Coffee With Kish: Disenchantment with Apologetics

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m curious how you would situate Nibley within—or adjacent to—Mopologetics. The Mopologists obviously venerate him, and yet his politics seems antithetical to theirs, and it doesn’t seem like he went in for the viciousness…. So what’s the relationship, in your view?

[Moksha]

I’m curious how you would situate Nibley within—or adjacent to—Mopologetics. The Mopologists obviously venerate him, and yet his politics seems antithetical to theirs, and it doesn’t seem like he went in for the viciousness…. So what’s the relationship, in your view?

Even the cobra can admire the grace and speed of the mongoose.

[Kishkumen]

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.

Thank you, Dean Robbers! Yes! It was that encouragement, even enjoinment, to learn everything one could that really stood out to me. The books showed his vast learning. Now he keeps saying that it is a gospel duty to do the same. And the stuff he was talking about was a geeky dream! Thanks for reminding me of that.

[Kishkumen]

I’m curious how you would situate Nibley within—or adjacent to—Mopologetics. The Mopologists obviously venerate him, and yet his politics seems antithetical to theirs, and it doesn’t seem like he went in for the viciousness…. So what’s the relationship, in your view?

Well, there was No, Ma’am, That’s Not History!” This was his takedown of Fawn Brodie. I would call that pioneering Mopologetics. The difference is in the emphasis and amount of time spent attacking individual people. For every “No, Ma’am” Nibley wrote a shed load of his scholarship. Today’s apologists seem to do their apportionment inversely. That’s just my sense of things.

[drumdude]

I’m quite routinely dismissed in certain circles as a mere “apologist.” I don’t mind the term, though I regret the dismissal.

I believe that apologetics, as such, is inevitable. Stripped of specifically religious elements, it’s merely the advocacy or defense of a position. Scholars advocate and defend positions all the time, as they should.

Some may also be aware that I’ve been known to distinguish between what I call positive apologetics and what I term negative apologetics. I want to be very clear about that distinction:

By negative apologetics, I don’t mean attacking other positions, let alone assaulting other people — to say nothing of mere nastiness and mean-spiritedness. I realize that my image, in certain quarters, is that I’m a vicious, hardhearted, conscienceless, polemical hack. But even if that characterization were accurate — which it isn’t — it would have nothing at all to do with what I’m saying here.

What I mean by negative apologetics is the defense of a position — whether religious or not — against attack. It can easily be compared to playing defense in football. I judge it to be essential, and I regard it as just as justifiable, both morally and intellectually, as what I’ve called positive apologetics.

So what is positive apologetics? What I mean by the term is the provision of affirmative reasons for holding a position. It is the development and exposition of reasons for accepting a proposition or adopting a belief. One might compare it to a football offense.

I see absolutely no reason to regard one as legitimate and the other as illegitimate. Both are necessary and both are perfectly fine, just as both offense and defense are fair and necessary. Of course, in football as in apologetics, both offense and defense can be well executed or poorly executed. Both can be done according to the rules (of logic, of sound scholarship, of fair play, of the NFL) and, unfortunately, both can sometimes fall afoul of the rules. But the occurrence of fouls in football doesn’t render illegitimate the idea of offense or of defense, let alone the game itself. Bad drivers don’t prove driving wrong. And mistaken or bad-faith or disingenuous or uncivil arguments don’t, as such, invalidate apologetics, whether positive or negative.

Suppose that Scientist X argues that nature is more important than nurture in the formation of human personality. He cites evidence and reasons to support his claim. In that case, he is doing something essentially like positive apologetics.

But Scientist Y disagrees and publishes an article disputing Scientist X’s evidence and reasons.

It would be rather odd if Scientist X, while still holding his view, were to chastely decline to defend his own position, declaring such defense morally illegitimate. But if he were to respond by attempting to rebut Scientist Y’s objections, he would, in that case, simply be doing a form of negative apologetics. As well he should.

It is entirely legitimate to argue that the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon are credible. Such an argument would be positive apologetics. It is every bit as legitimate to seek to rebut claims that Oliver Cowdery denied his testimony, that Martin Harris was an unstable loon, or that David Whitmer isn’t credible. Such an argument would be negative apologetics.

And that is what I mean by the terms.

To repeat: Both positive and negative apologetics are, in my judgment, entirely legitimate — just as offense and defense are entirely legitimate in football and just as both batting and fielding are entirely legitimate in baseball. A chess player is entirely within her rights to be playing both defensively and offensively. In fact, she had better do so!

An interestingly timed non-sequitur argument against Kish’ video perhaps? Or just another lazy repost?

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m curious how you would situate Nibley within—or adjacent to—Mopologetics. The Mopologists obviously venerate him, and yet his politics seems antithetical to theirs, and it doesn’t seem like he went in for the viciousness…. So what’s the relationship, in your view?

Well, there was No, Ma’am, That’s Not History!” This was his takedown of Fawn Brodie. I would call that pioneering Mopologetics. The difference is in the emphasis and amount of time spent attacking individual people. For every “No, Ma’am” Nibley wrote a shed load of his scholarship. Today’s apologists seem to do their apportionment inversely. That’s just my sense of things.

I see what you mean. And your remark about the "shed load of his scholarship" seems relevant to the Interpreter / SeN era of Mopologetics, which has always been a model primarily based on volume over quality.

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m quite routinely dismissed in certain circles as a mere “apologist.” I don’t mind the term, though I regret the dismissal.

