God and Man at FAIR: The Sunstoneization of Apologetics

[_Gadianton]

This has nothing to do with Shades's artificial Chapel/Internet dichotomy, and everything to do with what appears to be to me a presumptuous sense of intellectual and moral superiority among some of the highly educated, advanced degreed intellectual elite within the apologetics community that has little, if anything to do with the Internet and much more to do with the substantial time they have spent embedded within the cultural and intellectual environment of contemporary academe

You couldn't agree with Dr. Shades more, and I for one am happy to see you coming around. Remember, Dr. Shades said, "I also acknowledge that Internet Mormonism--at least in its embryonic form--has been around much longer than the Internet itself has."

I think you have hit on something important though. While it's implied that the roots of Internet Mormonism are academic, Shades does not flesh this out, and that perhaps is a deficiency in his exposition. Certainly, there is no necessary connection between the internet and Internet Mormonism as it predates the internet itself. But you are wrong to say that the internet has little, if anything to do with the rise of these self-anointed, star-bellied Sneetches. If it weren't for the internet, the academic Mormonism you speak of would be a smaller, more scattered movement that barely reached the domain of the "folk Mormons." The internet is where average church members began to encounter criticisms of the church based on history with any significant numbers and the internet is where the academic elite have come head-to-head with not only critics, but average members, either to convert them, or to contradict them and use degrees and higher learning as a weapon. If it weren't for the internet, a lone, self-studied student of Mormonism, politics, and history from the south wouldn't be in the situation that you are in now.

There's one more thing, Droopy. Your own intellectual interests are pretty narrow within Mormon territory. The corrections to ancient history apologists make probably don't matter much to you one way or another, as politics and the philosophy of man is what resonates with you. But it's all more of the same program, Droopy, the same liberal academic attitude that worries Mormon folk beliefs are embarrassing in the light of modern scholarship also worries Mormon folk beliefs are unfashionable within the liberal social beliefs of the vast majority of modern scholars.

I'm not trying to be rude here dude, but this situation is a little bit your fault. You should have seen it coming. You can take the scholar out of the academy, but you can't take the academy out of the scholar. You, and many others, turn a blind eye to the apologists in general when it comes to commentary on ancient scripture and Mormon history, but aren't prepared to pay the price when their years of conditioning surface in other areas. It's all part of the same package.

[_Droopy]

You couldn't agree with Dr. Shades more, and I for one am happy to see you coming around.

But I'm not coming around to Shade's view, which is itself, as I have always maintained, a manifestation of exactly the same left-leaning intellectual snobbery now being manifest at the MDD. The Internet/Chapel Mormon dichotomy is purely artificial, in my view. The demarcation line isn't Internet/Chapel. Nor is it more educated/less educated. The demarcation line here is cultural and, from this, ideological (political-philosophical) and has to do with two generations, the Baby Boomers and post-boomers (Gen-X), and their resistance to or absorption of certain of the generational intellectual fashions, vogues, attitudes and tendencies of their age.

Having been so deeply enmeshed within the elite academic world for so long, some of these people have allowed themselves to be influenced by the reigning concepts and attitudinal features of what is called "political correctness," and, as is usually the case with those who do, have come to see the various theories and conceptual models of human experience with which they deal as inarguable truths or gnostic insights that, from within an LDS version of this phenomenon, are virtually co-equal with the gospel in truth value and importance, and the Church as being in need, as with the present race gab-fest over at the MDD, of their enlightened criticism and steadying hand ("Let's apologize and move forward...")

I think you have hit on something important though. While it's implied that the roots of Internet Mormonism are academic, Shades does not flesh this out, and that perhaps is a deficiency in his exposition.

I think the roots of the Internet Mormon message board, chat, social networking, and email list world is the Internet. There are loads of anti-intellectual people on the Internet, as well as plenty of intellectually substantive material and discourse. The Internet increases exposure and facilitates study and dissemination as never before, but before the Internet their were books, and the same people (or kinds of people) were saying the same things back then as they are now.

For example, I was well aware of most of the current topics in anti-Mormon criticism back in the late seventies (save for some of the secular liberal/leftist ones, which hadn't really arisen then, to a great degree) and read as widely as I could on the subjects (especially Nibely). That makes me both a "chapel" Mormon and an intellectual Mormon, but there was no Internet to facilitate the dissemination my or anyone else's ideas.

So the Internet facilitates, but its never created a Chapel/Intenet type of Mormon, which I really think is intended to mean one of the following:

TBM/neo-orthodox/New Order Mormon

And, following upon or in consequence of the above:

Conservative/liberal/progressive Mormon (across most issues, social, cultural, and economic).

