Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Dr. Shades]

By the way, I thought the dossiers were only metaphorical. I had no idea that there were real dossiers! Oh, how I wish I had seen those.

As Gadianton said, they're still viewable. Simply go to:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/blog.php?u=55

What happened is this, in arguably the biggest blunder of this board (sorry Shades), . . .

It was Keene who upgraded the software, not me. :-)

Even so, no apology is necessary. I totally understand your frustration--I, too, miss some of the old features, like all blog entries visible on a single page, the list of most recently-updated blogs, and the list of people currently in the chat room--but from an administrator's perspective, the spam-bot blocking alone has been well worth it.

I have all the respect in the world for Dr. Shades. He is, after all, the person who identified the "Internet Mormon v. Chapel Mormon" paradigm, which has proven to be so useful.

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. :-)

Maybe he can brainstorm and find a way to compensate for the damage that was done to Mopologetic studies by the partial dissolution of Scratch's dossiers.

My own blog suffered the same tragedy as Mister Scratch's. The way I solved it was to copy-and-paste everything into Microsoft Word, use the "Find-->Replace" feature to replace all instances of, say, "[u:ae59391492]" with "[ u ]," etc., then re-paste everything back in. Yes, it was a time-consuming pain in the rear, but it is doable.

Trevor:

Forgive me, but I'm going to have to go with Gadianton and Mister Scratch on your "Student of the Mysteries" category. I strongly believe that such people--Like W. Cleon Skousen--have as their target audience Mormons who aren't doubting in any way (as opposed to fence-straddlers or critics), thus precluding them from being considered apologists.

.

[_Trevor]

Forgive me, but I'm going to have to go with Gadianton and Mister Scratch on your "Student of the Mysteries" category. I strongly believe that such people--Like W. Cleon Skousen--have as their target audience Mormons who aren't doubting in any way (as opposed to fence-straddlers or critics), thus precluding them from being considered apologists.

Scratch, Gadianton, and Shades:

Thanks for your input. I got something valuable from each of you. I think that all of you are somewhat mistaken, however, in your characterization of LDS apologists as a whole. I think any fair reading of Hugh Nibley, one of the 'fathers' of Mormon apologetics, will demonstrate that he was interested in far more than simply defending Mormonism from critics. I am not defending Nibley as having been fundamentally correct in his approach. I am only proposing that Nibley, and the institution he more or less inspired, FARMS, was, at its inception, genuinely about scholarship, and that apologetics was only one part of its mission.

When I was a young man, I was first hooked by Nibley, and I didn't see most of his work as a defense of Mormonism, but I saw his writings as placing Mormonism within the context of ancient traditions. Indeed, this approach is seen as useful in legitimizing Mormon claims, but I think it is a mistake to view it as primarily apologetic. It is more the case that this is historical research undertaken under the premise that Mormon truth claims about the past have real merit. The apologetic value is often only secondary.

Take, for example, Kevin Barney's recent piece on Mother in Heaven in Dialogue. Barney uses many of the classic tools of those folks you would characterize as Mormon apologists, yet his target audience is not the anti-Mormon or critic, but the believer who is interested in understanding how to contextualize the poorly understood belief in Mother in Heaven. In doing this he employs the conclusions of another similar piece of scholarship, Peterson's piece on Nephi and the Asherah. Barney, like Peterson before him, seeks to illuminate aspects of Mormonism through historical research. Although the results might be put to some apologetic use, the primary aim seems to me to be quite different. It is an illumination, not a defense.

This issue gets at the heart of what I think is a collective failure on the part of critics of Mormonism to understand Mormon apologetics. Critics assume that Mormon apologists are universally suffering from the same cognitive dissonance critics struggled with, and that their apologetics is all about keeping it together for themselves and others. Obviously, there will be a bit of truth in this, and I would say that the apologists who are most likely to defect are the ones who are struggling with this more. But there are a number of apologists whose faith is genuinely strong and who really do hold out faith, which they see as validated in a number of ways, that LDS claims do and will ultimately hold up to scrutiny.

