The Three Layer Apologetic Model

[_Mister Scratch]

I would imagine that you or somebody at the MI gives regular updates to the Brethren, though.

I don't.

Nor am I aware of anybody who does.

And I would be aware if it happened.

Does this therefore mean that, despite their very, very busy schedules, that many of the Brethren subscribe to and read the various FARMS publications which turn up in their talks? Or, does it mean that some grunt reads the stuff for them, and then writes the talks on their behalf? Further, what makes you think that you would "be aware" of communiques between FARMS and the Brethren? You seem kind of foggy on Hamblin's letter to M. Watson, after all. Is it really so far outside the realm of possibility to imagine that someone is keeping them up-to-date? Methinks not. After all, as the other thread demonstrates, we already have a couple fairly recent instances of doctrine being changed due to apologetics.

Something just isn't adding up. I find it very difficult to believe that there is no Church oversight for apologetics. That would suggest that the Brethren trust you guys so much that they have handed over the reins, and that they are just sitting back waiting for you to tell them what to do, and how to write their talks. Dallin Oaks allegedly told Steve Benson that the purpose of FARMS was to prevent the GAs from getting "outflanked" by critics. Would you say that accurately reflects the Brethren's views of LDS apologetics? If not, how, in your view, do they regard Mopologetics?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does this therefore mean that, despite their very, very busy schedules, that many of the Brethren subscribe to and read the various FARMS publications which turn up in their talks?

I'm unaware that "many" of them frequently cite FARMS.

But yes, many of them are academics or educated professionals, and they read things about Mormonism.

Further, what makes you think that you would "be aware" of communiques between FARMS and the Brethren?

I'm an official of the organization, and have been for many years. If there were official reports and communications, I would know.

I have one friend (from undergraduate days) among the General Authorities, a former BYU colleague, with whom I discuss apologetic matters informally for ten or fifteen minutes roughly once a year, when he wants to know what's happening. He's the only one who ever raises these issues with me.

My other interactions with the Brethren (e.g., the First Presidency and the Twelve) have overwhelmingly concerned the Middle East and Islam.

You seem kind of foggy on Hamblin's letter to M. Watson, after all.

What's "foggy" about saying that I never read or saw it?

And, incidentally, Bill Hamblin holds no office or role whatever with the Maxwell Institute.

Is it really so far outside the realm of possibility to imagine that someone is keeping them up-to-date? Methinks not.

Anything's possible. But there's no evidence for it and no reason to suppose it.

But if your fundamental method is summed up as "I would imagine," what the heck? Why not?

After all, as the other thread demonstrates, we already have a couple fairly recent instances of doctrine being changed due to apologetics.

Many of the Brethren are educated professionals and former academics. They read.

Something just isn't adding up.

It never has.

I find it very difficult to believe that there is no Church oversight for apologetics.

Whatever your particular psychological hang-ups, however, that's simply the way it is.

IThat would suggest that the Brethren trust you guys so much that they have handed over the reins, and that they are just sitting back waiting for you to tell them what to do, and how to write their talks.

An absolutely spectacular example of the false dichotomy.

Vintage Scratch.

Dallin Oaks allegedly told Steve Benson that the purpose of FARMS was to prevent the GAs from getting "outflanked" by critics. Would you say that accurately reflects the Brethren's views of LDS apologetics? If not, how, in your view, do they regard Mopologetics?

Some pay attention. Some don't. Some seem to like it. Some may not. There are apparently many different views.

[_Mister Scratch]

Does this therefore mean that, despite their very, very busy schedules, that many of the Brethren subscribe to and read the various FARMS publications which turn up in their talks?

I'm unaware that "many" of them frequently cite FARMS.

But yes, many of them are academics or educated professionals, and they read things about Mormonism.

One wonders where they find the time, especially given the fact that they cannot be bothered to answer member mail, or questions about doctrine.

I have one friend (from undergraduate days) among the General Authorities, a former BYU colleague, with whom I discuss apologetic matters informally for ten or fifteen minutes roughly once a year, when he wants to know what's happening. He's the only one who ever raises these issues with me.

