Congratulations to Cassius Scholars: Mopologetics Rebuked

[_Fence Sitter]

Once again the Dean caps off a discussion with his incisive commentary! We are honored, Dean Robbers. You are correct. Mopologetics was about doing combat, and the good scholars on this podcast acknowledged that the targets could be outsiders or members of the Church. There were a number of other rather pointed criticisms of “classic-FARMS” we should incorporate into our syllabi, but I need to go back through the podcast to pick these gems out.

I've told this story before. I had Dr Midgley as a professor at BYU for several classes in the late 70s to early 80s, and quite enjoyed his lectures, mostly because he liked to go off on tangents related to what was going on in apologetics then. I even remember attending a small get together of BYU professors one night at a residence where strategy and tactics were discussed. ( That is the extent of what I remember there, I wish I had taken notes.)

One of my most vivid memories of Dr Midgley is during a tangent in class about apologetic s, him using this line to describe apologetics "this is a war". And based on the smile on his face, a war he very much enjoyed.

[_Tom]

Doctor Scratch is not only a terrifying scholar . . . .

Speaking of which, I shall never forget my first day in Dr. Scratch's advanced seminar in Mopologetics. On that beautiful fall day many years ago, I endured an hour of withering Socratic dialogue with the professor regarding the day's assigned texts: Dr. Peterson's essays, "Text and Context" and "Of Polemics." The end of this classic movie scene mirrors what I did at the end of that first class. As they say, the rest is history. I hope that Dr. Scratch will soon be honored with a Festschrift.

I enjoyed the podcast, though I must confess that it's a bit disappointing that nobody who has ever had any actual involvement with Cassius University was invited to participate.

[_Stem]

Why is it so important? The careful listener will not only be treated to a handy overview of the history of Mormon apologetics, but she or he will also be able to discern differences between what we call "Mopologetics" and regular old apologetics. It was gratifying to hear other bonafide academics at peer institutions confirm what we at Cassius University have long known: that Mopologetics was acerbic, to put it mildly; its practitioners engaged in ad hominem arguments; and there is strong evidence that their work was used by the Strengthening Church Members Committee.

It's good to acknowledge the acerbic and ad hominem. It's probably wise to not be overly dramatic or smug about this, as Mason suggests. The overly dramatic and smugness is precisely the problems with the old school starting with Nibley.

I think the comment by Birch about the evidence of being an arm of the SCMC was interesting. I wonder if Peterson will respond as he tends to do. They said a lot about him--invoked his name quite a bit. It would have been really interesting to have him sitting in as part of it, since they all mentioned the value of letting people speak for themselves (I don't say that in defense of him, necessarily). Just curious about his coming clarification about what happened in 2012 (the thousandth time) and what he sees as problematic with this approach.

I also really enjoyed the comment by Mason that there is a strain of people still out there wanting to point out what they perceive as the failure of Mason's approach. But his comments on that were very interesting, said in a way that I really appreciate. But John said it, the approach that Mason holds is something quite foreign to General Conference Mormonism. The Church is a tough place to find room in.

[Guest]

Can you tell us who the key participants were in the podcast and whether fisticuffs could be heard going on in the background. and to whom did much of the blame or praise go to, and who is now considered to hold the TBM apolgetics chair in the community?


kairos

Greetings, kairos,

The participants were:

John Dehlin, PhD
Dan Wotherspoon, PhD
Brian D. Birch, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Ethics at Utah Valley University
Patrick Mason, PhD, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at the Claremont Graduate University

There were no fisticuffs, although I think it is fair to say that John's penchant for hyperbole was greeted with some amusement and pushback from the other participants.

[_Kishkumen]

I've told this story before. I had Dr Midgley as a professor at BYU for several classes in the late 70s to early 80s, and quite enjoyed his lectures, mostly because he liked to go off on tangents related to what was going on in apologetics then. I even remember attending a small get together of BYU professors one night at a residence where strategy and tactics were discussed. ( That is the extent of what I remember there, I wish I had taken notes.)

