The Six Million Dollar Man

[_Trevor]

Let me begin with huge kudos to Sethbag and Ray A. Your posts here are well thought out and well worth long consideration. I am truly, truly impressed. I sympathize greatly and resonate quite a bit with everything Ray A said. My only difference with Sethbag is that I do not see DCP and Hamblin being nearly as harmless as he does. I have been convicted for some time that what Ray A says about the defense of the literalist view is true, and that the too often childish behavior of certain apologists is in fact damaging to the LDS Church and its membership.

I'll add only a couple of thoughts. First, of course the LDS Church seeks greater acceptance and tolerance in mainstream American and world society. The Maxwell Institute in fact has its own initiatives that are aimed at such acceptance, aside from their role in apologetics. The work that they are doing on ancient and medieval documents needs to be done, and they should be commended for doing it. If anyone had any thought related to the ineffectiveness of LDS apologetics when they thought of these chairs in Mormon Studies, I doubt it was the main motivator for their creation. If it was one motivation, however, I can only be grateful that more people are aware of the problem.

I am completely unmoved by the idea that chairs in Mormon Studies are one way of cultivating greater acceptance for Mormonism. Please take account of the many chairs of Islamic Studies, Jewish Studies, etc. These positions perform a similar function, although it is hardly their only function. There is also something of a celebration of the faith to the whole thing, but there is no surprise here either. I do think that not a few wealthy LDS donors will have strong feelings about the kind of person that fills such positions. Is it possible that some positions will be filled by Peter Priesthood who wants to sell Mormonism through the academy? Yes. I have seen it in other professors of other religious traditions, and so it is certainly possible. Will all such positions be filled by such a scholar? No.

Do I find it troubling that Bushman is the inaugural professor at Claremont? Most certainly not. I do not share Richard Bushman's faith or his agenda, but I highly respect him. I do not think his biography of Joseph Smith was the best, but it was an extremely important contribution and a milestone. Is it apologetic in any sense? Yes. But it also challenges LDS assumptions about Joseph Smith. Inasmuch as it does so, it is not apologetic. Bushman seems to have aimed at drawing disparate camps on Mormon issues closer together, while remaining faithful and respectful. The results are an amazing achievement, but the goal of the enterprise, I think, neutered the work appreciably.

More importantly, it should be noted that Richard Bushman was open and enthusiastic to diverse discussion within the ill-fated Book of Mormon Roundtable last year. To provide much-needed background information on the Roundtable, it brought serious, big-name, non-LDS scholars in to discuss the Book of Mormon. Elaine Pagels was one of them. I say ill-fated, because apologists and literalists either started pulling out or threatened to pull out if the discussion was not kept within bounds to their liking. Don Bradley spoke passionately about the importance of bringing as diverse, while serious, views as possible together to the table, and Bushman wholeheartedly agreed with him. This would not come from a man who was afraid of hard questions or bent on keeping them buried under a mountain of obscurantist and nitpicking rhetoric like we see in present-day LDS apologetics (and from apologists on this board almost daily). For this reason I am pleased that Bushman is starting it all off at Claremont.

I think Mormon Studies is entering a new phase, but I don't think it will live up to the vision that people like juliann cluck and strut over. In the new phase hard questions will be ground out in serious, truly peer-reviewed journals in articles written by well-trained non-believers and believers alike. It will be harder to accuse the non-believers of being anti-Mormon, or of hating Mormonism. More often than not they will simply be doing what academics do--hashing out their arguments as well or poorly as they are able with a diversity of methods and as much evidence as they can muster. When this day arrives, medievalists and lawyers will start sticking to what they do best, and trained American Religion scholars, LDS and non-LDS, will be leading a much more productive discussion.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Who would he be? Who would the brethren choose as the greatest Mormon apologist hero of all time? It's key "damage control" consultant? It's academic "front man"? Its star center for the apologists who spin doctrines like the Harlem Globe Trotters spin balls? Who would be destined to be greater than Nibley, McConkie, Pratt, and most of the FARMS crowd rolled together? Who would he be?

....

Excellent post, Gad. Very informative.

[_Trevor]

Gad, it was a thought-provoking post. I don't agree with many of your conclusions, but you provided things to consider seriously at any rate.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I appreciated Sethbag's very reasonable comments on the preceding page. I wish that they were more widely shared here.

There are, plainly, anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons who regard me as an enemy. Though I may be wrong, I don't believe that any of them actually know me. On the other hand, I have a number of anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon friends. I don't agree with their attacks on Mormonism, but my disagreement with them no more makes them my enemies than my friend Muhammad's invocation of the Qur’an or my friend Father Anawati's invocation of St. Thomas Aquinas (after whom my youngest son is named) in a discussion of the existence of God makes him my enemy.

If a reasonable anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon not consumed by hatred and personal hostility found himself in Utah at some point in the future (as several have done in the past), I'd have no problem (as I've had no problem in the past) eating a taco salad with him in the Cougareat or taking him to lunch at Ottavio's or treating him to a dinner at the Market Street Grill. Do I think he's on the wrong side of the argument regarding the LDS Church's status as "true church"? Absolutely. Do I think he applies his often considerable energy towards attacks on things that I regard as good and true? Yes. But he's not a bad guy, I'm sure.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

It gave as much attention to Gadianton's conspiracy theory as I'm inclined to give, and took it as seriously as I'm capable of taking it.

[_Mercury]

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

I could devote 24/7 to rebutting the baseless conspiracy fantasies that flourish like toadstools in Scratchworld, and it wouldn't have the slightest impact on either you or Scratchworld's 3.3 other residents.

(I'm including poor antishock8 in the total; hence the .3).

Oh come on Danny. Your private funding should cover such an effort. I wonder what will happen when it is discovered you spent the funding on donuts and a jacuzzi full of the blood of virgins. :)

[_Mercury]

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

It gave as much attention to Gadianton's conspiracy theory as I'm inclined to give, and took it as seriously as I'm capable of taking it.

I do not see conspiracy theory. I see conclusions that have been spelled out and substantiated. What I do not see from you is a clear debunking of this thorough piece.

Whats funny about your conspiracy statement is that this is the pot calling the kettle black.

[_Trevor]

It gave as much attention to Gadianton's conspiracy theory as I'm inclined to give, and took it as seriously as I'm capable of taking it.

Why give it any attention, if all you can give is a blanket denial?

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . my friend Father Anawati's invocation of St. Thomas Aquinas (after whom my youngest son is named) . . .

Your youngest son is named Aquinas?

[_Sethbag]

. . . my friend Father Anawati's invocation of St. Thomas Aquinas (after whom my youngest son is named) . . .

Your youngest son is named Aquinas?

ROFL. Good one.

by the way: this is off topic, but I'm in a hurry to get out the door. I'm going to be off the intertubes for a few days, making screeching cat noises on an island in the middle of a lake, with a violin I made myself by hand, from scratch. No, that's not a joke. See you guys next week.