DiscussMormonism.com

I've really enjoyed reading about how many of the LDS scholars are starting to wake up about the Book of Abraham stuff. It looks to me as though we may be seeing a real transformation of how the church attempts to deal with the huge problems presented by the Book of Abraham and the bad apologetics that have been pushed on the members of the church for the past few decades. With great LDS scholars like Don Bradley and David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid finally showing the courage and intellectual honesty to deal with the facts, I think this may be a real watershed moment in mopologetics, as Doctor Scratch would say.

However, there are still a few things I find troubling. Kevin Graham mentioned how Hauglid was forced (by the classic mopologetic deceiver John Gee) to include a bunch of apologetic crapola in his most recent book. I have been reading Hauglid's book in the past few weeks (I'm almost done with it) and one of the things that didn't make sense was how he claimed there was a missing "Manuscript Q". When I read that, I thought to myself, "Wait a minute, that's the line Schryver has been trying to push. What's it doing in here?" So I asked Kevin about it, and he confirmed my suspicions that that was one of the things Gee forced Hauglid to include in the book. Why did Hauglid do that? What does Gee hold over Hauglid that he could force him to include apologetic nonsense in an otherwise great non-apologetic book? It makes one wonder how long it will take before the "old guard" loses its power to literally force good LDS scholars to argue in favor of these stupid ideas. It doesn't do any good for intellectually honest LDS scholars to learn the facts about these things only to be forced to bite their tongues and do what they're told to do to toe the company line.

I can sure understand why David Bokovoy would not want to work under such conditions.

I find it amusing that people simply can't accept the possibility there is missing scroll length. We have pieces.

JMS

jskains wrote:I find it amusing that people simply can't accept the possibility there is missing scroll length. We have pieces.

JMS

What does this have to do with my topic?

That's a great question, Carton. My first inclination is to say that you're right in observing that most of the younger generation of Mormon Studies people are turning their backs on the vicious DCP/Hamblin/Gee/Midgley style of apologetics. These younger folks would include those you mentioned, along with LoaP, the narrator, and others. Someone like Maklelan is a toss-up. (I have a lot more I could say about him with respect to Old Guard Mopologetics, but I'll save that for a rainy day. Suffice it to say that I think that the Old Guard would very much like to groom him for the task of tackling a specific problem--one which Dan Peterson thinks is an even greater threat to the LDS Church than the Book of Abraham).

But one of the problems is that this "Vanguard" of younger scholars is being shut out from BYU and other key, influential loci of Mormon intellectual life. The blackballing of Bokovoy is clearly the most salient current example. So the Old Guard is trying to hang on to power for as long as possible. Also, I was told that DCP was able to procure a huge donation--in the millions, allegedly--which means that the money rolling into the MI will basically continue to fund the Old Guard's agenda. Also, it appears that Greg Smith has been appointed to "carry on the torch" once Midgley (who if If I recall correctly is in his eighties) finally steps aside.

So, while it might be easy to hope that their legacy would just go away after they all died, I think it's really a bit more complicated than that. Though I do wonder if we'll eventually see them getting so desperate that they wind up recruiting Neanderthals like Simon Belmont and stemelbow to actually write articles for the Review.

My guess is that someday Greg Smith will be editing the FARMS Review. Same BS, different cast of characters.

-

Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:I was thinking about the same thing the other day, but the problem seems to be the fact that these "volunteers" are able to dominate the culture and the literature until they are dead in addition to selecting and grooming who will carry their mantle. If they can get those who will follow to participate in the same dirty mopologetics to get ahead in their organization then they can rely on the fact that they are unlikely to backtrack after years of making the same pitiful arguments with the old guard using them as puppets and pulling their strings.

It is much like the LDS Church in that respect with large groups of younger Mormons who are more understanding on issues like gay marriage and homosexuality, but the leaders take a very long time to catch up because there is such a long wait for them to die off and the people who are promoted usually share their outdated views.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Don't give up hope, Hasa. Someday Elder Maxwell's name may yet be recovered from the mean rhetoric that has been dumped on it by the FARMS Review.

Doctor Scratch wrote:That's a great question, Carton. My first inclination is to say that you're right in observing that most of the younger generation of Mormon Studies people are turning their backs on the vicious DCP/Hamblin/Gee/Midgley style of apologetics. These younger folks would include those you mentioned, along with LoaP, the narrator, and others. Someone like Maklelan is a toss-up. (I have a lot more I could say about him with respect to Old Guard Mopologetics, but I'll save that for a rainy day. Suffice it to say that I think that the Old Guard would very much like to groom him for the task of tackling a specific problem--one which Dan Peterson thinks is an even greater threat to the LDS Church than the Book of Abraham).

But one of the problems is that this "Vanguard" of younger scholars is being shut out from BYU and other key, influential loci of Mormon intellectual life. The blackballing of Bokovoy is clearly the most salient current example. So the Old Guard is trying to hang on to power for as long as possible. Also, I was told that DCP was able to procure a huge donation--in the millions, allegedly--which means that the money rolling into the MI will basically continue to fund the Old Guard's agenda. Also, it appears that Greg Smith has been appointed to "carry on the torch" once Midgley (who if If I recall correctly is in his eighties) finally steps aside.

So, while it might be easy to hope that their legacy would just go away after they all died, I think it's really a bit more complicated than that. Though I do wonder if we'll eventually see them getting so desperate that they wind up recruiting Neanderthals like Simon Belmont and stemelbow to actually write articles for the Review.

I find it hard to believe that the MI would EVER recruit quasi-illiterate amateurs like SB and stemelbow. That would be evidence of desperation, to say the least.

But what my OP is really driving at is the fact that even when an experienced professor like Hauglid comes around to see things as they really are, he can still be compelled to toe the party line. Or else? Or else what? I mean, it's one thing to prevent someone like Bokovoy from ever getting hired in the first place. But it's very depressing that a respected stalwart like Hauglid still has no power to publish his scholarship without someone like Gee shoving crap apologetics down his throat.

Kevin says that Hauglid was forced to include Schryver's "missing manuscript" fantasies in his most recent book, and that Gee was the one who forced him to do it. Why didn't Hauglid feel like he could stand his ground on something like that? What could they possibly be holding over the guy to render him so helpless? It makes you wonder. If I were Hauglid, I think I would try to go public and use the threat of bad PR to gain back control over my own publications. But then I don't really know what's at stake. That's why I started this thread, to see if anyone else has a better understanding of how long-established BYU professors are compelled to publish crap that originated with a blowhard amateur apologist.

Carton wrote:I find it hard to believe that the MI would EVER recruit quasi-illiterate amateurs like SB and stemelbow. That would be evidence of desperation, to say the least.

You're joking, right?

I think Mormon Voices is excellent evidence to the contrary. It may not be MI, but, yes, there are apologists who are recruiting anyone with:

1. a pulse
2. a testimony
3. a computer
4. an internet connection

Kishkumen wrote:

Carton wrote:I find it hard to believe that the MI would EVER recruit quasi-illiterate amateurs like SB and stemelbow. That would be evidence of desperation, to say the least.

You're joking, right?

I think Mormon Voices is excellent evidence to the contrary. It may not be MI, but, yes, there are apologists who are recruiting anyone with:

1. a pulse
2. a testimony
3. a computer
4. an internet connection

ROFL!

Yes, this has always been true. And I am guilty of that too. When I was an apologist for FAIR I was involved in recruiting folks to do reviews of anti books and there really was no filtering process beyond what Kish outlined here.