Bill Hamblin: No Apologetics at BYU

[_mentalgymnast]

The big question lurking behind all of this is what role a private religious institution should play in the representation of its faith to the broader LDS community and the world.

Supportive, but by no means primary. Personally, when it comes to FAIR, NMI, or any other apologetic resource/organization made available and/or put into place by those that have made it their mission to defend the faith, so to speak, I see it as just that. Folks using their minds and scholarly resources/training to "prove now herewith" the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS. What gets lost in translation or in the shuffle and kerfuffle is that, and I've said this before, if there is a creator/God then we need to ask ourselves how God would reveal truth/light to an individual mind/heart? Is it through the minds and scholarly works/methods of those that make it their mission/purpose to delineate that which is worthy and/or not worthy of discussion/acceptance in the arena of "proofs" for God, or more specifically, proofs for Mormonism?

I think not.

Here's why.

We have many references:

https://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&que ... e+flesh%22

that lay out the dangers and sidetracking that can be the result of relying on the "arm of the flesh". On this forum, that's what we do. In apologetics, that's what they do. In scholarly investigation of historical sources that are available, that's what they do. In the day to day affairs of the LDS Church and any other religious INSTITUTION, that's what they do.

My experience tells me that as we rely on the arm of the flesh to discern truth we will be ever learning but never coming to a complete knowledge of the Truth. Parts and bits and pieces of the truth, yes. Some light, yes. The whole package? No. I would not hesitate to guess that we would all be in agreement that relying on the arm of the flesh cannot bring us to ultimate truth in regards to who, what, or why the creator/God does what He does or what He is all about...on the assumption that a creator/God exists.

So, FARMS, FAIR, and the like are not where I would go to get the answers to questions of faith and Truth. As corny as it may sound, I think we are much safer relying on the scriptures, and the words of the prophets. And even then, we are left to our own discernment and the Spirit to choose what God's will is in our own life.

I don't see why some folks get too wrapped up in the ins and outs of what goes on within an institutional structure such as FARMS, FAIR, and yes, the Church as an institutional monolith. I think that we'd be better of looking into our own hearts, the scriptural canon, and the words/works of the Lord's anointed as the pattern/template to adhere to and/or follow as we move along our own path of faith.

All of this online gibber jabber is just that. Not that isn't interesting...and addictive.

by the way, I'm now going to expect the oppositional approach/paradigm that says..."how and why should I/we trust what comes out of SLC with all the history/baggage associated thereto?" I can't answer that for each individual. That is something that when all is said and done, a person has to come to terms on within themselves. Not that it is easy, knowing full well that our leaders have in many cases been quite obviously relying on the "arm of the flesh" at certain times and in certain places.

Personally, however, I think that God has a fail safe mechanism in place by which that's all part and parcel of "the plan". How that fail safe mechanism actually works...on the ground...is beyond my pay grade.

Regards,
MG

[_Zadok]

What gets lost in translation or in the shuffle and kerfuffle is that, and I've said this before, if there is a creator/God then we need to ask ourselves how God would reveal truth/light to an individual mind/heart?

This caught my interest. Isn't it just a little arrogant of the Human race to expect that God has any interest, desire, or responsibility to reveal anything. How did we manage to lift ourselves up by our own bootstraps as it were, to be something that God even cares about? Do you as homeowner make any attempt to reveal your will or existence to the termites infesting your basement? Do you mourn after the exterminator has left with hundreds of thousands dead termites laying around? What makes you think that a God even knows or cares about you. ALL of the research and evidence that God cares was created by others like you trying to figure out the same puzzle. HE, has said NOTHING!

[_moksha]

As I read your analysis, I wondered if perhaps the motivation for moving FARMS under the auspices of BYU was so the money handlers at BYU could get control, and thereby increase, the donations and funding for the apologetic process?

Professor Midgley said it was a concern that FARMS would "go south", meaning they would start parading around in the white hoods of the Reformed Egyptians.

[_Dr. Shades]

In Kishkumen's original link, Bill Hamblin wrote:

In a recent blog David Bokovoy has claimed that “what this [dispute] is all really about is what style of apologetics the MI should pursue.” This is, to put it mildly, a gross oversimplification. David would be well advised to actually ask us what our objections are to the New Direction at the MI. I have hardly been reticent or vague about the matter. The fact that the new regime may object to what they feel are overly harsh apologetic articles barely registers as an issue.

