2011 Mormon Apologist of the Year

[_Carton]

There have been many humorous year-end lists, but I would like to do a more serious one where we as the MDB community give props to the Mormon apologists who, in the preceding year, have most advanced the field of Mormon studies. I understand that it is a very subjective decision, so try to give your reasons for voting as you did, especially if you voted “other”.

I debated with myself trying to decide between David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid and Samuel Brown. In the end I voted for Brown because I feel like his publications related to the Book of Abraham show the way forward for faithful Mormons trying to come to grips with the problems that the Book of Abraham presents. Brown shows us a Book of Abraham that is obviously a product of Joseph Smith and his times, and even if the scrolls and mummies had nothing to do with Abraham, it doesn’t mean Joseph Smith wasn’t “inspired” to author the book of Abraham.

How do you vote, and why?

[_Buffalo]

I'd love to vote, but I get an error message.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Carton,

MDB community give props to the Mormon apologists who, in the preceding year, have most advanced the field of Mormon studies.

I must call attention to the underlined portion of your quote here. The Mopologists, I insist, have nothing to do with so-called Mormon studies, in fact, Mormon studies is perhaps the greatest threat to Mopologetics that has ever arisen. And I mean ever. The Mopologists wake during the night in cold sweats thinking about the devastating blow that Mormon Studies has dealt them. Apologists are interested in 1) getting revenge on critics, 2) proving the church is true through "scholarship", 3) proving that apologists are scholarly, or that apologists are smarter than anyone who disagrees with them.

Mormon studies is an outgrowth of "postmodern" leaning investigations where the ultimate truth of the object of study is much less important than its cultural context. Mormon Studies also tends to be concerned with how a message of Mormonism relates to its community or society rather than deconstructing the message. And of course, those involved in Mormon Studies, comfortable with suspending ultimate judgement, have a great interest in the viewpoints and work of everyone engaged with Mormonism, including critics. To understand alternate viewpoints, of course, and not so much to do battle.

While it is true that the apologists have steered Mopologics into a literary turn with the last few years, they have little to do with Mormon Studies. When the apologists make a literary or cultural evaluation of the Book of Mormon, you've got guys like Lou Migdley jumping up and down to draw attention to their jettison of "truth" and boldly pointing to the critics as dinosaurs of "the enlightenment." In other words, the content of their work is cobbled together half-assed in a desperate attempt to take the war with critics to new battlefield where they think their odds of winning are better. They aren't interested in the actual cultural analysis, they are interested in the fact that such cultural analysis isn't open to falsification. A postmodern study of the Book of Mormon is a shield from truth, a way to avoid the ass kickings dealt by critics, and not a suspension of theological truth or historico-critical truth considerations motivated by a sincere interest in other modes of analysis. When the Mopologists make a literary study of the Book of Mormon, they don't leave it at that, but over-hype the "richness" of the text and try to force the reader to accept that it must therefore be true, as there is no other way to explain the "complexity" of the text.

So I would alter the poll a little, and vote the best recent contribution to Mopologetics is either Greg Smith's angry rebuttals of Rod Meldrum or Will Schryver's Book of Abraham analysis. Greg is getting the old-school juices flowing; brother Meldrum is the best target they've had in a long time as Mormon Studies is slowly taking over the stage and the MI has less material to respond to. Schryver's Book of Abraham analysis is important due to the major backing he has from the Mopologetic community. Given how hard he has worked on his theory and the importance his colleagues see in his work, I hope he is able to publish his materials widely and get a fair hearing.

For the best contributions to Mormon Studies, I think the prize goes to Chris Smith and The Narrator. I think these two kids represent the best possible future of Mormon scholarship, where friendship binds member and non-member scholars and both sympathetic and critical voices are part of the same larger program. A program where scholars are interested in learning and stances are relaxed.

Mopologetics, as I've remarked before, is all but dead; there are no apprentices to the craft at all. There are no young students doing work on the defunct LGT or myriad of Book of Abraham theories. No young Phds jumping into the fray to prove that some new rock discovered in Assyria establishes that Nephi lived. The latest blow to Mopologetics was the announcement of LoaP that he is now a religious studies graduate student. It is unlikely he will dip his toes further than he already has in conventional Mopologetic tactics, and will eventually find himself having nice conversations with Richard Bushman, Chris Smith, The Narrator, Don Bradly, etc.

[_moksha]

It might be worthwhile to fix the poll if results are to be tabulated. Could someone elaborate on Valerie Hudson. That blurb sounded very worthwhile but it would be nice to know the extent to which she altered polygamist yearnings.

