The McClellan White Debates

[_Simon Belmont]

Ah, so you want to know if White is Scratch. I thought so.

Ha ha ha, no... White is definitely not Scratch.


Edit: I was curious if he read this board and if he was influenced by some of the posts here.

[_cksalmon]

Well, technically, James White is not himself a debate with LDS scholars. And I think, if pressed for comment, most folks would agree that debates don't typically back out of things.

How about this, then: But as is the case with most debates with LDS scholars, White backed out.

Satisfied?

Nah. Since, grammatically, "White" still refers back to "most debates with LDS scholars." And, as I would sincerely suggest to you, White is not, himself, a debate.

But, really, no matter, friend. I was just having some fun. I could suss what you meant, even though you may not be able to express the thought in an appropriate grammatical form.

Those quibbles aside, I wonder where you picked up the notion that a debate happened (leaving aside the multiple debates you referenced in your thread title).

Well, I picked up on the notion that a debate happened when I saw that a discussion occurred which included opposing viewpoints -- one might call that an argument, or a debate.

One might call it a debate. I wouldn't.

I saw White say, in essence, that he was going to restrict his blog responses to only the things he wanted to talk about.

And isn't that just perfectly convenient?

Yeah, I think one might label it "convenient." Perfectly so? Maybe. Maybe not. We may assign different meanings to the term "convenient."

One can interrogate the motivations behind and implications of that decision, of course. But, it's not clear to me how you make the leap from that to your claim that White backed out of a debate.

I make the claim that White backed out of a debate because White backed out of a debate.

Right. But, you also, arguably, think James White is a debate. I'm not sure you know what a debate actually is. Hint: mutually responsive blog posts do not constitute a debate. At least not in the sense I mean. Maybe that's what you mean.

But he loves to debate. And he is often good at it, unless his opponent is an LDS scholar, in which case he usually backs out. That, and bringing the blog post to another audience, is the whole point of this thread.

Right, well, you need to demonstrate that White usually backs out when facing an LDS scholar. Has he ever done so?

That's a new claim on your part. Can you provide evidence that White "usually backs out" of debates with LDS scholars. I mean, other than his backing out of multiple debates with mak, on your understanding?

God help you, Simon.

To help me understand your claim, will you list the debates that James White has backed out of when said debates involve LDS scholars? This is, per your report, a usual occurrence. So, name them.

[_Kishkumen]

Ha ha ha, no... White is definitely not Scratch.


Edit: I was curious if he read this board and if he was influenced by some of the posts here.

Sure, Simon. Next time think before you post.

[_Aristotle Smith]

This wasn't a debate because I don't think James White was even interested in a debate, because he's not interested in engaging hardly any of the points that mak made. To be honest, I can't blame him, debate with an Internet Mormon largely devolves into a game where the Internet Mormon deftly tries to deflect any argumentation with word redefinitions and "that's not doctrine." I can't say if that's why White stays away in this instance, but it's understandable.

White's whole post is basically a meta-argument about the argument mak wants to have. Here are the three main points:

But Mr. McClellan represents the new generation of LDS students who come to us with a very interesting pedigree. While Mormonism continues to speak often of latter-day revelation, there is just one little problem: we don’t see any of it. Oh, general and vague discussions of God’s “leadership” of the church are common, but let’s face it: the days of Joseph Smith are past. Gone are the days of almost daily revelations having to do with sending this person on a mission here, this matter of the church there. The charismatic period is gone, and if the current prophet were to come out tomorrow and say, “Thus sayeth the Lord,” and give some new revelation that he would expect to be published in the next edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the LDS church would reel under the implications. Mormonism is transitioning and changing, and while the doctrinal structure has yet to be radically altered (and, I would argue, really cannot be radically altered without substantially changing the very essence of Mormonism), the expression of that theology, and especially its application and teaching, differs today from what it was only twenty or thirty years ago.

Take home message: Why bother having a debate with Mormons in the first place? The Internet defenders of Mormonism aren't defending Mormonism, and the historic Mormonism is dying or dead already. There really isn't anything left to argue or debate.

Message to Internet Mormons: You have been on a rampage to empty Mormonism of all content and the outside world thinks you are succeeding. Sure, maybe you have made the church easier to defend, but only at the cost of leaving nothing left to defend. The contentless Mormonism you have created inspires no one and converts nobody. What little content you allow inside Internet Mormonism can be had at any local non-denom conservative Christian church.

The Bible has “as many interpreters as it has readers.” Really? Are they all equal to one another? He will later say the Bible contradicts itself as well. So, the Bible is no safe guide, for it is self-contradictory and incapable of communicating a single, clear message. But why does McClellan think this? Will he say the same about the Book of Mormon? Even more importantly, what about the sources of his scholarship? Does the broad world of scholarship view the Book of Mormon as an ancient record, accurately representing the inhabitants of Meso-America? How about the Book of Abraham? Does the same realm of scholarship, academia, intellect, etc., from which he draws his attacks upon the Bible spare the Book of Abraham? Or is it not the fact that the vast majority of scholars have never even heard of the Book of Abraham because its claims about itself are so manifestly absurd and false that no one outside of Mormonism takes it seriously?

