Have the Mopologists Found a New Protege?

[_Chap]

It would seem that a new, up-and-coming "pot-stirrer" has emerged. The first mention of her that I saw was on "Sic et Non," where Dr. Peterson introduced her thusly:
Sic et Non

Finally, my attention was just now called to this petition, which, I think, first appeared about twenty-four hours ago:

“Emphasizing Christ-Centered Education at Brigham Young University”

I have no connection with the petition, and I neither know the principal figures involved nor known anything about them.

Oh, really? Doesn't "know anything about them"?

Basically "I've never met X, and I know nothing about them". Hmm... what prominent figure do we know who uses this useful distancing method before opining in detail about the activities of the person in question? The name will come to me in a minute - you know, big house in Washington somewhere ...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I love how Chap always belabors a joke because he believes his audience to be too dumb to get it. Stop ruining the punchline, man. We're not all descended from Liverpool.

- Doc

[_Chap]

I love how Chap always belabors a joke because he believes his audience to be too dumb to get it. Stop ruining the punchline, man. We're not all descended from Liverpool.

- Doc

With DrC always at hand to help, how could anybody go wrong? Always willing to give freely of his time! (What with the Liverpool stuff, I wonder? Oh, never mind...)

[_Kishkumen]

I haven't the slightest idea. So far as I'm aware, she hasn't approached us and we haven't approached her. I've never met her and I don't know her. And it's not guaranteed that we would be interested.

Yeeeouch! What a blistering smack-down! Here you have perhaps the first woman *ever* in Mopologetic history to be actively pursuing a career in Mopologetics, and you get "The Kingpin" himself, Daniel C. Peterson--who has recently been plugging your work, and building up your hopes--coming along and saying that you might not be able to hack it! (Remember: DCP has repeatedly said that Mopologetics is predominantly a "testosterone-fueled" affair.) After all, why *wouldn't* they be interested in a hit piece on "Progressive Mormons"? There was a reason why he linked to their petition in the first place, right?

Yeah, ouch! It's like being a friend of Trump until he decides you are inconvenient for his purposes.

"Ah, my good old friend . . . I have no idea who this person is! I may have met her once. I don't remember. I wish her all the best though, just like I would wish any human being well."

[_Tom]

I notice that she recently put up a podcast titled "How to be an Apologist." The description: "So you want to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Noble cause, worthy effort, totally worth your time– here’s a basic beginner’s guide on how to get started."

It's worth noting that she is currently writing "a book on the history of the priesthood and another one that responds systematically to anti-LDS literature."

The latter is an ambitious project, to say the least. I expect to see 15-20 volumes before she's done.

[_Kishkumen]

I, for one, want to extend a hearty welcome to Hanna. Hanna, you graduated from a fine undergraduate Classics program. The faculty there are great, and I trust that they taught you to read Greek and Latin very well. Greetings from a fellow BYU Classics alum. You will find that many of your fellow alumni are on both sides of the apologist/critic divide. Although we may disagree very much on matters of faith, I hope you understand that we all are family in our love of Classics.

And, even though I am an opponent of the misnomered "classic-FARMS apologetics" and I no longer affiliate with the LDS Church, I do consider myself a Mormon and I enjoy the writings of those who have been dubbed "neo-apologists" by such people as John Dehlin. I am thinking here of Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Patrick Mason, and others. To circle back, I also enjoy a number of things that FARMS and Interpreter have published over the years.

I hope that you hold onto all that is good and shun bullying, obfuscation, misdirection, petty insults, character assassination, prevarication, lying by omission, and ideologically driven religious arguments. See the best in your opponents. Make them worthy of your best work. In that remember Caesar's admiration for his Gallic enemies. Our victories are greater when they are taken from worthy foes.

Some of that sense of worthiness, by the way, comes from showing your opponent due respect.

A noteworthy counter-example would be jauntily comparing a non-LDS tenured academic (see https://history.osu.edu/people/brooke.10) with a positive interest in Mormonism to a mentally unstable anti-Mormon (see https://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Trykback.htm) in the title of your review of that professor's book: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44796971?seq=1

Since one of the people who did that apparently does not know you, I felt responsible for making you aware of that counter-example.

[_jfro18]

I mentioned this the other day elsewhere, but what I found hilarious is that she wrote an article slamming progressives in the church, but then she mentioned progressive Mormons at the end of the FAIR podcast and Gee really lit her up over it.

And she backpedaled and did her best to laugh it off, but man that was a really awkward exchange that happened before they got to the incredible stupid Q&A at the end. To find out she had previously written against progressives and still got lit up... hahaha.

[_Kishkumen]

I mentioned this the other day elsewhere, but what I found hilarious is that she wrote an article slamming progressives in the church, but then she mentioned progressive Mormons at the end of the FAIR podcast and Gee really lit her up over it.

And she backpedaled and did her best to laugh it off, but man that was a really awkward exchange that happened before they got to the incredible stupid Q&A at the end. To find out she had previously written against progressives and still got lit up... hahaha.

I feel badly for her. She is in for a lot more poor treatment from her priesthood leaders over the years. I would say that she'd better get used to it, but I really hope she does not. I would prefer that she and others who want to live a life of Mormon faith find other options than the apostolic coup.

[_Lemmie]

Yes, poor treatment, including this:

Hanna Seariac is mistaken, but one can hardly blame her. She is probably too young to have witnessed the effects of the erosion by the Church itself of male priesthood patriarchy since "The Family" was proclaimed to the world all those years ago, and as a woman she wouldn't have felt the effects as directly.

What nonsense.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[quote](What with the Liverpool stuff, I wonder? Oh, never mind...)[/quote]

It's a running joke amongst some circles about England and the linearity of family trees. Also, I'm a ManU fan.

- Doc