Let me start here:
http://web.archive.org/web/199812012046 ... .org/DTFC/
You'll notice that this page was meant to announce annual SHIELDS conferences, which someone (probably Stan Barker) cheerfully describes as an "LDS Polemics Conference." Now, this has to have been seen as being problematic. Basically, as we observed in the document I cited in the "Historic Communique" thread, SHIELDS announced very openly that they were interested in "aggressive attack" and "controversy" (to paraphrase Merriam Webster). We know that contemporary, FARMS-style apologists have been very, very anxious to distance themselves from the label of "polemics." Also, it's interesting to note that SHIELDS later ended this conference, and that it has dropped the overt mention of "polemics."
That said, I don't think it can be emphasized enough that [b]this was the origin of online LDS apologetics[/i]. In the mid- to late-1990s, SHIELDS was arguably at the very cutting edge of online LDS apologetics. As the "Communique" showed, apologetic-minded LDS were anxious to form "groups" which would more easily facilitate their "aggressive attack[s]" on Church critics. SHIELDS, early on, became that group. Later, apologists would realize that they would need to scale back their aggression, and that they would need to rely upon more subtle smear tactics, sneakiness, and so forth.
Let's take a look at the individual conference programs:
http://web.archive.org/web/199902090700 ... C/01_A.htm
The first of these was held just shortly after Christmas in 1995, in Nauvoo, IL. Reading over the titles of the papers, one cannot help but be struck by the staggering originality, especially these:
John Tvedtnes, "The Book of Mormon"
Rodger S. Gunn, "Compare to the Original"
Dave Eldridge, "Book of Mormon"
Van Hale, "Polemics"
On the other hand, I suppose these early SHIELDS presenters deserve to be cut some slack, as this was only their very first official conference. Do these titles reveal a certain degree of amateurishness? Sure. But what this first SHIELDS "Defending the Faith" conference really shows is the anxiousness of the apologists to lash out with their "aggressive attack" on critics. They were apparently so anxious that they couldn't be bothered to develop interesting presentation topics and titles. By the time of the 4th conference, in 1998, an announcement stated that "All papers will be subject to peer review."
http://web.archive.org/web/199812061210 ... C/04_A.htm
Based on this information, it seems that only four SHIELDS conferences came to fruition. Sadly, presentation information is only available for the 1st and 3rd conferences. The 3rd SHIELDS conference, one has to admit, had grown in its ambition:
http://web.archive.org/web/199812031558 ... C/03_A.htm
Note that this was 1997, right during the flurry of activity surrounding FARMS's admission into BYU. (DCP has said repeatedly that he nearly stormed off in anger and frustration over the "melding" process, and yet, this period also features a massive production in text by him---texts which are now available for your perusal at SHIELDS.)
The Third SHIELDS "Defending the Faith" Conference featured seasoned apologists like Tvedtnes ("Ancient Support for Restoration Scriptures") and Matt Roper ("Tannerisms, "The Great and Specious Argument""), and also interesting figures like George Throckmorton ("Hoffman Revisited"), whom many will remember as the forensic scientist who helped crack the Mark Hoffman case. That Barker & Co. had managed to attract somebody of Throckmorton's stature and respectability ought to say something. (Of course, it didn't hurt that this particular conference was held in SLC rather than Nauvoo.)
Again, one has to wonder: what happened? Did FARMS throw its hat into the ring sometime around the year 2000? Why did FAIR flourish while SHIELDS floundered? Is it as Harmony and others have suggested, that there were more Ph.D.s associated with FAIR? It's difficult to say.
Backing up a bit, I think it would be worthwhile to look a bit more in depth at one of the available presentation papers, Stan Barker's "SHIELDS," which was delivered at the 3rd Conference:
http://web.archive.org/web/199904231713 ... 970201.htm
Here, Barker describes the rather strange rationale behind SHIELDS, and behind SHIELDS's participants:
Each of the three SHIELDS principals have strong testimonies and are active in the LDS Church. We each feel compelled by the Holy Spirit to demonstrate that arguments of critics of the Church are flawed and have little social redeeming value, with the possible exception of prompting church members to get to know their religion better. Of course there are better ways for them to do that than reading anti-Mormon material.
