) tend to know more than the critics. (How this is responding to the issues raised in the opening passage is anybody's guess.)
3. SHIELDS has somehow become a beacon for attracting the attention of critics.

In the next sentence, though, Barker announces his true purpose:

Let me give you an example of some of the shallow-mindedness that exists out there.

Right. So, it's not about explaining how Ph.D.s can still accept the premises of the Church; rather, the blog entry is about showing everyone how "shallow-minded" the critics are. Rather than proving how smart all the apologists are, Barker is opting instead to paint critics as idiots. Oddly, he has chosen Some Schmo as his target.

Here is the portion of the Schmo posting that led to Barker's apoplexy (Barker provided a link to the "FAIRboard", but the link did not work when I clicked on it):

Some Schmo wrote:I understand that often it is intelligent persons who find themselves as members of religious organizations such as TCoJCoLdS. For those raised in the LDS church, I’m sure it doesn’t seen absurd at all since that is most likely all they have known.

Barker erupts with anger:

When one starts off with a faulty premise, it follows that their line of reasoning will also be faulty. This is summed up by Mr. Schmo’s additional: “ignorance is bliss.”

Later on, Barker grows even more rankled over Schmo's comments, especially this one:

Some Schmo wrote:most educated people find [the LDS faith] absurd

Here's Barker's reply:

Indeed, ignorance is bliss! And taking things out of context is an ignorant thing to do when allegedly trying to draw valid conclusions about any topic. Any truly intelligent person will find the first statement quoted above “absurd.” Why? Because it is a mere assertion that the writer cannot prove. The writer cannot have surveyed “most educated people.” The writer ignores the vast number of educated people in the LDS Church.

Ah, okay. Well played, Brother Barker. I'm sure that "educated people in the LDS Church" constitute a very large portion of "most educated people" more generally. I'm astonished at Bro. Barker's apparent grasp of graduate-level statistics and math here. Whew! So impressive!

Next, Barker alludes to what I have often noticed among apologists: a buried inferiority complex.

But, paraphrasing another writer above, “when they are raised in the Church, they don’t know any better.” What arrogance!!! How does the writer know that? Simply put, he doesn’t, but such statements make the writer, and others who think the same, feel superior.

Oh, the horror! The horror! Barker and his ilk cannot stomach the thought that Church critics might find him silly. And thus, he lashes out in vitriolic anger. Next, in his desperation, Barker expands his assault on Some Schmo to include *all* educated people who encounter and then reject LDS theology:

Now to the comment, “All I can say is that since the majority of people presented with LDS theology do not join the church (educated and non-educated alike), it seems safe to say that at the very least, they don’t believe what the church teaches.” This comment rips reality from context. Mr. Schmo fails to note that, and speaking from long experience, the real reason that most “educated people,” don’t join the Church is because they never actually listen to the message.

Right. That's it. They've just been given the lessons from the missionaries, and yet, magically, despite having sat through God knows how many seminars, lectures, colloquiums, and classes; despite having read numerous books, articles, journals, and magazines; despite living presumably active, functional, and productive lives, these "educated people" manage, somehow, to "never actually listen" to what the Church is telling them.

The silliness continues as Barker wraps up his diatribe:

Indeed, the reality is that most never open their ears to hear what we really believe rather than what some critic says we believe. For example, how many of them have ever actually read the Book of Mormon?

And how full of a picture does the Book of Mormon actually paint of Church doctrine? How much will the Book of Mormon tell the prospective convert about life in the Church? Naturally, Barker doesn't say. (And what failing to read the Book of Mormon actually has to do with "listening" is beyond me.)

As a missionary I tracted door to door virtually every day of my mission. We talked to many ignorant people and many very educated people. Only a handful joined the Church, but the others wouldn’t listen.

This is confusing--perhaps deliberately so. Is Barker saying that "only a handful" of BOTH the "ignorant" and "educated people" joined the Church? One can really only assume that, yes, this is indeed what he meant, since it's the truth. (And again, what does he mean when he says they "wouldn't listen"? Doesn't he really mean, "They found our claims absurd"?

The posting wraps up pretty much as it began, which is to say that it ends on an angry, tantrum-throwing note:

I would turn the tables and suggest that in reality when educated people actually listen to LDS theology, most do join the Church. They do so because they recognize that here is where the truth is. How many educated people has the above quoted writer met who can HONESTLY say that they have a full grasp of true LDS theology?

And how would one go about measuring or assessing whether or not a person has a "full grasp of LDS theology"? He said earlier that the vast majority of TBMs do not even have a "full grasp of LDS theology," so how does any of this help his case? How does this demonstrate that smart never-Mos have rejected Mormonism simply due to "not listening"?

