The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2016

[_Doctor Scratch]

Some interesting and provocative thoughts, Reverend. I wonder how many of the problems facing the broader LDS Church and interconnected to the issues that have caused problems for the Mopologists. Given that Mopologetics is now dead, and that they--the Mopologists, and to a certain extent the Brethren and the rank-and-file membership--saw themselves as bulwarks against the assaults on the Church and its truth-claims... What does this tell us? That they've given up? Or that the nature of the "assaults"/challenges have themselves changed?

[_Kishkumen]

Some interesting and provocative thoughts, Reverend. I wonder how many of the problems facing the broader LDS Church and interconnected to the issues that have caused problems for the Mopologists. Given that Mopologetics is now dead, and that they--the Mopologists, and to a certain extent the Brethren and the rank-and-file membership--saw themselves as bulwarks against the assaults on the Church and its truth-claims... What does this tell us? That they've given up? Or that the nature of the "assaults"/challenges have themselves changed?

Well, you know better than I, Good Doctor, that, however much the LDS Church benefits from pushing the idea, the church and Mormonism are not the same thing. Mormonism is a set of texts, beliefs, and practices that are used by groups who follow in the tradition established by Joseph Smith. The LDS Church is a legal entity that is ultimately controlled by a small group of men who exercise great influence on the Corporation Sole of the President (or something like that). The Handbook of Instructions has superseded the scriptures as the law by which the members are governed, and this Handbook is produced by those authorities. Members who run afoul of the initiatives of the leadership of the corporate institution will find themselves on the wrong end of the handbook and will be expelled.

A certain ideology which combines Mormonism, crony capitalism, and other ideological elements predominates in the ranks of the Brethren. Ultimately, the Mopologists were champions of this ideology, not Mormonism per se. Because the ideology was the "inspiration of God's chosen servants." Therefore, whatever Brother Brigham did, whatever Joseph Smith said, whatever it says in the Book of Mormon mattered almost nothing if it did not accord with Brother McConkie, vel sim. The Mopologists existed to anchor the ideology of the Brethren in some plausible narrative culled from the materials of Mormonism. Whenever the materials of Mormonism failed to provide the right evidence, then one could always appeal to inspiration to pick up the slack.

This is not to lampoon the idea of inspiration. We can set that aside. What we are talking about here is Mopologetics. And Mopologists used the idea of the Brethren's inspiration as a tool to support whatever there was little or no evidence to support. Or a fake memo. Or a letter or a fax from some office. Somewhere the Brethren were in the background to be used to support their own ideology. No authorization was required for this move, however. Plausible deniability came in the form of Mopologists not being specifically authorized to say anything. What they were there to do was to go through whatever gyrations and rhetorical pyrotechnics were necessary to reconnect the unsettled member back to the LDS Church and its predominating ideology.

But Mopologetics failed. The fundamentalist theology/ideology is that naked emperor. Fewer people will send the Brethren their checks because the real Jesus walked in Guatemala. Now the narrative has to change. New reasons must be concocted. In the days of Brother Brigham a good brother wanted to be permitted to marry lots of gals so he could join Father Adam/Elohim in the ranks of the gods. In our day it used to be that you wanted Ancient American Jesus to save you from the Communist Scourge. He told you about secret combinations in the Book of Mormon, so you do the math. But what is there now? Fighting the gays? Fail. Fighting the feminists? Fail.

I don't know what will work on a mass scale. Mormonism no longer benefits from global American power as it once did. Mormonism is failing as a buttress for right-wing politics at home in the US. The answers of the new apologists demand too much from the people who traditionally supported right-wing politics in this country. They can understand fighting commies and gays. They are less well equipped to engage in mature spiritual self reflection. The new apologists ask them to do the latter.

[Guest]

I'm a few days late in responding (I don't recover from Krampusnacht revelry as quickly as I did when I was in my youth), but I must applaud the witty and erudite observations of the redoubtable and invaluable Dr. Scratch.

A few quick reactions:

Re Royal Skousen's presentation, it's curious that the FairMormon site still doesn't have a transcript posted.

