A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:03 pm
It is raining new articles out here in the land of Mopologetic Studies. With the new, "steaming" issue of the MI hot off the press and still unreviewed at Amazon.com, the Board of Editors has seen fit to release a brand new "review," and this one is surely worthy of "classic-FARMS" designation:
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/attack ... xplaining/
At any rate, the article is pretty standard issue FARMS-type stuff:
The article, oddly enough, is called, "Attacking Rather Than Explaining," though after finishing it, you'll wonder whether this phrase was intended as a description for the book under review, or the review itself. The "review"/smear piece was penned by a young woman named Cassandra Hedelius, whose bio, at the end of the article, is as follows:
This is rather vague, no? That is: in spite of the MI team's relentless focus on credentials and qualifications, there is nothing here to indicate how and why Hedelius is "qualified" to publish on Mormon Studies topics. But the real question here for me is, "Why on earth is this young lady writing articles like this for the Mopologists?" How and why (in God's green earth) did she decide that this was a good idea?
But her bio seems relevant in light of one of her main critiques, which gets announced at the end of the first paragraph:
How is it, I wonder, that a person with a "PhD from respected seminaries" is somehow less qualified to weigh in on religious topics than someone who "studied political science and mathematics at the University of Oklahoma and law at the University of Colorado"? Am I missing something here? Or was this an oversight on the part of the editorial staff?
It's this last question that hung most prominently on my mind as I digested the rest of this remarkably nasty article. Did Hedelius even write this, I wondered? Just look at the endless barage of FARMS cliches in this:
The essay winds up reading like a Mopologetic version of the word game, Mad Libs, where someone simply went through and penciled in "Reverend Jackson" and the title of his book into a boilerplate attack essay. Hedelius even has the careworn bullet-point list of errors "that don’t explain much and that obscure important issues." And do I have to say it? There is actually a bolded subsection that is (I kid you not) entitled, "The Hostile Agenda". LOL!
The only thing missing from this article would be an insinuation that Jackson is merely "in it for the money," and what do you know? Hedelius delivers:
You have to admit: it's kind of sad, in its own way. That isn't to say that there were rays of light here and there, such as this tidbit, involving Jackson's attempts to locate "official" LDS doctrine:
Oh, man! A devastating blow! And very, very curious that the editorial staff would allow this onto the pages of the MI. Closer to the "collapse" of "classic-FARMS," DCP and others were touting FAIR as the top Mopologetic organization around, and they were urging donors to send their dollars in that direction. And yet now, here is this blatant curb-check. I wonder if this represents a shot fired across the bow? It may very well be that the MI has decided to assert itself as the pre-eminent Mopologetic organization.
Very, very interesting.
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/attack ... xplaining/
At any rate, the article is pretty standard issue FARMS-type stuff:
However, [Reverend Jackson] ignores all the detailed responses to these books that have appeared, even though he is aware of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University (see p. 186). The results of Jackson’s endeavor are rather disappointing.
The article, oddly enough, is called, "Attacking Rather Than Explaining," though after finishing it, you'll wonder whether this phrase was intended as a description for the book under review, or the review itself. The "review"/smear piece was penned by a young woman named Cassandra Hedelius, whose bio, at the end of the article, is as follows:
Cassandra S. Hedelius studied political science and mathematics at the University of Oklahoma and law at the University of Colorado. She has practiced domestic and business law for profit, and researches and writes about Mormonism for pleasure. Her main focus is the interaction of the LDS Church with modern media and political activism, with additional interest in religious freedom and public policy.
This is rather vague, no? That is: in spite of the MI team's relentless focus on credentials and qualifications, there is nothing here to indicate how and why Hedelius is "qualified" to publish on Mormon Studies topics. But the real question here for me is, "Why on earth is this young lady writing articles like this for the Mopologists?" How and why (in God's green earth) did she decide that this was a good idea?
