Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehlin?

[_Kishkumen]

Just for the record, I don't consider myself an "alleged heretic". I am a heretic by orthodox Mormon standards and beliefs. In dialoguing with them, where it's possible that is, it's helpful to view yourself realistically. I think McMurrin did this particularly well, and was able to speak his mind, yet Joseph Fielding Smith wasn't in a hurry to have him "out", either. They are the ones doing the "hard yards" in full activity and belief, not me. It would be nice if they can better understand where I'm coming from, but I wouldn't insist that they should accommodate me or even agree with my heresies. I simply accept that fact about our differences, and get on with life "my way". I'm quite okay with that. If I don't like the Mormon lifestyle or beliefs, I'm not going to put the blame for that on them, or insist that they change to accommodate me.

Good for you, Ray. You accept the authority of these self-appointed watchmen to define what Mormon identity is, and you live in accordance with that view. I can respect that. I don't see things the same way as you, but I'll admit that my views are non-traditional. Personally, I think Mormonism is bigger than a collection of bullies who tell others who belongs and who does not, but I am OK with you disagreeing with that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Whether true, partly true, or false, reading this thread is sad and troubling to me.

If true (GA censors MI for JD) this is a very positive step for the church and could be a start for reducing the pain for those who may struggle with their faith in the future.

Rejoice Ceeboo ... no need to be troubled here.

Exactly. This has got to be the most richly satisfying aspect of the story. DCP has long insisted that the Brethren have never breathed the slightest word of criticism about the Mopologists' activities. So, either this is a totally unprecedented and celebration-worthy occasion, or Prof. P. has been lying to us all along. Anybody want to place odds on which is the most likely?

[_Kishkumen]

Exactly. This has got to be the most richly satisfying aspect of the story. DCP has long insisted that the Brethren have never breathed the slightest word of criticism about the Mopologists' activities. So, either this is a totally unprecedented and celebration-worthy occasion, or Prof. P. has been lying to us all along. Anybody want to place odds on which is the most likely?

I find this aspect encouraging as well. There was a time when men who committed adultery were pretty much automatically excommunicated. But the Church came to realize that these guys were not coming back. Ever. So they figured that excommunication in these cases did not serve the greater purpose of repentance. Permanent alienation is not conducive to the repentance process.

I view deleterious strains of apologetics in the same way. Dog-piling doubters is no way to win people back into the fold. It is a way to drive them away for good. That is the real cost of Mopologetics. And it is real.

[_RayAgostini]

Good for you, Ray. You accept the authority of these self-appointed watchmen to define what Mormon identity is, and you live in accordance with that view.

I think there can be "cultural Mormons", like McMurrin, or even NOMs. In fact, I still identify with aspects of it that I like, but I still wouldn't even identity as a NOM.

I can respect that. I don't see things the same way as you, but I'll admit that my views are non-traditional. Personally, I think Mormonism is bigger than a collection of bullies who tell others who belongs and who does not, but I am OK with you disagreeing with that.

I think it's very big, and I know many inactive and less believing Mormons who still identify as Mormon. You rarely, if ever see them on message boards. In fact, I not long finished talking to one on the phone (inactive but still believing), and we joked about how we would fare in "the coming judgement". He's a very good friend going back to high school days, and I've never criticised his continuing literal beliefs.

If you want to make war with the "apologists", good luck. Don't stress yourself too much. Life is short.

[_Kishkumen]

If you want to make war with the "apologists", good luck. Don't stress yourself too much. Life is short.

I am not making war with anybody, Ray. But I am also not going to sit back and let a bunch of tinpot dictators, martinets, and bullies trash my friends. I'll be happy to tell them where to go, with a smile on my face to boot.

We don't have to tolerate their BS. It's not right. That's not a war. It is about standing up for what I believe is right.

[_RayAgostini]

I am not making war with anybody, Ray. But I am also not going to sit back and let a bunch of tinpot dictators, martinets, and bullies trash my friends. I'll be happy to tell them where to go, with a smile on my face to boot.

We don't have to tolerate their b***s***. It's not right. That's not a war. It is about standing up for what I believe is right.