I think the reason these folks stay strong is because apologetics are not at the core of their LDS identity. For all that Dr. Peterson engages in defending Mormonism and drops by here to poke at us, I would say that apologetics is actually ancillary to his core identity as a Mormon, and it is the core identity of faith strengthened by experience and learning that makes him and others like him so resilient in the face of what seem to critics to be devastating blows to the faith. Far from being unreasoned obstinacy in the face of reality, these learned Mormons perceive themselves, and not without some justification, as reasonably maintaining faith in a worldview that has worked so well for them on many levels.

Although I think there is some truth in what you guys have said in criticizing my proposed apologetic category, it seems to me you have inadvertently revealed your rather myopic view of your opponents. I would bet that, predictably, the reason why our categories seem so appealing to us is that they reflect our own journeys out of Mormonism better than they reflect a solid understanding of those who stay strong in the faith.

[_Gadianton]

Trevor,

That was a fair response. If I understand what you are saying, I would proceed like this. Broaden the definition of apologetics. I don't think the worlds first "apologists" were defending the faith from skeptics, rather they were rationally and systematically grounding their religion in reason. So this would cover all of the activities you are talking about --- fitting Mormonism into the real world systematically independent of the audience.

Rodney Meldrum also is an apologist in this proper sense. The key difference seems to me that these are Chapel Mormon apologists. In fact, back on ZLMB long ago, I argued that Hugh Nibley might have been a Chapel Mormon himself. And I do agree that Chapel Mormon apologists tend to have the fire alive for the "mysteries". Their audience tends to be Mormons and not critics illustrating the point that they are either very confident, as in the case of Hugh, or have not had the opportunity to be embarrassed about their odd sacred things.

Most Internet Mormon apologists who heavily interface with critics are terribly embarrassed by their heritage, which is why they pull out all the stops to make it look "normal" even if that means compromising on many sacred things and throwing their leaders under a bus. Hence, because of the exposure to critics and the desire to make Mormonism look respectable in the eyes of a fallen world, the Internet Mormon apologists have lost the zeal for knowing the mysteries of God and become very angry at those who haven't, and who continue to make Mormonism look like a fruity cult.

So now let's take Kevin Barney. No, he is not aggressively fighting on the front lines, but he is clearly an Internet Mormon apologist. And his role is very important for the coup in that he's translating the message to the civilians. His "mysteries" as I've encountered them, are somewhat mundane when compared to say, Skousen's, and are unambitious in the sense that he hopes to play it safe as possible with what might be vogue intellectually in 2008.

The archetype of what you are getting at might be my friend Clark Goble who one could say is a student of the mysteries if there ever was one and not a big fan of FARMS (I think) or the typical "apologetics" in general. The only problem is, all the mysteries he's a student of were created by Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Karl Sanders Pierce, and the neoplatonists. To me his Mormonism seems vestigial, at least in thought. I've called him on this a number of times so I don't feel like I'm talking behind him here. He's shifted focus on what constitutes the "mysteries".

Coming back to the word "apologist" I think in the use here it's a matter of community vernacular that if we got technical, would be a subset of apologists, the more confrontational Internet Mormon apologists who align with FARMS and FAIR. And these are the least inclined to appreciate "mystery" on any level, wishing to maintain the appearance that what they are doing is mundane, standard fare that all respectable academics do and the critics don't understand how real scholarship works.

Finally,

I think the reason these folks stay strong is because apologetics are not at the core of their LDS identity

To an extent, I agree. I think that long ago they encountered the relevant information but for whatever reason, the switch didn't flick. There is no struggle, and probably never was. They do not do apologetics to maintain faith, it's sort of a game they play, and no one has ever been converted to Mormonism from their apologetics, themselves included. As Dr. Shades says, gun to the head, the "apologists" know what the real Mormonism is.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Trevor, you really are an ornament to this board.

It doesn't have many.

And I don't mean to say merely that you're (by far) the tallest building in Tooele -- though there's that, too.

