Why Did the BYU Apologists Split with SHIELDS?

[_Doctor Scratch]

In going over some old tidbits from various "informants," I hit upon what my be a clue as to why the major BYU apologists (esp. Midgley, Hamblin, and Peterson) split with the extraordinarily mean-spirited, bargain-basement apologetic organization known as SHIELDS. On a separate thread, Harmony wondered if SHIELDS got ditched due to a lack of Ph.D.-level credentials on the part of the key SHIELDS players (esp. S. Barker, G. Humbert, and M. Jacobs). After looking a few things over, I noticed another interesting bit of information. Recall this excerpt from DCP's FARMS editorial:

Some of us—not FARMS officially, I hasten to add—are considering the establishment of an award for "America's Funniest Anti-Mormons," although we certainly welcome international contributions, as well. (If there are enough submissions, perhaps we can open up a new category, like the annual "Foreign Film" Oscar at the Academy Awards.) We have settled on at least two prizes, to be known respectively as the "Korihor" and either the "Philastus" or the "Hurlbut." The latter titles come from the name of one of the very earliest anti-Mormons, "Doctor Philastus Hurlbut" who, in an eerily prescient move that has since been emulated by several countercult luminaries, carried the name of "Doctor" without ever earning a degree.

(emphasis added)

We know, from having read juliann and others, that degree status (preferably from an Ivy League institution) is a very important playing card for the Mopologists. So, I cannot help but wonder if this began to weigh on the SHIELDS apologists. Consider the following bios:

http://www.shields-research.org/Authors/SDB_Bio.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/199712240815 ... IH_Bio.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/199712240815 ... LJ_Bio.htm

The first is Barker's:

His college education includes accounting, computer programming and business management. He has been called upon by management of companies to write documentation outlining procedures for various business operations. He has served in management positions for several businesses. Mr. Barker is recognized as quite knowledgeable in things computer and is regularly called upon to help solve computer problems.

Do you notice anything missing from this list? The next bio is Humbert's:

Mr. Humbert served seven years in the United States Air Force, worked as a cook in a seafood restaurant, drove trucks, worked as a disc jockey, and, for the past twenty five years, worked for a local telephone carrier.

Mr. Humbert holds a first-class radiotelephone license and has been an active participant in the cyber revolution that has taken place during the last twenty years. He held a part-time job as the technical manager of a local computer store in the early '80's, has served as departmental computerist for his company, and for the past twelve years, has worked as a network analyst, specializing in things internet. Lately, Mr. Humbert has taken an intense interest in designing and developing web pages, both for his employer and for personal matters.

And, finally (and perhaps most candidly) Malin Jacobs's:

Professionally, Mr. Jacobs is an electrical engineer. He holds both Bachelor of Science and Master of Science Degrees in Electrical Engineering from the Denver campus of the University of Colorado. He was doing preparatory work for the Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering when his oldest son graduated from high school and started college. Financially, it was not feasible for him to adequately support his wife and five children and at the same time pay graduate college expenses for himself and undergraduate expenses for his son. Since he deemed it less important that he complete a Ph.D. than that his son complete an undergraduate degree, he discontinued school. The fact that his three remaining at-home children will soon be of college age, makes it unlikely that Mr. Jacobs will complete a Ph.D., unless he debases himself and gets it the way some of the anti-Mormons got theirs (D. J. Nelson and Walter Martin come to mind) -- by buying it from some fly-by-night, send-your-money, little-or-no-study-required, maybe-write-some-kind-of-a-report-we'll-call-a-thesis, non-accredited diploma mill.

Notice this, too:

Malin regards himself as an all-around near-genius and one of the good guys. If he has a flaw, it is his low tolerance for stupidity, natural or educated.

Bearing all of this in mind, I think it's worth revisiting Stan Barker's nonsensical blog posting from March of this year:

As a missionary I tracted door to door virtually every day of my mission. We talked to many ignorant people and many very educated people. Only a handful joined the Church, but the others wouldn’t listen.

So, what does all this add up to? As per the title of this thread, I am curious as to why the Big League apologists seem to have abandoned---or distanced themselves---from SHIELDS. Based on these three bios, I do think that one could assume that Midgley et al. didn't like the fact that these guys did not have degrees to back them up. Recall, too, that only J. Tvedtnes (sans Ph.D.) has remained on-board with SHIELDS. While I suggested in the other thread that the DCP-led apologists were urged to "tone things down," and hence the withdrawal from SHIELDS, The Good Professor himself has said that he does not believe there has been any alteration whatsoever in the overall tone of apologetics, so I think it's safe to assume that these BYU apologist did---and still do---approve of SHIELDS's polemics-centered form of Mopologetics, and thus, their flight from SHIELDS has to have come about for some other reason.

[_Gadianton]

You make some fine points, Doctor. Recall from "that old cash nexus", Midgley seemed to have a big problem with shoe-string budgets. Mom and Pop shops. With visions of Mopologetic costume parties in the spacious Ziggerat, the friends from the old neighborhood may not have seemed cool enough anymore.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There's been no split with SHIELDS. There was never any formal or informal organizational affiliation, either.

Scratch is making this up, as usual.

And Gadianton, obviously, is spoofing again.

[_Gadianton]

I hit upon what my be a clue as to why the major BYU apologists (esp. Midgley, Hamblin, and Peterson) split with the extraordinarily mean-spirited, bargain-basement apologetic organization known as SHIELDS.

