Paid Apologetics?

[rodheadlee]

Dr. Hamblin has gotten himself in tune and in line and that should be the end of it.

Are you really that naive? Satan and his minions are jumping for joy. It's only the begining.

[mfbukowski]

Difficult to escape that conclusion. Seriously folks, am I the only one here?

Of course.

[Pahoran]

I'd suggest by following the living Brethren.

I agree.

Let's follow what they actually teach, not what rumours based upon speculation (i.e. garbage) swirling around on the internet imagines that they might be thinking.

Regards,

Pahoran

[powerservice]

Are you really that naive? Satan and his minions are jumping for joy. It's only the begining.

For following the Brethern and our file leaders? I think not.

[BCSpace]

I understood that to mean that he wasn't being paid for apologetic work. Instead, he was being penalized because he was writing apologetic work.

That's how I see it. However, one could certainly argue that these people are using facilities and time they are being paid to use and in that sense they're being paid. BUt it's an incredibly weak criticism. So weak that it's not unreasonable to argue that yes, they are not being paid for apologetics.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you really that naive? Satan and his minions are jumping for joy. It's only the begining.

I suspect powerservice is a shill. You may want to consider that possibility before you let him/her get you too provoked.

[mfbukowski]

That's how I see it. However, one could certainly argue that these people are using facilities and time they are being paid to use and in that sense they're being paid. BUt it's an incredibly weak criticism. So weak that it's not unreasonable to argue that yes, they are not being paid for apologetics.

They are teaching classes for Pete's sake! It's not like they show up and do apologetics all day and get a free office.

[powerservice]

I suspect powerservice is a shill. You may want to consider that possibility before you let him/her get you too provoked.

Follow the living Brethern, that's where safety lies.

[rodheadlee]

I suspect powerservice is a shill. You may want to consider that possibility before you let him/her get you too provoked.

No doubt, just calling it as I see it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Follow the living Brethern, that's where safety lies.

I have made the following statement on at least two other occasions on this board; I repeat it here because of its relevance.

I follow the Brethren, but i am used to receiving their clear and unequivocal word through established priesthood channels or as delivered directly from the pulpit or by means of outlets such as Church curriculum materials; official publications such as the Ensign, Liahona or Church News or through lds.org or its companion web sites. I am not accustomed to having it delivered through rumor, gossip, supposition or conjecture as conveyed by means of the Internet or any of the other mass media.

To the former, I pay strict heed; the latter I take with the proverbial grain of salt. It is an approach that has served me well for many years and one which I intend to employ on into perpetuity.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

It seems obvious enough BYU administrators considered Dr. Hamblin’s apologetic work a component his delivery—even though they weren’t happy with it. Otherwise what business would it have been of theirs?

Does this not make sense to you, mfbukowski? Perhaps you should read it again.

--Erik

You are failing at clairvoyance again. Your really not very good at it . It may behoove you to find another hobby.

[ERayR]

Difficult to escape that conclusion. Seriously folks, am I the only one here?

--Erik

Do you mean out there in the Twilight Zone?

[Pahoran]

You're missing the point entirely. We've heard more than a little over the years that BYU professors weren't being compensated for their apologetics work. And per Dr. Hamblin's post--that doesn't appear to have been entirely accurate. Apologetcs clearly wasn't worth as much (to BYU administorators) as other sorts of publishing--but it was in fact considered (and rewarded with sub-par raises).

Difficult to escape that conclusion. Seriously folks, am I the only one here?

--Erik

Further thoughts on this post:

Perhaps it's just a quirk of my local dialect, but down here in New Zealand, "rewarded" is not usually used as a synonym for "punished." I guess we're funny like that.

If we rely upon the only evidence before us -- i.e. Professor Hamblin's own words -- then it is apparent that he earns less because of his apologetic activities than he would have earned had he not published such articles. I am frankly bewildered that anyone can parlay that into a claim that he was somehow "compensated" for his apologetic writings, much less that that strange claim is somehow "difficult to escape."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Further thoughts on this post:

Perhaps it's just a quirk of my local dialect, but down here in New Zealand, "rewarded" is not usually used as a synonym for "punished." I guess we're funny like that.