[_antishock8]

Trevor,

What you just posted was an apologetic piece on Mormon apologists. How deep does this rabbit hole go?

It's really not that strange to realize that Mormon apologists stick with Team Mormon simply because they're socially or economically tied to it. Everyone knows Mormonism is a lie. Everyone. Mormons know it. Apologists know it. Ex-Mormons know it. Non-Mormons know it. That, is without dispute.

So. What to do if you're a Mormon who chooses the lie over reason simply because you have your own reasons? Well, you can do the Chapel Mormon thing and yammer on in Sunday school about all the wonderful mysteries that Mormonism reveals, do nothing and be a nominal member going along with it for social and economic reasons, or you can become an apologist and fight the good fight.

I would suggest that when you fight for something it's because you're invested in it. Mormon apologists are, in fact, invested very heavily into Mormonism because you HAVE to be in order to care enough to do what they do. To suggest that they're not bothered by or have personal issues that they themselves struggle with is to ignore human nature. At some point, these guys know for a fact that they went from defender to deceiver. They've bought off on the sham and are actively attempting to dupe others into their belief system.

That's not a dabbler.

That's not a recreation.

That's an overt action based on deception. And for what? It ain't about us, Trevor. It's about them. It's about them protecting their identity, their investment, and their Purpose. Mormon apologists are doing this for themselves. It IS about them working out their own issues because they've BECOME the issue.

Look at the way they argue on behalf of Mormonism. It's all very personalized. Almost every exchange becomes personal and eventually the thread becomes about them. And there's a reason for that. Because it is, in a very real sense, about them. So I reject your notion, as well as you put it, that it's an effort to view Mormonism as a scholarly endeavor. It's not. It's about protecting their identity, in every possible way.

[_Trevor]

Trevor, you really are an ornament to this board.

It doesn't have many.

And I don't mean to say merely that you're (by far) the tallest building in Tooele -- though there's that, too.

I really appreciate that, Daniel. Praise of this kind from one who is careful in how he gives it means a great deal to me.

[_Mister Scratch]

Thanks for your input. I got something valuable from each of you. I think that all of you are somewhat mistaken, however, in your characterization of LDS apologists as a whole. I think any fair reading of Hugh Nibley, one of the 'fathers' of Mormon apologetics, will demonstrate that he was interested in far more than simply defending Mormonism from critics.

Yes, I agree with you Trevor, but a distinction needs to be made between Nibley's scholarship and his apologetics. You seem to be wanting to conflate inquisitive scholarship and book-learning with rigorous defense of Mormonism. While there might be a bit of cross-over, I think that the motivation behind the two impulses is different.

I am not defending Nibley as having been fundamentally correct in his approach. I am only proposing that Nibley, and the institution he more or less inspired, FARMS, was, at its inception, genuinely about scholarship, and that apologetics was only one part of its mission.

Sure: I agree with this, too. But, again, I was primarily interested in apologetics.

When I was a young man, I was first hooked by Nibley, and I didn't see most of his work as a defense of Mormonism, but I saw his writings as placing Mormonism within the context of ancient traditions. Indeed, this approach is seen as useful in legitimizing Mormon claims, but I think it is a mistake to view it as primarily apologetic. It is more the case that this is historical research undertaken under the premise that Mormon truth claims about the past have real merit. The apologetic value is often only secondary.

Again: this is perfectly valid and persuasive. I don't disagree that Nibley, FARMS, and so on do things other than apologetics per se. But, on this thread, I can't say that I have a great deal of interest exploring the reasons why scholars do what they do. I am more interested in examining the more rancid, vicious, and dishonest parts of the "defense." That is: Why would Bill Hamblin erupt in an epithet-laced outburst on RfM? Why would DCP ask James White if his "arrogance meter" was broken? Why would Lou Midgley verbally harass Sandra Tanner at her bookstore?

These are the things I find interesting, and which I wanted to explore via the different "theories." Surely, the "student of the mysteries" is a long ways away from the kinds of behavior I've outlined, no?