Do you think that he then reports this stuff to the FP and the Twelve? Or that he's responsible for overseeing the "fundraiser"?

Is it really so far outside the realm of possibility to imagine that someone is keeping them up-to-date? Methinks not.

Anything's possible. But there's no evidence for it and no reason to suppose it.

Well, apologetics provides the most up-to-speed means for interpreting doctrine, as evidenced by the Watson letter and the change to the Book of Mormon intro. I would definitely think that the Brethren would want to receive updates.

After all, as the other thread demonstrates, we already have a couple fairly recent instances of doctrine being changed due to apologetics.

Many of the Brethren are educated professionals and former academics. They read.

Are you guessing? Or do you know for a fact that this is what they are doing?

Dallin Oaks allegedly told Steve Benson that the purpose of FARMS was to prevent the GAs from getting "outflanked" by critics. Would you say that accurately reflects the Brethren's views of LDS apologetics? If not, how, in your view, do they regard Mopologetics?

Some pay attention. Some don't. Some seem to like it. Some may not. There are apparently many different views.

Again, how do you know? What makes you think that "there are apparently many different views"? I've already supplied two pieces of evidence---the 2nd Watson Letter and the changing of the Book of Mormon intro---which demonstrate that they care or "like it" very much, so much, in fact, that they are willing to revise doctrine. Another bit of evidence is the case of Hugh Nibley, who was invited in to chat with the Brethren about his apologetics. Do you contend that this practice has ceased?

Do you have any evidence that supports your view, or are you just guessing?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you think that he then reports this stuff to the FP and the Twelve? Or that he's responsible for overseeing the "fundraiser"?

No. And no.

He's just an old friend. We've known each other since I was seventeen. He's a year older.

I would definitely think that the Brethren would want to receive updates.

Well, if you think this definitely enough, that's about all the proof you need in Scratchworld.

Are you guessing? Or do you know for a fact that this is what they are doing?

I know for a fact that some of them read FARMS materials, BYU Studies, etc.

Most probably don't, though.

Again, how do you know? What makes you think that "there are apparently many different views"?

Because I've heard some express different views.

Another bit of evidence is the case of Hugh Nibley, who was invited in to chat with the Brethren about his apologetics. Do you contend that this practice has ceased?

I've never heard about anybody doing it.

I myself have spoken with and to the various quorums on several occasions, but never about apologetics.

Do you have any evidence that supports your view, or are you just guessing?

My sense of the situation is based on roughly two decades of direct and central involvement in it. That's considerably better than "I would imagine."

[_Mister Scratch]

Are you guessing? Or do you know for a fact that this is what they are doing?

I know for a fact that some of them read FARMS materials, BYU Studies, etc.

Most probably don't, though.

Again, how do you know that they read the FARMS materials? Which particular GAs read them?

Again, how do you know? What makes you think that "there are apparently many different views"?

Because I've heard some express different views.

Such as what? Have they ever expressed these views publicly, or was this all done "behind the scenes"? Who were the GAs who expressed disapproval of FARMS?

Do you have any evidence that supports your view, or are you just guessing?

My sense of the situation is based on roughly two decades of direct and central involvement in it. That's considerably better than "I would imagine."

You like to ridicule my comments, saying, "Oh, yeah, in your imagination anything is possible!" What do you expect me to do, Prof. P? I try to be accurate and specific but it is kind of difficult when you don't present forthright commentary. Do you not realize how sketchy and reticent you are being about all of this? Why not just state the who, where, what, and why of the issue? Why not tell about specific instances where you discussed apologetics with a GA?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Fortunately, one of my network of informants (we'll call her Esmeralda) tells me that Louis Midgley may have been in the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel when RFK went down.

Nah, Lou couldn't have been there because he was busy heckling Grant Palmer at a book-signing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't feel any need to turn my daily journal over to you, Scratch, or to give you access to my DayPlanner.

I've been forthright with you, but I'm not going to waste my time giving you a detailed account of every conversation I've ever had, accompanied by lists of names. You don't need to know things at that level. There's nothing secretive about it; I just don't see that I'm obligated to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about the details of my life or anybody else's life to the extent that you seem to require.