If we rely upon the only evidence before us -- i.e. Professor Hamblin's own words -- then it is apparent that he earns less because of his apologetic activities than he would have earned had he not published such articles. I am frankly bewildered that anyone can parlay that into a claim that he was somehow "compensated" for his apologetic writings, much less that that strange claim is somehow "difficult to escape."

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, it's a strange world -- where down is up, black is white, etc.

I think ERayR has it right: the Twilight Zone.

[mfbukowski]

Further thoughts on this post:

Perhaps it's just a quirk of my local dialect, but down here in New Zealand, "rewarded" is not usually used as a synonym for "punished."

:rofl:

[Kerry A. Shirts]

If apologetics are not done by our scholars, then who is supposed to be doing the work of apologetics? I am trying to reach an understanding of what the objectives are at BYU? I also make the assumption that the overall feeling or support, to whatever degree, proffered apologetics by BYU professors comes from the Brethren. I do feel that apologetics has a definite, needed role in the life of a religious organization. Are we as an organization preferring not to produce professional apologetics or is it something else? This is all a bit confusing for me.

Gee, why doesn't God step up to the plate periodically? After all it's supposed to be HIS work and glory right? The very premise that an Almighty deity has started all this ought to be enough to realize the utter silliness of apologetic work at all. If it's important to God, then you'd think he'd make sure He does it right right? It appears to me that just as 200 years passed in early Christianity and the apologists rose and absolutely tore the livin hell out of Christianity, we are now in that position, and having the exact same results. Apologetics has done nothing to stopping mass exodus out of the church or causing more friction than solving problems. Apologetics doesn't solve anything does it? Apologetics backfires for one simple reason. It can't be the truth, it's bias to a particular view, a very partial, incomplete view, and it supposes though that it is defending the actual total truth that God wants defended. If God wants it defended He could do a much more convincing job at it couldn't he? That we humans actually feel the *need* to defend opens the door to the distinct possibility that God simply isn't doing his job with his church now doesn't it? Or is this ALSO taboo to discuss intelligently and without rankling the righteous into paroxyisms of rage at such apostate vile thoughts? God obviously isn't exactly on top of the situation that I can see. I would actually propose that doing apologetics is proof that no one has faith in the Holy Spirit to do HIS job of testifying and teaching as the scripture says He is supposed to. What possible better way is there than that?

Edited March 5, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[volgadon]

Gee, why doesn't God step up to the plate periodically?

Who says He hasn't?

After all it's supposed to be HIS work and glory right?

Did you know that there are times when one should act as if there is no God? As the Hasidic teaching has it, were someone to approach you for help you should act as if there is no God, and it is all up to you. Same thing goes here. Shouldn't we excersize our God-given brains instead of waiting for Him to hit us over the head with a celestial 2x4?

The very premise that an Almighty deity has started all this ought to be enough to realize the utter silliness of apologetic work at all.

Has started what?

If it's important to God, then you'd think he'd make sure He does it right right?

Yeah, my kid had better not trip, or stumble, or fall, or move slowly at all when he learns to walk. I should bend his knees for him at a perfect rhythm and pace, right?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Volgadon, every time I act and speak as if there is no God I get nothing but grief, thunder, and worries from other Mormons who are afraid I am apostatizing. I mean after all, we are all pretending like God really IS doing something around here right? Why admit the emperor has no clothes, and in fact isn't even here? that just infuriates the mob and they attack you for saying a simple truth. It is far easier to just give God the glory for everything in fear of actually giving credit where it is deserved for fear of offending a deity who doesn't do spit here anyway. I've lived long enough to learn that at least.

[volgadon]

Volgadon, every time I act and speak as if there is no God I get nothing but grief, thunder, and worries from other Mormons who are afraid I am apostatizing.

I wonder if you haven't misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

I mean after all, we are all pretending like God really IS doing something around here right?

I don't know, are you pretending?

[powerservice]

Gee, why doesn't God step up to the plate periodically?

