In case you needed additional proof as to the death of Mopologetics, today, Grant Hardy has provided it--and how! This may rank among the grandest watershed moments in the history of Mopologetics that I have ever witnessed. As readers of churchistrue's posts know, it was anticipated that Grant Hardy would say something having to do with accepting that the Book of Mormon might not be fully, historically true. churchistrue noted that s/he does not believe that Hardy himself endorses this view, but many of us wondered if the talk would effectively shift the discussion away from the old-fashioned, classic-FARMS insistence that the Book of Mormon either must be fully historically true, or else the entire Church is a sham.
And in fact, according to the eye-witness reports of one prominent Mopologist, this is exactly what Hardy has done.
[Hardy] welcomed the rise of increasing academic discussions of Mormonism. Now, scholars are interested in the Mormon experience. Interest isn’t limited merely to anti-Mormons fighting Mormons. ““Sometimes,” he said, “secularism is our friend. It opens things up.”
Is this a direct rebuttal to "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism"? Perhaps. It's undeniable that--based on this account--the content and tone are diametrically opposed to that old FAIR talk. The report continues:
He distinguished polemics from apologetics. Things aren’t usually black and white. They’re nuanced. We should assume good faith in many questioners and even in a number of critics. We should avoid “unhealthy partisanship.” We should “own up to problems.” We should reject rigid notions of scriptural inerrancy and prophetic infallibility.
I liked his remarks very much. I agree, and I myself have said, that we should emphasize “positive apologetics” at least as much as “negative apologetics.” (I’ve used the very terms.)
True, though it doesn't seem here that Hardy said anything favorable about "negative apologetics," which of course was the main thing that distinguished Mopologetics from apologetics. It's reason why Midgley, Gee, and Hamblin are/were Mopologists, whereas Bushman, Givens, and Hardy are not.
The report wrapped up with a couple of remarkable things:
He said almost nothing — and nothing of much importance — with which I disagreed.
And:
(emphasis added)Some critics, I happen to know, were eagerly anticipating his speech as a move toward viewing the Book of Mormon as “historical fiction.” They will be severely disappointed. “I believe,” he said, “that the Book of Mormon is a gift from God, and that the testimonies of ancient Nephite prophets are essential for our day.” While saying that a person could have saving faith in an inspired but ahistorical Book of Mormon, he declared his own conviction that, at the judgment bar, he will meet Nephi and Moroni.
For those who've followed Mopologetics over the years, this is absolutely stunning. Here is Grant Hardy, on the Mopologists' own turf, at their most important gathering of the year, telling all of them that it's OK if Latter-day Saints don't accept the Book of Mormon as true history. Not only that, but he's got one of the most important figures in Mopologetics saying, "He said...nothing of much importance -- with which I disagreed."
I doubt I can emphasize the significance of this quite enough. In the past, commentary like this would have been met with sharp responses--possibly even an entire issue of the FARMS Review, telling us about how Hardy is a hack or a closet apostate. Now, though, the Mopologists are actually agreeing with him. I don't expect to see veiled threats and innuendos from Gee on his blog, nor an eruption of rage from Hamblin on "Enigmatic Mirror."
All those liberal LDS and Mormon Studies folks who have for so long felt marginalized and attacked by the classic-FARMS crowd can now, I guess, feel welcomed with open arms. Not only is it okay to openly doubt the historicity of the BoM--it can be a "saving grace."
It has been an exceptionally slow year in Mopologetics, but I have to admit that this single development was worth the wait. Utterly incredible.