They're standing up for what they believe is right too. The Tanners and others trashed their friends from 1959 on. FARMS was a response to criticism, or eventually became so. I don't expect you'll let up, and I'm not even going to try to stop you. I'm not your judge. If you feel happy with the person you look at in the mirror everyday, I won't contest that. Anyway, I'm just about done for today.

[_Kishkumen]

They're standing up for what they believe is right too. The Tanners and others trashed their friends from 1959 on. FARMS was a response to criticism, or eventually became so. I don't expect you'll let up, and I'm not even going to try to stop you. I'm not your judge. If you feel happy with the person you look at in the mirror everyday, I won't contest that. Anyway, I'm just about done for today.

The Tanners are/were ex-Mormon anti-Mormon Christians. That is a different story altogether. I think it is fine to argue against and correct the errors of self-avowed anti-Mormons. But these guys went way beyond that. It became about trashing anything that did not hew to a certain party line. It did not matter whether the person was a member in good standing, an interested bystander, or what have you. They got carried away in slamming everyone whose views they did not like. I just don't respect that, and I don't see it as defensible. Sorry.

[_RayAgostini]

The Tanners are/were ex-Mormon anti-Mormon Christians. That is a different story altogether. I think it is fine to argue against and correct the errors of self-avowed anti-Mormons. But these guys went way beyond that. It became about trashing anything that did not hew to a certain party line. It did not matter whether the person was a member in good standing, an interested bystander, or what have you. They got carried away in slamming everyone whose views they did not like. I just don't respect that, and I don't see it as defensible. Sorry.

for what it's worth:

Another characteristic feature of the Review was also established with the very first issue: its willingness to be critical even of books by friends, by people on our "side." Todd Compton, a classicist and an old friend of mine from graduate-school days at UCLA, opened his review of three volumes in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley by saying that "one approaches Hugh Nibley with a mixture of awe and anguish." 3 The sweep and genius of Nibley were stunning, but, Compton said, sometimes the details were a bit inaccurate. Likewise, Louis Midgley's review of the first two volumes of Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet's Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon faulted seeming tendencies to recast our scriptures as—though, of course, no believer would actually say it this way or be less than offended at such a thought—messy and inadequate attempts to do dogmatic theology, tendencies that he saw implicit in the books he was reviewing.

Editor's Introduction: "To Cheer, to Raise, to Guide": Twenty-Two Years of the FARMS Review

Maybe it's time for a review of criticisms of The Review, but that would be a mammoth task actually involving as much objectivity as humanly possible, and it's very difficult for humans (including critics and apologists, of course) to be objective. I know you're on message boards, but you're also a scholar, and you know how scholarship works, and it doesn't work very well on message boards. It takes hard work and detailed scrutiny, and the ability to see something that is completely opposite to your (selective) preconceptions, and this applies to either "side". That's why sometimes people change their opinions.

Now I'm really off.

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe it's time for a review of criticisms of The Review, but that would be a mammoth task actually involving as much objectivity as humanly possible, and it's very difficult for humans (including critics and apologists, of course) to be objective. I know you're on message boards, but you're also a scholar, and you know how scholarship works, and it doesn't work very well on message boards. It takes hard work and detailed scrutiny, and the ability to see something that is completely opposite to your (selective) preconceptions, and this applies to either "side". That's why sometimes people change their opinions.

Now I'm really off.

Again, Ray, criticizing issues of scholarship is not the same thing as calling into question someone's sincerity and faith. I simply do not accept the latter enterprise as legitimate.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Maybe it's time for a review of criticisms of The Review, but that would be a mammoth task actually involving as much objectivity as humanly possible, and it's very difficult for humans (including critics and apologists, of course) to be objective. I know you're on message boards, but you're also a scholar, and you know how scholarship works, and it doesn't work very well on message boards. It takes hard work and detailed scrutiny, and the ability to see something that is completely opposite to your (selective) preconceptions, and this applies to either "side". That's why sometimes people change their opinions.

Now I'm really off.

Again, Ray, criticizing issues of scholarship is not the same thing as calling into question someone's sincerity and faith. I simply do not accept the latter enterprise as legitimate.

The quote from Compton is a far cry from the things that were said about Quinn, Meldrum, or the Signature Books people. Furthermore, they've never criticized their "real" team, such as Hamblin or Gee. And Gee's work has definitely merited serious criticism.

Finally, the Review is not "scholarship," generally speaking. It's a book review.