The Tiers of Apologetics

[_EAllusion]

If Gad's tier classification was instead proposed by someone he thought was Bill Hamblin et al. initially in reference to evangelical apologetics that goes after the LDS faith, I'd bet a lot of money Nehor would love it.

[_harmony]

An outsider with a very light understanding of a diverse field filled with vast differences in author, intent, and subject matter is attempting to classify the system into three tiers. The intent of the classification system is to show how the whole apparatus is being used to dupe others.

Perhaps too many funeral potatoes produced this paragraph.

Gad is hardly an outsider.

And although it makes little difference to me personally, I think he has an intriguing idea with this Tier thing. It's obvious that the METI should be studied under the appropriate academic umbrella instead of under the MI, an apologetic umbrella. However, I can see why it's done there: 1) Daniel spends more time with MI than he does his own department (probably because he isn't the head of his own department whereas he is the editor in chief and director of METI), and 2) it lends great scholarly weight to the apologetics done by MI.

[_maklelan]

And although it makes little difference to me personally, I think he has an intriguing idea with this Tier thing. It's obvious that the METI should be studied under the appropriate academic umbrella instead of under the MI, an apologetic umbrella.

Another attempt to tell the MI what they are and are not allowed to be. They must refrain from engaging in non-apologetic academics. Why? Because apologists may not overstep the bounds that cynics have established for them. It has been so decreed by this board.

However, I can see why it's done there: 1) Daniel spends more time with MI than he does his own department (probably because he isn't the head of his own department whereas he is the editor in chief and director of METI), and 2) it lends great scholarly weight to the apologetics done by MI.

Or there's the conclusion that just couldn't possibly be accurate because we know how myopic and petty apologists really are: BYU and their professors enjoy different academic pursuits.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think that the tiered structure is actually built into the MI itself. There's really no sane reason why the Maxwell Institute, of all things, needs to be publishing METI stuff.

How dare those idiots move outside the mission statement you've assigned them!

???? They wrote their own Mission Statement, Mak. There was a clear desire to wrap all this stuff under the same umbrella, so you're going to have an extremely difficult time claiming that the legit scholarly stuff has "nothing" to do with apologetics. They are both being pumped out of the same organization, often with the same people involved, etc.

I mean, why couldn't this have been handled by the Middle Eastern Studies department?

Because no such department exists. The MES/A bachelors degree is a program that operates under International and Area Studies.

Well, there you go. Publish it out of that.

It's a small interdisciplinary program that culls professors from a number of different departments, such as the departments of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, Humanities, and International and Area Studies. They couldn't possibly contain such a project.

I'm sure there is a department somewhere within BYU that could have published the project---something that isn't connected to apologetics.

Why publish it out of an Institute whose express purpose is to do apologetics?

That's only a part of their "express purpose." Another part is to "provide critically edited, primary resources (ancient religious texts) to scholars and lay persons around the world." That's actually expressed in their mission statement.

Yes, you're right. Thus, at the MI, apologetics and legit scholarly stuff are related.

Surely you're not going to contend that their "express purpose" is a lie to cover up their clandestine "express purpose," to which you are magically privy.

No; I'm sure not going to do that. I wonder why you ask?

Another point in favor of the tiers is the apologists themselves. Anytime any critic (such as, notably, Joey) points out that apologetics has pretty much zero credibility in the academic world, the apologists will always say, "Ah, well, Prof. Gee has published in the following very respectable journals," etc. We can reply: "Well, we weren't talking about his non-apologetic works," but the apologists usually refuse to recognize any distinction between the two.

I am unaware of any apologists who don't recognize the distinction, but if they do exist, they would be mistaken.

Careful. You wouldn't want to alienate the Heavy Hitters. Some of them are prone to threatening legal action. (That seems to be a common thing among apologists, eh, Mak?)

In fact, in a recent thread, both DCP and Will Schryver both insisted that most of Gee's Egyptology publications are actually a form of implicit Book of Abraham apologetics. So: there is clearly some cross-over, and the apologists intend it to be this way.

Scholars (religious and otherwise) publish arguments that, implicitly or explicitly, support their general worldviews. Until you can show me a trend among scholars to publish conclusions that directly conflict with their general outlooks on the world I'm afraid I cannot agree with the assertion that Latter-day Saint scholarship is inferior for not doing so.