In thinking about Grant Hardy and Spencer Fluhman and the death of classic Mopologetics and the future of the Maxwell Institute, these three recent links came to mind:

Here: http://mi.byu.edu/affiliated-scholars-2017/
Here: http://mi.byu.edu/mi-film-and-excerpts/
And especially here: http://mi.byu.edu/intro-msr-v4/.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm a few days late in responding (I don't recover from Krampusnacht revelry as quickly as I did when I was in my youth), but I must applaud the witty and erudite observations of the redoubtable and invaluable Dr. Scratch.

A few quick reactions:

Re Royal Skousen's presentation, it's curious that FairMormon site still doesn't have a transcript posted.

In thinking about Grant Hardy and Spencer Fluhman and the death of classic Mopologetics and the future of the Maxwell Institute, these three recent links came to mind:

Here: http://mi.byu.edu/affiliated-scholars-2017/
Here: http://mi.byu.edu/mi-film-and-excerpts/
And especially here: http://mi.byu.edu/intro-msr-v4/.

Thanks for sharing these links, Tom. And wow--not a single of the classic-FARMS crew is left. They have apparently been completely "scrubbed" from the annals of the New Maxwell Institute. Fluhman now freely says that the audience for the New MI is scholarly, which, of course, implies that the last "regime" *wasn't* exactly scholarly. I certainly know that that was the feeling of some of the stalwart LDS detractors of classic-FARMS.

Midgley, Hamblin, Peterson, Gee, Schryver and others all insisted that the "real story" would eventually be told. Will that ever happen? It may be that they have waited too long, and now the next chapter is being written at the same time that their embarrassing antics are being cremated in the ovens of history.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Fighting the feminists? Fail.

I hope you saw the links that Tom posted, Reverend. It seems that the latest issue of the Review features "coverage of more than twenty important books on Mormon women and feminism." Can you imagine the aghast faces of Midgley, Peterson, Hamblin, et al.? They are taking the axe to the Ruth Stephens Prize at the same time that their old, flagship publication is covering twenty books on feminism and Mormon women!

[_Lemmie]

Fluhman now freely says that the audience for the New MI is scholarly, which, of course, implies that the last "regime" *wasn't* exactly scholarly.

I also found it interesting that in that description of scholarly pursuits, Fluhman, noted the correlation with Hardy's comment about what scholarly academicians are interested in. From Tom's third link:

All this helps explain why the Mormon Studies Review’s tilt towards the broader scholarly community is not the sign of an insidious secularism spreading at BYU. For us, it’s primarily a question of audience, voice, and scholarly niche. Our work in the Review thus relates to a recent insight offered by LDS scholar Grant Hardy:

“It used to be that the only people who cared about Mormonism were Mormons themselves and anti-Mormons. This is no longer the case. Thanks to pluralism and postmodernism, there is more room in academia for the perspectives of believing scholars. Academics have little interest in debates about whether Mormonism is true or false, but they are increasingly interested in Mormonism as religious and social movement.”1

Emphasis added by me.

Wow. Talk about a sea change.

[_Bond James Bond]

When can we expect the annotated coffee table version of this timeless series that has aged like a fine wine Professor?

[_grindael]

Midgley, Hamblin, Peterson, Gee, Schryver and others all insisted that the "real story" would eventually be told. Will that ever happen? It may be that they have waited too long, and now the next chapter is being written at the same time that their embarrassing antics are being cremated in the ovens of history.

Dr., unless I'm missing something that was the "real story", (in bold) and it has been told in all the events that played out over the last few years.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Dr. Scratch never disappoints.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Midgley, Hamblin, Peterson, Gee, Schryver and others all insisted that the "real story" would eventually be told. Will that ever happen? It may be that they have waited too long, and now the next chapter is being written at the same time that their embarrassing antics are being cremated in the ovens of history.

Dr., unless I'm missing something that was the "real story", (in bold) and it has been told in all the events that played out over the last few years.

Heh, I see what you mean. What I'm referring to, though, is the conspiratorial, insinuation-heavy posts from some of them (well, mainly just Midgley and DCP) that there is actually some untold story that would ultimately exonerate all of them and would show the whole world that Bradford and his "co-conspirators" were actually closet apostates who wanted to undermine the Church's truth claims. At this point, I don't expect that story to ever be told.