Skip to comments.Of 'Mormon Studies' and Apologetics [Mormon apologist recounts his firing by BYU]
Posted on 02/17/2013 1:30:16 PM PST by Colofornian
...The very recent decision by the current leadership of the Maxwell Institute to forego explicit defense and advocacy of Mormonismto renounce explicit apologeticsmay have been influenced by concerns about the arrogant mean-spiritedness of one or two of those most prominently associated with its apologetic side...
...notice how the 2012 Mission Statement of the Maxwell Institute reads, and contrast it with the one I quoted...from 2010:..
...Gone is the language about defend[ing] the Restoration...
...during the last conversation that I had with the director of the Maxwell Institute before I left for six weeks overseasI was dismissed by email roughly a week into my trip, while in JerusalemI was informed of the new course to which the Maxwell Institute is now committed...
A few observers, commenting on the recent shake-up at the Maxwell Institute, have claimed that it represents a generational change: A newer, perhaps better trained, certainly kinder and gentler cohort of scholars is arriving on the scene that is embarrassed if not disgusted by the things their predecessors have done, and that is eager to replace sordid polemics and distasteful pseudoscholarship with solid, dispassionate Mormon studies. Time will tell whether this change of generations will really deliver the predicted transformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at fairlds.org ...
From the June 22, 2012 blog by Peterson:
Since it has now been publicly announced, I suppose that I can break the self-imposed public silence that Ive maintained, with only a couple of minor exceptions, regarding my dismissal as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, published by Brigham Young Universitys Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, after founding it and directing it for twenty-three years. ...I vigorously reject the insinuation that the Review was in a crisis that necessitated emergency mid-volume intervention, and that it now requires a post-Peterson detoxing period before it can be permitted to resume publication
#1 This was LONG overdue by BYU...congrats in dumping Peterson, one of the worst Lds apologists in ignoring obvious historical and theological evidences about Mormonism. (Unlike many Mormons, he can't claim ignorance to the proofs he has had access to)...
#2 How BYU dumped Peterson is another matter, and shows precisely why people deem the Mormon church as a "cult."
From the FAIRLDS Conference talk Peterson gave last August: : ...during the last conversation that I had with the director of the Maxwell Institute before I left for six weeks overseasI was dismissed by email roughly a week into my trip, while in JerusalemI was informed of the new course to which the Maxwell Institute is now committed...
As Peterson mentioned in that June 2012 blog of his: ...The formal statement mentions my associate editors Louis C. Midgley, George L. Mitton, Gregory L. Smith, and Robert B. White and pretty clearly implies that they, too, have been dismissed. They didnt even receive an email. The newly-posted statement on the Maxwell Institutes website, I suppose, constitutes their notification and their thanks for, cumulatively, many years of service...One of them had written Dr. Bradford several days ago, asking whether he was to be canned along with me, but received no answer. Another called Dr. Bradford by telephone, but his call was not returned. One is traveling in Europe without Internet access, and still knows nothing about any of this (though his earlier calls to Dr. Bradford, regarding a matter that now seems to have been related, also went unanswered). My own emails to Dr. Bradford received no response, and their receipt was never even acknowledged. For those of you who may be managers in either the public or private sector, a word of counsel: Dont treat your employees this way.
Source: Of Gratitude, and Its Expression (June 22, 2012)
Please note on all of the above: All of these Mormon leaders wound up as "losers"...Peterson's apologetics style -- along with those around him -- got shot down...with the final straw coming when they went after internal Mormon member-critic John Dehlin.