Huh? I'm not arguing that legit LDS scholarship is somehow "inferior." I think that apologetics is junk, though. And I think it's a pretty huge stretch on Schryver and Peterson's part to claim that Gee's Egyptological publications are actually some kind of secret Book of Abraham apologetics.

Reading over what you've said here, though, it seems like you're claiming that apologists put candid, straightforward apologetic claims into their secular scholarship.... Is that what you're saying? If so, I want to see just one example of it. I want a published, peer reviewed article in which an LDS scholar openly argues in favor of one of Mormonism's most controversial claims. (And no: theological stuff does not count).

[_The Nehor]

Perhaps too many funeral potatoes produced this paragraph.

Or too few.

Gad is hardly an outsider.

Gad has experience in producing Apologetics and inside knowledge as to how it is done?

And although it makes little difference to me personally, I think he has an intriguing idea with this Tier thing. It's obvious that the METI should be studied under the appropriate academic umbrella instead of under the MI, an apologetic umbrella. However, I can see why it's done there: 1) Daniel spends more time with MI than he does his own department (probably because he isn't the head of his own department whereas he is the editor in chief and director of METI), and 2) it lends great scholarly weight to the apologetics done by MI.

Yes, it's all spin and lies. Even when members of the Church do good things like giving access to translations of Arabic texts it's always for sinister reasons.

[_cinepro]

Based on the discussion at MADB of the 1-Year-sealing-waiting-period-after-a-civil-wedding, it seems to me an apologist is someone who treats Church policies as if they were doctrines, and Church doctrines as if they were policies.

[_maklelan]

They wrote their own Mission Statement, Mak. There was a clear desire to wrap all this stuff under the same umbrella,

Is that why apologetic motivations are listed in one bullet and critical academic motivations are listed in another? Is that how you decided there was a "clear desire to wrap all this stuff under the same umbrella"? Or is the umbrella the Maxwell Institute, and since you've already assigned that organization a restricted role, they cannot move beyond it? Do you really mean to assert that you determine their mission statement in spite of their expressed mission statement? Can you show me that this "clear desire" actually exists outside your head?

so you're going to have an extremely difficult time claiming that the legit scholarly stuff has "nothing" to do with apologetics. They are both being pumped out of the same organization, often with the same people involved, etc.

So you feel that your point is actually vindicated by pointing out that the same people may be involved in the physical publication of the METI texts, and so technically the critical scholarship has "something to do" with apologetics? How can you possibly expect me to take your position seriously with such flimsy premises?

Well, there you go. Publish it out of that.

Out of International and Area Studies? Their focus is modern international studies. The ancient and medieval aspects only came to be associated with them in the last three or four years as a result of the restructuring of the old Near Eastern Studies program. Since none of them are large enough to merit the manpower, money, or resources to be able to carry out such a project, and since the METI project began well before this restructuring, there's no real reason to suddenly switch departments, especially since the only real conflict exists inside your head as a result of your imaginary mission statement.

I'm sure there is a department somewhere within BYU that could have published the project---something that isn't connected to apologetics.

But since no one who has an objective bone in their body could give two craps about whether or not it is published by a department associated with apologetic work, it stayed put where it was conceived and developed.

Yes, you're right. Thus, at the MI, apologetics and legit scholarly stuff are related.

Related administratively, yes. If you mean to insist that acting under the same administrative umbrella implies acting under the same apologetic umbrella, then you need to get your money back from whatever school gave you the title "Doctor."

No; I'm sure not going to do that. I wonder why you ask?

Because that's the only real way you could honestly keep up this little puppet show.

Careful. You wouldn't want to alienate the Heavy Hitters. Some of them are prone to threatening legal action. (That seems to be a common thing among apologists, eh, Mak?)

Thanks for just brushing aside the subject and my honest response only to ejaculate another belittling comment in my direction. You're just swimming in objectivity and tact.

Huh? I'm not arguing that legit LDS scholarship is somehow "inferior."

I don't appreciate being lied to Scratch. Don't do it again by pretending you don't understand.

I think that apologetics is junk, though. And I think it's a pretty huge stretch on Schryver and Peterson's part to claim that Gee's Egyptological publications are actually some kind of secret Book of Abraham apologetics.

Take that up with Gad, then, because that seems to be a tenet of his tier system.

Reading over what you've said here, though, it seems like you're claiming that apologists put candid, straightforward apologetic claims into their secular scholarship.... Is that what you're saying?

