What motivates a man like Gerald Bradford

[Guest]

But given that his apparent wish is to abandon an apologetic bent in favor of "scholarly" study of the Restored Gospel,

This bespeaks a well known and deeply embedded assumption, but one that is of little concern to serious intellectuals from within the faithful apologetic tradition. We've had scholarly study of the restored gospel all along. Its been known as FARMS and NMI.

What Bradford and his followers appear to want to do is remove the apologetic aspect of that scholarly work from the NMI. This means, yes, the end of scholarly apologetics at NMI, and its replacement with a tiny in-group of religious scholars talking primarily to themselves on various scholarly subjects related to religion and the Church, but without apologetic content.

Such an institute is not problematic in and of itself. The question is why did apologetics as an intellectual pursuit have to be destroyed to make way for it.

Answer: it didn't, and therein lies the problem.

[_RockSlider]

So, in some respects I think that FARMS was not working well for the LDS Church. They did their best to do what was asked of them traditionally, but times and approaches have changed. The LDS Church wants a strong BYU voice in Mormon Studies. However that transition was handled, or however we feel about it, that is what is going on, in my view. The experiment of bringing FARMS onto BYU campus failed in some ways, but was successful in others. Other non-BYU organizations like FAIR and perhaps a new organization headed by Dr. Peterson will carry the torch of going toe to toe with the meaner anti-Mormons and of crying "witch" against internal secularists and lefties. And so it continues.

I'm surprised that you seem to fall on the side of GA participation, and yet see a new chapter for the old gaurd to move back into. In this "Mormon Moment" if the GA's went to the effort/choice to nix this from BYU why would they want it/let it take new root?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I hope that an informant is able to provide some further light and knowledge soon and I have no doubt it will become quite obvious if it is revealed that this is something one of the Brethren approved just from the apologists' reaction to that news. It seems the apologists have become so comfortable throwing dead prophets and apostles under the bus that this might be a case of them deciding that they don't need to wait for the Brethren to be dead before they dismiss them as talking as mere men, if you are right .... and they call us apostates.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

for what it's worth, I was told that it was an apostle who ultimately intervened in the case of the Dehlin article. Dehlin himself has alluded to this, If I recall correctly. As to whether an apostle was also involved in the editorial changes at the Maxwell Institute... I don't know for sure, but based on everything I've been told, I would have to think that there was certainly Q12 involvement. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that, say, Oaks and a small group of apostles told Bradford to go ahead and push DCP aside. And virtually everything I know about the FP would lead me to believe that they would have major problems with FARMS-style polemics. I just can't envision Elders Uchtdorf and Eyring appreciating something like "Text and Context" or "That Old Black Magic." These Brethren preach kindness and compassion, and I just can't see how those teachings square with what you find in "classic-FARMS."

[_Kishkumen]

I think Dan would be kinder, and not wish you an "everlasting farewell". He's a wimp compared to Nephi.

Yeah, well Daniel also knows that he isn't a prophet charged with writing scripture.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm surprised that you seem to fall on the side of GA participation, and yet see a new chapter for the old gaurd to move back into. In this "Mormon Moment" if the GA's went to the effort/choice to nix this from BYU why would they want it/let it take new root?

My overall argument is based on authority and Church government. I really don't care what the MI guys do, so long as they do not appear to speak for the LDS Church as they go about crying "witch," etc. It's not my job to tell anyone what to do, really. I can only say that all I desired here was to have the appearance of "slamming with authority" gone. This appears to have happened and I am very happy about that. I thought it would have been better if the editors of the Review could have been persuaded not to usurp priesthood authority by acting as accusers of individual members before the general membership of the Church, something even the Brethren don't do, but I'll take this.

[_RockSlider]

I thought it would have been better if the editors of the Review could have been persuaded not to usurp priesthood authority by acting as accusers of individual members before the general membership of the Church, something even the Brethren don't do, but I'll take this.

Danites driven underground ... scary

[_Darth J]

But given that his apparent wish is to abandon an apologetic bent in favor of "scholarly" study of the Restored Gospel,

This bespeaks a well known and deeply embedded assumption, but one that is of little concern to serious intellectuals from within the faithful apologetic tradition. We've had scholarly study of the restored gospel all along. Its been known as FARMS and NMI.

What Bradford and his followers appear to want to do is remove the apologetic aspect of that scholarly work from the NMI. This means, yes, the end of scholarly apologetics at NMI, and its replacement with a tiny in-group of religious scholars talking primarily to themselves on various scholarly subjects related to religion and the Church, but without apologetic content.

Such an institute is not problematic in and of itself. The question is why did apologetics as an intellectual pursuit have to be destroyed to make way for it.

Answer: it didn't, and therein lies the problem.

Indeed, only the most rigorous scholarship and serious intellects can develop such compelling theses in defense of the Restored Gospel. It is certainly too bad that anti-Mormons and apostates do not appreciate the nuance and refined elegance of pre-Columbian Hebrew tapir ranching, or Moroni's mighty journey from Guatemala or the Yucatan or wherever to upstate New York (just in case Joseph Smith might live there 1400 years later).

That's some seriously rigorous intellectual and scholarly effort right there.

P.S. Droopy, you know how steel swords patterned after the sword of Laban actually mean Aztec wooden clubs? Has this rigorous, sober-minded scholarship come up with any evidence that the Aztecs.....you know.....ever actually interacted with a Nephite civilization, such that this transfer of technology would have taken place?

[Guest]

-

[_Kishkumen]

It is my understanding that an apostle was involved in the Dehlin article issue, but I doubt we will every know all of the details.

[Guest]

-