Now, however, I am perplexed at why Mormon apologists would be triggered by those photos.
That picture of a boy dressed in girl's clothing perhaps prompted one of Elder Oaks office staff to call BYU Instructor Louis Midgley with orders to go ballistic.
A master timeline of LDS apologetics needs to include a rough guess of when Daniel C. Peterson signed on, right? Maybe also a rough estimate of the events and times that lead up to the John Dehlin article in the Maxwell Exposé of Books and Villains.
You need to include the original Mopologist, B.H. Robert's groundbreaking "Studies of the Book of Mormon"
“In light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are found in the ‘common knowledge' of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews [published in Palmyra in 1825], it would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is.”
- Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 243, 250
“There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators... they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and underdeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are a product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America.”
- Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 271
Stake President Wang Chung: I think you're saying something important here, but as the occupant of the Cassius University Chair bearing Roberts's name.... Well, it pains me to see his name lumped in with the Mopologists. If anything, don't you think that Roberts is precisely the sort of person that the Mopologists would have targeted--i.e., an "insider" (not unlike John Dehlin or Grant Palmer) who was making criticisms of Church orthodoxy? If Roberts were alive today, and saying the same things he says in Studies of the Book of Mormon, there would be an SCMC file on him, and Midgley and the rest of the Gang would be plotting ways to smear him and ruin his life.
Here's something interesting to consider, though. Do you think that Roberts, if he were alive today, would have been kicked out entirely, ala Quinn or David Wright? Or do you think he would have been politically savvy and would have wound up with the "new" Maxwell Institute, or working on the Joseph Smith Papers Project, or something like that?
Regardless, Prof. Wang Chung, I do think we likely see eye to eye in terms of thinking that Roberts deserves a place on the Reverend's timeline, since Roberts was arguably the most powerfully effective "instigator" ever in terms of Mopologetics. And as historians of Mopologetics know, the Mopologists have expended a whole lot of effort trying to explain away many of the things that Roberts said.
Thank you for the suggestion re: B. H. Roberts. I will add more about his study of the Book of Mormon. So far I have added something about the publication date in 1985, and a reference to McMurrin claiming that the LDS Church or its agents tried to suppress the publication.
When did the mopes come up with the "how could Joseph have known" nonsense? Coach P and kiwi (water boy) 57, over at SeN periodically post and comment, respectively, about volcanoes and then ask "how could Joseph have known about that?" They act as if they somehow know what Joseph knew or didn't know, trying to make the Book of Mormon production more of a fantastical enterprise. It goes along with artificially limiting the time of production as well. Does anyone know the genus of this argument? Did Nibley come up with it? I'd love to have the "how did he know" nonsense argument as part of the timeline.
I suspect Nibley is the one who came up with that angle. It would have been in his earlier Improvement Era articles such as "Howlers in the Book of Mormon," which were published in the early 1950's if memory serves me right. It was the complete and whole reason Nibley went into apologetics. It was his total modus operandi. I think he definitely is the one who started that angle, and perhaps with his "Lehi in the Desert" articles, later to be a book.
June 2005: Andrew Skinner appointed as executive director and Gerald Bradford as associate executive director of ISPART. See Insights, vol. 25, No. 5 (2005), https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... s_25-5.pdf (pp. 1, 7).
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
I had absolutely nothing to do with Welch's apologetic efforts in 1982 or before. In 1981 I was his legal research assistant and composed course outlines for business formations and ERISA. Other than my MMM pieces in 2003 for Dr Peterson, I never had anything to do with FARMS apologia or anything else. YB/Crockett
I had absolutely nothing to do with Welch's apologetic efforts in 1982 or before. In 1981 I was his legal research assistant and composed course outlines for business formations and ERISA. Other than my Mountain Meadows Massacre pieces in 2003 for Dr Peterson, I never had anything to do with FARMS apologia or anything else. YB/Crockett
Maybe this was some other, Robert Crockett? I drew this information out of a FARMS Newsletter.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
June 2005: Andrew Skinner appointed as executive director and Gerald Bradford as associate executive director of ISPART. See Insights, vol. 25, No. 5 (2005), https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... s_25-5.pdf (pp. 1, 7).