Take home message: It's cool if you want to use modern tools of Biblical criticism, just realize that everything there is 100x more potent when applied to Mormon scripture. People in glass houses in all that.

Again, note that White isn't really engaging anything mak might be saying. He's basically asking, "Are you REALLY sure you want to go that route, because I don't think it's a winner for your scriptures in the end?"

By the way, I'm not defending White's views on the Bible, but I do agree that the tools of modern criticism, when applied to Mormon scripture, is absolutely devastating.

It is impossible to hold together the world of Joseph Smith, with his personal revelations and seer stones and ancient Nephite civilizations and angelic visitations and Masonic ordinances and polygamy, and the high-brow academic world that, evidently, represents the very celestial kingdom for the staff of BYU. So deep is the desire for fundamental acceptance in “the guild” of scholarship that BYU’s leading scholars are willing to inject into the bloodstream of the LDS Church a concoction whose final results only the future can possibly reveal.

Take home message: If you think you can mix Mormonism (the real Mormonism, not the denuded Internet Mormon variety) with the academy, good luck with that. Note, again, White isn't actually engaging any point mak is making. He's again asking, "Are you really sure you guys want to go this route, because there's no possible way you can make that work?"

In summary, White ain't having a debate, he's just pointing out that whatever mak is trying to do, it probably won't work. Agree or disagree with White's overall point, but a debate it is not.

Lest anyone think I am defending White's beliefs or practices, I'm not. I really don't know anything about the guy.

[_MrStakhanovite]

While I completely agree with Dan on most points of biblical scholarship, and disagree with James on most everything, You can’t really claim that exchange was a debate. It’s also absurd to say White is afraid to debate anyone, given that he’ll take the stage to debate people like Bart Ehrman and John D. Crossan, there isn’t much at BYU that comes close to matching those guys (that being the case at a lot of schools). Also, if you check out James’s you tube account, you can peep two of his debate with Mormons (Potter and Scharffs).

So….

You are wrong Simon.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hereis Dr.White debating with Philosopher Dennis Potter from University of Utah.

[_Simon Belmont]

While I completely agree with Dan on most points of biblical scholarship, and disagree with James on most everything, You can’t really claim that exchange was a debate. It’s also absurd to say White is afraid to debate anyone, given that he’ll take the stage to debate people like Bart Ehrman and John D. Crossan, there isn’t much at BYU that comes close to matching those guys (that being the case at a lot of schools). Also, if you check out James’s you tube account, you can peep two of his debate with Mormons (Potter and Scharffs).

So….

You are wrong Simon.

I didn't say he is afraid to debate. He loves debate. He just usually backs out early when it's with a Latter-day Saint (see here).

Sure, Simon. Next time think before you post.

About what, Kishkumen? Scratch is hardly the only one who categorizes LDS apologetics. You do it. Gadianton does it. Many here do it. I was curious which way the influence went.

[_maklelan]

This wasn't a debate because I don't think James White was even interested in a debate, because he's not interested in engaging hardly any of the points that mak made. To be honest, I can't blame him, debate with an Internet Mormon largely devolves into a game where the Internet Mormon deftly tries to deflect any argumentation with word redefinitions and "that's not doctrine." I can't say if that's why White stays away in this instance, but it's understandable.

I disagree that this was not a debate. It was not a formal, arbitrated debate by any means, but White specifically responded to my comments on his video and anticipated further comments from me. He stated on his radio show that he would respond to my rebuttals if he had time, but it appears he did not. Outside of a silly attempt to marginalize my interaction with White, I see no reason not to recognize that this was a debate. White was obviously interested in responding (ten installments is a bit much otherwise), and he insisted on more than one occasion that he was directly engaging my comments. The fact that he wasn't is only a reflection of his own forensic shortcomings.

I would also argue that there is no heuristic value in the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy (besides the convenience of pigeonholing for those who prefer not to acknowledge the complexity and pluriformity of all religious belief and praxis). Case in point, a debate with those commonly assigned to the "Chapel Mormon" category would largely result in the same devolution. Broad stereotypes can no doubt be conjured up which distinguish the methods of the two, but as methodological variation within each category exceeds the variation between the categories, they are, again, heuristically worthless.

White's whole post is basically a meta-argument about the argument mak wants to have.

Obviously there is a portion of his comments that is intended to criticize a broader movement he thinks my comments represent, but he also specifically and repeatedly insisted he would also respond directly to my claims. For instance, from the first post:

I would like to use Mr. McClellan’s discussion in two ways. First, I wish to use it as a lens through which to view the rapidly changing landscape within Mormonism. Secondly, I would like to respond to his claims and demonstrate that the current forms of Mormon apologetic are incoherent and self-referentially destructive (let alone just bad examples of apologetic argumentation in defense of Joseph Smith’s religion).

From the second post:

I would like to respond point by point to Mr. McClellan’s claims in his article.

