Tension among the Apologists

[_Kishkumen]

I found an interesting tidbit on one of oudenos's blog entries. Our old friend Blair Hodges seems to have had a run-in with the exuberant new chihuahua of LDS apologetics, Bryce Haymond:

BHodges says:
July 2, 2012 at 11:54 am
I left a comment over at Bryce’s Temple Study blog, responding to his post on “Attacking Nibley.” He let me know he wouldn’t allow the comment to appear because he didn’t want to start a discussion with me.

Here’s the comment I left there, including a link to one of my old blog posts:

Nibley himself pointed to the constant need for reappraisal of academic work, including his own. Nibley himself would almost certainly object to the way you [Bryce Haymond] assume that pointing out flaws in the work of others constitutes “attacking.”

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/01 ... rship.html

Wow! I would say that you have to be pretty touchy if you won't even let your fellow apologists disagree with you. Yikes!

[_MsJack]

Other Faith-Promoting Rumor bloggers have complained about being censored on Hammond's blog.

And yet, comments like this are allowed.

[_Kishkumen]

TT says:
July 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Bryce Hammond has repeatedly denied that “violent rhetoric” has ever been employed by apologists. At the same time, he positively condones a threat to punch Faith-Promoting Rumor folks in the face.
http://www.templestudy.com/2012/07/02/a ... mment-6699
“I am a 77 year old lady and I have read and re read and own everything of Nibley’s I could obtain.
Send those critics to me…..and I will punch em in the nose. They are simply jealous of his brilliant
mind and scholarship.”
Bryce’s approval of this comment is here:
http://www.templestudy.com/2012/07/02/a ... mment-6700
“Haha! Way to go Lynn! I think even our not-so-friendly friends might smile at that proposal.”

I want to be clear that none of us takes this seriously, but rather point to it as an example of the kind of problematic discourse that has been allowed to flourish, and even celebrated in some circles of apologetics. I also want to be clear that such comments would never be condoned by Faith-Promoting Rumor.

We take Mormonism very seriously. We take thinking about Mormonism seriously. We are all sincerely dedicated to doing both well. We have dedicated our lives to do just that. If I can speak for my co-bloggers, we have been frustrated with what we consider to be poor reflections of Mormonism and apologetics, building houses on sand. We know from experience that these sand foundations will not sustain faith, and we testify that violent rhetoric will certainly destroy it.

Dear Sister Lynn, if you are reading, we offer our hand in fellowship and strive toward mutual understanding, if you will unclench your fist.

[_Philo Sofee]

I think religious talk always build tension with people, whether they like it or not.

[_Jeneum]

I thought I had finally left Mormonism all behind, but this new drama has pulled me back in. Damn it.

I'm quite happy to see Mormon apologetics changing, as it was the ridiculously vitriolic nature of FARMS that broke my testimony in the first place.

[_bcspace]

I thought I had finally left Mormonism all behind, but this new drama has pulled me back in. Damn it.

It's good for you because it angries up the blood. Might give you enough power and motivation to step away from your computer.......

[_Jeneum]

I thought I had finally left Mormonism all behind, but this new drama has pulled me back in. Damn it.

It's good for you because it angries up the blood. Might give you enough power and motivation to step away from your computer.......

Eh I pretty much get paid to surf the web at work. I think I'll stay

And I'm over being angry about it, I just find it wildly fascinating stuff.