I made no such intimations. I'm saying that their conclusions are generally based on premises and assumptions not in conflict with the Latter-day Saint worldview. Gee, for instance, may support the argument that the biblical Ur has nothing to do with southern Iraq, but is to be identified with a site further north. This is not an uncommon conclusion, and there is plenty of secular evidence to support it, but this is clearly a conclusion that has implications in Book of Abraham apologetics. Thus he's indirectly supporting Book of Abraham apologetics, which is the claim to which you allude. However, this kind of thing is what absolutely all scholars do. They support conclusions that support other conclusions. Whether any of those conclusions down the line is apologetic or not is absolutely immaterial. You responded:

there is clearly some cross-over, and the apologists intend it to be this way.

As I explained, this "cross-over" of worldviews is extant in absolutely all scholarship, secular and otherwise. I thought I made this clear in my previous post,

If so, I want to see just one example of it. I want a published, peer reviewed article in which an LDS scholar openly argues in favor of one of Mormonism's most controversial claims. (And no: theological stuff does not count).

Do you mean to demand a peer reviewed article from a secular academic journal? Peer review is a part of publication in any journal, apologetic or otherwise, so you need to be a little more precise. If you do mean secular, then I would have to ask why you think that the quality of apologetic scholarship would have anything whatsoever to do with a secular journal publishing non-secular articles. Being non-secular would disqualify any article from a secular academic journal, and being out of the mainstream controversial would be an even stronger disqualification. You're making up loony standards that really don't show anything other than that you don't seem to understand much about modern academia.

In the interest of the debate, however, I'm happy to produce an example. Brian Stubb's publication in Across Before Columbus argued for a link between Uto-Aztecan languages and Semitic/Afro-Asiatic languages. The publisher was the New England Antiquities Research Association, which has nothing to do with anything Mormon. The article was peer reviewed and even received praise in the publication from a recognized authority in linguistics.

[_Doctor Scratch]

They wrote their own Mission Statement, Mak. There was a clear desire to wrap all this stuff under the same umbrella,

Is that why apologetic motivations are listed in one bullet and critical academic motivations are listed in another? Is that how you decided there was a "clear desire to wrap all this stuff under the same umbrella"?

Yes. It's sort of like a restaurant menu. There may be a vegetarian entree listed next to the Jidori chicken. Does the presence of the vegetarian dish mean that it's totally unrelated to the chicken? These are both coming from the same restaurant, no?

Or is the umbrella the Maxwell Institute, and since you've already assigned that organization a restricted role, they cannot move beyond it?

What "restricted role"? All I've said is that the MI produces both "legit" scholarship and apologia, and that both of these activities are done under the aegis of the MI Mission Statement. *You* are the one who wants to argue that the Islamic texts have "nothing whatsoever" to do with the apologetics.

Do you really mean to assert that you determine their mission statement in spite of their expressed mission statement? Can you show me that this "clear desire" actually exists outside your head?

Sure: it's written into the Mission Statement.

so you're going to have an extremely difficult time claiming that the legit scholarly stuff has "nothing" to do with apologetics. They are both being pumped out of the same organization, often with the same people involved, etc.

So you feel that your point is actually vindicated by pointing out that the same people may be involved in the physical publication of the METI texts, and so technically the critical scholarship has "something to do" with apologetics?

It does---they are both being pumped out of the same institution. It's like a low-ranking college hiring a "big gun" scholar. Are the crappy, old-guard professors producing anything new and exciting? No, but the college as a whole will be glad to embrace the boost in reputation that comes along with the Big Gun.

Well, there you go. Publish it out of that.

Out of International and Area Studies? Their focus is modern international studies. The ancient and medieval aspects only came to be associated with them in the last three or four years as a result of the restructuring of the old Near Eastern Studies program. Since none of them are large enough to merit the manpower, money, or resources to be able to carry out such a project, and since the METI project began well before this restructuring, there's no real reason to suddenly switch departments, especially since the only real conflict exists inside your head as a result of your imaginary mission statement.

You seem to be missing the point, Mak. There is no reason why the text *had* to come out of the MI. They could have found a different publication venue. That it *did* come out of the MI can only help to bolster the apologists' credibility.

I'm sure there is a department somewhere within BYU that could have published the project---something that isn't connected to apologetics.

But since no one who has an objective bone in their body could give two craps about whether or not it is published by a department associated with apologetic work, it stayed put where it was conceived and developed.

