The Six Million Dollar Man

[_Ray A]

Ray A most certainly has helped me clarify some of the finer points of apologetic payments in my mind. He makes comments like, "I think they should pay the apologists more." And I think, "I have no problem with that," but I believe a refinement of Ray's position is needed. Yes, the church should be putting more money into apologetics, but not necessarily the current apologists. As Dr. Peterson himself has reminded us, we shouldn't just pay every prostitute more money for the heck of it, we should pay our prostitutes more money only if they really are very good at performing their services. It also struck me the other day, just because the church doesn't put the funds I'd expect, tens of millions, into apologetics, doesn't mean it wouldn't do so or doesn't wish to. But rather, it simply doesn't see the future returns. And a large part of that I think is because they can't control the market, and they are smart enough to know it. People withhold their money from the stock market or real estate when they just don't trust it. Until, of course, a really good buy turns up. And then what do they do?

I hadn't quite thought of it this way, but it is insightful. The fact is that current apologetics is largely failing. Why? Because it attracts defenders who really don't think the foundation is very firm in some important aspects, but, essentially, "buy time" (as Nibley did with the Book of Abraham). Shelves and shelves are filled with unanswered questions. Internal evidences for the Book of Mormon seem impressive, intermingled with characters that seem totally fictional. The complexity and production-speed of the Book of Mormon is also impressive, to me (even given ten years for "mental formulation"), but "internal evidences" must be weighed in regard to the believability of the rest of the story. Apologists focus on the internal evidences, such as Jack Welch's discovery of chiasmus, Egyptian names not known in the West in 1830, the parable of the Olive Tree, et. al. What they don't examine in detail, are verses like Helaman 12:15:

15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

This isn't good science, nor good religion. It is "spin". Chris Smith has discussed the problems adequately, I think.

And this underlies the main problem - the overall [un]believability of the Book of Mormon as a historical text, notwithstanding "internal evidences". It must be weighed in toto, and if too much doesn't "add up", alternative explanations must be explored. This isn't what apologists are doing, this isn't what's happening. They are side-stepping the difficult questions, and promoting the "impressive evidences", and I don't deny they exist. But if you saw good physics in The Cat in the Hat, or The Urrantia Book, that makes neither "historical". This is where the un-skeptical mind fails, by believing that "spiritual experiences" must have a "historical basis". The Book of Mormon may lead me to God, in a spiritual sense, but this says nothing about literal Nephites. That's where, in my opinion, the confusion begins - associating spiritual experiences with "historical reality", and for many, when the "historical reality" disappears, there goes ALL of their spiritual experiences! It now becomes "total fraud". No, I don't deny my spiritual experiences, and though I'm open to the possibility they may be brain-induced, I don't have any definite conclusions about this. But for me, my spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon were real, even if the history isn't.

As long as apologetics relies on literalism - it will fail. The mockery to apologetics comes from those who believe it has miserably failed. Honest admissions from apologists that "we don't know" could, might appease some of this anger. But it is the defence of the indefensible that riles members/ex-members. The "liberal" is one who has a spiritual conviction, but it may not be literal. Perhaps Mauss falls into this category? So if Mauss promotes Mormonism (as an example, and a hypothetical), he's promoting it based on his "spiritual understanding", not the literalism promoted by FARMS, the "either/or" dichotomy. That he may be "falling" into the hands of wealthy "TBMs" who want to promote Mormonism, contrary to his, and others, idea of what Mormonism is, could be a can of worms - if this happens. What do these wealthy Mormons believe? Probably the iron-cast version of literalism. Apart from golfing and earning money, they don't give a fig about the "search for truth". They are "invested" in continuing their lavish lifestyle, and will pay to sustain it! This is where the honest scholar has to beware. What, really, is he supporting? Apolegetics, or the search for truth? They aren't the same.

The anger and resentment against apologists can be awful. But apologists need to evaluate why this is so. Why DCP is so hated. Why Bill Hamblin is so hated. I can sum it up in a few words - perhaps future apologists could submit something like this:

We sorrowfully submit that we don't know all answers, and we could be engaged in a fraud, but we have reasons believe otherwise. We are not saying we are right, and you are wrong, but we invite you to examine the issues with us.

