Apologetics - the new derogatory term

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting take.  If the narrative changes it'll be a sad thing and that change will be to conform to what the world wants? 

 

What does that word "narrative" mean?  Who is the narrator?  People in  general? 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

What does that word "narrative" mean?  Who is the narrator?  People in  general? 

An example of a narrative is an interpretation of the events in Charlottesville == Tump vs the media

One narrative is that JS is a prophet, another is that he is a con man, pedophile, false prophet, etc.

The antiMormon vs the faithful LDS

The antis want to control "the narrative" so they attack not only the church but its defenders, such as Fair  A credibility issue == "all Mormons are liars", Mormon critics are objective and tell the truth.

They trot out exMormons, especially disaffected scholars (Palmer), former BYU professor, and exBishops.

Edited August 16, 2017 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What made apologetics the derogatory term it seems to be in some circles now?  I used to see a ton of people getting all upset at FARMS, Peterson, Hamblin, grouping them all together and they'd say, "That attack-style, defeat the person defense of the Church is bad".  While I'm not sure I agree with all conclusions drawn or ideas shared by anyone that might be considered in that camp, I've never, for instance, felt Dan Peterson is quite the devil some want to make him be. 

I was listening to the Bill Reel podcast earlier on Mormon Stories.  John really tries to paint a group "classic FARMS/FAIR style apologetics" as attackers (Around the 25th minute of the first segment), who only provide bad answers to tough questions--I think he used "illogical" and "unreasonable".  And perhaps for brevity's sake, and for cherry picking for his point, he references really bad/funny things that apologists have said.  The horses are tapirs, and Joseph didn't sleep with all his wives were mentioned.  I'd rather take things one at a time.  Each case, or idea one at a time.  Grouping and labeling feels careless and irresponsible.  I also have never been fond of tying particular arguments to people and then concluding, that person is bad because he/she presented a bad argument--which has happened to apologists for many years. 

I play rather loosey goosey with language sometimes, particularly as they are used for labeling groups.  I can side with and sympathize with Dan Peterson just as I can with John Dehlin (to name a rather explosive at different times, twosome who can't seem to get along). 

But in the midst of that discussion, which I'm happy for anyone who wishes to comment on, a couple of interesting points:

1.  Bill suggested the Church can't survive with it's current narrative (alluding, clearly, to a Bushman quote).  He took it a step further and indicated for nearly every principle or doctrine, I think, this problem will resonate.  You break it down and they each struggle to some degree because of the failing narrative.  And overhaul is needed, or by by to the Church.

2.  His dealings with FAIR suggested, as he points out, that FAIR is so beholden to the failing narrative, it sometimes has to prop up known terrible arguments to defend things, lest if it does not, it'll lose it's connection or favor with the brethren. 

Ok.  There's plenty here.  Let's hear what you have to say.  Thanks.  Keep comments respectful (mostly to me but I guess to others as well, like Dehlin and Reel).

This has been discussed here before but I am too lazy to look it up.

The bottom line is that Mormon scholarship is more recently been turning toward "Mormon Studies"  in which Mormons discuss matters with non- Mormon scholars.  The goal is to be more accepted in general academia as "legitimate scholars"

"Legitimate scholars" are supposed to be impartial in their discussions of the social dynamics etc of religion and discuss general issues rather than arguments for or against a particular view.  They discuss religion in general instead of arguments for or against specific religions or doctrines.

That is not apologetics.  By definition apologetics takes sides and advocates and argues for one side or the other.  It is not impartial or detached.  It is passionate and sometimes argumentative though hopefully charitable.

So for those scholars who are trying to get recognized in Mormon Studies, apologetics is no longer "cool".  The goal is to sit with the cool kids at the cool table and sell a lot of books to a general audience instead of arguing for a particular position.

Edited August 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

An example of a narrative is an interpretation of the events in Charlottesville == Tump vs the media

One narrative is that JS is a prophet, another is that he is a con man, pedophile, false prophet, etc.

The antiMormon vs the faithful LDS

The antis want to control "the narrative" so they attack not only the church but its defenders, such as Fair  A credibility issue == "all Mormons are liars", Mormon critics are objective and tell the truth.

They trot out exMormons, especially disaffected scholars (Palmer), former BYU professor, and exBishops.

Not sure I'd consider Palmer a scholar. 