The reason he generally fell back on the meta-argument is because he cannot directly engage my argument in any meaningful way. He makes token attempts, but they fall flat (such as his aborted attempt to engage Deut 32:8-9). He must instead spend his time trying to build the case that as an apologist I appeal to different assumptions and methodologies from Joseph Smith, and thus can be comfortably dismissed outright. He knows he cannot hope to score enough points by directly engaging my argument or even my methodology, so he has to argue that my methodology is not the same as that of early church apologists, and thus undermines the entire endeavor. The problem is not with my argument itself, but with the relationship of my argument to Mormonism's roots. After all, nothing that changes can be of God. I addressed all this in my responses, by the way.

Take home message: Why bother having a debate with Mormons in the first place? The Internet defenders of Mormonism aren't defending Mormonism, and the historic Mormonism is dying or dead already. There really isn't anything left to argue or debate.

This ignores the fact that White tries repeatedly to debate the points I brought up. He cannot, though, so he must poison the well by pointing readers away from the actual points and toward what he thinks the points say about the development of Mormonism. The notion that "Internet defenders" are defending something that is not Mormonism is ludicrous and phenomenally prescriptive. All churches and religions must and do change, and the notion that this undermines their validity rests only on naïve fundamentalism.

Message to Internet Mormons: You have been on a rampage to empty Mormonism of all content and the outside world thinks you are succeeding. Sure, maybe you have made the church easier to defend, but only at the cost of leaving nothing left to defend. The contentless Mormonism you have created inspires no one and converts nobody. What little content you allow inside Internet Mormonism can be had at any local non-denom conservative Christian church.

This is an MD rant, not a James White rant.

Take home message: It's cool if you want to use modern tools of Biblical criticism, just realize that everything there is 100x more potent when applied to Mormon scripture. People in glass houses in all that.

I'm not defending Mormon scripture, though, and White doesn't even approach a rudimentary understanding of the tools of modern biblical criticism ("biblical" is only ever capitalized when it's in the name of a language, Biblical Hebrew). I also repeatedly stated that my approach was strictly academic and had nothing to do with the particulars of Mormon belief. I knew that would scorch by a mile over White's head, but I'm disappointed to see it did the same to many others.

Again, note that White isn't really engaging anything mak might be saying. He's basically asking, "Are you REALLY sure you want to go that route, because I don't think it's a winner for your scriptures in the end?"

No, that's not what he's asking. He would be more interesting if he could engage your question at an informed level, but his questions are an evasion, not an informed indictment. He wants to ignore biblical criticism just as much as he imagines the average Mormon should want to ignore it, and he refuses to engage my argument on its own terms. As I made clear several times, I'm not interested in defending LDS scriptures or beliefs. I'm interested in the question of Mormonism as a Christian religion from a purely academic point of view. The notion that his comments at all address my argument or even my methodologies is laughable. He responds to my request for an academic discussion about Mormonism's relationship to the word "Christian" by asking if critical scholarship accepts the historicity of the Book of Abraham. That's a flagrant red herring. You're giving him too much credit because you see his argument as a useful tool for propping up your own criticisms of Mormon apologia. You've neglected to make sure you're presenting his criticisms and not your own, though.

By the way, I'm not defending White's views on the Bible, but I do agree that the tools of modern criticism, when applied to Mormon scripture, is absolutely devastating.

And that question has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

Take home message: If you think you can mix Mormonism (the real Mormonism, not the denuded Internet Mormon variety) with the academy, good luck with that.

"Real Mormonism"? In the early twentieth century the academy used to talk about "real Jews" and "real Christianity," but it moved well past that long before I was born. It is a shame that those who presume to take part in some capacity in Latter-day Saint scholarship insist on dragging it back to that level. Also, this again attributes to White a certain perspective regarding Latter-day Saint scholarship/laity that is not found among fundamentalist Evangelicals, but among disaffected Latter-day Saints and others who interact with them. In other words, this is an MD rant, not a James White rant.

Note, again, White isn't actually engaging any point mak is making. He's again asking, "Are you really sure you guys want to go this route, because there's no possible way you can make that work?"

No, White is not saying that. It seems like it, but he has no intention of following that line of argumentation through. He's just tossing it in the air to distract readers.

In summary, White ain't having a debate, he's just pointing out that whatever mak is trying to do, it probably won't work. Agree or disagree with White's overall point, but a debate it is not.

Lest anyone think I am defending White's beliefs or practices, I'm not. I really don't know anything about the guy.

You've ignored the numerous attempts he has tried to directly engage my points. A portion of his responses was aimed at trying to poison the well, but he's certainly not informed enough about Latter-day Saint scholarship to know what will and will not ultimately work. He's just trying to paint a picture of a church that is changing. Exactly how it's changing is secondary, and what it actually means to my argument isn't even on the map.

[_Aristotle Smith]

mak,

Got it. You had an informal, non-refereed debate with James White.

Congratulations.

[_stemelbow]

Take home message: Mak in a landslide.

that's just this unbiased observers opinion of course, and a serious one too. That was good and informative, thanks Mak and thanks Simon for bringing it to my attention.