Doctor Scratch, perhaps you can answer this. Were Midgley, Hamblin, and Peterson members of SHIELDS at one point? Are they members now? Is "membership" too technical of a term to apply appropriately here?

There was never any formal or informal organizational affiliation

Doctor Scratch, did you say anything about organizational affiliation?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Doctor Scratch, perhaps you can answer this.

Of course he can't answer it. He knows nothing about the subject. He just makes things up.

Were Midgley, Hamblin, and Peterson members of SHIELDS at one point? Are they members now? Is "membership" too technical of a term to apply appropriately here?

I've never been a member of SHIELDS. Nor, so far as I know, has anybody else. To the best of my knowledge, SHIELDS isn't an organization that has "members."

There was never any formal or informal organizational affiliation

Doctor Scratch, did you say anything about organizational affiliation?

In order for us to have severed our "ties" with SHIELDS, we must once have had "ties" with SHIELDS. I communicate with Stan Barker approximately as frequently now as I did ten or fifteen years ago, by e-mail and, much more rarely, by phone. That's my "tie." That's it. We get along alright. We run into each other every few years.

[_bcspace]

We know, from having read juliann and others, that degree status (preferably from an Ivy League institution) is a very important playing card for the Mopologists.

I do get the sense that this is the case with some (not necessarily the ones you mentioned), that their "degreed in the field" status somehow puts them beyond reproach and contact with anyone else. But I get this ivory tower impression from most any person teaching with advanced degrees in any field. It's an attitude adopted to protect their turf and research grants and salaries.

None of the people you mentioned are assigned or called by the Church to provide apologetics except for perhaps an article or two in some magazine. This is actually good news for them because it shows that most if not all your critical barbs are misplaced. There really is no one for you to criticize except the FP and Qo12 who proclaim the doctrine consistently published........

[_Doctor Scratch]

I hit upon what my be a clue as to why the major BYU apologists (esp. Midgley, Hamblin, and Peterson) split with the extraordinarily mean-spirited, bargain-basement apologetic organization known as SHIELDS.

Doctor Scratch, perhaps you can answer this. Were Midgley, Hamblin, and Peterson members of SHIELDS at one point?

No, I don't think they were technically "members." Among those three, only Midgley seems to have participated in any of the short-lived SHIELDS conferences.

Are they members now? Is "membership" too technical of a term to apply appropriately here?

Sort of. Clearly there was a kind of hierarchy. For example, John Tvedtnes carries the rather official-sounding title of "Associate". Further, as you can see from the FROB bit I excerpted in my OP, DCP made mention of a couple of "awards." Well, these awards were actually given out during a few years (and yes, it was during the time frame I outlined on the other thread):

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... awards.htm

If you click on this link, you'll see that SHIELDS granted a sort of "dummy" certificate to John L. Smith in 1999:

http://www.shields-research.org/Graphic ... d_1999.gif

Barker, Jacobs, and Humbert all signed this certificate, so I think that we can say that was at least a kind of ad hoc "membership." (Or at least a bit of organizational leadership.)

There was never any formal or informal organizational affiliation

Doctor Scratch, did you say anything about organizational affiliation?

No, I didn't, but it's obvious that there was some kind of "organizational affiliation." There are literally thousands of words of text on SHIELDS that were written by DCP, Midgley, and Hamblin. SHIELDS also got a "shout out" in the pages of the FARMS Review, in which the editor admitted that he had been collaborating with Barker & et al. on the "Hurlbut" and "Korihor Awards." So, to say that there was "no affiliation," even if only an "informal" one, really strains credulity.

In order for us to have severed our "ties" with SHIELDS, we must once have had "ties" with SHIELDS. I communicate with Stan Barker approximately as frequently now as I did ten or fifteen years ago, by e-mail and, much more rarely, by phone. That's my "tie." That's it. We get along all right. We run into each other every few years.

With all due respect, Prof. P., this just doesn't seem accurate. If you follow this link and scroll down to the list of your SHIELDS articles, I think you'll see why:

http://www.shields-research.org/Authors/AUTHORS.html

I count 13 entries for you here, and let's bear in mind that some of these run into the double digits, page-count-wise. What's interesting is that, as far as I can tell, not a single one of these articles was written after 2000 or so. The same goes for Midgley and Hamblin, though they've done a few small things here and there with SHIELDS, though nothing comparable to their activity in the late 1990s. So: perhaps the "frequency" of your communication with the SHIELDS powers-that-be is "approximately" the same (and I realize here that you singled out Barker, rather than saying SHIELDS; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't equivocating, and that by naming Barker you meant SHIELDS as a whole), but the quality and manner of it obviously seems to be very different. There's no question that there was a curtailment of hostile emails and other rants being posted to SHIELDS. And it happened rather abruptly.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You can fantasize anything you like, Scratch. And I have no doubt whatever that you will.

There's been no break with SHIELDS.

There was never any affiliation with SHIELDS.

Stan Barker was and is a friend, though not a close one. I don't know the other principal characters at SHIELDS as well.

If anything really changed for me, it was my increased participation on boards such as this one. There's only so much time in the day.

But conspiracies are always more interesting, and secret plots, and devious schemes. So invent away!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

[_Danna]

Maybe they should look at getting some wealthy Mormon to fund postgrad degree scholarships for worthy apologists. My last university had a scholarship only available to wheel-chair bound lesbians (characteristics of the person for whom the scholarship was a memorial), so any thing's possible.

Anyway, I think a less elitist explanation (for reduced input to SHIELDS) would be the requirement for qualified academics to sit on the review board for the Review of Books.