Don't hold your breath.

At the moment, the spiritual witness Trump's all, no matter how unbelievable the Book of Mormon might be as history. And I'm NOT saying the spiritual witness is a bad thing, but if it relies on literalism, it can destroy anyone. If Babel wasn't true - then God doesn't exist. This is literalism, a false conclusion about the possible existence of God, but based on - apologetics.

Though strongly attracted to DCP's spirituality, and his passionate defence of Mormonism, and I do think he one of the "great ones" ( a giant of an intellect), I simply cannot buy into literalism, and I confess to some bemusement that he would consider it all a "fraud" if it isn't all literal and historical.

I have more comments to come.

[_Ray A]

I'll give another clue into the real problem with apologetics, a statement Gad linked to in his OP:

Such research ran into head winds in the 1980s as the church restricted access to documents. Boyd Packer, one of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that helps rule the church, declared in a 1981 speech that writing and teaching about church history "may be a faith destroyer."

A "faith-destroyer"? What does this indicate? It indicates that some things in "Mormon history" could entirely shatter faith, IF told. How fragile, then, is this faith? When exmos become exmos, it's because they read what was on the "forbidden list". The things Packer thought of as "meat", not to be consumed by those who bear fervent testimony, and expect Nephite visits at any time. Packer fully realised who the "faith-destroyers" were, and his sublime spiritual visions over-ruled revealing these problems, in "defence of the truth".

The liberal, on the other hand, is probably not much better. And I confess to being a party to this, but in the interest of, only, a better society. (Yes, I'm passionate about justice and truth, and all those corny things) In other words, I don't care if you believe in Moonmen, or three Nephites, but if your religion inspires you to better behaviour in real life - I'll support it, to some extent; the "Ben Franklin principle"). My interests here are societal. If believing in leprechauns makes you better, I'll tolerate you. And this is my "ulterior motive". But I'm questioning it, because the promotion of "literal belief" seems to have more adverse effects, in the long run. It encourages apostasy, not only from Mormonism, but from the very idea of God.

I am, at this stage, not sure what to make of "liberals". The cackling and hoo-haa and reinterpreting of that which "threatens faith", seems to me to be a false dichotomy. So if I no longer believe, I'm a moral reprobate? God has disowned me? No wonder atheism is popular. I'm even questioning "liberals" like John Dehlin. If their "end means" is some kind of faith in the impossible, then their reinterpretations of Mormonism smack of a more suave brand of fraud promoted as "truth". They, in the end, might be more devious. The "born-again" liberal is only selling the same snake-oil, dressed up in the coat-tails of academia.

[_Ray A]

Armand Mauss had nothing to worry about. To guard against corruption, special controls were put into place. First, all the money to support the position comes from wealthy Utah businessmen with their "we'll take it back" tactic a matter of record, next, oversight from BYU professors, and finally, two of Howard W. Hunter's children involved with the administration. How could anything go wrong for academic integrity!

Given all of the above, then, is it any surprise then that Richard Bushman would be named the lucky candidate? Is anyone shocked? Is it any surprise that his wife will also be teaching at Claremont now? The church has effectively just unleashed apologetics onto the world from the towers of academic credibility. The cost: Six Million. Six million the wealthy LDS were glad to pay, or greatly intimidated into paying, at least.

Bushman is one of the leaders in "progressive thought". His appeal is directed to those spiritually touched by Mormonism, but who think, in reality, that it really only hits a vital "spiritual nerve". Enough to maintain some semblance of belief in reinterpreted literalism. I don't think the liberals are any better, or some liberals, are any better than literalists. Perhaps the only thing that can be salvaged from this is some kind of nebulous faith in God, who has nothing to do with Mormonism. Those who jump into "born-again" Christianity, and argue on the basis of that fiction, are hardly even worth reading. It's kind of like trying to decide whether Mickey Mouse ran up the clock, or the clock ran up Mickey Mouse.

