Comments on Life On Gold Plates: Robert White: On Being an Apologist- Imperatives, ...

And parenthetically, it was more often the "apolog...

2009-08-08T21:24:39.350-06:00

And parenthetically, it was more often the "apologists" who first reached out to help me with my interest in looking closer at LDS history and theology. After a while I found many school-attending folks and published researchers who likewise have treated me with respect and encouragement. People who spend more time engaging in defending the faith by responding to criticism as well as people who are doing straight-up scholarship without paying as much attention to "defending" so to speak have been great to get to know.

JonW, I really appreciate your comments, thank you...

2009-08-08T21:21:30.780-06:00

JonW, I really appreciate your comments, thank you.

Thanks to apologetics and academics I found myself better prepared to analyze all issues and not simply accept the face value approach.

Seconded.

I thought a bit about this whole issue after readi...

2009-08-08T21:19:06.303-06:00

I thought a bit about this whole issue after reading Jared's version at JI. Then I read a different but similar review here.

To me one of the most difficult tight ropes to walk is as a Mormon Academic in history. Often there is a perception that Mormon Historians are critical too much. As Bushman said so eloquently in the earlier post.

I remember in the 1990s as I was doing my history degree I was genuinely worried about doing Mormon history specifically because of the perception that academics fill people with falsehoods.

The institute I attended had wonderful teachers that would say some outlandish, and down right stupid things about academics. These comments honestly made me nervous.

Years later as I returned to academia as an older person I was less afraid of what people might think. I found a website like FAIR and enjoyed how it supported some of the things I held as truth. I liked FARMS for how it researched Book of Mormon issues and tried to resolve questions about origins of the people of the Book.

Then through FAIR and my own blogging I found the Bloggernacle in full swing. There were stories about church history and philosophy that I had never heard before. It set me a blaze with a desire to learn and study more about issues I had little knowledge of.

So in the end when I wrote Essays I wrote from an academic standpoint. I could understand the world around me as a member of the Church through the eye of academia.

Thanks to apologetics and academics I found myself better prepared to analyze all issues and not simply accept the face value approach.

I think too often both sides, including the so-called liberal and conservative Mormons get caught out in presenting the better argument. Rather than presenting a good addition. Neither side is wrong, neither side is wholly right. It is just too simple.

Personally I like the FAIR conference, I think it has contributions that are of value and should be commented on just as much as the negative viewed issue.

I know some in the Bloggernacle have issues with tactics. I will be honest I live in Northern Alberta in a city of 800,000 with three stakes. Mormons here are less likely to care about whether you believe Joseph Smith looked in a hat or if Brigham Young liked Black people or hated them.

In fact most will not have any idea about those issues. Not being close to the concentrated areas of Mormonism means you focus less on your differences and more on your togetherness.

To me I would like both sides of the debate to do the same really. We need each other, we do not need to question anyone's faith or common sense. I know, "I'm a dreamer,

but I am not the only one."

;)

A good quote.

2009-08-08T16:22:10.913-06:00

A good quote.

I don't know that some people would even call the ...

2009-08-08T16:16:36.673-06:00

I don't know that some people would even call the "historian" in the situation a "defender of the faith."

That's true. I should have just left it at "two approaches to doing Mormon history" rather than "two approaches to 'defending the faith.'"

Bushman, for his part, seems to shy away from overt apologetics, but he is also critical of the "historian's" tendency to "avoid strain between keeping the peace with non-Mormons and showing their colors as believers."

"We will write better," he says, "if we are less defensive, more open to criticism, more exploratory and venturous, but even with our inhibitions and parochialisms, we should come to the table with our Mormonism intact. It would be a mistake, in my judgment, for Mormon historians to check their beliefs at the door when they write" (see Bushman, "A Response to Jan Shipps," 521).

Ben- I consider myself to be an apologist in some ...

2009-08-08T13:51:14.346-06:00

Ben- I consider myself to be an apologist in some of the writing I do. Where do I fit into the fight/dine, apologist/historian distinction?

I don't know that some people would even call the ...

2009-08-08T13:46:16.641-06:00

I don't know that some people would even call the "historian" in the situation a "defender of the faith," and there is sometimes the impression that being a "defender of the faith" is a shameful thing to do in any academic setting.

Here is the context of the Bushman quote: "Althou...

