Positive Resolutions for LDS Apologetics of Tomorrow

[_RockSlider]

I do like Kish's thinking here. However the Church will have to step up to it if they really want to make a change. It will not work if they continue to disavow, and require others to disavow any connection with the church. i.e. let John's type of world take care of those hurting and MI/FAIR continue on with academic apologetics, and yet none of it is official church sanctioned.

They would need to start right in the ward house, with lessons that try and reverse the thinking that anyone leaving the church is in the grasp of Satan and that anything outside of correlated material is anti-Mormon and the enemy. They would need to quit splitting families at the temple door, making twenty year olds choose between parents, friends, family and the church.

But of course this requires them to soften their stand on the only true church and on the elitism which the church provides.

[_Kishkumen]

OK, I see what you are talking about - the help offered to 'troubled members' would not so much be designed to retain them as believing members - which would involve either dealing with their doubts about the church's truth claims, or persuading them that they could remain members while denying those truth claims - but would be directed to enabling them to complete their journey out of the church without more social and emotional trauma than is inseparable from that journey.

Actually, no. What I mean is that the Church should deal with people where they are at in such a way that they can help them work out what to do next. For some people, explanations work, for others counseling--people have their individual needs. One of the primary goals should be to keep interactions positive no matter what the member decides. They should take a look at the better days Brant Gardner and David Bokovoy have and use them as a model. At the very least I would restrict the mean spirited slams to external enemies of the LDS Church. And if you think someone is "internal" in name only, then at least have the guts to throw them out before you savage them in print.

[_lulu]

Thanks Scratch and Kish, that's very kind of you.

[_Yoda]

Yeah, and I would strongly urge you to read some of the articles in the Review, as I think it would give you a much clearer sense of why Dehlin felt so alarmed at the prospect of a "hit piece," and why many of us (myself, Joe Geisner, and others) thought DCP was being disingenuous when he claimed that it was "just a critique."

I once posted an excerpt of Dan Peterson's "Text and Context" for you, and when you actually read it, you said "That's awful!" or something along those lines. I know you're friends with Dan and want to keep it that way, but I still think you need to spend some time reading the actual reviews so that you have a better sense of the sorts of behavior you're trying to address. I'd definitely recommend the following as a kind of jumping-off point:

Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic"
DCP's "Text and Context", "Questions to Legal Answers," and "The Witchcraft Paradigm"
Gee's review of Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magical World View"
Stephen Robinson's review of "The Word of God"
Midgley's "Prying into Palmer"
Tvedtnes's "Shades of Darkness" (this is actually an attack on Dr. Shades--yes: an attack on Dr. Shades appeared in the FARMS Review)

I admit that I've often been baffled at some of your remarks concerning the apologists, Liz. It seems like you are totally in the dark as to why a number of us have problems with their brand of Mopologetics. I don't mean any offense by this, and really appreciate your admission that you just haven't read very much, but I think it would be a real eye-opener for you, and it would help you to articulate the ways that things could be improved. Just for what it's worth.

Thank you for outlining these, Scratch. And, no, I have not read any of these articles.

I know that you have felt strongly about this for a very long time. I am sure you have mentioned it before, but which article was the first that really concerned you, and basically put you on the path against DCP? I am genuinely curious. I would really like to understand your perspective with this.

Also, is there a link for these articles, or do I just go to BYU's MI website and look them up by title?

[_Kishkumen]

Also, is there a link for these articles, or do I just go to BYU's MI website and look them up by title?

I have linked two of them in the Cassius CFP thread, liz.

I can tell you that these articles listed by Scratch were among those that concerned me over the years.

I think they ought not to have been published and did no credit to their authors or the LDS Church.

[_Yoda]

Also, is there a link for these articles, or do I just go to BYU's MI website and look them up by title?

I have linked two of them in the Cassius CFP thread, liz.

I can tell you that these articles listed by Scratch were among those that concerned me over the years.

I think they ought not to have been published and did no credit to their authors or the LDS Church.

Thanks, Kish! I will check them out.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thank you for outlining these, Scratch. And, no, I have not read any of these articles.

I know that you have felt strongly about this for a very long time. I am sure you have mentioned it before, but which article was the first that really concerned you, and basically put you on the path against DCP? I am genuinely curious. I would really like to understand your perspective with this.

It's not any one article in particular. My opinion on DCP is a response to the entire "body of work." But some of the very first things that bothered me about him were some of the things I saw him saying on the old FAIR messageboard: e.g., him making fun of Tal Bachman, being dismissive, mocking and/or mean to people who were asking him questions and whatnot. And as I think I've said, I was bothered by what I saw him saying about Mike Quinn. It seemed to me that he was spreading rumors in an effort to tarnish Quinn's reputation.