[phaedrus ut]

If someone mentions "classic FARMS/FAIR style apologetics" I know exactly what they are talking about.  

[Physics Guy]

To reply to the original post, there is one main thing that makes me think, "Oh, no, this again," about apologetics. It's the apologist's tendency to continue harping at length on technical details, without addressing basic issues about whether any of those details are even relevant.

Maybe the apologists' arguments are really great, and they've simply overestimated my background knowledge, and so failed to explain all the premises that make their technical details so telling. If this is the case, then the apologists may be right in their arguments, but they've made a big mistake in their presentation—at least insofar as they're presenting to me.

Maybe some apologists have a right to complain when their critics refuse to "engage" with their masses of detail. It often seems to me, however, that apologists simply duck their responsibility to explain their assumptions, by pouring out details that depend on those doubtful assumptions. An apologist who does this is like someone who is offering me payment by check, and when I start asking about the bank on which the check is drawn, they just write more and more checks.

That's what I don't like about apologetics.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Physics Guy

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

To reply to the original post, there is one main thing that makes me think, "Oh, no, this again," about apologetics. It's the apologist's tendency to continue harping at length on technical details, without addressing basic issues about whether any of those details are even relevant.

Maybe the apologists' arguments are really great, and they've simply overestimated my background knowledge, and so failed to explain all the premises that make their technical details so telling. If this is the case, then the apologists may be right in their arguments, but they've made a big mistake in their presentation.

Maybe some apologists have a right to complain when their critics refuse to "engage" with their masses of detail. It often seems to me, however, that apologists simply duck their responsibility to explain their assumptions, by pouring out details that depend on those doubtful assumptions. An apologist who does this is like someone who is offering me payment by check, and when I start asking about the bank on which the check is drawn, they just write more and more checks.

That's what I don't like about apologetics.

And yet here you are, torturing yourself.

 

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

To reply to the original post, there is one main thing that makes me think, "Oh, no, this again," about apologetics. It's the apologist's tendency to continue harping at length on technical details, without addressing basic issues about whether any of those details are even relevant.

Maybe the apologists' arguments are really great, and they've simply overestimated my background knowledge, and so failed to explain all the premises that make their technical details so telling. If this is the case, then the apologists may be right in their arguments, but they've made a big mistake in their presentation—at least insofar as they're presenting to me.

Maybe some apologists have a right to complain when their critics refuse to "engage" with their masses of detail. It often seems to me, however, that apologists simply duck their responsibility to explain their assumptions, by pouring out details that depend on those doubtful assumptions. An apologist who does this is like someone who is offering me payment by check, and when I start asking about the bank on which the check is drawn, they just write more and more checks.

That's what I don't like about apologetics.

I think most apologists are writing for believer who have doubts so the assumptions are somewhat shared. However I do agree that in many cases they should be made more explicit. 

A big issue that others have brought up before is that a big problem with doubters is usually they have accepted a kind of caricature of Mormonism tied to a kind of naive literalism. (And to be fair in some cases Mormon literature has aided this) Most apologists are coming from a basically scientific outlook where while we might quibble about the details we accept a basic naturalistic conception of the world. That is we accept God can inspire and do miracles but that these are more miracles the way Arthur C. Clarke talks about them - advanced technology indistinguishable from magic yet leaving empirical traces on the world. Further God usually acts by natural means. So most apologists will look at say the destructions of 3 Nephi and look to volcanoes and earthquakes as an explanation.

This is somewhat different from the more strong "literalist" position which tends to be deeply distrustful of science and is m ore willing to allow huge undetectable miracles. This in turn determines what is plausible to each group.

To the degree that apologetics is trying to provide a mature faith that avoids going too far down the ahistorical allegorical route you'll see a general consistency in thought even if there are disagreements in the detail. This also explains why in general apologists will be deeply critical of apologetics they see as not engaging with the scientific approach. Apologists typically (although not universally) seek a middle ground between literalism and an ahistorical approach to religion.

Now some will argue there's a new apologetics tied to postmodernism that is a weird combination of literalism and ahistoricism tied to postmodernism. I first off think this is vastly overstated (both by critics and sometimes other apologists). But that's probably getting into the weeds. 

[clarkgoble]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Legitimate scholars" are supposed to be impartial in their discussions of the social dynamics etc of religion and discuss general issues rather than arguments for or against a particular view.  They discuss religion in general instead of arguments for or against specific religions or doctrines.