Let's take this assumption to its logical conclusion: Would you really like to see a MI that was devoted totally to apologetics, Mak? Are you in favor of that? Or do you prefer a situation in which "legit," scholarly works are produced side-by-side with LDS apologetics?

Yes, you're right. Thus, at the MI, apologetics and legit scholarly stuff are related.

Related administratively, yes. If you mean to insist that acting under the same administrative umbrella implies acting under the same apologetic umbrella, then you need to get your money back from whatever school gave you the title "Doctor."

What do you think "related administratively" mean, Mak?

Careful. You wouldn't want to alienate the Heavy Hitters. Some of them are prone to threatening legal action. (That seems to be a common thing among apologists, eh, Mak?)

Thanks for just brushing aside the subject and my honest response only to ejaculate another belittling comment in my direction. You're just swimming in objectivity and tact.

Lol. Hey, you are the one who is incapable of civil discussion with critics, what with your endless accusations of dishonesty and whatnot.

I think that apologetics is junk, though. And I think it's a pretty huge stretch on Schryver and Peterson's part to claim that Gee's Egyptological publications are actually some kind of secret Book of Abraham apologetics.

Take that up with Gad, then, because that seems to be a tenet of his tier system.

Uhhh.... That's because DCP and Schryver themselves are lending credence to the system.

I'm saying that their conclusions are generally based on premises and assumptions not in conflict with the Latter-day Saint worldview. Gee, for instance, may support the argument that the biblical Ur has nothing to do with southern Iraq, but is to be identified with a site further north. This is not an uncommon conclusion, and there is plenty of secular evidence to support it, but this is clearly a conclusion that has implications in Book of Abraham apologetics. Thus he's indirectly supporting Book of Abraham apologetics, which is the claim to which you allude. However, this kind of thing is what absolutely all scholars do. They support conclusions that support other conclusions. Whether any of those conclusions down the line is apologetic or not is absolutely immaterial.

If we're inquiring into whether or not these tiers of "scholarly activity" are "related," then it's absolutely material and relevant.

If so, I want to see just one example of it. I want a published, peer reviewed article in which an LDS scholar openly argues in favor of one of Mormonism's most controversial claims. (And no: theological stuff does not count).

Do you mean to demand a peer reviewed article from a secular academic journal? Peer review is a part of publication in any journal, apologetic or otherwise, so you need to be a little more precise. If you do mean secular, then I would have to ask why you think that the quality of apologetic scholarship would have anything whatsoever to do with a secular journal publishing non-secular articles.

It's because LDS apologetics makes secular claims, like that the Book of Mormon is a real, historical text.

Being non-secular would disqualify any article from a secular academic journal, and being out of the mainstream controversial would be an even stronger disqualification.

Yes, in the latter case it's primarily because the scholarship stinks. That's why apologetics only ends up in the FARMS Review. I'm glad that you're at least honest enough to admit it.

You're making up loony standards that really don't show anything other than that you don't seem to understand much about modern academia.

More juvenile insults and ad hominem attack. (And mind-reading.)

In the interest of the debate, however, I'm happy to produce an example. Brian Stubb's publication in Across Before Columbus argued for a link between Uto-Aztecan languages and Semitic/Afro-Asiatic languages. The publisher was the New England Antiquities Research Association, which has nothing to do with anything Mormon. The article was peer reviewed and even received praise in the publication from a recognized authority in linguistics.

Lol. Oh, okay. Go ahead and quote the passages that frankly and openly support Mopologetic claims. It's one thing to argue that there is a relationship between languages; it's quite another to say that there is a relationship, and that this lends credence to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I'll be waiting patiently for the quotation. Otherwise, this is clearly Tier 2 apologetics.

[_Gadianton]

An outsider with a very light understanding of a diverse field filled with vast differences in author, intent, and subject matter is attempting to classify the system into three tiers. The intent of the classification system is to show how the whole apparatus is being used to dupe others.

You know, Nehor, the field of Mopologetics isn't really that diverse and complex. And I think you're being hypocritical here given that your beliefs force you to divide the entire human race up into three kingdoms of glory.

[_Gadianton]

Yes, it's all spin and lies. Even when members of the Church do good things like giving access to translations of Arabic texts it's always for sinister reasons.

I never said it was for sinister reasons. Let me ask you this Nehor, when a large company donates a few hundred thousand to a charity and gets some do-good recognition plus a tax right-off, does that mean their motives are sinister? Even IF those are the only reasons why they did it?