The end result? Peterson and several of his FAIR cohort apologists got fired...see BYU Professor Daniel Peterson Fired as Editor of Mormon Studies Review at BYUs Maxwell Institute
Mormon Neal Rappleye took Peterson's side, yet still noted re: the "hit piece" that Peterson's co-apologist Greg Smith was doing on John Dehlin:
"As I explained, the article, written by Greg Smith, was rumored to be a hit piece. Dehlins consistent justification for attempting to stop its publication has been that he felt a need to stand-up against the old-school apologetic bullies. (From where I stand, its the one who gets an article critical of themselves censored by threatening to get high-level Church officers involved whos the bully, but that is just me.) Problem is, neither Dehlin nor anyone else who insisted the paper was ad hominem have actually seen and read the contents of the paper. All those who have read it insist it is nothing of the sort, so some are changing their tune. Now it is being said that Dehlin and his activities are not worthy of such notice from an academic journal, even if that journal is on Mormon Studies. For example, one observer has said Its kind of embarrassing how many of the apologists seem to think its appropriate for an academic journal, sponsored by a major university, to publish a 100+ page, footnoted exposé of the religious views of the host of an Internet podcast. The tone of the article could be all hugs and kisses, and it would still be cringe-worthy.
Source: Controversy over dismissal of BYU professor
Bingo on that last "observer's" statement!
Peterson lampoons what BYU was regarding as "distasteful pseudoscholarship"...but frankly, not only is that all that FAIR and its cohort of apologists have been...but as mentioned in the previous comment, that's all its hit piece by Greg Smith was amounting to be...
Last weekend (Feb. 10, 2013), John Dehlin expanded his over 5-year-old presentation to include -- and take direct aim -- at FAIRLDS...
This all provides a bit of backdrop to the 2012 behind-the-scene fireworks drama where FAIRLDS was preparing what was described as a lengthy "hit piece" on fellow Mormon John Dehlin, an internal critic of the church.
These FAIRLDS Apologists wrote a supposedly "scholarly" publication for BYU's Maxwell Institute...Dehlin apparently got wind of it...met with an LDS General Authority, who then not only pre-empted the "hit piece" but had the BYU Maxwell Institute decision-makers "can" these five FAIRLDS apologists.
Surprisingly, Dehlin, in the above talk, still refers/links people to FAIR. So, he's NOT operating at the level of "sour grapes."
Do Mormons and others interested in this realize what a stark realization this is???!!! The so-called 'Restoration' -- the foundation of all things Mormon & heart of any Mormon missionary presentation -- is no longer defensible! If BYU (the Lds church) is no longer the ONLY 'game' in town, then there was no absolute apostasy -- only a historical partial one. Therefore, no jumpstart from scratch was need; therefore, the so-called 'restoration' was unnecessary...superflous.
The newer approach is simply: "Hey, we're 'Christians' and 'they [other sects] are Christians, too. Can't we just all 'get along'?"
The "Restoration" as worthy of defense has been washed by the wayside as of 2012!!!
This is great information, thanks.
I have a suggestion for you .... on Sunday, for once why don’t you read the scriptures about Christ’s love, instead of trying to destroy other Christians belief system which you don’t approve of.
If you think this post is that potent .... please be an apologist for why your definition of God and Christ was:
A. Dictated by a pagan Emperor, Constantine.
B. When that Pagan Emperor became baptised he did everything he could to put the Nicene creed into the dustbin of history.
C. The Nicene Creed was ressurected by Emperor Justin the Apostate to fracture christianity in his attempt to reinstate paganism.
D. The Nicene Creed finally triumphed through Emperor Theodosius who established the eddict of Thessalonica which made alternative beliefs to the Nicene Creed punishable by death.
So in otherwords .... your belief system was established by Imerperial decree, Imperial Coercion and Imperial directed Murder.
I’ll take any critisicm of my beliefs that you can throw at me compared to the mountain of ungodly influence that established your belief system.
Sincerely yours, Teppe
Instead of FR members complaining about the doctrine and internal workings of the sect being highlighted, we would be inundated with thread after thread from mormons celebrating the "god"-driven takeover of the presidency.
The grapes in the mormon wine are sour indeed.
“I have a suggestion for you .... on Sunday, for once why dont you read the scriptures about Christs love, instead of trying to destroy other Christians belief system which you dont approve of.”
