Patrick Mason and the collapse of apologetics

[Hagoth]

I really enjoyed the recent Mormon Discussions interview with Patrick Mason. What a disappointment that they lost 2/3 of it.

There is something really significant, in my opinion, that happens in this interview. Mason says that he has no problem accepting Joseph Smith's "translations" as pseudapigrapha. That is an astonishing turn of events from an Apologetics point of view. Just a decade ago the catalyst theory was pretty much a heresy. The Gospel Doctrines essay made it kosher. But now, apparently, we've reached the point where LDS scholars in good standing are comfortable saying that, not only was the Book of Abraham not recorded on the papyri, but that Abraham never actually wrote those words in the first place. They originated with Joseph Smith. BUT it's still just as scriptural as if Abraham actually had actually written it. Yikes. The jello pile gets deeper every day.

Imagine you had a time machine and could confront Joseph Smith directly about this. "Hey Joseph, in my day it has been clearly demonstrated that the the characters on those papyri have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything he wrote." There seem to be three possible responses:

1) You're wrong. I said Abraham wrote it with with his own hand and I meant it.
2) Oops, you caught me!
3) It doesn't matter. The Eqyptian characters inspired me to write something that's just as good as anything Abraham would have written, even though Abraham never wrote anything and the events in that book never happened.

I doubt Joseph would have been eager to acknowledge option 3. But it looks like that's all we're left with.

[jfro18]

I need to listen to this once I return home from my family churchcation, but I am so bummed they lost 2/3 of it.

Kudos to Mason for being willing to do a podcast with two critics of the church - I'll give him that even if I really despise the way he tries to keep people in the church.

But it's amazing that Bushman has called the BoM a 19th century work and the BoA as pseudapigrapha and now we have more apologists who are moving to that position as well.

The most telling part of all is that this is a position that they would never go to unless it was 100% out of necessity. Once you call something pseudapigrapha, there is really nowhere else to go - you have effectively told your listener that there will NEVER be evidence to back it up and this is the final stand to believing it is from God.

I just don't know how long that can last though considering it really has only been about a decade since the walls started to crumble... can they really stay with pseudapigrapha for long before it all comes crashing down?

[Red Ryder]

What is it with Mormons losing their work?

First the 116 pages now 2/3 of a podcast?

Backup people.

[Hagoth]

What is it with Mormons losing their work?

First the 116 pages now 2/3 of a podcast?

Backup people.

[Reply inexplicably deleted]

[Apologeticsislying]

And don't forget Brian Hauglid now going to the other side so to speak, of the naturalistic explanations of the Book of Abraham. It is truly inevitable. I have a new book I am almost through that explains this in terrific details and ideas, though its not a book about Mormonism.

[Hagoth]

This direction in apologetics seems to be a way of losing the argument but still claiming you won. Even though all of the damning criticisms are true it's still valid scripture.

I saw this on Colbert and I thought it applied:
https://youtu.be/CI1tVPKgUCA?t=26

[deacon blues]

This direction in apologetics seems to be a way of losing the argument but still claiming you won. Even though all of the damning criticisms are true it's still valid scripture.

I saw this on Colbert and I thought it applied:
https://youtu.be/CI1tVPKgUCA?t=26

Yup, it sure does apply!

[Corsair]

Is the change in apologetic narrative ever discussed or noticed at FairMormon conferences? It seems like there might be some older pages in their wiki somewhere that had apologetic explanations that reflect the older theories. Surely there is a web page somewhere that still says that plural marriage was only to take care of widows after their husbands died crossing the plains. We still have plenty of pictures of Joseph Smith translating with plates on the table and no hat in sight. And I chuckle every time I look at my bookshelf and see "The Church and the Negro" by John L. Lund. How many old explanations need to be expunged from the record?

[Emower]

What apologetics say, or don't say, admit or don't admit, ultimately doesn't matter. We are at a point in this church where even what general authorities say or don't say, and even what an apostle says or doesn't say, doesn't matter. If it isn't taught consistently, by all 15 of the 12 apostles, for some unspecified amount of time, it isn't something that can be pinpointed as binding. Heck, even the scriptures aren't binding, unless ratified by the 15 explicitly. Apologetic direction only matters to 10% of the church, and only affects the testimony of 3% of that 10%.

It's interesting, but entirely inconsequential.