I think the reason these folks stay strong is because apologetics are not at the core of their LDS identity. For all that Dr. Peterson engages in defending Mormonism and drops by here to poke at us, I would say that apologetics is actually ancillary to his core identity as a Mormon,

I agree that this is probably true. I mean, how could he live with himself if his identity revolved purely around smearing Mike Quinn, writing silly harangues against Loftes Tryk, spreading l-skinny gossip, and lying about how much money he makes from apologetics?

Although I think there is some truth in what you guys have said in criticizing my proposed apologetic category, it seems to me you have inadvertently revealed your rather myopic view of your opponents.

How do you figure? I just agreed with everything you said, after all. Indeed, what you are saying is perfectly valid, useful, and well-observed. It's just that you are talking about something that isn't strictly Mopologetic. See what I mean? You can call us "myopic," but it seems to me that you are just insisting that we discuss a somewhat separate topic. On the other hand, it is fair to say that we (or I, in any case) have tried to focus the discussion and categorization on a pretty strict set of behaviors. The kind of good-natured and inquisitive scholarship you're describing doesn't really fit within that, though.

[Guest]

I don't think the worlds first "apologists" were defending the faith from skeptics, rather they were rationally and systematically grounding their religion in reason. So this would cover all of the activities you are talking about --- fitting Mormonism into the real world systematically independent of the audience.

I am comfortable with broadening the definition of apologetics in this way, so long as we are consistent about it. I don't know if I would agree completely with the notion that it is about fitting Mormonism into the real world, however. And keep in mind, it becomes increasingly problematic to criticize Mormon apologetics in the manner we have generally done in the past, if we do expand our definition of it.

Rodney Meldrum also is an apologist in this proper sense. The key difference seems to me that these are Chapel Mormon apologists.

I'm not sure I agree with you that Meldrum is an apologist in this sense at all. I would say that Meldrum is suggesting that he has a kind of prophetic insight that sets him apart from Mormon scholars. Mormon scholars like Barney seem to be working from the premise that Mormonism already has a rightful place in the 'real world' and he is seeking to demonstrate how that is the case to what he views as the benefit of its unique theology.

Most Internet Mormon apologists who heavily interface with critics are terribly embarrassed by their heritage, which is why they pull out all the stops to make it look "normal" even if that means compromising on many sacred things and throwing their leaders under a bus. Hence, because of the exposure to critics and the desire to make Mormonism look respectable in the eyes of a fallen world, the Internet Mormon apologists have lost the zeal for knowing the mysteries of God and become very angry at those who haven't, and who continue to make Mormonism look like a fruity cult.

Most internet Mormon apologists are embarrassed by their heritage? Really? I would say that a number of them are woefully uninformed about their heritage, but I have a difficult time believing that the most scholarly of them are embarrassed by Mormonism. My sense is that they aren't satisfied that they, much less we, understand all of the truth and value in Mormonism, and that the work they do is in no small part about growing with their traditions, not against or in spite of them. Are there some who have experienced that dark night of the soul? Sure. Are they all engaging in their work cynically? I see little evidence of that.

So now let's take Kevin Barney. No, he is not aggressively fighting on the front lines, but he is clearly an Internet Mormon apologist. And his role is very important for the coup in that he's translating the message to the civilians. His "mysteries" as I've encountered them, are somewhat mundane when compared to say, Skousen's, and are unambitious in the sense that he hopes to play it safe as possible with what might be vogue intellectually in 2008.

Mormon scholars translate what they do for the civilians, because they are well aware that most Mormons had little idea what Hugh Nibley was really talking about, and the new generation of scholars hopes to do a better job as communicators than Nibley did. And, I would further add that the difference between Skousen and Barney, other than, I assume, Barney's lack of interest in fringe politics, is that Barney is much more careful and scholarly than Skousen.

