The Future of Mopologetics - A Second Opinion

[_Aristotle Smith]

It appears that they've gotten at least some degree of backlash on this.

Yes, but since FROB was already 2-3 issues behind schedule, the backlash was inevitable. You can't promise two issues a year and deliver one in 18 months. In fact, this might provide a fig leaf to the new NAMIRS crew, they can write the backlash off to delayed publications, not the change in direction.

[_Doctor Scratch]

With this announcement, I think we can safely say that the firing has been finalized. It means that DCP and his allies have lost the battle. Supposing the Will Schryver was right, and that the issue was discussed by the Brethren, (which would coincide rather neatly with the timing of the announcment) it means that the GAs sided with Bradford and his supporters.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

With this announcement, I think we can safely say that the firing has been finalized. It means that DCP and his allies have lost the battle. Supposing the Will Schryver was right, and that the issue was discussed by the Brethren, (which would coincide rather neatly with the timing of the announcment) it means that the GAs sided with Bradford and his supporters.

Yup, it's a done deal. I thought DCP might be able to pull a coup and jettison Bradford, but I think this announcement shows it is over -- FARMS is dead and gone (more precisely, the Review). I have no doubt that DCP and his followers will create a type of FARMS-wannabe, but it'll never be the same for them. Times have changed. And I am convinced more than ever that the Brethren are well aware of what's going on at MI and approve Bradford's vision and methods. Which means, just as DCP said he feared in his 6/16 email response to Bradford, that Dan is at the receiving end of "institutional repudiation." Mormonism has come a long way during the past 23 years (while Dan was at the helm of the Review), and at least publicly the Brethren (Elder Ballard's GC talk a few years ago comes to mind) want to take the 'high road' in dealing with critics and so-called "anti's." I commend them for that, and believe it will, overall, be to the benefit of the Church institution and questioning members.

[_Kishkumen]

With this announcement, I think we can safely say that the firing has been finalized. It means that DCP and his allies have lost the battle. Supposing the Will Schryver was right, and that the issue was discussed by the Brethren, (which would coincide rather neatly with the timing of the announcment) it means that the GAs sided with Bradford and his supporters.

Well, this looks like a win-win situation for everyone concerned. The MSR can now raise the academic profile of the Institute, while the return of FARMS will allow the OMIDs and their acolytes to give full play to their smearing faculties without ecclesiastical or academic restraint.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Does anyone else think it's interesting that this announcement was done on a Friday afternoon? This is typically when PR departments and press secretaries offload crap they don't want many people to see, but still want to be able to say they made it public.

Assuming of course this is when it was released, there's no timestamp on the document.

[_Joe Geisner]

Dan Peterson's response: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ssion.html

"self-imposed public silence that I’ve maintained" What in the hell is Dano talking about? We have at least two times he has spoke publicly. Am I wrong on this?

Bill Hamblin's nonsense follows
http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/

Hamblin has his head so far shoved up his fanny that he has no sense of reality. It is Dano's responsibility to contact HIS team.

And check out his lyrics. This has much the same stupid ring as his attack on Brent and Dan had.

I am glad that Bradford did this. If he never does another thing right, he has done a service for all Mormons.

Peterson and Hamblin have shown their real colors through this difficult time. We can see what they are really made of, and it is not integrity.

[_Kishkumen]

Oh, I'd be ticked if I were they. But, can you imagine what it would have been like to fire these guys in person? The fireworks!

[_Jason Bourne]

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I would not count Dan Peterson down and out and he may yet have influence enough to even make a come back with the Maxwell institute.

As for the future of LDS apologetics I think it will remain robust in many varying venues. The Church really does not bother with FAIR and I think FAIR is pretty robust.

But ultimatly, most church members are not all that interested in this. When I was a FARMS goupie almost nobody in my ward or stake new of FARMS or Dan Peterson. I think this stuff appeals to a only a few. For example last week I went to lunch with a good friend who was one of my counselors when I was a bishop. He is now my HPGL. He knows I have some question and concerns but not the total extent. I wanted to share some more with him for a variety of reasons. And he just could not get his head around some of the issues I have. He does not know about them and in his words "Does not want to know about them if it is going to hurt his testimony." He just thinks the Church is the best think ever, cannot imagine life without it and knows it is the best Chuch organizationout there. I just left it alone.