But her bio seems relevant in light of one of her main critiques, which gets announced at the end of the first paragraph:
Part of his problem is that, as I will demonstrate, he lacks the qualifications and disposition to deal openly, honestly, and competently with what he calls “Mormonism.”
Who is Reverend Jackson? And, in his own opinion, what led and qualifies him to opine on Mormon things? His webpage indicates that he has been an associate pastor of two large churches: he worked at Kempsville Presbyterian Church in Virginia Beach (1986–1996) and then, with a Doctor of Ministry degree,3 at the Word of Grace Church in Mesa, Arizona (1996–2008). He has a master’s degree and PhD from respected seminaries. He is well traveled, having visited twenty-four countries. His special fondness for Turkey, with its connections to the New Testament, inspired him to lead and later organize biblical tours to Turkey.
How is it, I wonder, that a person with a "PhD from respected seminaries" is somehow less qualified to weigh in on religious topics than someone who "studied political science and mathematics at the University of Oklahoma and law at the University of Colorado"? Am I missing something here? Or was this an oversight on the part of the editorial staff?
It's this last question that hung most prominently on my mind as I digested the rest of this remarkably nasty article. Did Hedelius even write this, I wondered? Just look at the endless barage of FARMS cliches in this:
He’s on the attack already, implying that Latter-day Saints can’t handle even a fair and neutral explanation.
The well thus tidily poisoned, Jackson gets specific:
Many use the “some of my best friends are . . . ” gambit, but most don’t write authority-claiming books about their friends, or imbibe special insights from park names.
These kinds of silly mistakes, obvious to any of his Mormon “neighbors, acquaintances, and friends,” and also easily correctable had he actually engaged with Mormons
In addition, genuine friends don’t claim to be explaining another’s faith, when in fact they are making war against those beliefs.
Reverend Jackson is careless in keeping straight what is indeed official and what is mere speculation.
His citations to scripture are haphazard and unhelpful,
He resorts frequently to critical works by the Ostlings, Blomberg, and others, without that [sic] those sources have been shown to be problematic in their use of historical facts (Ostling) and presentation of LDS doctrine (both).
the well-poisoning dismissal of “anti-intellectual” Mormon critics of non-Mormons who dare to write about the church.
one notices slip-ups here and there
Although he is familiar with work of writers like Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet, as well as the publications of the Maxwell Institute, Jackson betrays no sign that he has taken any of this literature seriously
The essay winds up reading like a Mopologetic version of the word game, Mad Libs, where someone simply went through and penciled in "Reverend Jackson" and the title of his book into a boilerplate attack essay. Hedelius even has the careworn bullet-point list of errors "that don’t explain much and that obscure important issues." And do I have to say it? There is actually a bolded subsection that is (I kid you not) entitled, "The Hostile Agenda". LOL!
The only thing missing from this article would be an insinuation that Jackson is merely "in it for the money," and what do you know? Hedelius delivers:
All of this makes it thoroughly unsurprising that when events—the Mitt Romney campaign—presented an opportunity to sell more books and publicize his message, Reverend Jackson retitled and reissued his ersatz Mormonism Explained as The Mormon Faith of Mitt Romney.10 This time around, it suited both his agenda and his marketing strategy to be much more forthcoming as to his intentions.
You have to admit: it's kind of sad, in its own way. That isn't to say that there were rays of light here and there, such as this tidbit, involving Jackson's attempts to locate "official" LDS doctrine:
He turned to email exchanges with volunteers at the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) but was frustrated by their disclaimer of official status to speak for the Church of Jesus Christ (p. 12).
Oh, man! A devastating blow! And very, very curious that the editorial staff would allow this onto the pages of the MI. Closer to the "collapse" of "classic-FARMS," DCP and others were touting FAIR as the top Mopologetic organization around, and they were urging donors to send their dollars in that direction. And yet now, here is this blatant curb-check. I wonder if this represents a shot fired across the bow? It may very well be that the MI has decided to assert itself as the pre-eminent Mopologetic organization.
Very, very interesting.
. Which, by the way, is Doctor of Sacred Theology.