The Holy Ghost told them to engage in "polemics" with Church critics? That's very interesting. Most of us learned to identify the Holy Ghost with a "burning in the bosom," or a "still, small voice." I guess these guys have come to identify the HG with a burning, white-hot rage.
The following quote is also quite revealing:
I first encountered Doug Marshall on the old Mormon FIDOnet BBS echo, where we became friends. Later Doug Marshall introduced me to Doug Yancey and we also became fast friends. I also wanted to see more organized efforts made to respond to criticisms of the Church. In time I felt that, in addition to the invaluable work of FARMS, there was room for more primarily apologetics organizations and that such efforts needed to be stepped up.
Interestingly, Barker is here complaining that FARMS is not "primarily apologetics" enough! Even *he* can see through the ruse of FARMS's involvement in the Dead Sea Scrolls, METI, and so forth. It also explains why the DCP-led FARMS apologists would want to use SHIELDS as an outlet for their Mopologetic hate and frustration. It made for a good means of venting all of their anger.
Next, Barker alludes to what may have been a major point of contention in terms of where Internet Mopologetics would go:
At first I wanted to create a formal organization with membership, so I contacted Malin Jacobs and Gene Humbert, both close friends and former moderators of the Mormon Echo, and asked for their help. They agreed. We contacted the "Dougs" from Georgia who graciously allowed us to appropriate the SHIELDS acronym. Later we realized that a formal organization would be impossible to administer unless we had funding to tackle it as a full time job. Our own resources were inadaquate for this task, and as no sugar daddy stepped forward to provide funding, we decided to set up an Internet web site and place material there. We felt that it was more important to make material available than to spin our wheels trying to publish in the traditional manner.
"Spin our wheels"? It seems to me that haste and aggression were the order of the day, rather than rigor and scholarship. Once again, this seems to confirm that anger, aggression, and spitefulness are at the heart of LDS apologetics. SHIELDS just happened to be the apogee of this common feeling. While one can observe the uncontrolled rage and frustration on FAIR, ZLMB, and FARMS Review, it is in the publications of SHIELDS that these emotions find their purest, most unvarnished expression.
The rest of Barker's paper outlines stuff we already know. It also includes some retrospectively melancholy hope for the future of the SHIELDS conference, but, as we know, this just wasn't meant to be.
So, what were these conferences like? The following links feature pictures of the participants:
http://web.archive.org/web/199905051217 ... ol1996.htm
This group photo is from the 2nd Conference. Notice the very smug "Capo" Midgley on the far right, and his accomplice, Matt Roper, 3rd from the left.
http://web.archive.org/web/199902091018 ... Photos.htm
This series of images is from the 3rd Conference, held in SLC. Notice Steve Mayfield, goofing around during a quiet moment, and a Malin Jacobs who is angrily brandishing what appears to be a copy of The Mormon Murders. My favorite picture, though, is of the white-haired Rodger Gunn, who is jabbing his epee-like finger out in to the audience, as he lectures on the important difference between "Ought" and "Is." By golly, this is a man you ought to listen to!
In any event, I found this material very interesting as a kind of "look back" through time. I am grateful to the anonymous informant who passed along this material to me. To summarize, this material:
---Shows that early Internet Mormon apologetics was frankly "polemical" in nature, and that (at least some) apologists were will to admit this was the case. (Compare this with Bill Hamblin's shrill denials in his article, "That Old Black Magic.")
---Reveals the ambition and potential that SHIELDS has in the mid- to late-1990s
---Demonstrates a "haste over care" kind of approach to doing apologetics.
Finally, I think it is vital to remember that it was ultimately FARMS and FAIR that have come to dominate online LDS apologetics, and that SHIELDS fell by the wayside. Was this because SHIELDS was simply *too* aggressive and straightforward in its intentions? I'm inclined to say, "Yes." The openly hostile attitudes of Barker & et al. were ultimately replaced by the lying, equivocation, and sneakiness of Allen Wyatt, Scott Gordon, Juliann Reynolds, DCP, and Bill Hamblin. Aggression and viciousness can still be found among the newer ranks of apologists, but by and large, they have become far more careful about concealing it.