Anyway, I don't buy into Aristotles gloomy outlook of LDS apologetics. It may have been knocked down a peg this week but it is a long ways from being down for the count.

[_Cylon]

Huh. Aristotle's theory now has a new proponent: Will Schryver.

jwhitlock, on 22 June 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:
Not even close. I happen to believe that the end doesn't justify the means. Society is rife with examples of people who act like Bradford, and anyone who wants to open their mind a bit would see that.

And I agree that the mole issue is perhaps just as troubling, and needs to be addressed quickly.

The question is what do we now know that we didn't know before?

Think about it.

If you get stumped and need a little help in understanding the implications of what has happened over the course of the past week, just wander over to the apostate message board and read what they have said and will yet be saying about it. I guarantee you, they understood perfectly well what the stakes were. And they know precisely what's been won.

Quote
the narrator [Loyd Ericson, editor of the Claremont Mormon Studies Journal]:
I doubt that The Brethren™ had much to do with pushing Peterson out. FARMS used to be the darling of Mormon scholarship, but has fallen into irrelevance with the rise of Mormon studies as a growing scholarly field. The Maxwell Institute--and especially the Review--had become a joke among many, if not most, Mormon studies scholars. (That the Review was newly Christian The Mormon Studies Review was especially frustrating to many who wished to see Mormon studies recognized as a genuine academic field and not merely a cover for apologetics). Bradford and some of his colleagues at the MI were quite aware of this and wanted to take the MI away from petty apologetics and into contemporary scholarly and academic dialogue. As long as Peterson was heading the MSR, it would be a hindrance to this goal. As such, Peterson had to go in order to legitimize the MI.

The Dehlin fiasco was merely, perhaps, the straw that broke the camel's back. If it had not happened, Peterson would have been let go eventually either way.
Link

Quote
Aristotle Smith:

The liberals have won. There has been a ongoing fight between more liberal Mormons who populate the bloggernacle vs. the more conservative Mormons who populate discussion boards and FARMS/NAMIRS for the heart and soul of Internet Mormons. DCP's firing is a clear indication that the former group has won, and my guess is they have won decisively. Someone sympathetic to their cause will be appointed to helm NAMIRS and edit the Mormon Studies Review (formerly known as FARMS Review of Books). The change in journal name clearly signals the change in direction. NAMIRS will become a clearinghouse for Mormon Studies and will very quickly jettison the old style FARMS Mopologetics. This group will be more politically correct and academically respectable and I predict their Mormon Studies Review will be seen as academically respectable within the next five years, at least among those who care about Mormon Studies, which is something the new NAMIRS crew is sure to wildly overestimate.

... in pursuit of academic respectability NAMIRS will not do any apologetics. Contributing further to the lack of desire to do apologetics will be the fact that the new NAMIRS crew will likely be mostly sympathetic to secular criticisms of LDS history and doctrine. Thus they won't see any need to respond to things they largely agree with.

Link (emphasis mine)

Now do you see it, my friends? Now?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58099-my-assessment-of-the-situation-at-the-maxwell-institute/page__st__440

That's kinda surreal.

[_RayAgostini]

Huh. Aristotle's theory now has a new proponent: Will Schryver.

That's kinda surreal.

He's not actually supporting it. Take a closer look:

If you get stumped and need a little help in understanding the implications of what has happened over the course of the past week, just wander over to the apostate message board and read what they have said and will yet be saying about it. I guarantee you, they understood perfectly well what the stakes were. And they know precisely what's been won....

Now do you see it, my friends? Now?

(Emphasis added)

Members who wanted answers to difficult and controversial questions (not just "scholarly questions") will not find them in the resurrected MSR, because it will become a sort of "scholarly chattering class", scholars speaking to scholars, and most lay members will have zero interest in that. Whether the way the MSR was formerly constituted was a good or bad thing, has drawn many different responses (it actually helped me re-join the Church in 1995, though I did leave again in the long term, but not because of apologetics). That's what I've been saying about it being useful, very useful, to many who believe and remain. I'm not sure what the extent of the revision of the MI will be, or how far they will downplay apologetics, but like it or not, sometimes apologetics does need "lightning rods" to stir broader interests. Love him or hate him, who hasn't been highly entertained and informed by the knowledge and wit of DCP?

Now, over to the piranha...

Have a nice day, people (was that better?).