Stop It!

[Senator]

So, your comments were self-reflective regarding your participation on this board?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Once again you are invited to address the subject at hand and not make it personal. Otherwise please leave the thread.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Senator

[robuchan]

There will be an apologetic journal coming are way in the future. That will be a fact. No church can survive the internet war without an apologetic arm. Of course, we have FAIR but there will also be an academic journal to defend the faith. The apostates and antimormon are out in full force declaring war on the lds church. Now it is time to see clearly just how the exmormons are using the internet to their advantage and counter their attack. I can see an apologetic internet journal being formed that can be accessed by all people and read.

Hypothetical:

Let's assume Peterson, Hamblin, et al scramble and put together an apologetic journal, and continue the aggressive tone that got them in trouble with the brethren in the first place. Then let's say the church asks them to cease and desist these practices. Would they stop? What if the church threatened with church discipline?

[why me]

Ben McGuire asserted in another thread that FARMS will be back (barring a GA intervention). I'm paraphrasing of course.

FARMS will be back but it may not be FARMS. I see a good academic internet journal that will be accessible to all. For those who are interested in supporting this internet journal there could be a donation section to do so. But i do not see a printed version coming are way and there would be no reason for it. The internet is a wonderful place to have an internet journal where people can access articles etc. And this can be independent of the church.

Here is an example of an internet journal that is accessible to all:

http://www.jceps.com/

This can also happen for lds apologetics. And it will be successful and with time just as with the linked journal, there will be a great knowledge base of articles.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You continue to spout something as fact that has not been shown to be the case. If you think the Prophet looks in on every decision made by those to whom a stewardship has been given you are either very naive or do not understand the structure at all.

We just wish they read what we write.

[why me]

Hypothetical:

Let's assume Peterson, Hamblin, et al scramble and put together an apologetic journal, and continue the aggressive tone that got them in trouble with the brethren in the first place. Then let's say the church asks them to cease and desist these practices. Would they stop? What if the church threatened with church discipline?

It is not hypothetical at all. It is a great possibility, if people are in favor of it. The journal can be a very real possibility. Why would apologists have to worry about church discipline? What would be the charge? Defending the church? And what is aggression? Defending the faith does not have to be aggressive but it can be convincing. When one defends something that one loves, there is passion but for a journal this passion does need to be argumentative because one is taking a position.

[Senator]

I don't even see "contentiousness" as being exactly condemned --

I found no disclaimer, no "except", no "however", no conditionals at all that would suggest an allowance for an appropriate time for contention in E. Uchtdorf's message.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Senator

[why me]

I cannot fathom how Elder Uchtdorf can look upon the apologetic scene ( given the very clear message he gave in the last GC), and say, "Carry on!"

From his talk:

The Bottom Line

This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:

Stop it!

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/05/the-merciful-obtain-mercy?lang=eng

I see no hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges or wanting to cause harm. But I do see people defending the church. So what should be stopped?

By the way, the way Dan was fired as editor seems to be in a way to cause harm. Just an observation.

[why me]

I found no disclaimer, no "except", no "however", no conditionals at all that would suggest an allowance for an appropriate time for contention in E. Uchtdorf's message.

Have you read the talk.

http://www.lds.org/e...-mercy?lang=eng

I see nothing about defending the church in his talk. Did he say stop it when defending the church?

But he did say this:

In a world of accusations and unfriendliness, it is easy to gather and cast stones. But before we do so, let us remember the words of the One who is our Master and model: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.”¹²

Brothers and sisters, let us put down our stones.

Let us be kind.

Let us forgive.

Let us talk peacefully with each other.

Let the love of God fill our hearts.

“Let us do good unto all men.”

I don't see him talking about apologetics where people defend the church against false accusations and innuendos. However, I do believe that critic boards can learn from what the GA said since I see no kindness, no forgiveness, no peace when they discuss mormons and the lds church. Just an observation.

Edited July 15, 2012 by why me

[Senator]

Have you read the talk.

Yes, three times before I started the topic

http://www.lds.org/e...-mercy?lang=eng

I see nothing about defending the church in his talk.

You're absolutely correct.

Did he say stop it when defending the church?

No he did not. He was silent on that matter.

[why me]

No he did not. He was silent on that matter.

Then why the thread?

[CASteinman]

Only if it becomes a venue for contention.

No clarion call against contending for the Faith.

[CASteinman]

I found no disclaimer, no "except", no "however", no conditionals at all that would suggest an allowance for an appropriate time for contention in E. Uchtdorf's message.