[Hagoth]

What apologetics say, or don't say, admit or don't admit, ultimately doesn't matter. We are at a point in this church where even what general authorities say or don't say, and even what an apostle says or doesn't say, doesn't matter. If it isn't taught consistently, by all 15 of the 12 apostles, for some unspecified amount of time, it isn't something that can be pinpointed as binding. Heck, even the scriptures aren't binding, unless ratified by the 15 explicitly. Apologetic direction only matters to 10% of the church, and only affects the testimony of 3% of that 10%.

It's interesting, but entirely inconsequential.

You're probably right but I think there is another 20-30% whose testimonies are bolstered by the reassurance that there are "smart people" in the church who have answered all of the tough questions so they don't have to worry about them themselves. I have heard people in my ward praising Kerry Muhlstein for the great work he's doing, but I seriously doubt they know much about the BoA issues.

I think you're also right about the Q15. They are always right but they are no longer expected to be consistent. Right after the Nov 15 policy announcement I told my stake president how idiotic I thought it was. He didn't seem too concerned because he told me he was pretty certain it wouldn't be around too long. He was (sorta) right, and The Brethren were right both times.

[Hagoth]

What apologetics say, or don't say, admit or don't admit, ultimately doesn't matter. We are at a point in this church where even what general authorities say or don't say, and even what an apostle says or doesn't say, doesn't matter. If it isn't taught consistently, by all 15 of the 12 apostles, for some unspecified amount of time, it isn't something that can be pinpointed as binding. Heck, even the scriptures aren't binding, unless ratified by the 15 explicitly. Apologetic direction only matters to 10% of the church, and only affects the testimony of 3% of that 10%.

It's interesting, but entirely inconsequential.

You're probably right but I think there is another 20-30% whose testimonies are bolstered by the reassurance that there are "smart people" in the church who have answered all of the tough questions so they don't have to investigate them themselves. I have heard people in my ward praising Kerry Muhlstein for the great work he's doing, but I seriously doubt they know much about the BoA issues.

I think you're also right about the Q15. They are always right but they are no longer expected to be consistent. Right after the Nov 15 policy announcement I told my stake president how idiotic I thought it was. He didn't seem too concerned because he told me he was pretty certain it wouldn't be around too long. He was (sorta) right, and The Brethren were right both times.

[Apologeticsislying]

What apologetics say, or don't say, admit or don't admit, ultimately doesn't matter. We are at a point in this church where even what general authorities say or don't say, and even what an apostle says or doesn't say, doesn't matter. If it isn't taught consistently, by all 15 of the 12 apostles, for some unspecified amount of time, it isn't something that can be pinpointed as binding. Heck, even the scriptures aren't binding, unless ratified by the 15 explicitly. Apologetic direction only matters to 10% of the church, and only affects the testimony of 3% of that 10%.

It's interesting, but entirely inconsequential.

What is fascinating is the voice of the apologists are advocated by the Apostles! Now if ya stop and ponder that, it should raise your eyebrows seriously. Consider... if the Apostles and the Prophet actually really DID have discussions with Jesus, even only 6 times a year, they would be putting that out like all get out! They would have newspapers, colloquia, gatherings of scholars, scientists, sociologists, etc., and involving the absolute total world. They wouldn't be flying around blathering they are the prophets for the world, but only visiting Mormon congregations. They would be putting it out on television, radio, etc., exactly what Jesus was saying, and they would be the ones answering the questions. Asking non Mormon scholars to write the essays about Mormon history?! Think what that tells the world. Here they have access to the absolute brainiest person in the universe, who actually does come and talk to them, and even allowed the first prophet to ask him questions about the Bible, the world, the heavens, etc., and HE ANSWERED without any anger.....well! The prophet, if he really did think there were problems about attendance of Mormonism, would obviously be conversing with Deity about that, and then doing absolutely everything he could to DEMONSTRATE the systematic, singular excellence of the information, coming from God after all, will surely top any philosophy invented by mere man, a creation of the CREATOR. They would propose debates, discussions, university courses at BYU, would buy Television stations, radio stations and printing presses and share it with the world hard core, big time. They would NEVER LOSE THE DEBATE, HAVING THE TRUTH, FROM THE CREATOR. And the world would recognize the superiority of the Mormon information.
It does nothing anywhere even close to this however. That ought to be bothering people a whole lot more than it seems to be in my opinion. They would INSIST on debating anyone in the world anywhere on any subject, and be able to get the info from the CREATOR of anyone debating the prophet. This would be a sure demonstration that God cares, the Prophet is correct, God is talking to him, and that we have a lot to learn from the Mormon Prophet.