One of my most vivid memories of Dr Midgley is during a tangent in class about apologetic s, him using this line to describe apologetics "this is a war". And based on the smile on his face, a war he very much enjoyed.

We need to have you drop by for a guest lecture in our Mopologetics program, Fence Sitter. This sounds very enlightening. So, you began the process of initiation into the cabal of BYU apologists who were meeting in private to discuss Mopologetic strategy and tactics. In other words, you can provide excellent, eyewitness testimony for the history of the field. Fascinating!

[_Lemmie]

Is there a waiting list for the waiting list?!?

I dare say the Good Doctor will have a free seat for a faculty auditor. Our Honor Code Council is lucky to have you at the helm.

I would be deeply honored and most grateful, although I must humbly acknowledge that my shooting-fish-in-a-barrel assignment on the Council has been minor at best.

[_Kishkumen]

I enjoyed the podcast, though I must confess that it's a bit disappointing that nobody who has ever had any actual involvement with Cassius University was invited to participate.

Yes, such is life. The role that Cassius faculty played in the major events of Mopologetics was mostly behind the scenes. It is not the kind of thing that will be expatiated on in the mainstream histories of that period. We may yet see some names pop up in footnotes in the future, but, honestly, our connection has always been more intellectual in nature, and we stand outside of the internal dialogue that dominates. One is either a neo-apologist or a Mopologist in this conversation. That is how the narrative has taken shape. Ex-LDS people, with the exception of John Dehlin, who occupies a unique position, have been very much sidelined in the conversation. It is a pity, but I think it is to be expected.

[_Kishkumen]

I would be deeply honored and most grateful, although I must humbly acknowledge that my shooting-fish-in-a-barrel assignment on the Council has been minor at best.

Well, your contributions hold a special place in our hearts, regardless of your expressions of humility.

[_Kishkumen]

It's good to acknowledge the acerbic and ad hominem. It's probably wise to not be overly dramatic or smug about this, as Mason suggests. The overly dramatic and smugness is precisely the problems with the old school starting with Nibley.

I think it is important for Mason not to be overly dramatic and smug because of the position he occupies as one who must navigate the relationship between a career as a Mormon Studies scholar and an active membership in the Mormon Church, which has leaders who threw their support behind Mopologetics.

I don't think it is at all important that the faculty of Cassius avoid smugness and drama, as that would spoil the entire spirit of our response to Mopologetics.

I think the comment by Birch about the evidence of being an arm of the SCMC was interesting. I wonder if Peterson will respond as he tends to do. They said a lot about him--invoked his name quite a bit. It would have been really interesting to have him sitting in as part of it, since they all mentioned the value of letting people speak for themselves (I don't say that in defense of him, necessarily). Just curious about his coming clarification about what happened in 2012 (the thousandth time) and what he sees as problematic with this approach.

It is of academic interest, clearly, but I am not sure we can glean all that much from the predictable denials that issue forth from Sic et Non and other Petersonian venues. Mistakes were not made and certainly not by him--this is what one can usually expect. Any deviation from that message would be a big surprise, not to mention noteworthy.

I also really enjoyed the comment by Mason that there is a strain of people still out there wanting to point out what they perceive as the failure of Mason's approach. But his comments on that were very interesting, said in a way that I really appreciate. But John said it, the approach that Mason holds is something quite foreign to General Conference Mormonism. The Church is a tough place to find room in.

Hey, in the minds of some people, the LDS Church can do no right. And that is really the product of the expectations the Church itself has lived and breathed on for generations. As they say in the podcast, at the center of Mormonism stand bold claims, and Neo-Apologetics definitely tame that boldness. If you lead with a very literalistic claim and then respond to the faith crisis by saying, "don't be so literal," such a message will not be embraced enthusiastically by many.

A lot more thought, writing, and discussion need to take place before a viable path forward emerges. Neo-Apologetics is still in its infancy. Hopefully they will find a way to address the problems created by decades of inadequate discussion and anti-intellectualism.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Is there a waiting list for the waiting list?!?

LOL!