[_Runtu]

Mopologetics, as I've remarked before, is all but dead; there are no apprentices to the craft at all. There are no young students doing work on the defunct LGT or myriad of Book of Abraham theories. No young Phds jumping into the fray to prove that some new rock discovered in Assyria establishes that Nephi lived. The latest blow to Mopologetics was the announcement of LoaP that he is now a religious studies graduate student. It is unlikely he will dip his toes further than he already has in conventional Mopologetic tactics, and will eventually find himself having nice conversations with Richard Bushman, Chris Smith, The Narrator, Don Bradly, etc.

Spot on. Those involved Mormon Studies don't care much about Mormon truth claims, so apologetics is increasingly relegated to message boards and other informal fora. However, some people are determined to force Mormon Studies scholars into the apologist/anti-Mormon dichotomy, hence the vilification of people like Chris Smith, Mike Reed, and Seth Payne (and even David Bokovoy), who don't really care one way or the other about validating Mormon truth claims.

I've been involved in the whole apologetics conversation for almost 17 years, and despite what people tell me, there haven't been any important, game-changing developments that support Mormon truth claims over that time. It's telling that a lot of the apologetic research tends to quote heavily from other apologetic sources, and I have been dismayed several times to track down original sources and find that the quote has been manipulated or simply fabricated (for example, see the FAIR piece on DNA and the Book of Mormon).

Where the interesting stuff is being done is in the field of Mormon Studies. The historical background of the development of the Book of Abraham and associated documents is far more interesting than a few "bullseyes" in the translation. Meanwhile, apologetics seems determined to divorce Mormon scripture from its context; the cipher theory is a good example of this in trying to uncouple the Book of Abraham from what Joseph Smith and his scribes said they were doing. In this respect, that theory is sort of the lantern on the caboose of the apologetics train signaling that the serious work may be coming to an end.

[_sock puppet]

Mopologetics, as I've remarked before, is all but dead; there are no apprentices to the craft at all. There are no young students doing work on the defunct LGT or myriad of Book of Abraham theories. No young Phds jumping into the fray to prove that some new rock discovered in Assyria establishes that Nephi lived. The latest blow to Mopologetics was the announcement of LoaP that he is now a religious studies graduate student. It is unlikely he will dip his toes further than he already has in conventional Mopologetic tactics, and will eventually find himself having nice conversations with Richard Bushman, Chris Smith, The Narrator, Don Bradly, etc.

Spot on. Those involved Mormon Studies don't care much about Mormon truth claims, so apologetics is increasingly relegated to message boards and other informal fora. However, some people are determined to force Mormon Studies scholars into the apologist/anti-Mormon dichotomy, hence the vilification of people like Chris Smith, Mike Reed, and Seth Payne (and even David Bokovoy), who don't really care one way or the other about validating Mormon truth claims.

I've been involved in the whole apologetics conversation for almost 17 years, and despite what people tell me, there haven't been any important, game-changing developments that support Mormon truth claims over that time. It's telling that a lot of the apologetic research tends to quote heavily from other apologetic sources, and I have been dismayed several times to track down original sources and find that the quote has been manipulated or simply fabricated (for example, see the FAIR piece on DNA and the Book of Mormon).

Yeah, how much longer can they go without a '3rd Watson Letter', one that cracks the door open to the Book of Mormon just being an allegorical story, without tether to any actual events having transpired here in the Americas?

Where the interesting stuff is being done is in the field of Mormon Studies. The historical background of the development of the Book of Abraham and associated documents is far more interesting than a few "bullseyes" in the translation. Meanwhile, apologetics seems determined to divorce Mormon scripture from its context; the cipher theory is a good example of this in trying to uncouple the Book of Abraham from what Joseph Smith and his scribes said they were doing. In this respect, that theory is sort of the lantern on the caboose of the apologetics train signaling that the serious work may be coming to an end.

Yeah again. I like the apologetic mindset that puts JSJr as an unwitting tool in the hands of god. That then opens another door, one to questioning everything that is attributed to JSJr having claimed god told him. If JSJr was just an unwitting tool, then what he wrote as 'revelations' and are codified in the D&C, well, it's all now suspect and therefore optional for Mormons.

Isn't it marvelous. Isn't it a wonder.

[_Zelder]

I like the apologetic mindset that puts JSJr as an unwitting tool in the hands of god. That then opens another door, one to questioning everything that is attributed to JSJr having claimed god told him. If JSJr was just an unwitting tool, then what he wrote as 'revelations' and are codified in the D&C, well, it's all now suspect and therefore optional for Mormons.

Maybe I'm slow but I don't get your logic here?