The archetype of what you are getting at might be my friend Clark Goble who one could say is a student of the mysteries if there ever was one and not a big fan of FARMS (I think) or the typical "apologetics" in general. The only problem is, all the mysteries he's a student of were created by Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Karl Sanders Pierce, and the neoplatonists. To me his Mormonism seems vestigial, at least in thought. I've called him on this a number of times so I don't feel like I'm talking behind him here. He's shifted focus on what constitutes the "mysteries".

Some of the more sophisticated LDS scholars really do believe in the idea that Mormonism encompasses all truth. So, when they encounter something they see as true and compatible with Mormonism, it becomes part of their Mormon-world view. This is a very personal process, and one that rarely finds explicit expression outside of Mormon circles. I would not say that Mormonism is seen as vestigial by them after they have engaged in this process much of their lives. Rather, they see Mormonism as the grand, underlying guide for measuring other truths. I can see, however, how it might be easy to mistake on for the other, as I believe you have.

Coming back to the word "apologist" I think in the use here it's a matter of community vernacular that if we got technical, would be a subset of apologists, the more confrontational Internet Mormon apologists who align with FARMS and FAIR. And these are the least inclined to appreciate "mystery" on any level, wishing to maintain the appearance that what they are doing is mundane, standard fare that all respectable academics do and the critics don't understand how real scholarship works.

Then, I would suggest that the sense we usually use does not even cover the whole range of the individual apologists we often apply it to. My guess is that the very people we often demonize and dislike based on their net personae are actually very rich and complex individuals for whom apologetics is a kind of sidelight. You don't become as educated as a Peterson, Hamblin, or Midgley by complete and exclusive immersion in apologetics in the narrow sense. That just doesn't happen.

Personally, I don't think anyone has a corner on the concept of mystery, whether it is the "chapel Mormon," the "internet Mormon," the "Mopologist," or the "critic." We have our different ways of employing the term. The atheist skeptic sees "mystery" in the sense of awe one has for the vastness of the cosmos and the wonder in contemplating all that science may yet uncover. One kind of Mopologist may experience wonder in finding Mesoamerican civilization come alive in the pages of the Book of Mormon. I started out by talking about "deep doctrine" and I maintain, in the face of criticism, that a number of apologists were interested in deep doctrine (mysteries of the Gospel) and saw in Nibley et al.'s work a place to explore it.

To an extent, I agree. I think that long ago they encountered the relevant information but for whatever reason, the switch didn't flick. There is no struggle, and probably never was. They do not do apologetics to maintain faith, it's sort of a game they play, and no one has ever been converted to Mormonism from their apologetics, themselves included. As Dr. Shades says, gun to the head, the "apologists" know what the real Mormonism is.

I really just don't know. Maybe the switch doesn't need to flick in order for these to be reasonable, good, and worthwhile minds. I rather doubt that there is no reflection or struggle at all. My guess is that people define and deal with their struggles in different ways. Whatever the truth of each individual apologist's journey, I view that journey as being equally as authentic as my own, unless I have damn good reason to think otherwise. There are very few Mormon scholars whom I have encountered whose faith I could dismiss in the way you seem to here. I think it is much more than simply a game to them, although I agree that the art of argument has a strong agonistic component to it.

Am I an apologist for the apologists? Could be. What I hope to be, though, is a decent human being who wants to work on being as charitable in my assessment of others as I would hope they could be of me. I am not suggesting that any of you are not. I can only speak from where I am at this moment. And from where I sit right now I think that we are far too dismissive of Mormon scholars and often too pleased with ourselves for having converted away from Mormonism. I don't consider myself particularly smart for losing faith in Mormonism. I just did.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I meant the praise quite seriously, Trevor, and your post just above justifies it once again. But I don't want to compromise or contaminate you, so I'll desist.

It's genuinely refreshing to read an adult's reflections here.

[_antishock8]

I meant the praise quite seriously, Trevor, and your post just above justifies it once again. But I don't want to compromise or contaminate you, so I'll desist.

It's genuinely refreshing to read an adult's reflections here.

When you start acting like one, kindly let us know.