Certainly, there is no necessary connection between the internet and Internet Mormonism as it predates the internet itself. But you are wrong to say that the internet has little, if anything to do with the rise of these self-anointed, star-bellied Sneetches.

It does in the sense that they (and I) have real time forums, such as message boards, to disseminate and develop their philosophies at length and in continual tension with opposing philosophies. In that sense, I would have to agree with you.

If it weren't for the internet, the academic Mormonism you speak of would be a smaller, more scattered movement that barely reached the domain of the "folk Mormons."

(Not sure who the "folk Mormons" are) Again, I have no problem with "academic" Mormonism if all you mean by that is "Mormons who are academics" and who do apologetic thinking and work. That's great, and I'm all for it. My problem is that there should even be thought to be a separate caste or class of Mormons called "academic" Mormons at all, a class apart that tends to an assumption that "academic" Mormons, besides knowing much more than the average Mormon about certain specialized subjects (which they most certainly do), also know much more about the proper interpretations of LDS doctrine than the average educated Mormon - including the Brethren themselves - know, which they most certainly may not.

The internet is where average church members began to encounter criticisms of the church based on history with any significant numbers and the internet is where the academic elite have come head-to-head with not only critics, but average members, either to convert them, or to contradict them and use degrees and higher learning as a weapon. If it weren't for the internet, a lone, self-studied student of Mormonism, politics, and history from the south wouldn't be in the situation that you are in now.

Note (hopefully for the last time): I'm not from the South. I was born and raised in Washington State, spent most of my youth in San Diego, several years in Minnesota, Maryland, and ten years in central Florida (which is the South, but very cosmopolitan in nature, unless you get way out into the sticks).

I'm a born and bread westerner, and always will be so.

Now, as I said, the Internet just facilitates. I had the same gospel interests (the Dead Sea Scrolls, Psueodpigrapha, early Christian texts and movements, the history of Christianity, comparative religion, myth and folklore, archeology etc.), long before the Internet came around. The present focus on political philosophy and gospel questions only arose a bit over ten years ago when I first began computing and came online. It really hit hard when I encountered the late Marc Schindler on the old FAIR email list, someone who, despite his substantive apologetic work in certain areas, was what I would call a man of the Chomsky Left. I had been studying and doing nearly continual reading in the areas of politics, political philosophy, and philosophy generally, long before that time, but the intersection between contemporary politics and the gospel, and the infusion of various secular concepts into gospel teachings, were all new to me.

We clashed and clashed hard, and that was the first time I realized that there was a small sub-group of academically trained intellectuals within the Church that had absorbed, and absorbed deeply, in some cases, philosophies severely at odds with gospel teachings. David Bokovoy (who is a far, far nicer person than Bro. Schindler was, at least as he presented himself on line) is another case in point

I'm not trying to be rude here dude, but this situation is a little bit your fault. You should have seen it coming.

No, I did see it coming, but I'm not going to remain silent. For the life of me, however, I actually don't know why I was banned this time, save for my position on the issue per se. I flamed nobody.

Believe me, I am not making the slightest common cause with any critics here. While this is a more open forum, its also a forum where that openness is all too often abused and gamed by demagogues and bigots who's purposes and philosophy are as opposed to mine as I am to "neo-orthodoxy."

[_Tarski]

1. If the priesthood ban was racist, as this coterie of LDS intellectuals claim, why have the Brethren not admitted to such?

To admit it would be bad business for many reasons.
1) It opens the brethren up to more questioning of their (old-white-male) power.
2) It risks alienating and losing the tithing dollars of hardcores like you.

2. From whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of colorblindness and the idea that blacks are equal participants in both the rights and duties of a free society?

For you a colorless society is one that is washed clean of ethnic culture. Colorless=white.
For the rest of us, we wish to retain praisworthy differences in culture, and at least recognize the defacto presence of race as a social reality -incuding the reality of ongoing prejudice and marginalization. Equality in rights ans value is not the same as cultural homogeneity.

3. If the Book of Mormon clearly teaches that skin color, among other means, is used by the Lord, among a original core of culturally distinct people, as a marker or symbolic representation of anti-Zionic cultural characteristics, what are the probable consequences of excising this from church teaching without the approval or assent of the Brethren?

The Book of Mormon has racist undercurrents. Any more questions?
Test Question: Since paleontolgy has the probable origin of modern man in Africa, isn't it more likely that whiteness is the "mark"? A priori, why should dark skin be the mark and not white skin??? Do you think white skin is "normal" while black skin is the deviation in need of a theological just so story???
Your assumptions are showing.