[_ludwigm]

I'll give another clue into the real problem with apologetics, a statement Gad linked to in his OP:

Such research ran into head winds in the 1980s as the church restricted access to documents. Boyd Packer, one of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that helps rule the church, declared in a 1981 speech that writing and teaching about church history "may be a faith destroyer."

A "faith-destroyer"? What does this indicate? It indicates that some things in "Mormon history" could entirely shatter faith, IF told. How fragile, then, is this faith? ...

1. Watching any "rated" movie can be faith-destroyer?

2. I don't know if this church has a similar list as "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" for roman catholics. It should be ...

As an "RC" by birth (read: I was baptized when I was one week old) I was confronted with the "index". As a "readaholic" (is there such word?) aunt Elsie, my bible-class teacher has talked about it. I have asked her to obtain one. She has brought it, the poor thing.
From next day on, I started to search and read a lot of them. Victor Hugo, Zola, Dumas father and son, Balzac, Swift, to mention the most familiar names of writers only, not of philosophers. As a 12 year old, I didn't understand a lot. (I did understand the what but not the why.)
And I have ceased to be religious.

Yes, faith can be fragile. A little thinking here, a little thinking there, and voila, a new ex and/or atheist.

[_Sethbag]

Gad, thanks for the comments, and I apologize for waxing far too verbose in my previous post, but I have to ask a followup question.

In what sense do you think that the Chair for Mormon Studies is being set up to advance a political aim? I wouldn't consider it political, and I certainly wouldn't expect Dr. Bushman to do much for the church politically. I think perhaps we may be understanding the terms of the discussion differently. I would argue that the church, and the wealthy LDS donors who supported it, are looking to buy scholarly and academic legitimacy, ie: for the church to be seen as a topic worthy of not just scholarly study, but in fact of having a chair in a department for the specific study of the church.

But I still can't see it in Machiavelian terms. I mean, ok, so the Mormon church gets a little credibility in scholarly circles that they might not have enjoyed previously. This is not going to be Earth-shattering. 99.999% of Americans (and fewer of anyone else in the world) will still never hear of Bushman, nor give a crap what he has to say. This isn't like some position from which the LDS church is going to launch a worldwide domination scheme. In fact, I personally don't think it's really going to make much difference, in the long run, to much of anything or anyone.

[_antishock8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network

That's why it's hard to nail down a strict funding hierarchy when it comes to financing apologetics. Until the Mormon church legitimizes it, you'll continue to have the smoke and mirrors we've been shown reference this issue. Deniability, for whatever reason, is extremely important to these people, providing a nice cover, "Sure I'm connected to this group or individual, but in 'x' capacity rather than 'y' capacity. You're an idiot." This isn't really that different from shell corporations set up as tax havens, or anything our government wants to do when operating clandestinely. You can't avoid being connected to whatever it is you're attempting disassociation, but the key is creating a perception that allows for plausible deniability when you're busted. You may not fool everyone, but that's not necessary. You just need to fool the people you're attempting to fool.

[_Trevor]

Here is precisely the thing I am talking about. This is just the most recent example of self-gratification gone wild. Within a short period of time, Gadianton will be joined in his Pompeiian revels by an ochlocratic spasm of mutually-reinforcing applause. One and all will nod in assent and pronounce the fiction real, and henceforth adopt the various talking points in all future conversations.

It is simultaneously comic, tragic, and sobering – a call to be both vigilant and wary of the tides that move this somewhat predictable and yet explosively volatile mob.

What a load of horse manure.

[_Trevor]

If that's really how you feel, Will, then why are you here? If the self-congratulatory crowd here displeases you, the self-congratulatory MAD mob will, no doubt, welcome you with open arms.

Will is here to up his street cred by his presence alone. What kind of buffoon he makes of himself in the meantime means very little to him. Still, I do enjoy it when a gasbag with a growing vocabulary starts verbally masturbating. These are words you don't get to see frequently enough.

[_Trevor]

And, it is quite telling that Dr. Peterson just dismisses the entire post without supplying even a semblance of a concrete critique.

It was a weak response. He was "phoning it in," so to speak.

[_Sethbag]

Hey, I'm not afraid to admit that I had to look up "ochlocratic". The church still isn't true, even though Will knew that word before I did. ;-)