Have the Apologists failed? Nibley says "yes"?
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:55 am
In my previous entry, I discussed a quote from Nibley which divides up the ways Mormons deal with the world, subtly mocking all Chapel Mormons that have a voice, praising the apologists, and mocking "the world" and any Mormons who don't challenge it with Internet Mormonism.
Now from this same piece by Midgley in Volume 20/2, Midgley asks if we are doing any better to meet the challeges of the world than the saints in Nibley's day.
I offer my own answers here, based on Midgley's essay:
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=729
recall the criteria for dismissing vocal Chapel Mormons who "run away" from criticism by,
But this is what FARMS quickly did. After volume 1 of the Review, the "Todd Compton" essays dwindled. In fact, the Review became a publication narrowly for Internet Mormons only, "addressing only our own people". It's all positive toward Internet Mormonism and glowing with self-admiration. Note the apologist "celebrity" attitude at the Yale conference. Think of all the "applause" at MAD and from other worshipful apologists. And consider the heavy financing of apologetics and that fact that apologists are often paid.
Grade for present-day apologists: F
The apologists have sort of screwed themselves here. In recent years, they have fought a rather ridiculous holy war, 20 years too late, against the strawman of "positivism". Claiming ignorantly, that all critics are slaves to an ideology where religion is bunk and science proved with absolute certainty. In this effort, they've gone so far overboard in their skepticism that they end up putting religion and especially apologetics and science on the same epistemic footing. Because all avenues of research fail in the strawman "enlightenment certainty" invented by the apologists, the natural language of evidence and "proof" is defaulted to a lower epistemic realm where apologetics and religious thinking is just as good if not better than science, and the Church's claims as good as the claims of science thusly, for all intents and purposes, the apologists think they can "prove" the church is true by any definition of the word "prove" possible in a "post-enlightenment" world. Meaning:
Grade for present-day apologists: F
If there is one thing that sticks out about the apologists, FARMS and FAIR taking the lead here, it's the comaraderie. The lack of division, the agreement, the backslapping praise, the self-congratulations, the monolithic apologetic entity that LoaP observed. And he contempt and rejection for anyone who doesn't join them in their self-congratulations.
Grade for present-day apologists: F
Unfortunately, by the criteria for successful scholarship Hugh W. Nibley outlined, and as affirmed by senior apologist Louis Midgley, Mopologetics is a dismal failure.
Now from this same piece by Midgley in Volume 20/2, Midgley asks if we are doing any better to meet the challeges of the world than the saints in Nibley's day.
I offer my own answers here, based on Midgley's essay:
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=729
recall the criteria for dismissing vocal Chapel Mormons who "run away" from criticism by,
by addressing only our own people as we sell what amounts to feel-good mock wisdom for applause and even real money
But this is what FARMS quickly did. After volume 1 of the Review, the "Todd Compton" essays dwindled. In fact, the Review became a publication narrowly for Internet Mormons only, "addressing only our own people". It's all positive toward Internet Mormonism and glowing with self-admiration. Note the apologist "celebrity" attitude at the Yale conference. Think of all the "applause" at MAD and from other worshipful apologists. And consider the heavy financing of apologetics and that fact that apologists are often paid.
Grade for present-day apologists: F
Nibley also observes that "the two greatest nuisances in the church are (a) those who think they know enough to disprove the claims of Joseph Smith, and (b) those who think they know enough to prove them"
The apologists have sort of screwed themselves here. In recent years, they have fought a rather ridiculous holy war, 20 years too late, against the strawman of "positivism". Claiming ignorantly, that all critics are slaves to an ideology where religion is bunk and science proved with absolute certainty. In this effort, they've gone so far overboard in their skepticism that they end up putting religion and especially apologetics and science on the same epistemic footing. Because all avenues of research fail in the strawman "enlightenment certainty" invented by the apologists, the natural language of evidence and "proof" is defaulted to a lower epistemic realm where apologetics and religious thinking is just as good if not better than science, and the Church's claims as good as the claims of science thusly, for all intents and purposes, the apologists think they can "prove" the church is true by any definition of the word "prove" possible in a "post-enlightenment" world. Meaning:
Grade for present-day apologists: F
he was[Nibley] very pessimistic about the prospects for higher education in the church, fearing that the Saints would not tolerate a serious defense of the faith and the Saints. Why? The reason is that "when anyone threatens to substitute serious discussion for professional camaraderie, they are assailed
If there is one thing that sticks out about the apologists, FARMS and FAIR taking the lead here, it's the comaraderie. The lack of division, the agreement, the backslapping praise, the self-congratulations, the monolithic apologetic entity that LoaP observed. And he contempt and rejection for anyone who doesn't join them in their self-congratulations.
Grade for present-day apologists: F
Unfortunately, by the criteria for successful scholarship Hugh W. Nibley outlined, and as affirmed by senior apologist Louis Midgley, Mopologetics is a dismal failure.