4. If the Book of Mormon teaches that any changes in physical appearance designating cultural distance from a Zion culture do not represent innate characteristics but only cultural attributes that are responsive to free agency, why the resistance to those teachings as "racist?" What would count for modern liberal Mormons influenced by secular ideological trends as a legitimate symbolic representation of separation between the Lord's people and a culture hostile to gospel standards?

Zion culture? LOL Umm I smell it again.

5. How is a confrontational, oppositional stance to official church teachings justified by LDS "apologists" whose core mission, one would think, is to defend the Church, not just against religious anti-Mormons, but also against secular ideologies and intellectual fashions?

Commitment to the truth. If the church can't take it, then it isn't worth it.

6. How is the intellectual excommunication of other apologists as politically incorrect heretics productive or positive manifestations of the apologetic mission?

How is intellectual excommunication of sunstone heretics productive?

On the other side of the coin; How is the intellectual excommunication of old timey racists like David Duke from the conservative mainstream productive?
(It is!)

The short answer is that they are trying to eradicate the vestiges of an old stinky disease from the church they love.

[_bcspace]

Since the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy doesn't exist, perhaps the SLDS/chapel Mormon dichotomy does.

[_Droopy]

Take a look at this, and then prepare for a Droopy drubbing:

2. From whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of colorblindness and the idea that blacks are equal participants in both the rights and duties of a free society?

You answered:

For you a colorless society is one that is washed clean of ethnic culture. Colorless=white.

This finally and permanently puts you on my short list of moral and intellectual arachnids who lie in wait in their (rather coarsely) spun webs and pounce when they think the politically correct winds are blowing away from them and that the intellectual gas they pass will fly into the faces of their intended targets.

This is so intellectually and morally vacuous that its actually hard finding the words to describe it. The very fact that nowhere, ever, have I ever said or implied anything even marginally resembling what you have ascribed to me places you well within the ranks of the politically correct witchfinders who's job is to burn the witches, not engage opposing views in a civil marketplace of ideas. This leads me to believe that you are doing nothing more than wallowing, as is typical for leftists of your ilk, in their own public moral pomposity, thinking that in doing so they have been excused from engaging in reasoned argument.

You could not possibly have derived such ideas from anything I've ever written on racial issues, and especially recently at either the MDD or here, which also leads me to believe you either haven't read what I've written, or if you have, have consciously made a decision to misrepresent it (as was recently done to me by several LDS posters at the MDD).

I asked from whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of a colorblind, race irrelevant society, and you can't answer the question. That itself begs for further scrutiny.

For the rest of us, we wish to retain praisworthy differences in culture,

Don't try to change the subject and don't equivocate. We're not discussing culture here, but race.

and at least recognize the defacto presence of race as a social reality -including the reality of ongoing prejudice and marginalization.

Except there is nary a particle of empirical evidence of such "ongoing prejudice and marginalization," in any broad or collective sense, in American society, at least moving from the white majority to minorities, and hasn't been for quite sometime.

Equality in rights ans value is not the same as cultural homogeneity.

Who's talking about "cultural homogeneity?" Come back to this discussion when you're reasonably lucid, Tarski. But I think I'm just about done with you, permanently.

On the other side of the coin; How is the intellectual excommunication of old timey racists like David Duke from the conservative mainstream productive?
(It is!)

I want to have some sport with you now, so I'll ask for three CFRs here, the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, and thirdly, that the philosophy of the Ku Klux Klan is a part of the modern conservative intellectual/political movement, and is not in fact a revolutionary movement aimed at the overthrow of the constitution and the institution of a totalitarian, feudal social order entirely incompatible with conservative (i.e., classic liberal/Judeo-Christian) values and beliefs.

Have fun making it up as you go along, Tarski. It should be a wild ride.

[_moksha]

... the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, ...

Duke probably bought his sheets from some Ma and Pa storefront. No designer patterns for that guy.

[_Tarski]

I asked from whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of a colorblind, race irrelevant society.

Ask any president of the Mormon church prior to SWK.



I will pretend the question wasn't just a rhetorical set up and answer by saying that I am all for a colorblind society (at least if taken correctly) but I don't want to get there by pretending (or by pretending to be there). Maybe pretending works for testimonies but it won't work with race.


I am also all for a society where people are not divided religion. How about we be blind to creed too? How about a religion irrelevant society?

Can we abolish both race and creed?

Can we seek a society where both race and creed mean nothing?
Is there a world where we never hear anyone say "I am black" or "I am Mormon" or "he/she is black" or "he/she is a Mormon"?

How about a gender blind society??

Is that the world you want? Perhaps you can bully everyone into pretending it is already here.