In any event, I would like to chide Mr. Barker for his uncalled-for attack on Mr. Schmo. I'd also like to advise Mr. Barker to get some better apologetic techniques. I have found that any time apologists use dumb arguments, it's because they just haven't listened. If they would listen to the truth of what the critics are saying, their apologetics would get much better, because here is where the truth is.

What exactly is the purpose of SHIELDS? Some sort of board-to-board communication blog? The remarks by "Barker" (whoever he is) are totally cheesy, which begs the question, "Why should anyone in the LDS church or apologetics, care what is written in SHIELDS?"

Who are these remarks intended to influence and do they influence anyone?

Jersey Girl wrote:What exactly is the purpose of SHIELDS? Some sort of board-to-board communication blog?

Hello there, Jersey Girl.

SHIELDS serves essentially the same function as FAIR and FARMS---i.e., to "defend" the LDS Church. Many of the same key figures--Hamblin, DCP, Midgley---participate in all of these Mopologetic organizations. SHIELDS has the reputation of being the worst, least reputable of the three, though.

The remarks by "Barker" (whoever he is) are totally cheesy, which begs the question, "Why should anyone in the LDS church or apologetics, care what is written in SHIELDS?"

Who are these remarks intended to influence and do they influence anyone?

I don't know. Clearly, they're meant to. And according to Barker, SHIELDS has had some kind of impact (at least in his own mind), as evidenced by this comment:

please consider how many critics I have encountered as a result of SHIELDS being on the Internet since Feb. of 1997!

My oh my! Could this be the lofty apologist that Wee Willy told us about? The one who was watching the goings on at MDB for kicks and giggles? It would seem that he did indeed become apoplectic when Schmo dared to suggest that the world's intellectual elite isn't beating down the doors of the ward houses to get dunked. I guess MDB ceased to be mere recreation for Mr. Barker.

But why so defensive, Mr. Barker? I mean, it is fairly obvious that those who are well educated and well off financially are less likely to join an oddball religion. Certainly it is not because Mormonism is any more ridiculous than any other faith, but because these folks are generally content with their lives. It is a well known fact that most converts to Mormonism are less educated and less wealthy. Anyone who has watched the missionaries for any length of time could tell you that.

And let's get real for a moment. Most of your friends and neighbors are more comfortable when their fairy stories have a thick patina of old age to give them an air of respectability. The 19th-century farm boy who digs for Captain Kidd's treasure is, well, not so respectable. But is that something for Mr. Barker to be sensitive about? Surely by now he has come to grips with the conservatism of the average middle-class person, who would rather run with the in-crowd at the local Baptist church than go out on a limb for ol' Joe Smith!

I'll never forget how eager the missionaries were to get me to go out to talk to their smarter prospects (on the rare occasion when one came along) so that such a person would know, and I use the very words the missionaries used, "that even smart people can believe in Mormonism." There you have it, folks. One of the few times I was deemed useful to the missionaries, it was to parade my credentials as the smart guy who believes. Little did they know that I believed in only the most qualified sense, and even that didn't last too much longer.

Now, this is not to say that it takes smarts to leave, or that smart people can't stay Mormon, but I have to agree with Schmo when he opines that few are the truly educated investigators. If Mr. Barker could get over his own insecurities, that wouldn't bother him at all. After all, the only thing that separates a Mormon from a Catholic is a few centuries of tradition to make the patently ludicrous seem at least respectable, if not reasonable, and the only award a smart person wins for falling for Christianity is for "best in herd mentality."

What a nasty attack. Some Schmo's arguments were pretty standard and thoughtful and without any kind of prejudice really. I'm sort of amazed that they infuriated the apologists to such a level of deserving a confrontation on the SHIELDS blog where there are only a handful of entries. Really, out of all the discussions and criticisms, why this one? Oh well, there it is, in all it's glory. A fascinating commentary on the odd obsessions of apologetics, to be honest.

There was no ignorance in Schmo's comments. I mean, would Stan disagree that the main reason why the learned priests of Pharoh believed in the Egyptian gods is because they were --- born in Egypt?

Really, his further arguing makes the apologists look like fools. Who in their right mind is going to take the argument seriously that if the average phd listened to the LDS message seriously, that most of them would join the church? And who in their right mind would believe the more extreme argument that those who see it otherwise, who don't think phds would generally join the church upon carefully listening, are themselves ignorant fools?

His rantings here display nothing but indoctrination and isolation.