That is not apologetics.  By definition apologetics takes sides and advocates and argues for one side or the other.  It is not impartial or detached.  It is passionate and sometimes argumentative though hopefully charitable.

So for those scholars who are trying to get recognized in Mormon Studies, apologetics is no longer "cool".  The goal is to sit with the cool kids at the cool table and sell a lot of books to a general audience instead of arguing for a particular position.

I'm not sure it's that clear. Although there does appear to be a desire to be recognized by some, which can be problematic at times. But in general I think most are pretty sincere in what they publish even if I definitely do think political overtones often pop up.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

..............................................................I've never, for instance, felt Dan Peterson is quite the devil some want to make him be. 

I was listening to the Bill Reel podcast earlier on Mormon Stories.  John really tries to paint a group "classic FARMS/FAIR style apologetics" as attackers (Around the 25th minute of the first segment), who only provide bad answers to tough questions--I think he used "illogical" and "unreasonable".  And perhaps for brevity's sake, and for cherry picking for his point, he references really bad/funny things that apologists have said.  The horses are tapirs, and Joseph didn't sleep with all his wives were mentioned.

I suppose we could make lists of dumb things that various people say, but most of what I have seen are blatant lies about what those hated "apologists" have said -- lies which are repeated on a regular basis.  An honest and sincere person would always cite his sources and talk in an even-handed way about what those hated people at FARMS and FAIR actually said.  If they turn out to be as terrible as portrayed, by all means give them what for.  But, what we really get are just lies and deceit.  Take the two examples you gave:

1. "Horses are tapirs."  People who talk about this as a dumb apologetic comment have never seen a tapir and know nothing about its animal status.  Turns out that tapirs are closely related to the horse & rhino, weigh about 550 lbs, and stand about 3.3 feet high.  Moreover, it was not the Mormons who compared the tapir to the horse, but the Mesoamerican natives themselves who called the Spanish horses "tapirs."  Why?  Because horses reminded them of tapirs.  That is the sort of description an honest man would make, and which you didn't have time for.

2. "Joseph didn't sleep with all of his wives."  We don't actually know who he slept with, or had sex with, except his wife Emma.  Why?  Because she had children by him the entire time.  So we know he was fertile.  Why then didn't he have any children by his many plural wives?  We don't know, but careful genetic tests thus far have found no descendants of Joseph from anyone but Emma.  An honest person would at least point that out.

Turns out that the really dumb things being said are by anti-Mormons, who apparently feel that lying is perfectly O..K.

Quote

  I'd rather take things one at a time.  Each case, or idea one at a time.  Grouping and labeling feels careless and irresponsible.  ................................ I can side with and sympathize with Dan Peterson just as I can with John Dehlin (to name a rather explosive at different times, twosome who can't seem to get along). 

This moral equivalency between Dan Peterson and John Dehlin is odd.  Since when has Peterson ever engaged in "explosive" attacks on Dehlin?  Any kind of attacks?  What is this nonsense about them not being able to get along?  So far as I know, they have never even met.  Do Bill Reel and John Dehlin just make this stuff up?  And you believe anything they say?

Quote

.........................................................................

1.  Bill suggested the Church can't survive with it's current narrative (alluding, clearly, to a Bushman quote).  He took it a step further and indicated for nearly every principle or doctrine, I think, this problem will resonate.  You break it down and they each struggle to some degree because of the failing narrative.  And overhaul is needed, or by by to the Church.

2.  His dealings with FAIR suggested, as he points out, that FAIR is so beholden to the failing narrative, it sometimes has to prop up known terrible arguments to defend things, lest if it does not, it'll lose it's connection or favor with the brethren. ................................................................

It could very well be that Bill Reel wants the LDS Church to fail, but his wishful thinking is not accompanied by a realistic appraisal.  Malcontents always want to remake the Church or something in their image.  Their contempt and disrespect prevent an honest and realistic appraisal of the LDS Church.  The result is that they fail -- because theirs is the failing narrative.  Independent third party observers always come to a very different conclusion.  Why?  Because they are not so caught up emotionally in their blind hatred for the Church.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This has been discussed here before but I am too lazy to look it up.

