The Apostate Myth Of Mormon Apologetics

[William Schryver]

The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics

Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

I assert that neither Dan Peterson, nor the Mormon Studies Review (and its predecessors) are guilty of the allegation implicit in the Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics (henceforth "AMMA"). This myth consists of the notion that Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

The AMMA was cultivated over a period of many years, and came to full fruition in the late spring of 2012.

I throw out a challenge to all its believers to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Hey, don't lump us all together

I would never accuse the (former) MI team of shoddy scholarship. And believe a strong and reasoned response to critics is something to be admired.

[treehugger]

The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics

Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

I assert that neither Dan Peterson, nor the Mormon Studies Review (and its predecessors) are guilty of the allegation implicit in the Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics (henceforth "AMMA"). This myth consists of the notion that Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

The AMMA was cultivated over a period of many years, and came to full fruition in the late spring of 2012.

I throw out a challenge to all its believers to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications.

a few weeks ago you posted.

William Schryver, on 10 May 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications. It is a myth, propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.

I noted before, and you did not challenge, that you are acknowledging the use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in FAIR and MI publications. It is just that you do not see the use as "significant". I suppose it is up to you to show that critics hold fast to the notion that Mormon Apologetics is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

Though it appears from your own words and from a report in SLTrib that there was use of personnel attacks by Apologetics.

Salt Lake Tribune:

Review writers responded to critics’ allegations by ... sometimes writing scathing and often personal attacks on those who challenged LDS origins. It was, [the Review writers] believed, the essence of apologetics.

Edited June 23, 2012 by treehugger

[William Schryver]

hear is what you posted a few weeks ago.

I noted before, and you did not challenge, that you are acknowledging the use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in FAIR and MI publications. It is just that you do not see the use as "significant". I suppose it is up to you to show that critics hold fast to the notion that Mormon Apologetics is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

Though it appears from your own words and from a report in SLTrib that there was use of personnel attacks by Apologetics.

Salt Lake Tribune:

Review writers responded to critics’ allegations by ... sometimes writing scathing and often personal attacks on those who challenged LDS origins. It was, [the Review writers] believed, the essence of apologetics.

Yes, the Tribune uncritically restated the Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics.

I challenge you to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications. Right now I'm going to shower and get dressed and head up to the fabulous annual Groovefest music festival in Cedar City. I'll look forward to seeing your long list of MI personal attacks when I return later ...

Edited June 23, 2012 by William Schryver

[Robert F. Smith]

This seems to me to have been the de facto motto of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship (NAMIRS):

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. Austin Farrer

Edited June 23, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Senator]

The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics

Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

I assert that neither Dan Peterson, nor the Mormon Studies Review (and its predecessors) are guilty of the allegation implicit in the Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics (henceforth "AMMA"). This myth consists of the notion that Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

The AMMA was cultivated over a period of many years, and came to full fruition in the late spring of 2012.

I throw out a challenge to all its believers to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications.

I would guess that most of your qualified respondants are banned from this site.

[treehugger]

I challenge you to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications. Right now I'm going to shower and get dressed and head up to the fabulous annual Groovefest music festival in Cedar City. I'll look forward to seeing your long list of MI personal attacks when I return later ...

Read your own words William.

William Schryver, on 10 May 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications. It is a myth, propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.

You admitted that you personally have read and seen the ad hominem in both MI and FAIR.

[Bill Hamblin]

Read your own words William.

You admitted that you personally have read and seen the ad hominem in both MI and FAIR.

Quit farting around and give a specific example.

[Bill Hamblin]

This seems to me to have been the de facto motto of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship (NAMIRS):

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. Austin Farrer

EXACTLY

[Bill Hamblin]

I would guess that most of your qualified respondants are banned from this site.

It's funny that when asked to give specific examples of ad hominem in the apologetic writings of the Review, the apostate critics invariably are silenced by the chirping of crickets.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It is also fascinating to try and figure out what is meant by critical scholarship as opposed to what is meant by shoddy scholarship. I was actually accused of doing shoddy scholarship because I quoted a Mormon source on an issue that ONLY the Mormon had written about! Well? What was I supposed to do in that case, quote the Iliad instead for the pretense of doing "Good, critical scholarship"? Is it an automatic assumption that if Mormon sources are used it's shoddy work because of that? Is it a lousy article working on some aspect of Mormon history to quote the Mormon historian Richard Lyman Bushman, instead of a non-Mormon who knows nothing about the Mormon issue? I honestly am just curious...... I have also been told that by de facto, Mormon sources don't count because they are biased! Isn't this the ultimate ad hominem?