There is help for obsessive/compulsive disorders. I'm serious. You may need it.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't feel any need to turn my daily journal over to you, Scratch, or to give you access to my DayPlanner.

I've been forthright with you,

Oh, really? Where? Where on this thread have you given a straightforward and clear-cut answer concerning the relationship between the GAs and FARMS?

but I'm not going to waste my time giving you a detailed account of every conversation I've ever had, accompanied by lists of names.

I'm not asking for a "detailed" account. A basic synopsis of what was discussed would be fine. Nor do I "need" a huge, perfectly detailed "list of names." I'd just like to get a sense of how the GAs view FARMS, and why you think they hold such opinions. You are being very cagey about all of this, and I'm afraid that I can't see any good reason why. Why not be open and up front about it? Are you hiding something?

You don't need to know things at that level.

Ah, right. Lol. That would spoil everything, wouldn't it?

There's nothing secretive about it;

Except for the fact that you won't discuss it. Tell me: What does a person have to do in order to get this "high level" sort of clearance? Honestly, what are you hiding, Prof. P.?

I just don't see that I'm obligated to satisfy your insatiable curiosity about the details of my life or anybody else's life to the extent that you seem to require.

I'm not asking about your "life." I'm asking about the relationship between the GAs and LDS apologetics. For some reason, you want to keep everyone in the dark about this topic. I wonder why?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Where on this thread have you given a straightforward and clear-cut answer concerning the relationship between the GAs and FARMS?

I've told you the truth about that subject many times, quite clearly. I just haven't given you the particular answer that you so desperately want.

But you've got your "I would imagine" method and your "I find it difficult to believe" response, and so you're set for a lifetime of bizarre fantasies and suspicions.

[_Mister Scratch]

Where on this thread have you given a straightforward and clear-cut answer concerning the relationship between the GAs and FARMS?

I've told you the truth about that subject many times, quite clearly.

Where? I'll be waiting patiently for you enlighten me. And, in the meantime, you've left me with little choice but to believe that you're hiding something.

I just haven't given you the particular answer that you so desperately want.

What answer do you think I "want"? That the Brethren are supposedly pulling all the strings and ordering you guys around? Well, that's not so. I don't think that's the case.

Perhaps if I describe what I think is going on it'll loosen your tongue a bit? See, my sense is that the Brethren view apologetics in much the same way that you apologists view it: they are alarmed about criticisms of the Church, and feel the need to provide a "counter punch." Thus, they offer both moral and financial support to the apologists. I think, thanks to your clarifications, that the Brethren have avoided making direct payments to the Maxwell Institute, and have opted to instead feed it money via LDS Philanthropies, and have asked that MI employees word at generating funds on their own. *Why* they (the Brethren) would want to do this is still unclear. If they view Mopologetics as important, wouldn't they want to make direct payments?

That brings me to a bit of confusion. You stated above that opinions among the GAs are divided concerning Mopologetics, but I've yet to see you clarify this point. *Who* is against apologetics? President Monson? I know that Elder Oaks supports it. Further, is this the reason why the financial arrangements are the way they are?

In terms of authority and supervision, I do believe that you guys largely run your own show. That said, I also believe that the Brethren have a say, or that there is a kind of "dependent" relationship between the two entities. They *have* to be giving the "nod of approval" at some point, especially given the controversial nature of what you guys are doing. It is quite frankly impossible to believe that they are just shrugging their shoulders, and letting you guys carry on with your attacks on Church critics and your overturning of long-standing Church teachings.... Or is it? I guess what's confusing is the distribution of power. Would you say that the Church is more dependent upon apologetics, or that apologetics is more dependent upon the Church? Which entity sits at the top of the power hierarchy?

At base, that is what I'm confused about, I suppose.

But you've got your "I would imagine" method and your "I find it difficult to believe" response, and so you're set for a lifetime of bizarre fantasies and suspicions.

Prof. P., I work with what I've got. If you don't want to tell me the straight-up truth, then all I can do is speculate.