Hey, is Margret Barker a fool? Does she know zip, nil, zero about the church? How do we explain the fact that she hasn't joined the church? And what about all those professors at Claremount gettting the facts straight from Bushman? Or, how about the intellectuals at the Yale conference, were they not listening to the talks? How come they didn't join the church?

Wow, this is one apologist who is really out of touch with reality.

Jersey Girl wrote:What exactly is the purpose of SHIELDS? Some sort of board-to-board communication blog?

Hello there, Jersey Girl.

Doctor Scratch wrote:[SHIELDS serves essentially the same function as FAIR and FARMS---i.e., to "defend" the LDS Church. Many of the same key figures--Hamblin, DCP, Midgley---participate in all of these Mopologetic organizations. SHIELDS has the reputation of being the worst, least reputable of the three, though.

Got it.

Jersey Girl wrote: The remarks by "Barker" (whoever he is) are totally cheesy, which begs the question, "Why should anyone in the LDS church or apologetics, care what is written in SHIELDS?"

Who are these remarks intended to influence and do they influence anyone?

Doctor Scratch wrote:I don't know. Clearly, they're meant to. And according to Barker, SHIELDS has had some kind of impact (at least in his own mind), as evidenced by this comment:

please consider how many critics I have encountered as a result of SHIELDS being on the Internet since Feb. of 1997!

The sense I'm getting is that it's the equivalent of a vanity press publication that feeds off of message board postings whose readers are message board posters.

I'm not sure why I'm not impressed.

I just clicked into the link supplied for SHIELDS.

Following is apparently the formal title for "reporting on message board postings for message board posters":

Scholarly and Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints

Say what? What has reporting on message board critics got to do with the exchange of "scholarly and historical information"?

I'm not seeing it.

Outside of a few folks banging on a computer between a couple or three message boards, does anyone out there in the real world have a reason to care about this?

Gadianton wrote:Hey, is Margret Barker a fool? Does she know zip, nil, zero about the church? How do we explain the fact that she hasn't joined the church? And what about all those professors at Claremount gettting the facts straight from Bushman? Or, how about the intellectuals at the Yale conference, were they not listening to the talks? How come they didn't join the church?

Excellent point, Dean Robbers. Why hasn't Margaret Barker joined the one group whose scholars cling to her like a life vest on the Titanic? Surely she would be the biggest catch of all for LDS apologists, who could forever point to their scholarly hero as the one scholar who was convinced both by the Spirit and her interpretation of the historical facts!

I would also bring forward Harold Bloom, the famous literary critic and enthusiast for all things Gnostic, who wrote about Mormonism in his book on the American Religion. Invited to a conference on Mormonism at the University of Utah, he was so upset to hear people trashing Mormonism that he promptly booked a flight and fled the scene. Indeed, he has said that had he been around in Joseph Smith's day, he might have joined the Church then. Oddly, however, he feels a little differently about the Mormon Church today. Why did he not sign on?

And what of Elaine Pagels, whose interest in the Book of Mormon had her schlepping out to Provo now and then for the late, great Book of Mormon Roundtable, which was going gangbusters until the Provo apologetic crew busted a gasket about those who thought the Book of Mormon is 19th century? Surely Dr. Pagels was taking the Book of Mormon seriously enough to have the requisite exposure. And then there is Robert M. Price of the Jesus Seminar, who has actually written articles for publication in Mormon journals and published his New Testament with Signature Books.

Indeed, it seems there are some fairly heavy hitters out there who have long and considered exposure to Mormonism who have yet to take the plunge.

By the way, I think we critics should congratulate Some Schmo for his 15 minutes of fame from SHIELDS. Congratulations, Schmo! That's what you get for making an intelligent, common-sense observation that almost anyone could agree with (and, yes, you are right about)--the frothing anger of a two-bit Mopologist and immortalization courtesy of SHIELDS.

Can you sense how jealous I am?

Gadianton wrote:
Hey, is Margret Barker a fool? Does she know zip, nil, zero about the church? How do we explain the fact that she hasn't joined the church? And what about all those professors at Claremount gettting the facts straight from Bushman? Or, how about the intellectuals at the Yale conference, were they not listening to the talks? How come they didn't join the church?

Wow, this is one apologist who is really out of touch with reality.

Yes, you're quite right. A devastating critique. On the other hand, I think this cuts both ways---sure, Margaret Barker, Shipps, and so on have not joined the Church (much to the consternation of apologists like LoaP), but would Stan Barker really like to defend the fact that millions of uneducated folks have also rejected the Church? Sure: it's a bummer that most people w/ Ph.D.s think that the Church is baloney. But what is Barker's counter to the fact that even complete rubes w/ 4th grade educations are rejecting the Church?