He has. God is not the author of confusion.

He has organized HIS church from the living Prophet right on down to the volunteer early morning seminary teacher.

It's not just for children:

[Robert F. Smith]

Gee, why doesn't God step up to the plate periodically? After all it's supposed to be HIS work and glory right? The very premise that an Almighty deity has started all this ought to be enough to realize the utter silliness of apologetic work at all. If it's important to God, then you'd think he'd make sure He does it right right? It appears to me that just as 200 years passed in early Christianity and the apologists rose and absolutely tore the livin hell out of Christianity, we are now in that position, and having the exact same results. Apologetics has done nothing to stopping mass exodus out of the church or causing more friction than solving problems. Apologetics doesn't solve anything does it? Apologetics backfires for one simple reason. It can't be the truth, it's bias to a particular view, a very partial, incomplete view, and it supposes though that it is defending the actual total truth that God wants defended. If God wants it defended He could do a much more convincing job at it couldn't he? That we humans actually feel the *need* to defend opens the door to the distinct possibility that God simply isn't doing his job with his church now doesn't it? Or is this ALSO taboo to discuss intelligently and without rankling the righteous into paroxyisms of rage at such apostate vile thoughts? God obviously isn't exactly on top of the situation that I can see. I would actually propose that doing apologetics is proof that no one has faith in the Holy Spirit to do HIS job of testifying and teaching as the scripture says He is supposed to. What possible better way is there than that?

Shirtmaster,

What is truly astonishing about this paragraph is that you have managed to get virtually everything wrong, as if you were never in any way acquainted with Mormonism, but only with some odd, inexplicable version of mainstream "christianity" -- which even normative christians would disown.

I mean, there is nothing recognizable as Mormon doctrine or theology in your short diatribe here. That is in itself quite an accomplishment. Yet everyone here no doubt considers you to have at least at one time to have been a member of the LDS Church. So, why doesn't it show in some way? This is a true mystery. Even stranger, you don't seem to recognize the problem, as if some alien entity has taken possession of your body and mind, even blaspheming against God and the Holy Spirit. You don't suffer from MPD (multiple personality disorder) do you?

The simple answers to your absurd questions are:

God doesn't have a policy of crippling children by carefully walking them across the street when they are experienced enough to do it by themselves.

God's glory is in humans with free agency making their own choices -- only thus can He bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humans. Only Satan proposed to interfere and make everyone do the right thing, and thus frustrate the ends of justice and grace.

God is finite and depends on us to freely cooperate (or not) as we choose. For we are coeternal with Him.

God expects His followers and priesthood to act as his agents, defending the faith when necessary, performing ordinances and essential rites, making covenants, and blessing those in need.

There is no "mass exodus" out of the LDS Church, although apostates continually repeat that lie -- as though repetition alone would prove it. And those few who do leave (some only temporarily) usually do so for emotional-psychological reasons having nothing to do with factual evaluation of the LDS Church. Sincere defenders of the faith do annoy apostates, because they show just how shallow and uninformed the apostates are. Indeed, the Great Apostasy was created by angry, willful "christians" who sought power and influence over others, who sought riches and fame, instead of the wonderful Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit does testify of the truth of what God's emissaries preach, which is the real basis of conversion and authentic testimonies.

How did you manage to get all that wrong, Shirtmaster?

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

The simple answers to your absurd questions are:

God doesn't have a policy of crippling children by carefully walking them across the street when they are experienced enough to do it by themselves.

God's glory is in humans with free agency making their own choices -- only thus can He bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humans. Only Satan proposed to interfere and make everyone do the right thing, and thus frustrate the ends of justice and grace.

God is finite and depends on us to freely cooperate (or not) as we choose. For we are coeternal with Him.

God expects His followers and priesthood to act as his agents, defending the faith when necessary, performing ordinances and essential rites, making covenants, and blessing those in need.

There is a particularly moving passage concluding Lawrence Fine's phenomenal biography of Isaac Luria that could, with some justice, be applied to the Mormon concept of Zion. It goes well with that video of Philip Barlow that you posted a while back.