I believe that apologetics, as such, is inevitable. Stripped of specifically religious elements, it’s merely the advocacy or defense of a position. Scholars advocate and defend positions all the time, as they should.

Some may also be aware that I’ve been known to distinguish between what I call positive apologetics and what I term negative apologetics. I want to be very clear about that distinction:

By negative apologetics, I don’t mean attacking other positions, let alone assaulting other people — to say nothing of mere nastiness and mean-spiritedness. I realize that my image, in certain quarters, is that I’m a vicious, hardhearted, conscienceless, polemical hack. But even if that characterization were accurate — which it isn’t — it would have nothing at all to do with what I’m saying here.

What I mean by negative apologetics is the defense of a position — whether religious or not — against attack. It can easily be compared to playing defense in football. I judge it to be essential, and I regard it as just as justifiable, both morally and intellectually, as what I’ve called positive apologetics.

So what is positive apologetics? What I mean by the term is the provision of affirmative reasons for holding a position. It is the development and exposition of reasons for accepting a proposition or adopting a belief. One might compare it to a football offense.

I see absolutely no reason to regard one as legitimate and the other as illegitimate. Both are necessary and both are perfectly fine, just as both offense and defense are fair and necessary. Of course, in football as in apologetics, both offense and defense can be well executed or poorly executed. Both can be done according to the rules (of logic, of sound scholarship, of fair play, of the NFL) and, unfortunately, both can sometimes fall afoul of the rules. But the occurrence of fouls in football doesn’t render illegitimate the idea of offense or of defense, let alone the game itself. Bad drivers don’t prove driving wrong. And mistaken or bad-faith or disingenuous or uncivil arguments don’t, as such, invalidate apologetics, whether positive or negative.

Suppose that Scientist X argues that nature is more important than nurture in the formation of human personality. He cites evidence and reasons to support his claim. In that case, he is doing something essentially like positive apologetics.

But Scientist Y disagrees and publishes an article disputing Scientist X’s evidence and reasons.

It would be rather odd if Scientist X, while still holding his view, were to chastely decline to defend his own position, declaring such defense morally illegitimate. But if he were to respond by attempting to rebut Scientist Y’s objections, he would, in that case, simply be doing a form of negative apologetics. As well he should.

It is entirely legitimate to argue that the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon are credible. Such an argument would be positive apologetics. It is every bit as legitimate to seek to rebut claims that Oliver Cowdery denied his testimony, that Martin Harris was an unstable loon, or that David Whitmer isn’t credible. Such an argument would be negative apologetics.

And that is what I mean by the terms.

To repeat: Both positive and negative apologetics are, in my judgment, entirely legitimate — just as offense and defense are entirely legitimate in football and just as both batting and fielding are entirely legitimate in baseball. A chess player is entirely within her rights to be playing both defensively and offensively. In fact, she had better do so!

An interestingly timed non-sequitur argument against Kish’ video perhaps? Or just another lazy repost?

If memory serves, he gave a very different description of "Negative" vs. "Positive" apologetics in another venue--perhaps an "Interpreter" posting or a FAIR Conference talk. I seem to recall him describing the "negative" version in quite a different way than the anodyne practice he's describing here. If this was all the Mopologists were doing, then I doubt people would have a problem. But there is "attempting to rebut" objections, and then there is gang-piling on people; resorting to homophobic dog-whistling; keeping "creepy dossiers" on critics; showing up at bookstores and harassing the owners; picking email fights with teenagers; lying about 2nd Watson Letters, or getting paid for apologetics; mocking critics; stalking Gina Colvin; and on and on and on.

There is a reason why "Mopologetics" is a useful term, and why it serves to distinguish between actual LDS *apologists* who do fit with what the Afore is describing--people like Bushman and Givens--versus the Mopologists who always seemed to believe that no tactic was off-limits, regardless of how underhanded or degenerate it was.

[drumdude]

Around 17 minutes in

https://youtu.be/1i4QElyCsUU

I've done a lot of negative apologetics in my lifetime. The Farms review was partly born to do that. I sometimes think poor Jack Welch who asked me to do it 20 something years ago 22 years ago must occasionally have wondered what kind of a monster he'd created.

Because he had in mind just this little sort of pamphlet that would be a guide to the to the literature on the Book of Mormon. Instead it turned out to be this thing that takes on critics and it just smashes them sometimes. And it's so nasty and mean. And so much fun for a few of us anyway. So I've enjoyed knocking down the critics.

I mean you know you've probably seen The Far Side cartoon with the deer. And one is saying to the other who's got a big Target on his back “gee bummer of a birth mark.” Honestly you know I I look at some critics and I think “oh man you know B of a birth mark”. But I just I can't not take aim. It's like they walk around with a sign on their rear ends and say “kick me.” What can I do? Or as Lou Midgley puts it: sometimes I'm sort of like the drunk you know who walks by the doors of the tavern Swinging Doors and says “oh one last time” you know. I just can't not do it.

[Gadianton]

whoah.

[Kishkumen]

I see what you mean. And your remark about the "shed load of his scholarship" seems relevant to the Interpreter / SeN era of Mopologetics, which has always been a model primarily based on volume over quality.

I suppose, but I would still place Hugh Nibley head and shoulders above most other Mormon scholars of antiquity whom I have read. No one else I know of can hold a candle to him. Keep in mind that in saying this I am judging LDS scholars writing on Mormonism and antiquity against their peers doing the same, not against non-LDS scholars writing secular scholarship.