The bottom line is that Mormon scholarship is more recently been turning toward "Mormon Studies"  in which Mormons discuss matters with non- Mormon scholars.  The goal is to be more accepted in general academia as "legitimate scholars"

"Legitimate scholars" are supposed to be impartial in their discussions of the social dynamics etc of religion and discuss general issues rather than arguments for or against a particular view.  They discuss religion in general instead of arguments for or against specific religions or doctrines.

That is not apologetics.  By definition apologetics takes sides and advocates and argues for one side or the other.  It is not impartial or detached.  It is passionate and sometimes argumentative though hopefully charitable.

So for those scholars who are trying to get recognized in Mormon Studies, apologetics is no longer "cool".  The goal is to sit with the cool kids at the cool table and sell a lot of books to a general audience instead of arguing for a particular position.

This is the clearest and most concise (and, I would add, most accurate) summary of the dichotomy between apologetics and "Mormon studies" I have yet seen. 

I would add my personal perception that the only interaction the Mormon studies kids trying to sit at the cool kids' table seem interested in having with the old crowd -- the one they are leaving behind in their social climbing -- is to berate them for not wanting to be more like the cool kids. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is the clearest and most concise (and, I would add, most accurate) summary of the dichotomy between apologetics and "Mormon studies" I have yet seen. 

I would add my personal perception that the only interaction the Mormon studies kids trying to sit at the cool kids' table seem interested in having with the old crowd -- the one they are leaving behind in their social climbing -- is to berate them for not wanting to be more like the cool kids. 

Thanks- it's because I have been there and have no reason to care about it any more.

Edit:  I have reviewed the story quoted below and checked it against my notes of the actual situation, and the story is not as I remembered it.  I have underlined the correction.  Scott made a big deal of this so I am correcting the story.

I have had one very well known Mormon scholar approach me and ask me to delete posts on a very old thread here because the posts happened to quote him making "politically incorrect"- statements - not in the conventional sense, but words which he later understood would not get him ahead in Mormon Studies.  What he said was essentially against another scholar who later rose to prominence, and now he did not want to be on record- anywhere- as having said those things.

What he said was that BYU was a poor school to attend for one who took Bible scholarship seriously because BYU is not taken seriously academically, essentially because it is a religious school.  Another comment quoted Nibley saying that one should attend a school with "gentile respectibility"

And why did I delete the comments?  Because I wanted to be like the cool kids, the threads were old, and my comments on that thread were not important to me anyway, and the points I was making were only tangentially related to what he said.  Peer pressure can be VERY tough especially when one literally publishes or perishes and the standard is "Peer Review".  One reason scholars make nice-nice, is that they guy you are criticizing today may be the guy who makes the hiring decision or reviews your paper for publication tomorrow.  It's not always for charity and the love of man! 

Of course the peer review standard is about the only one which makes sense in the long run in judging if an academic paper has merit - but it does create "PEERS" and not getting those peers ticked off at you too much becomes essential.

And that is one major reason that academics leans in one political direction.  You do not want to be the odd man out at the next faculty event spouting rhetoric that makes you unpopular especially when spouting those opinions has nothing to do with your job.  Why be a theist when being atheist is cool?  Will telling people you are a  theist help your job advancement even if you are an English professor, which has nothing to do with theism?

Better watch your back and laugh heartily at all the right jokes and keep your mouth shut.  Your job is at stake.

Or you could go teach at a religious school and get branded on your CV for life.  Take your pick. Where did he graduate from?  Fordham?  Uh oh.  Notre Dame? BYU or Georgetown?

Edited August 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This has been discussed here before but I am too lazy to look it up.

The bottom line is that Mormon scholarship is more recently been turning toward "Mormon Studies"  in which Mormons discuss matters with non- Mormon scholars.  The goal is to be more accepted in general academia as "legitimate scholars"

"Legitimate scholars" are supposed to be impartial in their discussions of the social dynamics etc of religion and discuss general issues rather than arguments for or against a particular view.  They discuss religion in general instead of arguments for or against specific religions or doctrines.

That is not apologetics.  By definition apologetics takes sides and advocates and argues for one side or the other.  It is not impartial or detached.  It is passionate and sometimes argumentative though hopefully charitable.

So for those scholars who are trying to get recognized in Mormon Studies, apologetics is no longer "cool".  The goal is to sit with the cool kids at the cool table and sell a lot of books to a general audience instead of arguing for a particular position.

Can't give Rep Points but I'm giving them to you

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Can't give Rep Points but I'm giving them to you

Likewise!  