[Hagoth]

Not only won't they debate, they won't even engage directly with members of their own church on hard questions, or even publish answers under their own names. They are so absolutely terrified of letting people see how utterly uninformed and helpless they are. All they have is their image and they're not about to let reality tarnish that.

[Apologeticsislying]

Not only won't they debate, they won't even engage directly with members of their own church on hard questions, or even publish answers under their own names. They are so absolutely terrified of letting people see how utterly uninformed and helpless they are. All they have is their image and they're not about to let reality tarnish that.

Precisely and exactly the issue which Jonathan Haidt in his book "The Righteous Mind" was talking about. It is about image and how others see them where their hearts are. Jesus certainly didn't give a flying flip about what people thought. He went straight to the heart of it, and maintained that heart of it, even to his death.

[Palerider]

Not only won't they debate, they won't even engage directly with members of their own church on hard questions, or even publish answers under their own names. They are so absolutely terrified of letting people see how utterly uninformed and helpless they are. All they have is their image and they're not about to let reality tarnish that.

Isn't this it in a nutshell?

Through much of B. K. Packer's tenure they had very little good to say about scholars and intellectuals. How ironic that now they are forced to rely upon them.

Earlier, any scholar who wrote too truthfully about the church was smeared as biased and sinful. But now we're expected to believe that all the apologists (many of whom owe their livelyhoods to the church) have no skin in the game whatsoever. Just humble truth seekers.

Everything they write can be taken to heart with full confidence. That is until the next prophet says you can disregard it. It was just policy....

Which makes me think. From now on, every time the church public affairs office releases a statement, or something new is announced in conference, the very first reporter's question should be, "Is that doctrine or policy?"

Force them to make a declaration one way or another.

[Emower]

It does nothing anywhere even close to this however. That ought to be bothering people a whole lot more than it seems to be in my opinion. They would INSIST on debating anyone in the world anywhere on any subject, and be able to get the info from the CREATOR of anyone debating the prophet. This would be a sure demonstration that God cares, the Prophet is correct, God is talking to him, and that we have a lot to learn from the Mormon Prophet.

Agreed.

It goes back, I think, to the Janus-like God that mormons believe in.
One mode is to flounder around, reacting to life in the best way possible with information we have been given. God gives us juuuust enough to have an inkling of the correct course of action (and some really specific direction on the types of handshakes required to get into heaven), and lets us manage from there, but not enough as to make it easy on us. This allows the ability to explain why God doesnt deal directly with us, and why he doesnt seem to give much direction on some seemingly really important stuff.
The other mode is a life that is so prescriptive that if you have enough faith you can actually command God to do things if you are righteous enough, because after all, god operates according to laws that even he cannot break, laws that are clearly set out in the scriptures and words of the prophets. This prescriptive God is so omnipresent that he will help you with your lost keys, and this seems to be the God we hear most about on fast Sunday.

These seem to be mutually exclusive ideas to me, but mormons are really good at calling upon one or the other when circumstances dictate.

[Apologeticsislying]

The handshakes to get into heaven thingy bugged me for awhile until I was reading Eliade in his books on the rituals engaged in to change our perceptions. What Mormonism has done is literalize this (Brigham Young the originating culprit), yet on a metaphorical level, it makes beautiful and spiritual sense. I am just reading Northrop Frye "Words With Power" wherein he discusses the impressive mytho-poetic aspects of the Bible and scripture which is the CORE of everything in the Bible as far as the literary aspects of it, which is pretty much all of it. In this metaphorical reading, the handshake is our ego letting go of itself and welcoming the actual Ground of Being of all existence. Now granted, this is my interpretation, so anyway. In this regard the literal physical just misses out entirely. But the metaphorical of the uniting of ourselves with the Divine is a graphic and profound image. Exactly like the ancient Jewish cherubim in Solomon's temple being in a sexual embrace is a metaphor for the uniting of two (us and God) into One. This is beautifully and profoundly discussed by both Raphael Patai in his book "The Hebrew Goddess," and Eugene Seaich, "The Jerusalem Temple Mystery and the At-One-Ment."