[Senator]

It's funny that when asked to give specific examples of ad hominem in the apologetic writings of the Review, the apostate critics invariably are silenced by the chirping of crickets.

Like I said, I suspect most who make that claim are unable to respond to the challenge here. Hence the crickets. Unless you want cross-board referencing.

[Defender]

I am surprised Daniel Peterson was let go. This only gives ammo to the church critics. It had nothing to do with poor scholarship, but that's what the critics will say. Daniel Peterson was a lightning rod for their anger. He drove the anti-mormons crazy. How is that a bad thing? I am worried that the church's new direction is to be more accommodating to the anti-mormon position. I feel like we are at war and the politicians have removed one of our most effective generals from the battle field. What are they thinking?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Defender

[morgan.deane]

The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics

Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

I assert that neither Dan Peterson, nor the Mormon Studies Review (and its predecessors) are guilty of the allegation implicit in the Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics (henceforth "AMMA"). This myth consists of the notion that Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

The AMMA was cultivated over a period of many years, and came to full fruition in the late spring of 2012.

I throw out a challenge to all its believers to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications.

I would like to see an example where FARMS scholarship is "laughed at" or not considered credible in academic circles. I hear this all the time but my anecdotal experience, and what I've read says the opposite.

Edited June 23, 2012 by morgan.deane

[Teancum]

The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics

Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

I assert that neither Dan Peterson, nor the Mormon Studies Review (and its predecessors) are guilty of the allegation implicit in the Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics (henceforth "AMMA"). This myth consists of the notion that Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship.

The AMMA was cultivated over a period of many years, and came to full fruition in the late spring of 2012.

I throw out a challenge to all its believers to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications.

The problem is your charecerization of what you think the critics say is as one dimesional as those few who do claim this. Neither are truth. Fact is there FARMS gave some great, some good, some mediocre and some very bad apologetics. There were and has been ad hominem atttacks at times and some shoddy schcolarship. There has been some very good scholarship as well. It is a mixed bag.

[mapman]

I'm not going to say that "Mormon apologetics, as exemplified by the publications of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship is typified by ad hominem attacks masking shoddy scholarship" because I don't think it's true. I do wonder, though, why you imply in the title that anyone who thinks this is the current state of Mormon apologetics is an apostate.

Edited June 23, 2012 by mapman

[Senator]

I am worried that the church's new direction is to be more accommodating to the anti-mormon position.

Not your place to steady the ark.

I feel like we are at war and the politicians have removed one of our most effective generals from the battle field. What are they thinking?

Oh, come ooonnnnnn......

The most effective generals we have sit in the chuch office building, holding keys and priesthood.

I'm afraid there's a little idolizing going on here. Rock-star status and all.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Senator

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Daniel Peterson is NOT a Rock Star - LOL!

[Calm]

Not your place to steady the ark.

Besides which BYU is not the Church (thank goodness )

[Calm]

Daniel Peterson is NOT a Rock Star - LOL!

Not enough hair.

[Calm]

Kerry, if you are heading down this way come August, PM me.

[Fifth Columnist]

I throw out a challenge to all its believers to demonstrate actual examples of the AMMA from Maxwell Institute publications.

There is a thread on the board that must not be named dedicated to this. I believe it is even pinned at the top of the terrestrial forum. It gives many examples.

[Senator]

Besides which BYU is not the Church (thank goodness )

It's onboard the ark, is it not?

[KevinG]

It's onboard the ark, is it not?

No. Not even close.

Perhaps funded by the tithes and offerings of people who belong to the covenant represented by the ark.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Hold er newt...... to equate BYU as the church is quit a tad overdoing it....... and um.......NO BYU is simply NOT the Lord's university either. There is nothing wrong with constructively criticizing what BYU does, even if the Board of Directors may have some Apostles on it......