Also, is there a link for these articles, or do I just go to BYU's MI website and look them up by title?

They all come up quite easily with Google.

[_RayAgostini]

Also, is there a link for these articles, or do I just go to BYU's MI website and look them up by title?

Mormon Studies Review.

Just type in the title of the article in "search" and they should all come up.

As for the OP. I think two things need to be understood. One is that DCP is not going to change his "literalistic" view of the Restoration:

If beginning is true, all else follows.

Nor would I want to change it.

The second thing is that people like John Dehlin are the the other end of the spectrum, or at least in a different place, as I see it. So I don't think we are working to change views/beliefs, but to find some sort of, maybe impossible, middle ground.

Two "must reads" to grasp the basic problems:

Martin E. Marty,Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography.

Louis Midgley, The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity.

[_Gadianton]

Apologetics is nearly dead. There are no apologetics of tomorrow on the horizon.

As the church grew, the pool of capable intellectuals expanded to the point where several projects were tried to ground the Church in scholarship. The results were not good, and the ones who understood this the least I think have personality issues that also play into their abrasive manner as they've carried on over the years, generally speaking. The Church has also realized the results are not good, and everyone from the brethren, to the MI, to the BYU faculty ensure that there are no scholarly research paradigms within the LDS church. There are various reasons for this and it doesn't reflect any one point of view, but what it does cry out is that traditional scholarship and Mormonism don't mix. What grad students at BYU are publishing work on the LTG? What graduate courses on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Mormonism are available? There are special topics classes now and again, but there is no such thing as a program for the scholarly study of Mormonism at BYU. Just in the nick of time, the "religious studies" movement might save the day for those with the scholarly inkling who can now approach Mormonism from that slant, and find real programs to do it from. But as the Old Guard ages, no one is taking their place. The legacy of Nibley and Sorensen is fragmenting into the disparate projects of hobbyists and lay-researchers.

There will be no apologetics of tomorrow, and the crazy thing is, it's the apologists themselves who have ensured this, fighting for their lives upstream like Salmon, but then not laying any eggs. It's really weird, like one of those "disappearing bees" scenarios.

[_Samantabhadra]

But what the church needs right now on internet 2.0 is a church person not a cult or a sect person. They just don't have one.

Joanna Brooks?

If LDS apologetics focused on facts instead of motives, the field would gain some respect.

I disagree. The fundamental problem with Mormonism is that to any neutral observer, the Mormon version of events is 100% contrary to the facts. There is simply no way to reconcile the facts of anthropology and archaeology with the Book of Mormon. There is simply no way to reconcile the facts of Egyptology with the so-called "Book of Abraham." Gadianton touches on this when he notes that "traditional scholarship and Mormonism don't mix." Obviously.

But I do want to comment on something else Gadianton said:

Just in the nick of time, the "religious studies" movement might save the day for those with the scholarly inkling who can now approach Mormonism from that slant, and find real programs to do it from.

This is true, but needs further clarification. From my perspective, the only way Religious Studies as a discipline can "save the day" for a scholarly study of Mormonism is basically by abandoning any attempt at reconciling LDS teaching with reality, and examining LDS as a purely social or historical phenomenon. In other words, Religious Studies may in some sense legitimize the study of Mormonism, but only in a way that further feeds the NOM/DAMU.

Part of the reason for the Religious Studies revolution is the intuition that "insider" accounts should not automatically be disqualified from consideration. That's fine as far as it goes, but there is a huge difference between allowing your methodology to proceed from your own personal "insider" perspective, and abandoning methodological rigor entirely in a misguided attempt to bolster the "insider" account. The problem for Mormonism is that as soon as methodological rigor is applied, the whole thing collapses. Thus there is no "saving the day," the best that can be hoped for is people say, well, maybe the Book of Mormon was a forgery, and maybe the Book of Abraham was a forgery, and maybe Joseph Smith was a pious (or maybe a not-so-pious) fraud, but this community gave me my identity, my spouse, my family, and I don't want to give that up. There's good here and I don't want to give that up. Which is a totally legitimate thing to say, but it shouldn't be confused with a scholarly argument in support of LDS truth-claims. In other words the "apologetics of tomorrow" will only exist as sociology or cognitive therapy, history and linguistics will have to be abandoned as Mormonism broadens and deepens its encounter with the Academy.