Well, I am not holding my breath. In the meantime members of different races, genders, will suffer prejudice and so it is for members of certain religions.

Anyone who denies that racial prejudice plays a huge role in society is utterly blind and a fool.

... the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, ...

Even now the excomminication from the party continues in you by these very words. LOL


Newsflash: You don't get to decide for other Mormons what it means to be Mormon.
Ditto conservatism.

[_Droopy]

I asked from whence comes the deep resistance to the concept of a colorblind, race irrelevant society.

Ask any president of the Mormon church prior to SWK.

Answer the question. From whence, on the Left, comes this deep resistance (the SWK remark is a red herring. Stop dancing).

I will pretend the question wasn't just a rhetorical set up

Its a serious question. And I'll ask the same thing of Juliann, Nehor, and anyone else who is of the "race matters" school.

and answer by saying that I am all for a colorblind society (at least if taken correctly) but I don't want to get there by pretending (or by pretending to be there). Maybe pretending works for testimonies but it won't work with race.

Now, I'll just go ahead and get on the treadmill, I guess, and ask again, answer the question.

I am also all for a society where people are not divided religion. How about we be blind to creed too? How about a religion irrelevant society?

What is the possible relevance or logical analogy to the question of race?

Can we abolish both race and creed? Can we seek a society where both race and creed mean nothing?

Why would one want to abolish "creed?" Given the definition of the term "creed" ("A system of belief, principles, or opinions") this would be tantamount to abolishing all distinctions in thought, belief, philosophy, ethics, religion, philosophy of science, political philosophy...everything. This would include the abolishing of the entire philosophy and ethical theory behind the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Would you care to rethink this relativist negation of all bodies of thought and principle (which would have to include the very concept of negating them itself) and talk sense?

Being genetically black and choosing to be a member of a certain religious organization and accept its teachings is about as apples/oranges as one can get, Tarski.

How about a gender blind society??

Gender differences involve real and empirically observable average differences in certain attributes, both physical and mental (tendencies, biases, emphasis/de-emphasis in the cognitive sphere, and very real physical differences morphologically/biochemically) Having dark skin does not (and those real differences are as discernible between black men and woman as among white men and woman).

Is that the world you want? Perhaps you can bully everyone into pretending it is already here.

What world do I want? You haven't elucidated or made an argument for anything yet clarify what "world" you think that is or why you think I support it (whatever it is). You're raving. I asked for clear answers and this is apparently the best you can do?

Well, I am not holding my breath. In the meantime members of different races, genders, will suffer prejudice and so it is for members of certain religions.

Yes, they will, just as leftists such as yourself will continue to hold power in various capacities, dominate the institutions of society, and continue to cripple, stunt, debase, and destroy human beings wherever they have influence. But we don't have to tolerate or live under those conditions either. We could come "up from liberalism," as Buckley once put it. Will we? Doubtful, but we could make better choices, just as each of us can choose to be colorblind in our own affairs, and attempt to teach others to be so.

But, if all of us were colerblind, what would become of the race hustlers? What would become of the poverty industry? What would become of Charles Ogletree, Bell Hooks, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Leonard Jefferies, Derrick Bell, Benjamin Chavis etc.?

Anyone who denies that racial prejudice plays a huge role in society is utterly blind and a fool.

They would indeed, and since I've never denied or argued that racial prejudice plays no role in society, please get the ritual burning of strawmen out of the way, if you real feel the need to burn them, and then come back and discuss the actual issues I've raised at the MDD and here.

... the first being the David Duke was ever a part of the "conservative mainstream." Second, that David Duke could ever possibly be associated with modern conservatism, ...Even now the excomminication from the party continues in you by these very words. LOL

Newsflash: You don't get to decide for other Mormons what it means to be Mormon.
Ditto conservatism.

Thanks for the swerving evasive maneuver there, Tarski, showing exactly what I already knew to be the case, ie., you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and cannot support your claims here. But not to worry, they're so bizarre that no one could support them. Welcome yourself to the leftist club. You're not alone.

Stop the Chris Matthews imitation and act like a serious intellectual for once. You might actually find you enjoy it.

[_Dr. Shades]

Since the internet/chapel Mormon dichotomy doesn't exist, . . .

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of planet earth, a temporal baptism by immersion, like the Lord's mouthpieces have taught us?

A. Yes
B. No

[_harmony]

If the priesthood ban was racist, as this coterie of LDS intellectuals claim, why have the Brethren not admitted to such? Why have the Brethren left it to the neo-orthodox LDS "apologetics" elite to "out" the Brethren here?

To his dying day, Charles Ponzi never admitted to committing fraud.

Therefore, he was not a con man.

Neither did Joseph Smith.