"The dynamic forces that Luria unleashed during his brief but extraordinary life continued to reverberate for centuries to come in a wide range of ways, and in diverse communities throughout the Jewish world. Isaac Luria's personal striving to cleanse and purify the soul, to redeem sparks of light from the depths of the material domain, to comprehend the innermost mysteries of the Torah, to forge loving community, and to heal the cosmos, animated Jewish religious life well into the eighteenth century. Remarkably enough, even as the twenty-first century dawns, a good many contemporary Jews continue to drink from Luria's well, inspired by the dream that collective human effort can mend a broken world."

[Robert F. Smith]

There is a particularly moving passage concluding Lawrence Fine's phenomenal biography of Isaac Luria that could, with some justice, be applied to the Mormon concept of Zion. It goes well with that video of Philip Barlow that you posted a while back.

"The dynamic forces that Luria unleashed during his brief but extraordinary life continued to reverberate for centuries to come in a wide range of ways, and in diverse communities throughout the Jewish world. Isaac Luria's personal striving to cleanse and purify the soul, to redeem sparks of light from the depths of the material domain, to comprehend the innermost mysteries of the Torah, to forge loving community, and to heal the cosmos, animated Jewish religious life well into the eighteenth century. Remarkably enough, even as the twenty-first century dawns, a good many contemporary Jews continue to drink from Luria's well, inspired by the dream that collective human effort can mend a broken world."

Yes, Luria's influence continues. One of my teachers, Rabbi Joseph Schultz (now retired), wrote his dissertation on Jewish mysticism at Brandeis under the late Harry Wolfson. Schultz always had a great deal to say about Luria. What a noble goal, tikkun ha'olam. How wonderful for brothers to sit down together. The Limeliters used to do a Yiddish song about Zhankoye, a collective settlement in the Crimea where all were equal and there was no discrimination. Audio at http://www.myspace.com/music/player?sid=44689184&ac=now .

[volgadon]

Yes, Luria's influence continues. One of my teachers, Rabbi Joseph Schultz (now retired), wrote his dissertation on Jewish mysticism at Brandeis under the late Harry Wolfson. Schultz always had a great deal to say about Luria. What a noble goal, tikkun ha'olam. How wonderful for brothers to sit down together. The Limeliters used to do a Yiddish song about Zhankoye, a collective settlement in the Crimea where all were equal and there was no discrimination. Audio at http://www.myspace.c...44689184&ac=now .

The poor settlers of Zhankoye and other Jewish communal villages were severely persecuted under Stalin, and then obliterated by the Nazis. The crazy thing is that they were among the only groups that enthusiastically embraced the communal idea. The earliest even left Israel for it!

Would you recommend Schultz's books? This one looks particularly intriguing. http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1

Edited March 5, 2013 by volgadon

[Robert F. Smith]

The poor settlers of Zhankoye and other Jewish communal villages were severely persecuted under Stalin, and then obliterated by the Nazis. The crazy thing is that they were among the only groups that enthusiastically embraced the communal idea. The earliest even left Israel for it!

Would you recommend Schultz's books? This one looks particularly intriguing. http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1

Hadn't heard of that one, but the Rabbi is still as sharp as a tack. Last time I was in Brookline, Mass (2011), he finished my sentence while I was quoting a passage from Isaiah in Hebrew. His wife still teaches Hebrew, by the way.

He also has another book coming out this year. You may be interested in some of the following (just a selection):

Schultz, “Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and the Revelation of the Law,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 61 (July 1971), 282-307.

Schultz, “The Religious Psychology of Jonathan Edwards and the Hassidic Masters of Habad,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 10/4 (Fall 1973), 716-727.

Schultz, “The Lurianic Strand in Jonathan Edwards’ Concept of Progress,” Judaica, 30/3 (Sept 1971), 126-134.

Schultz, Judaism and the Gentile Faiths: Comparative Studies in Religion, Sarah F. Yoseloff Memorial Publications in Judaism and Jewish Affairs (Rutherford, NJ: Farleigh ****inson Univ. Press/ East Brunswick, NJ & Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1981).