After this Mr. Hamblin posts about a thousand links, but I sheepishly admit that I don't have the time to read them all. Therefore, will someone in the know please tell me what "[their] objections are to the New Direction at the MI," if not "what style of apologetics the MI should pursue?"

If I was to venture a guess, I'd say that it's about whether scholarship produced by the MI should be secular- or faith-based. Is that about right? But if "overly harsh apologetic articles barely registers as an issue," then why were the OMIDs kicked out in the first place?

[_Kishkumen]

If I was to venture a guess, I'd say that it's about whether scholarship produced by the MI should be secular- or faith-based. Is that about right? But if "overly harsh apologetic articles barely registers as an issue," then why were the OMIDs kicked out in the first place?

Heh.

What they are saying is this: "Anyone who complains about our "tone and style" is misunderstanding us or being terribly unfair. If this is the reason why we were booted, it was obviously a great injustice to have done this. Not to mention a huge mistake. The people who are behind this were perhaps misled by the cacophony of liberal and apostate voices whose agendas are deleterious to the LDS Church. Satan is behind this, but Satan will fail in the end."

"Overly harsh apologetic articles barely registers as an issue" in their minds because they don't concede that they were writing and publishing such articles.

You may recall the early hours after Peterson's infamous email to Bradford hit MDB, when over at MADB a couple of Mopologetic groupies were speculating that "apostasy in high places" was a potential cause for the ouster. Make no mistake, the apologists view themselves as locked in a battle with the forces of darkness. In their minds, their exodus from MI is part of that cosmic battle. The reason they are gone, in their minds, is Satan and the poor souls who were deceived, to one extent of another, by the dark one. If only people could be made to understand what is really at stake, then nothing would have changed at Maxwell.

It is an epic narrative in which they are small, beleaguered band heroes fighting the massive host of the enemy and wrestling with the apathy, gullibility, and even hostility of people who should be their allies and supporters.

[_Zadok]

It is an epic narrative in which they are small, beleaguered band heroes fighting the massive host of the enemy and wrestling with the apathy, gullibility, and even hostility of people who should be their allies and supporters.

And probably no small coincidence that Star Wars was a major impact on their youth and development. But which one of them is Luke Skywalker?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Help me out here doc,

Maybe I should start a new thread on this question ...but

In reading the threads lately on Mopology, and where the focus is...it is clear to me that there is no longer a audience for Mopolgy outside of Mormon Discussions, and between themselves. There is no longer a evangelical vs. Mormonism debate...chapel Mormons do not read their work...so where is the future of Mopology whether passive or aggressive, and who do they think they are talking to?

Is the divide necessary so Mopology has someone to talk to?

I hope this makes sense or maybe I am just smoking crack.

You make an interesting point, Markk. I think you're right, generally speaking, that the apologists are no longer interested in engaging Evangelicals or other religious folks. Over the course of the past 10 years, the apologists shifted their targets away from EVs and towards other LDS and secular critics--that's arguably the biggest shift that occurred within Mopologetics during the last decade. One pretty clear instance of this was The World Table, which was billed as this great, groundbreaking opportunity for people of different religious persuasions to get together and have lovely, civil, meaningful conversations. Well, we saw what happened: DCP and Pahoran brought their usual rancor and need for conflict and pretty soon the entire thing collapsed.

Your other question here, though, seems existential: Why are they writing? Who is their audience, apart from other Mopologists and Internet Mormons? What is it they want, exactly? They obviously and clearly don't care about saving people's testimonies. They made recent claims about writing for a "lay audience," but given the content and tone of a lot of the articles, that's bogus, too. (Grammar in the Book of Mormon?) Do they want to change the Church somehow? I think that the answer to that is partly "Yes," though I would say that, given their conservatism, they also want to ensure that some aspects of Mormonism--for better or for worse--remain firmly entrenched (like marginalization of gays).

