Blixa wrote: I've found your documentation of your argument quite interesting in this thread--you've pointed up examples that I was unaware of even though I, like anyone, gets exposed to the "amateur" vs. "scholar" line with any exposure to contemporary Mormon apologia. And I think, too, that it's also extremely clear what kind of final "argument" this stuff is working toward: "everything's been answered, more intelligent people than me believe in it." That is the entire ideological effect contemporary Mormon apologetics aims for: to dispel doubt and create perception that all is well. For all the window-dressing of scholarly titles, inflated rhetoric, and opportunistic use of any and all philosophical tendencies, the project is profoundly anti-intellectual.
I guess what I would be interested in hearing your speculation on, Ray, is why this has come about, what are the conditions of necessity for this approach? What explains the historical shift from B.H. Roberts to (fill in the black with whoever)? How to account for Arrington to (is it Turley?) or early Bitton to later Bitton (an even more stark contrast)?
It's funny how realisations happen, and often from personal experience. Here's my basic theory. I go back to B.H.Roberts' two categories of "disciples pure and simple", and "the thinkers". Roberts suggested that while disciples pure and simple could be very effective testimony-bearers, they were also "repeaters". They are content to hold fast to the Iron Rod while repeating simple formulas. But Roberts believed that there would eventually be more effective disciples in the thinkers, who would go on to reshape and redefine belief in new and interesting ways that would make it more appealing to the masses. He considered himself among the latter. Think of his
Studies project. His fellow brethren weren't interested in this unless "it would help our cause". Roberts, however, was more interested in finding the truth, but towards the end of his studies, his now famous words were written, "How shall we escape these difficulties?" Roberts foresaw a coming catastrophe in belief unless something was done, and that it would particularly afflict the young generation, but I don't believe he had the answer either. Because of his studies, I believe that Roberts' belief in the Book of Mormon was shaken to the core. What apologists have neglected is that he drew these conclusions not only on archaeological anachronisms (some of which
have been answered), but on the very imitation style of the Book of Mormon, created by an "imaginative but overzealous religious mind at work". He clearly thought it was possible for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon. The "thinkers" Roberts imagined would arise to "redefine" and extend Mormon doctrine in "new and interesting formulas" have actually turned out to be heretics, or "liberal Mormons".
FARMS was created in 1979 with the intent of promoting studies of the Book of Mormon, but eventually it turned fully to the defence of Mormonism, and later on FAIR and FARMS would join hands in this grand apologetic effort. In c.1987 I wrote John Welch offering my withdrawal from any form of FARMS activity (I was initially a volunteer), and was critical of the direction FARMS was going in, but my interest was revived when DCP and the RBBM came into existence, later to become the
FARMS Review. I think I've already noted that it was DCP's controversial move to "tackle" anti-Mormonism that piqued my interest, but by the late '90s I had lost interest even in that. And I feel that, notwithstanding all the efforts at apologetics, in the end it's a bit like flogging a dead horse. You really only can continue to be a true believer if you ignore a
significant amount of evidence to the contrary, a phenomenon noted by Eric Hoffer, and also in the book
When Prophecy Fails.
The true believer is undeterred by contrary evidence, and instead of reformulating belief, reinforces the defence of the indefensible, and this is what apologetics has become. So instead of, for example, acknowledging Roberts' points about the Book of Mormon, and his real doubts about its historicity, any "liberal" interpretation of Roberts as a serious closet doubter, has become "abuse of Roberts" (the list of citations to Roberts' public addresses is endless, and no consideration is given to his private doubts such as his private conversation with Wesley Lloyd. Every angle to discredit that will be taken, because it throws light on the real Roberts). This is a "symptom" of modern apologetics, and it is the failure to acknowledge real problems and more honestly address them that has, in my opinion, caused many to think that much apologetics is nothing but window-dressing.
Blixa wrote: And of course this too, is an interesting open question:
"Nibley has been of far more interest to me as a social and Church critic. I can think of no one inside apologetic circles today who does this the way he did. And I wonder why."
For all his apologetic fluff, Nibley was unafraid to speak out at what he perceived as "misdirected zeal", or "zeal without knowledge". Of course he was speaking of the "disciples pure and simple", and things like BYU offering courses on subjects when it had a pathetic library of information on the subject. I'm not sure how much he would have internalised his own comments and criticisms in regard to the wider field of apologetics. But such an assessment is surely long overdue.
I don't know if there
is a soultion, nor do I see any way to "escape the difficulties". But for the apologist, that would be admitting defeat. So my prediction is that the apologetic ship Zion will keep going forward - as fast and smooth and as efficient as the Titanic.