2009-08-08T12:31:43.616-06:00

Here is the context of the Bushman quote:

"Although seeing themselves as collaborators in the cause of Mormon history, apologists and new Mormon historians occasionally snipe at one another. The apologists wonder why the historians do not spring to the defense of the faith when Joseph Smith comes under attack. The apologists want to war with the critics; the historians ask them out to lunch.

At Mormon History Association meetings you can hear a critic vehemently attack Joseph Smith in one session while in the next room a presenter lauds Smith’s character and achievements. The apologists insist that the historians fail to understand what is at stake. The historians for their part question the apologists’ polemical writing and special pleading. They think the apologists repel readers with their bellicose style and unwillingness to yield points. Though assembled on the same campus at Brigham Young University and acknowledging each other as brothers and sisters in the gospel, they live in different worlds."

(Richard Lyman Bushman, "What's New in Mormon History: A Response to Jan Shipps," Journal of American History 94, no. 2 [1997]: 518-19)

I think Bushman would probably agree that his characterization of "apologists" and "historians" here is overly broad, but I think he identifies a real tension between the two approaches to "defending the faith."

It also seems to be a simplistic distinction that ...

2009-08-07T14:27:23.196-06:00

It also seems to be a simplistic distinction that all "apologists" like to fight, whereas scholars like to eat. I don't think that is entirely accurate, and furthermore even Bushman has been called an "apologist." (Not that I agree with that label for him, but to point out one man's scholar is another man's apologist). I think it is crucial to get away from thinking "apologists" are fighty mean folks and scholars aren't. It's a false distinction.

"I also like Bushman's distinction from his Church...

2009-08-07T13:40:06.496-06:00

"I also like Bushman's distinction from his Church History article a little while back: apologists want to make war with critics, historians want to take them out to lunch."

I must be a historian, then, since I just had lunch with a critic at the FAIR Conference today. I've also had many meals with people that other LDS seldom do (such as members of the Street Preacher's Fellowship).

The constant political posturing of using "apologist" as a pejorative gets tiresome. Such argument is often made from ignorance and not rarely made from malice.

-Allen

I need to get back to work, but I will say this. I...

2009-08-07T12:52:34.448-06:00

I need to get back to work, but I will say this. I don't think apologetics are bad. I really don't. I subscribe to your definition of apologetics: anything that is defending a certain view. I bet my writing can at times be seen as apologetic. But, I think the best way to do apologetics is to merely present the history and contextualize it rather than being reactionary and combative. I see Ron's (and Brant's, for that matter), presentation as doing the former, and White's as the latter. I don't think we need to focus ourselves on insulting the "other side" and going to war with the "enemy"; lets just focus on our own history. I actually really appreciated the 2008 Bushman Seminar in this regard. I tried to get at this in my post on Brown's First Vision book a couple months back.

I also like Bushman's distinction from his Church History article a little while back: apologists want to make war with critics, historians want to take them out to lunch.

I haven't really seen any paradigmatic critiques, ...

2009-08-07T12:39:06.112-06:00

I haven't really seen any paradigmatic critiques, only statements that FAIR participants are snarky and mean. (Unless you're referring post-modern critiques leveled at Lou Midgely and such.)

And if FAIR's paradigm or materials are failing, then produce something better or help FAIR to refine their by contributing instead of sniping from the sidelines or the ivory tower.

I think the problems you see may have more to do w...

2009-08-07T12:33:20.643-06:00

I think the problems you see may have more to do with a desire to see others do things as you want them done, or think certain things should be done according to your training. The problem is that is is not useful to simply complain publicly about things without providing any solid advice or information on what you'd like to see done differently. Further, there is a certain feeling that if you don't personally think something is worthwhile then no one should. I know you must not believe that, but it is the impression you give when you say there isn't anything you have seen that has interested you, and then note an overall "paradigm" problem. As you know, there are different apologists and different apologetic approaches. Terryl Givens has been called an apologist. Richard Bushman has been called an apologist. What are we to make of these things? My point is this: FAIR is trying to serve a need that you fellows at the JI are not trying to fill. And that is fine, no problem. But don't be surprised at negative reactions to your critiques when you come from the sidelines to complain and not help, because the negativity certainly isn't helping.

We'll have to talk in person to work through the discussion, talking through comments on a blog isn't going to do it much justice. And don't worry, I am not upset or rankled. We'll have to talk more about it.

Blair: I appreciate your response, and hope i am m...

2009-08-07T12:26:24.719-06:00

Blair: I appreciate your response, and hope i am making it clear that I do not place all FAIR participants under this umbrella.

