Coffee With Kish: Disenchantment with Apologetics

[Kishkumen]

https://youtu.be/gTSfcpezKdo?si=CsTbUQaldvNG4wYs

Another shorter episode! This time I recount the story of how I started to become disenchanted with LDS apologetics. DCP figures into the narrative (POB alert!).

[drumdude]

I believe this is the nasty review of Hamblin’s (Metcalfe is butthead guy) and DCP’s that you mention:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43042159

Review: [Untitled]
Reviewed Work: The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 by JOHN L. BROOKE
Review by: William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, George L. Mitton
Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1994-95), pp. 167-181 (15 pages)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43042159

[Gadianton]

Another fantastic episode. I hope the B.H. Roberts Chair tunes in, I'd be interested in his take of the quote, "stupid books deserve to be ridiculed".

It sounds like our pre-mission days were similar. The difference is that my first books away from fiction in high school were all conspiracy related. Some of it was derived from Cleon Skousen, but a lot of it had nothing to do with Mormonism. I didn't have enough life context to understand that I was deep into right-wing conspiracy territory. I was oblivious to politics and when I met "Birchers" on my mission, I was confused. When I heard about Nibley, I dug up Since Cumorah from the basement and that pulled me away from everything else. My internal sense was that he was far above the others in terms of knowledge and depth. Having said that, in my mind he reconciled with Skousen pretty well so Approaching Zion and all Nibley's politics I warmly accepted as just a better version of what I was already into, but I didn't think about it in terms of everyday politics. I began buying FARMS books including FROB and I'd read a lot of Nibley before mission. I was also given anti-lit at a job by a really good-hearted weirdo born again, and that pissed me off. I skimmed anti-lit at book stores including Decker, and so by my mission, I was ready for combat and even carried a second Bible dedicated to bashing. I knowingly allowed myself to get set up in traps with local ministers and Bible study groups and I think I held my own. Whatever aggression FROB had I didn't even notice. I was on the same side.

My education was incredibly limited. I was barely awake in high school and all this stuff I was into was part of a bigger picture I knew nothing about. In preparation for a bash with quasi-JWs, I went to the local university library, and looked for the ammo I was sure existed proving that Mormonism was right on some Old Testament topics. lol. I read one essay by H. Wheeler Robinson from Interpreter's Bible and I was done. I never read another word of Hugh Nibley again. I used to laugh along with Nibley's comments "Oh, the fuss over who borrowed from who is about all these false priests care about! What nonsense!" not knowing what I was laughing about. So two or three hours reading real scholarship (whether or not it was correct) made it apparent that Nibley's work wasn't real scholarship, for the most part.

I didn't care about FARMS tone ever, even post mission after going completely inactive and accepting that I was probably an atheist, I would still have been on the side of FARMS, as I could not stand the evangelical movement. It only ended with ZLMB, when I met FARMS. lol. And even then, it took a while to figure it out.

[Chap]

I used to laugh along with Nibley's comments "Oh, the fuss over who borrowed from who is about all these false priests care about! What nonsense!" not knowing what I was laughing about. So two or three hours reading real scholarship (whether or not it was correct) made it apparent that Nibley's work wasn't real scholarship, for the most part.

This resonates with me. There are times when it is possible to make a pretty good guess whether or not a text on a subject with which one is unacquainted is worth further attention, just by looking at its structure and style. On such occasions one may feel able to say "This person may be right or wrong in their conclusions. But at least they are trying to set out a clear and honest argument, and to let their reader make a fair estimate of the degree to which they have a solid evidential basis for their claims."

Of course, there is then a lot more work to do before deciding whether they are right, wrong, or just nothing in particular.

[Kishkumen]

I believe this is the nasty review of Hamblin’s (Metcalfe is butthead guy) and DCP’s that you mention:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43042159

Review: [Untitled]
Reviewed Work: The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 by JOHN L. BROOKE
Review by: William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, George L. Mitton
Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1994-95), pp. 167-181 (15 pages)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43042159

Yes, "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace: Or, Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge" was the original title. It still bears that title on BYU's Scholars' Archive.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/msr/vol6/iss2/4/

One of the real awful things about this review was the title, so I am not surprised it was suppressed in more professional venues. Loftes Tryk was an ex-Mormon anti-Mormon writer who was convicted of a crime, it may have been child sexual abuse, and imprisoned.

Here is a SHIELDS letter that still exists about Tryk:

https://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Trykback.htm

Needless to say, I found the review unprofessional and mean-spirited. The comparison of a non-LDS historian and professor who wrote an important book on Mormonism's place in the Western Esoteric tradition with a convicted child-molester who published an anti-Mormon book is a little much for me. I don't believe this move did any credit to the authors of the review at all.

Fortunately, Mormon Studies scholars today generally recognize the contribution of John L. Brooke to be worthwhile. I would say his contribution is vindicated.

