Desperation to Bury Chapel Mormons? (SHIELDS)

[_Gadianton]

As we've seen with FARMS, the apologists are bent on proving their own scholarliness to the academic world in part by lambasting the works of faith by Chapel Mormons and trying to make them look like fools. Shields, in its attempt to be like FARMS, has a rather nasty section of website partitioned off for the purpose of ridiculing what they call, "LDS Hoaxes, Myths, and 'Faith Promoting" rumors". I suppose the contents of this section stand in stark contrast to the serious scholarly pursuit of proving the existence of Gold Plates and a set of giant glasses used to read them. We have to wonder just how much soul searching the apologists do.

Today I clicked on Huston Temple Construction.

Shields offers its stern, athoritative warning about the story,

As with all faith promoting stories, we encourage you to NOT pass them around.

I suppose some of this abrupt disgust over Mormon culture might score a point with a senior apologist or two at the Institute.

As I continued, I was expecting a story filled with visitations of the Three Nephites and "remarkable events" as Shields puts it -- speaking in tounges? The dead being raised?

I read and I read, looking forward to the objectionable material of the kind that so raises the dander of the apologist convinced of his own scholarly invincibility. But I just for the life of me couldn't find the problem.

The story goes basically like this. A Mormon guy gets brought in on a contract job to construct a temple. He's the only Mormon. He expects disrespect shown by the "Baptists" and hard-living workers, but everyone is considerate and it's revealed in the end that the boss has a huge respect for Mormon temples because of the commitment to quality workmanship.

Ok, what on earth do the Mopologists gain by pouncing on this story? It seems awful desperate to go after material so benign. Maybe, the problem was the story had a true "bridge-building" element to it, and portrayed Baptists and Mormons getting along rather than Baptists as evil anti-Mormons that exist to fuel Mopologetic persecution complexes? Whatever the motive, the apologists went way overboard to take Chapel Mormonism down a notch with this one.

And not surprising as we've come to learn, the apologists end up only revealing not just their anger, but their own bad scholarship. Keep in mind this story is filed as a dangerous "hoax". Now think about their comments in the introduction:

In doing some checking (not having contacted the supposed author), we are told that these sorts of occurrences are not unusual

So the basic plotline of the story is viable. This not only contradicts their statement one paragraph above that the events are "remarkable", but raises questions about it's quick relegation to the "hoax" file. Then, the apologists reveal they haven't even tried to contact the supposed author! It's believable, they haven't even tried to contact the author of it, yet it's a hoax all LDS should be wary of? And they conclude with:

However, we have not verified that the story is true.

So because Shields hasn't verified the story is true, and this is partially the case because they won't try and contact the author, it must be a dangerous hoax, and the SHIELDS website adds huge credibility to themselves and apologetics by pointing it out?

In the irony of ironies, we're left with a story that holds the exact status of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon according to the apologists. All are stories that are per the apologists, plausible, but not verified to be true (and for the Mopologists, proving something is true is not the work of scholars, but fundamentalists and "positivists"). Yet, the Chapel Mormon example is a hoax, and the Mopologetic stuff is overlooked revolutionary scholarship that would rival the output of Mendel.

Fascinating, indeed.

[_Ray A]

The boy who cried "wolf!"?

True spiritual growth is based on studying the scriptures, the teachings of the Brethren, and Church publications.

The letter was signed by the First Presidency. As such, this should be sufficient instruction for faithful members of the Church to not pass around material that does not have official Church sanction.

Wouldn't that disqualify everything published by the Maxwell Institute? And SHIELDS?

[_Dr. Shades]

Good catch, Gadianton.

The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind as the perfect summary of what SHIELDS is doing here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, SHIELDS has grown very desperate, it seems. Stan Barker is busy trying to deal with Infymus, and with Dr. Shades's devastating critique on his blog posting, and this is the best he'd able to come up with? Color me unimpressed. No wonder the major apologists severed their relationship with SHIELDS. Instead, they just fed them the very high-risk (albeit vicious) apologist, J. Tvedtnes.

[_DarkHelmet]

It would surprise me if they objected to that story because you find the same type of sugary-sweet, cheesy stories in the church lesson manuals. Now, maybe they question whether the story is true or not. That's valid, but does everyone seriously believe that the stories in the official lesson manuals are all true? I remember reading a lesson in the Young Men's manual that had a story involving a boy and of course he learned a lesson during the story. The young women's manual had the same lesson, and the same story, but they changed it to a female character.

[_Tom]

From time to time statements are circulated among members which are inaccurately attributed to the leaders of the Church. Many such statements distort current Church teachings and are often based on rumors and innuendos. They are never transmitted officially, but by word of mouth, e-mail, or other informal means.

We encourage members of the Church to never teach or pass on such statements without verifying that they are from approved Church sources, such as official statements, communications, and publications. Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Authority Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at regional and stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only.

True spiritual growth is based on studying the scriptures, the teachings of the Brethren, and Church publications.

How does this letter apply to the temple story? The story does not contain statements which are attributed to the leaders of the Church, nor does it feature notes made when General Authorities, Area Authority Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at regional and stake conferences or other meetings.

[_cinepro]

IMHO, if you read the story at the Shield's website, it really takes the form of an urban legend. The writing style is very "story" like, and doesn't sound at all like someone relaying a personal experience. The conversations sound like manufactured dialogue, not actual things people would say (see example below).

But ultimately, what is the meaning of the story? Its message is...."Mormons spend lots of money on our Temples and don't cut corners, and that impressed the people that built it." That isn't "faith" promoting, because no one has "faith" that the Church spends lots of money on Temples. It's just a given. I don't know anyone that doubts it.

It may be based on a true story, but as it is written, I would definitely classify it as suspect. It is also suspect for not including the name of the author (what reason would someone have not to sign it? And why would someone remove the name?)

The contractor continued, "Every building I've ever built has been one where money won out over quality. I've never been able to do the best I'm capable of because of budget restraints. If I'm grateful for one thing, it's that you Mormons don't skimp when it comes to your temples. For once, I'm able to build to the quality I'm really capable of"

Then he looked out over the temple and his gaze came back to me. His eyes were tearing up a bit and he swept his hand back towards the temple and his voice got a little reverent, "This is my masterpiece", He said.

I've been building buildings for almost thirty years. I've been doing it so long, in fact, that they are beginning to tear down buildings that I was sure would live as a testament to my presence long after I was gone from this earth.

I'm really grateful I had a chance to work on The Houston Temple.

[_silentkid]

IMHO, if you read the story at the Shield's website, it really takes the form of an urban legend. The writing style is very "story" like, and doesn't sound at all like someone relaying a personal experience. The conversations sound like manufactured dialogue, not actual things people would say

.

I agree. It's also very similar to the endless supply of stories that Monson shares during General Conference...ordinary experiences that are embellished with spiritual significance to the point of absurdity. Pure cheese.

[_Gadianton]

The boy who cried "wolf!"?

True spiritual growth is based on studying the scriptures, the teachings of the Brethren, and Church publications.

The letter was signed by the First Presidency. As such, this should be sufficient instruction for faithful members of the Church to not pass around material that does not have official Church sanction.

Wouldn't that disqualify everything published by the Maxwell Institute? And SHIELDS?

That's a very good point, Ray. One I hadn't thought of. The parallels between so-called Mormon "hoaxes" and the output of apologetics is astounding.

[_Gadianton]

Tom,

As usual, your scholarly insights are much appreciated. I'd love for you to teach a class or two at Cassius as a visiting professor if you have the time one day.

Anyway, you are right, this is another example of a apologists misinterpreting the prophets in order to suite their own agenda.