Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

[_Trevor]

No, Trevor. I will never stoop to that level of gang-style tactics. I prefer to leave that kind of chicanery to the Mopologists.

Perish the thought. Sorry I even raised the idea.

[_The Dude]

If I recall correctly, the Religion faculty at BYU are set apart. At least, they were when I was attending. Maybe the practice has changed.

Why would it change? To avoid the appearance of having a religious calling for which one earns a salary (priestcraft)?

[_moksha]

Apologetics is the arm of the flesh. The troubling thing, I suppose, is when members find the "arm of the flesh" working where the gospel fails.

Wouldn't this make for an interesting article for the FARMS review?

[_Mister Scratch]

Personally, I rather think the (lack of) evidence points to them not being set apart by the Brethren.

I don't know, Shades. If they *had* been set apart, there would be good reason for them to conceal the fact. See below:

If they had been set apart thusly, wouldn't that be an "ace-in-the-hole" in their inevitable crusade against Meldrum?

It would shut down Meldrum, but it would set them back by several miles in terms of trying to distance themselves from the Brethren. They have always walked a very, very thin line vis-a-vis accountability, hence their constant disclaimers about how they don't ever, EVER represent the "official" voice of the Church. Well, all of that would be sunk if it were learned that they'd been set apart. If we discovered that they'd been set apart, it would show that:
---They have been lying for years about their "official" connection to the Church
---That the Brethren are a lot more closely involved in apologetics
---That the Brethren are very frightened and worried about Church critics
---That the Brethren have given their approval of all the smears and other disgusting tactics used by the apologists.

So, there is pretty strong motive for them to be very hush-hush about any settings apart, or blessings, or anything of that nature. And, we need to bear in mind that there are different "degrees of glory," as far as all this is concerned:
--- At one extreme is an official, totally explicit setting apart where the apologists are literally called to official Church positions as apologists. I personally kind of doubt that this was done.
---Below this, we have a setting apart, but not as "apologists." Instead, they would be called to other positions---"Chair of FARMS," say, or "Editor of the Review," or FARMS Associate, or whatever else. This would allow the apologists to feel a real, Brethren-sanctioned sense of purpose in their doings, while simultaneously giving them plausible deniability.
---They may be called, very generally, as "Church Defenders." Thus, they aren't--by way of the calling--necessarily affiliated with FARMS, or BYU, or whatever else, so, once again, it's difficult to trace the train of plausibility. Recall that DCP once said that his "salary would remain unchanged" if he stopped doing Mopologetics. Well, isn't that true of all Church callings?
---They may be set apart as BYU faculty, and in this instance, the particular GA giving the blessing might toss something in about the given individual being expected to play the role of Church defender. So, the apologist could say that s/he was "set apart" as BYU faculty, but, deep down, they understood the setting apart to also entail a role as an apologist.
---There might have been no "setting apart" at all, per se, but a blessing to "do a good job." Again: I think that this could also be broken down according to the scenarios I laid out. That is: they may have received a full-blown blessing to aid them in their Mopologetic endeavors, or they may have been given more general, BYU-faculty blessings, but at any place along the spectrum, the Brethren could have given them sanction for apologetics---and, specifically, the type of apologetics that they do.

Wouldn't they immediately win over legions of the faithful with the one sentence, "We at the Maxwell Institute have been set apart by the Brethren to conduct apologetics, but Meldrum has not?"

Again: I think that doing this is far more risky than the alternative.

[_Mister Scratch]

by the way: you did read Trevor's post, right? Chalk up another point in favor of me, my friend. I think that you should concede that there is a very strong possibility that the apologists are blessed and/or set apart by the Brethren.

It is certainly plausible sure. So perhaps my initial reaction was too strong. But really, I doubt it is a call or they are set apart at all.

Both Gad and Rollo have presented evidence indicating that the GAs will give blessings to those who are embarking on Mopologetic endeavors. And, don't get hung up on the term "set apart." It could be (as I've said from the outset) that it could be just a blessing that urges the person(s) to behave in a Mopologetic fashion.

I see no reason at all. And if they are what difference does it make.

You tell me, Jason. If it doesn't make any difference, then what are you doing complaining?

It seems to me that you are trying once again to make it seem conspiratorial. YOu know, they get paid copious amounts of money, are doing all what you view as mean and nasty under the direction of the brethren and now they are set apart which of course would help your case the brethren are in on all this. Personally if they are not they ought to be. Defending the faith seems to be a mandate in both the Bible and LDS canon.

Well, then, what's the big deal? Don't you want to know the whole truth?

So sure, maybe they are set apart. But we have no evidence. Just conjecture.

No, we do have evidence. Cf. Drs. Robbers & Tomasi. Cf. Church culture and its tendency towards callings and blessings.

[_Tom]

More than 30 years ago, the Hiltons were set apart by a General Authority prior to an Ensign-sponsored discovery trip in search of Lehi's trail in Arabia (fn. 1). Such things may be relics of the past, however.

[_silentkid]

More than 30 years ago, the Hiltons were set apart by a General Authority prior to an Ensign-sponsored discovery trip in search of Lehi's trail in Arabia (fn. 1). Such things may be relics of the past, however.

Wow. A great find, Tom.

[_Dr. Shades]

It would shut down Meldrum, but it would set them back by several miles in terms of trying to distance themselves from the Brethren. They have always walked a very, very thin line vis-a-vis accountability, hence their constant disclaimers about how they don't ever, EVER represent the "official" voice of the Church. Well, all of that would be sunk if it were learned that they'd been set apart. If we discovered that they'd been set apart, it would show that: [SNIP!]

Those are good points, none of which I'd considered. I find them more persuasive than what I'd originally posted.

I wonder, though: Are any of them severely tempted to let the cat out of the bag?

[_truth dancer]

I would find it very odd if the LDS church leaders didn't "bless" those who are at the fore of LDS apologetics.

LDS leaders give special priesthood blessings and set people apart for all sorts of things; based on my experience and observation I would bet there are apologists blessed before they speak at specific conferences, head a secular program, write certain books or papers, serve on various committees, or engage in certain kinds of activities.

Again, I think it would be extraordinary for it not to be so.

If I recall correctly, several apologists have discussed their close relationship with "the Brethren", it would seem nearly impossible for there not to have been some sort of blessing there.

How about the church curriculum committee? I would assume they were set apart? How about the SCMC? I'm guessing YES!

These guys not being set apart (officially or otherwise) is akin to having a ward activity without blessing orange jello!

~td~

[_Gadianton]

Those are good points, none of which I'd considered. I find them more persuasive than what I'd originally posted.

I wonder, though: Are any of them severely tempted to let the cat out of the bag?

I can think of one scenario where they wouldn't be. If the calling were important enough, then the setting apart may have accompanied a calling and election. It's been pointed out that this ordinance has been given more frequently in recent years than it had been for a long time. Those who recieve it are not supposed to talk about it. So that would explain the hush-hush nature of the calling. It might also be prudent to extend this ordinance to apologists, because in their line of work, they may be "required" to let the needle of their moral compasses roam a little more freely than most callings would otherwise requre, and this ordinance would guarantee their salvation so they could pretty much deal with critics however they need to with impunity. In this way, it would also explain the odd phenomena of apologists that don't apologize, because the repentence process would be unnecessary at this point.