[Kishkumen]

Another fantastic episode. I hope the B.H. Roberts Chair tunes in, I'd be interested in his take of the quote, "stupid books deserve to be ridiculed".

It sounds like our pre-mission days were similar. The difference is that my first books away from fiction in high school were all conspiracy related. Some of it was derived from Cleon Skousen, but a lot of it had nothing to do with Mormonism. I didn't have enough life context to understand that I was deep into right-wing conspiracy territory. I was oblivious to politics and when I met "Birchers" on my mission, I was confused. When I heard about Nibley, I dug up Since Cumorah from the basement and that pulled me away from everything else. My internal sense was that he was far above the others in terms of knowledge and depth. Having said that, in my mind he reconciled with Skousen pretty well so Approaching Zion and all Nibley's politics I warmly accepted as just a better version of what I was already into, but I didn't think about it in terms of everyday politics. I began buying FARMS books including FROB and I'd read a lot of Nibley before mission. I was also given anti-lit at a job by a really good-hearted weirdo born again, and that pissed me off. I skimmed anti-lit at book stores including Decker, and so by my mission, I was ready for combat and even carried a second Bible dedicated to bashing. I knowingly allowed myself to get set up in traps with local ministers and Bible study groups and I think I held my own. Whatever aggression FROB had I didn't even notice. I was on the same side.

My education was incredibly limited. I was barely awake in high school and all this stuff I was into was part of a bigger picture I knew nothing about. In preparation for a bash with quasi-JWs, I went to the local university library, and looked for the ammo I was sure existed proving that Mormonism was right on some Old Testament topics. lol. I read one essay by H. Wheeler Robinson from Interpreter's Bible and I was done. I never read another word of Hugh Nibley again. I used to laugh along with Nibley's comments "Oh, the fuss over who borrowed from who is about all these false priests care about! What nonsense!" not knowing what I was laughing about. So two or three hours reading real scholarship (whether or not it was correct) made it apparent that Nibley's work wasn't real scholarship, for the most part.

I didn't care about FARMS tone ever, even post mission after going completely inactive and accepting that I was probably an atheist, I would still have been on the side of FARMS, as I could not stand the evangelical movement. It only ended with ZLMB, when I met FARMS. lol. And even then, it took a while to figure it out.

Thanks for sharing this, Dean Robbers! I did not read Skousen at all until my mission, and I found him to be poor stuff in comparison with Nibley, but I found his theories of the Lost Tribes oddly compelling. It was a long time before I recognized just how horribly racist he was. Obviously I was not reading him carefully enough. Yes, Nibley was *the* scholar for me, just as it seems he quickly became for you. Our experiences as missionary-apologists also seems to have been similar, except that I did not have a second Bible specially prepared for the task. Boss!

The big difference is that I did not have that sudden recognition that Nibley's scholarship was, ahem, idiosyncratic, which came from reading Biblical scholarship. For me it was more the slow methodological realization that Nibley could not be doing regular scholarship. To this day I am not so upset about that, but I am sure I would have been if it had hit me head on quite suddenly. Sure, I would never adopt his methodology as my own. I don't take what he says about the ancient world as being historically accurate or straight scholarship. At the same time, what he does bothers me a little less than the other FARMS folk. I think that's because of his contrarian and anti-authoritarian impulses or flourishes. FARMS seemed, by contrast, to be unapologetically apologetic for the LDS establishment, even the worst aspects of it.

[Tom]

I believe this is the nasty review of Hamblin’s (Metcalfe is butthead guy) and DCP’s that you mention:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43042159

Review: [Untitled]
Reviewed Work: The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 by JOHN L. BROOKE
Review by: William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, George L. Mitton
Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1994-95), pp. 167-181 (15 pages)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43042159

Yes, "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace: Or, Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge" was the original title. It still bears that title on BYU's Scholars' Archive.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/msr/vol6/iss2/4/

One of the real awful things about this review was the title, so I am not surprised it was suppressed in more professional venues. Loftes Tryk was an ex-Mormon anti-Mormon writer who was convicted of a crime, it may have been child sexual abuse, and imprisoned.

Here is a SHIELDS letter that still exists about Tryk:

https://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Trykback.htm

Needless to say, I found the review unprofessional and mean-spirited. The comparison of a non-LDS historian and professor who wrote an important book on Mormonism's place in the Western Esoteric tradition with a convicted child-molester who published an anti-Mormon book is a little much for me. I don't believe this move did any credit to the authors of the review at all.

Fortunately, Mormon Studies scholars today generally recognize the contribution of John L. Brooke to be worthwhile. I would say his contribution is vindicated.

I understood the Tryk reference at the time because I was a regular reader of the RBBM, but I found it strange that the review itself never explained it. It was a cheap shot.