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apologist is not a derogatory term, any more than defender (which is what apologist means) is a derogatory term.

Some try to make it seem so, in line with their strategy to poison the well. It's a lazy way to attack the Church's defenders without actually engaging their arguments.

And yes, Dehlin has done this a lot.

 

I wish I had a dollar for every attack I have received as a "Mopologist" assuming they perfectly understood my views when in fact they had NO understanding of my position whatsoever.

And then when you tell them what your position is, they dismiss it as saying "OH- THAT'S not Mormonism.!"

I am engaged in one of those on another thread right now.

Quote

 

Maybe you ought to go over to the other board and try to explain how your views comport with what mormonism really says and not what you think it should say? I don't think your views mesh well with mormonism's 19th century views.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not aware of many apologists that make this clear right up front, if Dan Peterson asserts this kind of bias up front, I must have missed it, possibly my fault, I don't know, could you care to point me in that direction?  

I think Dan's article in Koffords new book on apologetics is pretty forthright about this. He's done tons of editorials over the years where he's pretty forthright about the biases of apologetics IMO. It's mainly a reworking of this older essay: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/22/2/S00001-5176a02039ee81Peterson.pdf

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks- it's because I have been there and have no reason to care about it any more.

I have had one very well known Mormon scholar approach me and ask me to delete posts on a very old thread here because the posts happened to quote him making "politically incorrect"- statements - not in the conventional sense, but words which he later understood would not get him ahead in Mormon Studies.  What he said was essentially against another scholar who later rose to prominence, and now he did not want to be on record- anywhere- as having said those things.

And why did I delete the comments?  Because I wanted to be like the cool kids, the threads were old, and my comments on that thread were not important to me anyway, and the points I was making were only tangentially related to what he said about the other scholar.  Peer pressure can be VERY tough especially when one literally publishes or perishes and the standard is "Peer Review".  One reason scholars make nice-nice, is that they guy you are criticizing today may be the guy who makes the hiring decision or reviews your paper for publication tomorrow.  It's not always for charity and the love of man! 

Of course the peer review standard is about the only one which makes sense in the long run in judging if an academic paper has merit - but it does create "PEERS" and not getting those peers ticked off at you too much becomes essential.

And that is one major reason that academics leans in one political direction.  You do not want to be the odd man out at the next faculty event spouting rhetoric that makes you unpopular especially when spouting those opinions has nothing to do with your job.  Why be a theist when being atheist is cool?  Will telling people you are a  theist help your job advancement even if you are an English professor, which has nothing to do with theism?

Better watch your back and laugh heartily at all the right jokes and keep your mouth shut.  Your job is at stake.

Or you could go teach at a religious school and get branded on your CV for life.  Take your pick. Where did he graduate from?  Fordham?  Uh oh.  Notre Dame? BYU or Georgetown?

Very, very enlightening. 

And darn it, now you have me curious. But I'll respect your choice not to divulge who it was that asked you to do the deleting. 

Still, I am amazed by your account of such craven two-facedness. 

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Dan's article in Koffords new book on apologetics is pretty forthright about this. He's done tons of editorials over the years where he's pretty forthright about the biases of apologetics IMO. It's mainly a reworking of this older essay: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/22/2/S00001-5176a02039ee81Peterson.pdf

 

Thanks, I have the book at home, but haven't read it yet.  I will try and keep a closer eye out for being more up front about sharing bias.  I try to be as open and honest as possible, but I recognize I fall short often enough.  Perhaps I'm being too critical of apologists in general, so I'm open to that feedback from you and Scott on this point.  

[Gray]

There is some tension between apologetics and critical scholarship in the area of the Bible as well. But, it's important to make the distinction between counter-apologetics and actual critical scholarship. A lot of atheist thinkers are putting out counter-apologetics, which is every bit as beholden to ideological commitments as Christian apologetics. An example of that is the mythicist movement. In Mormon terms, Jeremy Runnells is a counter-apologist.

That is not to say that apologetics cannot make important contributions that even critical scholars value - it can. Depends on who's doing it and how it is done.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Gray

[Bob Crockett]

18 hours ago, cdowis said:

An example of a narrative is an interpretation of the events in Charlottesville == Tump vs the media

One narrative is that JS is a prophet, another is that he is a con man, pedophile, false prophet, etc.