I see no condemnation of contention either. I see it mentioned as being troubling to some people, but not condemned.

As if we are not talking about quarrelsomeness but rather contending for the faith, it is not likely that there would be any condemnation as this is an approved practice.

[why me]

I see no condemnation of contention either. I see it mentioned as being troubling to some people, but not condemned.

As if we are not talking about quarrelsomeness but rather contending for the faith, it is not likely that there would be any condemnation as this is an approved practice.

I think that senator would like the defenders of the faith to just go away and let the critics have their say on the internet. Or for the mormon reaction to be cultish, all emotionless, mystic in prayer. with a preaching of love without passion in the voice.

Edited July 15, 2012 by why me

[ShawFanX]

You seem confused. No Apostle issued any clarion call against apologetics or against reorganizing FARMS.

That's the NOM urban Legendry out and about at the present time.

Loran

[ERayR]

No confusion.

I did not state that the Apostle was directing his remarks towards any particular entity, but against the human foibles that cause contention and rancor.

You mean the critics and anti-Mormons are going away too and that one will be able to attend general conference in peace?

[ERayR]

Surely you mean this as investigatory, right?

I think he really wants to know and is hoping.

[Glenn101]

There is nothing wrong with apologetics. When a person resorts to personal attacks, deceit, false witness, etc. that is not apologetics, at least not in my book. But I do think that LDS apologists who do not pull punches in their articles, blogs, etc. are in good company with some previous apologists, such as this one:

"

It is for the same purpose that God gathers together His people in the last days, to build unto the Lord a house to prepare them for the ordinances and endowments, washings and anointings, etc. One of the ordinances of the house of the Lord is baptism for the dead. God decreed before the foundation of the world that that ordinance should be administered in a font prepared for that purpose in the house of the Lord. "This is only your opinion, sir," says the sectarian. * * * * *

If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.

Where there is no change of priesthood, there is no change of ordinances, says Paul, if God has not changed the ordinances and the priesthood. Howl, ye sectarians! If he has, when and where has He revealed it? Have ye turned revelators? Then why deny revelation?

Many men will say, "I will never forsake you, but will stand by you at all times." But the moment you teach them some of the mysteries of the kingdom of God that are retained in the heavens and are to be revealed to the children of men when they are prepared for them, they will be the first to stone you and put you to death. It was this same principle that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, and will cause the people to kill the prophets in this generation.

Many things are insoluble to the children of men in the last days: for instance, that God should raise the dead, and forgetting that things have been hid from before the foundation of the world, which are to be revealed to babes in the last days.

There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake."

This writer or speaker was not pulling his punches. Maybe someone will recognize from whence this originated without looking it up.

Glenn

[CASteinman]

Sounds to me like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or one of the Pratts.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Given this recent clarion admonition from a prominent Apostle, I would be very suprised to see FARMS reappear, business as usual, under the umbrella of a church institution.

I certainly agree with this assessment. FARMS during its existence prior to being absorbed into BYU was not under the umbrella of a church institution. When it became a part of BYU, there was a great deal of concern expressed over the issues that have come to the forefront recently. That this eventually happened is not that surprising to some people - the surprise being that it took so long to happen. When I suggest that FARMS will reconstitute, I do not mean that it will come back as a church sponsored institution. It doesn't need church sponsorship to exist as we have seen historically. And there is certainly plenty of contributors who will be willing to continue to write for whatever organization takes over that particular void that has been created.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Robuchan writes:

Contentious is only part of the problem.

Actually, it only seems to be part of the problem when it comes to the apologists right? It's perfectly fine when the critics are contentious. It's horrible when Will Schryver, to use an example, makes an inappropriate comment or six on a message board - and the same people that are crawling all over him, complaining about him to anyone that will listen, trying to prevent publication of his apologetic works will completely ignore the inappropriate comments made by critics of the church, former members, and so on. What we see here from Robuchan is a continued push for a complete double standard. One that applies to the evil that apparently is the apologetics community (of which I happen to be a part) and one that applies to everyone else. This narrow application gets old pretty quickly, and seems to be an attempt to discredit apologetics as a whole rather than an attempt to engage in any kind of meaningful discourse. Apologetic material is by nature contentious (and then again, so is a great deal of scripture right?). But apologetic material is also informative - it expands the discussion, it looks at the cracks and edges of doctrine and theology, it looks at conflicting narratives in our history and doctrine - and these issues are positive outcomes of apologetic work. What Robuchan wants to do is use a one size fits all sort of paint brush and to define apologetics by its very worst examples instead of what is typical or even what it produces at its best.

