Were the Apologists Ordered to Avoid Sunstone?

[_kairos]

don't forget Women's Exponent II- the best addressal of Mormon issues from the distaff side- it should be requred reading by all GA's who csn read!
just sayin

k

[_Gadianton]

with the exception of one interview...

huh...violation of a direct order?

[_Doctor Scratch]

with the exception of one interview...

huh...violation of a direct order?

That's an excellent point, Dean Robbers. I hesitated to say so, but the reality is that this admission has enormous ramifications. If I may say so, this is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics. I mean, just look at this, from Mormon Interpreter's mission statement:

Although the Board fully supports the goals and teachings of the Church, The Interpreter Foundation is an independent entity and is neither owned, controlled by nor affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or with Brigham Young University. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

(emphasis added)

You see these same kinds of disclaimers on all the Mopologists' output--all claiming that the Brethren don't exert any "control" over what they do. But, clearly, that's not true. According to this recent comment, it seems that all it takes is "a couple very powerful figures" to make a mere suggestion for there to be a huge ripple-effect on what the apologists do. And it's easy enough to read between the lines: not only was he expected to sever all ties with Sunstone, he was expected to do so for politcal reasons. (The "concerns held by some...about what was then called FARMS" was that they were too "liberal": i.e., open to postmodernism, subscribing to the LGT rather than the North American Book of Mormon theory, relying too heavily on the intellect rather than the mantle, and so on.)

So, this admission is huge. It is, in effect, a confession--after all this time!--that the Brethren control Mopologetics.

[_moksha]

Pretty sure the event to which Dr. Peterson alludes was touched upon in the latest chapter by Elder Bob Bobberson. Referring to that might help us avoid needless speculation.

CALL FOR REFERENCES

Okay, check this out:

The Mid-Length, Mostly Unhappy Life of Franklynn Carmichael, Part VII: Small Beginnings, Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:30 pm

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35431&start=63

[_Kishkumen]

You see these same kinds of disclaimers on all the Mopologists' output--all claiming that the Brethren don't exert any "control" over what they do. But, clearly, that's not true. According to this recent comment, it seems that all it takes is "a couple very powerful figures" to make a mere suggestion for there to be a huge ripple-effect on what the apologists do. And it's easy enough to read between the lines: not only was he expected to sever all ties with Sunstone, he was expected to do so for politcal reasons. (The "concerns held by some...about what was then called FARMS" was that they were too "liberal": i.e., open to postmodernism, subscribing to the LGT rather than the North American Book of Mormon theory, relying too heavily on the intellect rather than the mantle, and so on.)

So, this admission is huge. It is, in effect, a confession--after all this time!--that the Brethren control Mopologetics.

Hmmm. Is it that clearcut? I have seen apologists in attendance at Sunstone. It is true that I have not seen an apologist speak at Sunstone, and perhaps that is the important thing. Can anyone think of an apologist who delivered a talk at Sunstone in the past couple of decades?

I can tell you that a BYU professor would ordinarily not speak at Sunstone, and this is perhaps the reason why some of the heavy hitters do not--they are BYU professors. Add to that the big chill of having an apostle speak prohibitively on a particular subject, and you have what amounts to an injunction.

Of course, some of this is because of zealotry within middle management. For example, I was told that there is a guy in BYU's administration who searches the name of every applicant for a faculty position to make sure that person has never affiliated with Dialogue or Sunstone (published there, spoken there, etc.). Since I last applied for a BYU job, in the days when that was a serious possibility for me, I have spoken at Sunstone, so, among all of my other horrible sins and betrayals, this would be the one that would exclude me from consideration--were I so inclined.

[_suniluni2]

The reason faithful scholars tend to avoid Sunstone is that there was a letter to bishops and stake presidents about it in the very early 1990s, counseling members to avoid "symposia." I cancelled my subscription then but then re-upped several years later.

You're on the road to apostasy brother.

[_consiglieri]

This reminds me of how my Jehovah's Witness brother refused to be best man at my wedding in an LDS chapel because somebody he knew might see him there and "think he agreed with me."