The antiMormon vs the faithful LDS

The antis want to control "the narrative" so they attack not only the church but its defenders, such as Fair  A credibility issue == "all Mormons are liars", Mormon critics are objective and tell the truth.

They trot out exMormons, especially disaffected scholars (Palmer), former BYU professor, and exBishops.

There is no such thing as a "narrative" unless you can identify the narrator.  Your statement:  "If the narrative changes it'll be a sad thing and that change will be to conform to what the world wants" means zilch.  You use buzz-phrases; you lose.

There is no monolithic anti-Mormon, nor a monolithic apologist, nor a monolithic opponent to Pres. Trump.  Thus, there is no narrative.  

Edited August 16, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Very, very enlightening. 

And darn it, now you have me curious. But I'll respect your choice not to divulge who it was that asked you to do the deleting. 

Still, I am amazed by your account of such craven two-facedness. 

Not gonna happen, but I have evidence if there is ever an honest need for it, and besides revealing it would not put me at the cool kids table anyway.  Gotta watch my back and kiss up just like everyone else.   I think he asked others on the thread because I was supposedly the "last one", so there may be others here anyway.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Not gonna happen, but I have evidence if there is ever an honest need for it, and besides revealing it would not put me at the cool kids table anyway.  Gotta watch my back and kiss up just like everyone else.   I think he asked others on the thread because I was supposedly the "last one", so there may be others here anyway.

 

Can you say how long ago it was? Was I actively posting here then?

 

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

There is no such thing as a "narrative" unless you can identify the narrator.  Your statement:  "If the narrative changes it'll be a sad thing and that change will be to conform to what the world wants" means zilch.  You use buzz-phrases; you lose.

There is no monolithic anti-Mormon, nor a monolithic apologist, nor a monolithic opponent to Pres. Trump.  Thus, there is no narrative.  

Bob, I cannot help you.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

There is some tension between apologetics and critical scholarship in the area of the Bible as well. But, it's important to make the distinction between counter-apologetics and actual critical scholarship. A lot of atheist thinkers are putting out counter-apologetics, which is every bit as beholden to ideological commitments as Christian apologetics. An example of that is the mythicist movement. In Mormon terms, Jeremy Runnells is a counter-apologist.

That is not to say that apologetics cannot make important contributions that even critical scholars value - it can. Depends on who's doing it and how it is done.

What is even worse, we currently find that anything written by a Mormon is automatically considered "apologetics," and it doesn't matter what the subject matter may be nor how it is addressed.  That may simply be a strategy designed to consign anything Mormon to the ash-heap even before it is written.  Beyond that, anything written by a non-Mormon and quoted by a Mormon is automatically discounted as biased and tainted.  This is the pre-emptive-strike approach to polemics, and means that basic critical research is wrong by definition, before the fact.  Given those criteria, no discussion is even possible, because the anti-Mormons don't want to be confused by the facts.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you say how long ago it was? Was I actively posting here then?

 

OK I went back and re-read my copy of the posts.  They were from 2012 and the thread seems to have disappeared anyway- but I also got the story wrong.  I just revised my original post, as follows 

Quote

 

I have had one very well known Mormon scholar approach me and ask me to delete posts on a very old thread here because the posts happened to quote him making "politically incorrect"- statements - not in the conventional sense, but words which he later understood would not get him ahead in Mormon Studies.  What he said was essentially against another scholar who later rose to prominence, and now he did not want to be on record- anywhere- as having said those things.

What he said was that BYU was a poor school to attend for one who took Bible scholarship seriously because BYU is not taken seriously academically, essentially because it is a religious school.  Another comment quoted Nibley saying that one should attend a school with "gentile respectibility"

 

It was during the time of the change in leadership in the Maxwell Institute and Dan Peterson's ouster.

The poster was in favor of keeping Dr. Peterson and was alleging that those who were forced out from FARMS were genuine scholars and those left were not part of the higher criticism which was the standard academic view.

I had remembered it was about another scholar who rose to prominence, but I was wrong.  Part of the problem was that I was new at posting here and was not aware of all the cast of characters in apologetics and so I genuinely misunderstood the issue and the meaning of the posts, but going back, they clearly had a different meaning than I thought.  The story included a story about someone being called into a Dean's office for teaching that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, a standard position among non-religious scholars 

So though I got the details horribly wrong, I was still right about apologetics vs Mormon Studies, and that apologists are not taken seriously in academia.