I wish I could find a better answer, but I can only come up with this: I can't think of a noteworthy FAIR or FARMS (I know it's not the same organization, but I usually group them together) publication recently that I would have desired to highlight. I know there must be something there, but I'm not thinking of one. Ron's was nice, but I'm looking for something new and noteworthy.

Again, I acknowledge that I am not their target audience, so it may just be me. I think we like to point out FAIR's flaws, however, because they represent what some of us see as major problems with this particular apologist paradigm.

Persecution complex or not, Ben, it can be rather ...

2009-08-07T12:18:17.407-06:00

Persecution complex or not, Ben, it can be rather frustrating when the only time FAIR people really hear from some of the bloggers, etc. is when something occurs that bothers them. You note there have been many good presentations etc. from FAIR, but where can we read comments and blog posts on these good aspects (aside from the compliments supplemented by a big "BUT" that follows)?

"FAIR has been subjected to more ridicule and snar...

2009-08-07T12:12:04.817-06:00

"FAIR has been subjected to more ridicule and snark than anything one speaker might put out. I would find it embarrassing to condemn Dialogue or Sunstone because of a few words from one speaker but there seems to be an accepted attitude openly applauded by some to do just that if it happens to come from FAIR."

Persecution complex at its best. If you think the same amount of "ridicule and snark" hasn't been thrown at Dialogue or Sunstone, then you are grossly mistaken. And FAIR has not received this reputation from just one, two, or just a few speakers. Sadly, it is a common occurrence, and unfortunately overshadows the good presentations. FAIR has had some great presentations over the years, but there are always the others that are the problems.

But I'll stop there, since, as one wise person put it, "those who are determined to see everything in the worst of light it will not matter what we say."

For those who are determined to see everything in ...

2009-08-07T10:59:11.113-06:00

For those who are determined to see everything in the worst of light it will not matter what we say. FAIR has a mission statment that sums up what we are about and it is accurate and truthful. I know I have lost the desire or need to convince skeptics otherwise. FAIR has been subjected to more ridicule and snark than anything one speaker might put out. I would find it embarrassing to condemn Dialogue or Sunstone because of a few words from one speaker but there seems to be an accepted attitude openly applauded by some to do just that if it happens to come from FAIR. It is even more ironic because we often share the same speakers and writers. But as a result, I'd say we have been innoculated and the ongoing negativity is losing its punch. We put on a variety of speakers. They will all have different takes on things and we don't screen comments. When some onlookers are so hypersensitive that they can't even let a couple of sentences go by I don't think the problem is with FAIR. We will continue to allow people to speak. We will also continue to try to understand and *tolerate* other viewpoints. But we will stand for anyone's right to have opinions and express them. That includes those who are so determined to dislike us for the least of offenses. But like those folk, when one of us has such an opinion, they will likely feel just as free to say it. I would suggest doing what most do, discard the comments that rankle and tend to the many others that enlighten. By the way, part of a talk is the experience of being there, especially when the speaker is charismatic. Did he "pat us on the back"? You bet. And I hope someone does that for Sunstone. The difference is that there is not one person involved with FAIR who would think of complaining about it. It would not even occur to us.
Juliann

Christopher: "I am still not convinced that such [...

2009-08-07T08:29:12.199-06:00

Christopher: "I am still not convinced that such [resolving doubts] is truly the primary aim of the apologists I read from time to time."

I think part of FAIR's light gets put under a bushel. Answering 100-150 questions that come in each month is what the organization does best. The general public doesn't get to see private and personal counseling that goes on. For me, I occassionally feel like I am doing the same type of work that I did as a missionary in resolving concerns of an investigator or empathetically listening to issues that less active members of the church confided in me with.

I can not say that this aspect is my entire reason for getting involved with apologetics. As an engineer I like to solve puzzles. The conundrums posed by critics of the Church intellectually stimulate me as does the art of presenting a persuasive synthesis of the available data to others.

As far as patting ourselves on the back, I think gratitude and praise is the only reward we get for fulfilling a role that seems like it needs to be done. So it seems important to give ourselves a pep talk once in awhile. I know I am going to leave the conference more motivated to get a couple of publications I have been dragging my feet on finished.

--Keller

As for the answer to the RSR question, I got the i...

2009-08-07T06:00:53.283-06:00

As for the answer to the RSR question, I got the impression he was saying his personal opinion on it was irrelevant. Time was short, and I don't believe he meant to disparage the book. I could be wrong, but that is my general impression.