I suspect the larger problem is the problem with the appearance of working hard at apologetics and not having anything so show for it. All this money and effort and what we have to show for it is an LGT theory that attempts to make the BOM disappear into the background, obscure BOM stuff like Asherah and King Benjamin's temple ritual, Book of Abraham arguments that don't convince anyone, and now a theory about a 17th century BOM translation. No archaeological findings. It's probably better to just not even attempt. Then you don't have critics saying "see you're spending all this money and research and you find nothing".

And here we have the examples. Whether or not they are convincing (which is, I suspect, more of a personal issue - and Robuchan probably only has anecdotal evidence for his point of view). The real challenge is that LDS apologetics has had a great deal of impact on Mormon studies over time, and this isn't going to change a whole lot. The other thing is that most of the funding is from private donors - not institutional dollars. And this source of funding comes from the group of supporters of Mormon apologetics (certainly not from its detractors), and they have far different views apparently from Robuchan on the need and value for Mormon apologetics. And if we didn't have Mormon apologetics (and there has always been, by the way, Mormon apologetics - one doesn't have to look far to find Parley Pratt or B.H. Roberts), what would the critics be saying? Oh that's right - they would simply be declaring victory, that there is no one who is willing to respond to them.

No, Robuchan, I think that you are trying to promote a myth here. But your characterization isn't just wrong, it is itself an attempt to poison the well - to portray apologetics generally as something harmful, as useless, as a waste of money and resources. You focus on the very worst of the worst in your view. You have said very little, if anything positive, about apologetics. But this is a far cry from the views provided by Church leaders when the decision was made to incorporate FARMS into BYU and it was declared that apologetics had a great deal of value to offer to Latter-day Saints.

Ben M.

[Calm]

Far reaching. Seriously? It may change FARMS but there is still FAIR and many other avenues where serious discussion takes place. In fact I never to go FARMS for info, only to FAIR. and guess who the closing speaker is at the FAIR conference?

Brother Otterson mentioned FAIR recently in a Mormon Channel video as well.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Robuchan writes:

Let's assume Peterson, Hamblin, et al scramble and put together an apologetic journal, and continue the aggressive tone that got them in trouble with the brethren in the first place. Then let's say the church asks them to cease and desist these practices. Would they stop? What if the church threatened with church discipline?

And historically, the only stuff we have to go on from the past, the church didn't sanction this group, what they did was to invite them to participate in a much more orthodox fashion by bringing them under the umbrella of a church institution (BYU). It's not like this occurred before there were aggressive articles in print (it happened after the Hamblin-Metcalfe incident). So, I would have to wonder why you think that there would be such a complete 180 degree change in direction from the leadership of the church?

You want to speculate - but you do so in a way that is supporting this myth you are participating in creating - and without any real basis for that speculation.

I think that you are absolutely wrong (as does Hamblin and others) about the nature of the changes at the NAMI. Mind you, I only have my personal experiences and the statements of others to go off of here.

Ben M.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[Pahoran]

Then why the thread?

Excellent question, Why Me.

AFAICT, the purpose of this thread is for someone who only occasionally (if at all) heeds the counsel of the apostles and prophets to opportunistically exploit a context-free snippet from President Uchtdorf's talk for polemical purposes -- without making the slightest effort to apply the principles taught therein to himself.

Just IMHO, of course.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Hypothetical:

Let's assume Peterson, Hamblin, et al scramble and put together an apologetic journal, and continue the aggressive tone that got them in trouble with the brethren in the first place.

CFR that Peterson, Hamblin, et al ever did get "in trouble with the brethren in the first place."

Your faith in this anti-Mormon myth is charming in its naivete.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited July 16, 2012 by Pahoran

[Anijen]

robuchan, on 15 July 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Hypothetical:

Let's assume Peterson, Hamblin, et al scramble and put together an apologetic journal, and continue the aggressive tone that got them in trouble with the brethren in the first place.

Pahoran knowingly answered;

CFR that Peterson, Hamblin, et al ever did get "in trouble with the brethren in the first place."

Your faith in this anti-Mormon myth is charming it its naivete.

Regards,

Pahoran

The opposite was true. The brethren were excited with FARMS enough so that they thought it impressive enough to make it part of BYU. Edited July 16, 2012 by Jeff Holt