[Doctor Scratch]

Another intriguing episode, Reverend. Took a while to get going (for me), but the payoff was worth it. And I have heard this story more than once before! But getting to hear it in this format was worthwhile. I'm curious: What was Ricks's reaction to DCP's remark? Was he as aghast as you? Was he approving? And the comment really can cut in a number of different directions. Do stupid Mopologists deserve to be ridiculed? Do stupid blogs deserve to be ridiculed? Do stupid propaganda films deserve to be ridiculed? These are the kinds of questions that would earn you an instant banning if you attempted to ask them at "SeN."

I will add on a personal note that my first introduction to DCP and the Mopologists was watching him post on the old FAIRboard, and my reaction to his behavior was similar to yours: I was shocked to see a BYU professor treating people the way he did. One of the earliest exchanges I saw was him going back and forth with Rollo Tomasi on some issue, and DCP wound up making some irrelevant ad hominem comment about how Mike Quinn's "homosexuality was known to his then-Stake President." Peterson was saying this to discredit Quinn, and to make it seem as if Quinn's scholarship was untrustworthy due to some alleged "homosexual agenda." This was pre-Prop 8, pre-Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, and so homophobia was rampant in the LDS community and he was exploiting that bias in what was, to my mind, a very cheap and low-handed way.

[Kishkumen]

Another intriguing episode, Reverend. Took a while to get going (for me), but the payoff was worth it. And I have heard this story more than once before! But getting to hear it in this format was worthwhile. I'm curious: What was Ricks's reaction to DCP's remark? Was he as aghast as you? Was he approving? And the comment really can cut in a number of different directions. Do stupid Mopologists deserve to be ridiculed? Do stupid blogs deserve to be ridiculed? Do stupid propaganda films deserve to be ridiculed? These are the kinds of questions that would earn you an instant banning if you attempted to ask them at "SeN."

I will add on a personal note that my first introduction to DCP and the Mopologists was watching him post on the old FAIRboard, and my reaction to his behavior was similar to yours: I was shocked to see a BYU professor treating people the way he did. One of the earliest exchanges I saw was him going back and forth with Rollo Tomasi on some issue, and DCP wound up making some irrelevant ad hominem comment about how Mike Quinn's "homosexuality was known to his then-Stake President." Peterson was saying this to discredit Quinn, and to make it seem as if Quinn's scholarship was untrustworthy due to some alleged "homosexual agenda." This was pre-Prop 8, pre-Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, and so homophobia was rampant in the LDS community and he was exploiting that bias in what was, to my mind, a very cheap and low-handed way.

Ricks affect clearly communicated to me that he was the messenger and not about to argue his friend’s point with me. I reiterated my initial objection that an honest scholarly enterprise should not be equated with anti-Mormonism, and, although Ricks seemed sympathetic, he was not interested in arguing the case either way.

I, too, recall the effort to use homosexuality as a way of countering legitimate criticisms, both in Quinn’s case and in Ritner’s. It was another strategy that I found repugnant.

[Gadianton]

To this day I am not so upset about that, but I am sure I would have been if it had hit me head on quite suddenly.

I can see how phrasing it the way I did implies that. I didn't declare, "I shall never read a book by Hugh Nibley again", I just didn't ever read him again. I still had my books, and I packed them around as I moved outside Utah and kept them on my shelf up until a few years ago. Tossing them out with many other books was mostly the end game I saw with my parents and the years of accumulating endless things that have nowhere to go. I gave away a new Marshall amplifier to my neighbor within the same week.

Nibley didn't mythologize himself (perhaps he played into his personality). Between apologists and members, Nibley is (or was) unrivaled. The academic world fears him. But Nibley isn't the guy trying to hide the truth. He isn't the one telling you not to read materials critical of Mormonism. He is the one telling you how vast the scholarly world is, there are endless books and even he is only getting started, and it's your duty as a member to get to studying, and he means the meat, not the Ensign or church-approved materials. He seems to believe your growth is stunted by your orthodox reading list. It would be very hard to fault the guy who is literally telling you that your covenant duty is to expand your mind with secular knowledge about the ancient world. It was in fact, church leaders, most emphatically one particular bishop, who tried to steer me away from reading Hugh Nibley for that reason. You're supposed to buy the Nibley volume and put it on your shelf and say, "whoah, he's way beyond me, good thing he knows everything and still believes so that I don't have to do the legwork."

A case could be made that I owe him a lot. He graduated me from the worst kinds of nonsense with Skousen, although most of that stuff I would have ditched anyway after going to college the first year. And he basically pointed me the way out the door. It's just an accidental thing, it's not a conspiracy, but Nibley with his mythology along with his vast confidence; a simple kid from the sticks like me had every reason to believe that I'll march into the local university library and then show everyone that Mormonism is right. He really believed everything he believed, he wasn't lying to anybody or trying to block the pursuit of knowledge. The Morg, yes; Nibley, no.