Mopologetics and the Need for "Token" Gentile Scholars

[_Mister Scratch]

Not terribly long ago, Dr. Robbers highlighted a very important Mopologetic tactical strategy: attacking and undermining the writings of Chapel Mormons. This strategy came to a head recently when FAIRites erupted in a fit of jealous anger over the writings and beliefs of Rodney Meldrum. Indeed, the pages of FARMS Review are littered with mean-spirited attacks on articles, books, and other texts written by Chapel Mormons. As Gad and others observed, the apologists seemed to want to do this as a means of A) protecting weak Saints against future apostasy; B) establishing their own exegetical and doctrinal supremacy; C) attempting to appear "objective" and unbiased; D) to help mask their assaults on "unfriendly," serious scholars, such as Metcalfe, Vogel, and Quinn.

I wanted to highlight another crucial tactic used by the apologists, though. Many here will recall Trevor's recollection that the Mopologists' behavior at the now-notorious Yale conference was embarrassingly obsequious: they laughed way too hard at each others' jokes; they heaped on far too much praise for each others' papers and comments---in general, their behavior came across as being too clannish and self-promoting.

The reason for this, it seems clear, was the context: the Mopologists were looking to "buy" credibility by having their conference hosted by a venerable institution such as Yale. In fact, I believe that this quest for credibility is an important feature of modern apologetics, and it would not surprise me if efforts are made to broaden this strategy. Specifically, I think that the apologists are looking to court "gentile" scholars. Mopologists are on the look out for non-LDS scholars who can be used as token pawns in their chess match with Church critics. Two "gentile" scholars who stand out in this regard are Peter Novick and Margaret Barker. These two are reputable and respectable in their own right, but do they realize that they have been co-opted by the Mopologists? Certainly, it doesn't much seem to matter what these scholars actually know, say, and write; it's far more important that they A) seem friendly to the Church, and B) produce scholarship that seems to compliment and/or confirm the work of FARMS "scholars." But do these "gentiles" realize what their work and scholarship is being used to accomplish?

Also, I wonder if there are other "gentile" scholars I am overlooking---i.e., people who have been befriended by the apologists in an effort to bring more credibility to FARMS.

[_The Nehor]

How do the reptilians figure into this plot?

[_Mister Scratch]

How do the reptilians figure into this plot?

Hello there, The Nehor. Would you agree that Mopologists seem to want to "use" these "gentile" scholars?

[_The Nehor]

How do the reptilians figure into this plot?

Hello there, The Nehor. Would you agree that Mopologists seem to want to "use" these "gentile" scholars?

I think all good scholars use the work of other good scholars. It's the nature of good scholarship. You can't seem to see anything outside of some 'dog eat dog' mentality where everyone is out to manipulate others to their own ends. As this is what you do, I attribute this perspective to you projecting your twisted world view on everyone else, just like the devil does. You learned from the master.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hello there, The Nehor. Would you agree that Mopologists seem to want to "use" these "gentile" scholars?

I think all good scholars use the work of other good scholars. It's the nature of good scholarship.

That's true, The Nehor, but there is a significant difference between using "the work of other good scholars" (by the way: are you really arguing that the material in the FARMS Review is legitimate scholarship?) and slavishly praising and lapping up the work and attention of non-LDS scholars who just happen to say or write things that support your crackpot theories and agendas. Surely even you can understand the distinction.

[_The Nehor]

That's true, The Nehor, but there is a significant difference between using "the work of other good scholars" (by the way: are you really arguing that the material in the FARMS Review is legitimate scholarship?) and slavishly praising and lapping up the work and attention of non-LDS scholars who just happen to say or write things that support your crackpot theories and agendas. Surely even you can understand the distinction.

I've never read the FARMS Review so I have no idea. Reading reviews of other books never really interested me. I think you should provide some evidence of this 'slavish praise'. A few quotations would do. Thanking others for their work does not count as slavish praise by the way.

I do understand this critical distinction. I see the slavish praise and lapping up thing all the time whenever you or Gad present your latest crackpot theory and the other slavishly praises this new stunning insight. I find it disgusting by the way.

[_Mister Scratch]

That's true, The Nehor, but there is a significant difference between using "the work of other good scholars" (by the way: are you really arguing that the material in the FARMS Review is legitimate scholarship?) and slavishly praising and lapping up the work and attention of non-LDS scholars who just happen to say or write things that support your crackpot theories and agendas. Surely even you can understand the distinction.

I've never read the FARMS Review so I have no idea. Reading reviews of other books never really interested me. I think you should provide some evidence of this 'slavish praise'. A few quotations would do. Thanking others for their work does not count as slavish praise by the way.

Here is a series of links to a number of articles which praise Barker:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6

The "slavish praise" is evidenced in other arenas as well. Consider K. Shirts's endless name-dropping back when he videotapes the FAIR conference, e.g., "Hey, did you know that Bill Hamblin's in Oxford??? And that he's meeting with Margaret Barker?? WOOO HOOO!" Consider Hamblin's excessive posting of said meeting all over his YouTube page.

And, fascinating that you would weigh in on this matter without have ever read a single page of the FROB. I wonder: is it common among TBMs to carry on about texts they've never read? I find that fascinating.

[_Jason Bourne]

Two comments:

First, and this is more an aside to the Meldrum comment. The Church News weekly now come out with another paper called Mormon Times. And one can advertise in Mormon Times. Recently I saw an add to tour Book of Mormon lands and sites with one Rodney Meldrum. The next week there was an add to tour the land of Zarahemla and a map of Central America showing where the tour would go. Hmmmmmm....


On the point about respectability. I see nothing wrong with LDS Scholars seeking venues such as Yale and other places to discuss theology. BYU Professor David Paulsen is part of a group of theological philosophers. Blake Ostler is very active in religious philosophy and writes and speaks. Paulsen through his contacts most certainly will speak and participate in events and prestigious colleges.

There is nothing wrong or nefarious about this at all. Like it or not the LDS Church is a valid religious faith and expression. It has millions of adherent. It is maturing to the point where it is and can be more participatory in ecumenical conferences such as these. I think it a good thing.

[_The Nehor]

I've never read the FARMS Review so I have no idea. Reading reviews of other books never really interested me. I think you should provide some evidence of this 'slavish praise'. A few quotations would do. Thanking others for their work does not count as slavish praise by the way.

Here is a series of links to a number of articles which praise Barker:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6

The "slavish praise" is evidenced in other arenas as well. Consider K. Shirts's endless name-dropping back when he videotapes the FAIR conference, e.g., "Hey, did you know that Bill Hamblin's in Oxford??? And that he's meeting with Margaret Barker?? WOOO HOOO!" Consider Hamblin's excessive posting of said meeting all over his YouTube page.

And, fascinating that you would weigh in on this matter without have ever read a single page of the FROB. I wonder: is it common among TBMs to carry on about texts they've never read? I find that fascinating.

We were actually discussing scholarship and the lack thereof in the slavish backslapping you and Gad do. As you have confessed to having not read much of FARMS yourself I fail to see how adding another ignorant party to this discussion of your ignorant paranoid fantasies will lower the intellectual bar.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello MS,

(by the way: are you really arguing that the material in the FARMS Review is legitimate scholarship?).

As with any journal, when it comes to quality, the FARMS Review is a hit and miss publication. That having been said, in my opinion, the FARMS Review is currently the best and most scholarly journal in all of Mormondom.

It is far superior, for example, to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and/or The Religious Educator both of which I gave up paying any attention to quite sometime ago.

I look forward to every publication of the Review and inevitably discover many significant insights.