Ultimately, I think the best answer is that their work is self-serving. They write because they have a deeply embedded anger (about a whole host of things), and they want to feel like "Holy Warriors" who are doing God's will in the form of tearing into people in print. For the most part, they couldn't care less about being "scholars" (though in fairness, some of them actually do care about this--e.g., Brant Gardner) apart from the credibility it gives them. They care about "kicking butt," and the certain high they get--the feeling of strength that comes about--from hurting other people. The core group is essentially a cadre of sadists and bullies. It's no accident that so many of their most devoted fans are middle-aged males who also feel frustrated and pissed off and want nothing more than to see critics and anti-Mormons get kicked in the teeth. So, I guess that answers the question as to their audience, but I don't think that the apologists themselves are necessarily writing *for* these people. Plus, the actual audience consists of a whole bunch of people--everyone from people like us here at MDB, to people in Church bureaucracy and leadership (i.e., at the COB) to people interesting in Mormon Studies--e.g., Signature Books types and so forth. *You* follow along with what the apologists do, so that right there tells you something about who the audience actually is.

[_Zadok]

Doctor, is it not the case that prior to the rise of Internet information it was predominately the Evangelicals who were providing the vicious anti-Mormon lies (Truth). Certainly the true-believing member did not easily have access to writings, journals, papers, and history of their own religion.

It would only make sense that Mopologists would counter these attacks on the faith. Now, the battle field has changed dramatically. Instead of a very few voices there are thousands of voices, references, documents, papers. All available at the press of a few buttons to every member.

This is why I believe the tone and battle have dramatically changed. The Internet is barely 20 years old in terms of public access.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Well, we saw what happened: DCP and Pahoran brought their usual rancor and need for conflict and pretty soon the entire thing collapsed.

I don't think that you can really blame the collapse of World Table on Pahoran and DCP's comments, or any individual's comments, for that matter. The collapse was due to the poor format and technology of the website itself. The threads were poorly organized and hard to follow. And the website itself was incredibly slow. I think that the bulk of folks attempting to participate there simply got tired of all of the technical glitches. I know that was a big factor in why I quit posting there.

[Guest]

Ultimately, I think the best answer is that their work is self-serving. They write because they have a deeply embedded anger (about a whole host of things), and they want to feel like "Holy Warriors" who are doing God's will in the form of tearing into people in print. For the most part, they couldn't care less about being "scholars" (though in fairness, some of them actually do care about this--e.g., Brant Gardner) apart from the credibility it gives them. They care about "kicking butt," and the certain high they get--the feeling of strength that comes about--from hurting other people. The core group is essentially a cadre of sadists and bullies. It's no accident that so many of their most devoted fans are middle-aged males who also feel frustrated and pissed off and want nothing more than to see critics and anti-Mormons get kicked in the teeth. So, I guess that answers the question as to their audience, but I don't think that the apologists themselves are necessarily writing *for* these people. Plus, the actual audience consists of a whole bunch of people--everyone from people like us here at MDB, to people in Church bureaucracy and leadership (i.e., at the COB) to people interesting in Mormon Studies--e.g., Signature Books types and so forth. *You* follow along with what the apologists do, so that right there tells you something about who the audience actually is.

I have often wistfully wondered how much neater the ouster of the classic FARMS crew from MI might have been, if, when Hamblin started attacking Bradford on "Enigmatic Mirror" or wherever, the powers that be at BYU, or, better yet, the LDS Church, had explained why it was that a new direction was taken. Ultimately, I think the answer is exactly what David Bokovoy opined: the Church wanted to abandon the polemical discourse such as one finds in a tiny, persecuted sect. Yet, what would the fallout have been for unequivocally laying that out for all to see?

As you recall, there were rumblings about "apostasy in high places" at MADB in the early hours after your publication of the Bradford letter here at MDB. This revealed the depth of commitment to be found in the followers of the Mopologists. It is a commitment that borders on cultish. I think it is legitimate to wonder whether there was fear of a small schism as a result of the ouster. Only by leaving things ambiguous and sparing the classic FARMS crew the humiliation of official repudiation could the authorities avoid encouraging a small wave of conservative apostasy, similar to the reaction one sees when politically conservative Mormons are up in arms over the LDS Church staking out a position at odds with the GOP on issues like immigration.

As crazy as this may sound, I have heard rumors of an apologetic cult of sorts that operated in the 2000s and was centered on the figure of Nibley. It is not inconceivable that others could have responded to the OMID ouster in a similar way. Mind you, Daniel Peterson would have had nothing to do with such a thing.