Also, for other readers, Jared from JI took notes on this talk as well, and it would be beneficial to compare them because there are some additional details he picked up.

Christopher, I'll have to spend more time thinking...

2009-08-07T05:42:41.229-06:00

Christopher, I'll have to spend more time thinking about your questions, but my initial impression is that you view FAIR as a place where people get together and make some fun of intellectuals and so forth. I have to emphasize again that no single person speaks for FAIR, even at the conference. There were aspects of Bob's talk that really resonated with me and other aspects I didn't care for. When he talks about saving souls he speaks from personal experiences with real members of the church in real situations where a helping hand has been offered. I believe there is an important place for historians, theologists, apologists and regular old members of the church (and sometimes these boundaries are quite mixed). For none of the above do I think my views are adequately represented by a majority of people there in terms of approach and tone. At the same time I have to realize I too am imperfect.

The question you might ask yourself is why are guys like Kevin Barney involved in FAIR to begin with, and what might that indicate about FAIR?

I forgot to thank you for posting the notes, Blair...

2009-08-06T22:53:47.970-06:00

I forgot to thank you for posting the notes, Blair. This is a great service for those unable to attend.

Great notes, Blair. My notes at the Juvenile Instr...

2009-08-06T22:41:14.062-06:00

Great notes, Blair. My notes at the Juvenile Instructor that I just put up on this have some details that add to what Christopher is saying here.

On a semi-unrelated note, I am genuinely intereste...

2009-08-06T22:22:48.999-06:00

On a semi-unrelated note, I am genuinely interested in your take on his answer to the question posed. Was he short on time, or was that really the best answer he could come up with? Let's pretend that the person asking the question was someone who had read RSR and struggled with any number of things that Bushman tackles. Is telling that person that "it doesn't matter; just have faith" really the best apologia he could muster?

His idea is that FAIR itself has an important role...

2009-08-06T22:20:45.989-06:00

His idea is that FAIR itself has an important role to play in the faith of some members of the Church.

But according to your own notes, that is emphatically not what he said. He claimed FAIR had a divine mandate to "do what FAIR does" and that only FAIR could accomplish that (by taking snippets of certain revelations completely out of context, no less).

He then proceeded to arrogantly dismiss intellectuals in the church who are, get this, arrogant in the way they express themselves. He claims that "we do not seek fights" but still managed to sneak in a few jabs and back-handed compliments to those who aren't part of the blessed FAIR organization.

Here's the deal, Blair. I long ago concluded that FAIR was just not my group. I'm not bothered by that at all, and try to not harbor any animosity to the organization. There are even a few apologists who volunteer for FAIR that I know and respect (you and Kevin Barney come to mind). So if you're up to it, I'd really appreciate an honest answer to this question:

I keep hearing representatives of FAIR claim that their mission is "saving souls," resolving doubts of troubled Latter-day Saints, etc. Robert White made this point throughout his talk, as indicated by your summary here. I am still not convinced that such is truly the primary aim of the apologists I read from time to time. Certainly these are sincere individuals genuinely concerned to some degree with helping people resolve concerns. But all to often, they seem instead to thrive on the snark, the debate, and the argument. Based on your report here, Robert White seems to, certainly.

Which is fine, but not what they are claiming to do and who they are claiming to be. And occasionally, FAIR representatives will make jabs at those snobby academics and intellectuals who aren't interested in studying history, theology, etc. with the express intent to "defend the faith" like the folks at FAIR, who are sure that they fulfilling a constructed "divine mandate." "We are the line in the sand."?? Really? Ugh.

This brings me to my question(s). I'm curious as to to point of the FAIR conference in relation to all of this:

Is the purpose of the FAIR conference to save souls, to resolve concerns, etc? Or is it, as this paper seems to indicate, more of a gathering of apologists who can pat themselves on the back, take jabs at "critics" outside the church and more liberal "intellectuals" within the church, and assure themselves that all of their efforts are not only worthwhile, but divinely mandated? Is the purpose to provide apologists with more ammunition with which to defend the faith against enemies, both real and perceived?

For clarification, I don't believe Robert White wa...

2009-08-06T21:48:28.952-06:00

For clarification, I don't believe Robert White was calling on all people to be "apologists" in the sense that many folks at FAIR are apologists. (Technically, I think anyone who defends a position or view of "best way to do something" is an apologist). His idea is that FAIR itself has an important role to play in the faith of some members of the Church.