Teppe, Christ’s love - the eternal God, never created nor made -does love you. Why don’t you turn to HIM instead of a false religion that believes in a creature that was later exalted?
“.... please be an apologist for why your definition of God and Christ was:
“A. Dictated by a pagan Emperor, Constantine.
False! You have to stop just taking what they tell you without doing independent study.
“B. When that Pagan Emperor became baptised he did everything he could to put the Nicene creed into the dustbin of history.
“C. The Nicene Creed was ressurected by Emperor Justin the Apostate to fracture christianity in his attempt to reinstate paganism.”
“D. The Nicene Creed finally triumphed through Emperor Theodosius who established the eddict of Thessalonica which made alternative beliefs to the Nicene Creed punishable by death.”
“So in otherwords .... your belief system was established by Imerperial decree, Imperial Coercion and Imperial directed Murder.”
“Ill take any critisicm of my beliefs that you can throw at me compared to the mountain of ungodly influence that established your belief system.”
You funny man!
The Great Command is to love the Lord your God with ALL your heart. All your soul. All your mind.
Whatever happened to the mind teppe? Why don’t you honor God by doing some independent research?
Wouldn’t that be not sour grapes but stagnate water.
I have an idea missy, why not start your own thread with your anti-Christianity ravings and ping us. K?
With all of your supporting evidence as to why the lds was once a man god and created lds jesus, who needs Joseph Smith’s help for salvation, instead of the Eternal God Almighty and Jesus Christ. Who gives Salvation freely by Grace, as opposed to the lds salvation “after all you can do”.
Constantine was a Christian convert and a saint in the Church. Unless you discount your own LDS efforts at converting people or admit you look down on said converts your argument is specious at best.
Therefore the rest of your post is also..
Grace is Grace, works is works they are not equal.
Biblical Salvation is not worked based, hence the term Grace.
There is assurance in Grace, there is no assurance in works.
BYU isn't just "a college"...and if you don't know that, you know neither Mormon culture nor the Lds church hierarchy.
For example, take a look at the list of BYU professors who have either been dismissed by the Lds church hierarchy or pre-empted from covering more controversial historical topics.
Looks like our stunt mormon pulled their cover back a wee bit to much. Rather funny actually...
No, actually Catholics don’t.
No Christian faith does.
That is patently false. If you have to work for Salvation, you can never be assured. There is no way to work hard enough or long enough to earn the Gift of Grace.
Grace is a gift. Gifts are not earned.
The reality is far more freeing and blessed than that...
Well, Beach, your answers make sense now that I realize you are practitioner of mormonism.
I was slow to catch that information.
One of the hidden ones, a “stunt Mormon” as it were but too obvious now.
Checkmates you Mormons every time.
You know the words but have no understanding. Therefore you get it all backwards. Works are BECAUSE of salvation through GRACE, not for EARNING salvation.
Don't worry, not your fault, works based salvation is drilled into your heads as it is in several cults. Without it they could not maintain the control of otherwise free people.
The history and story of God's own plan of salvation its very self shows the error of such thinking. If works gained salvation then Christ was totally unnecessary.
Well when one plays games and is less than stright forward expect anythoing. For now, you are LDS until you will admit to being otherwise. Some of us take faith seriously and find games just a cover for such groups who find “lying for the lord” acceptable.
And atheist never say anything is “blessed”. Nice try.
I know the slope you are heading down, pardon me if I will stay safe up here in the truth and not get caught in your avalanche. But here is a hint, Baptism is not a work...
No one is trolling you or bulling you. You come into the threads calming some level of authority (ironic that is) and telling knowledgeable Christians they are wrong. Yet you will not be forth coming about your own faith and background.
So until otherwise declared we go on the “walks like a duck”
So save the victim stuff...
Is it by the works of Christ we are judged, or of our own? If our own, then one sin forever separates us. If that not be true...then the Muslim idea of scales, one's good deeds on one side, weighed against one's sins on the other is proper? If so, then why should God Himself need have come to bear the sins of the world at all?
I'm sorry, but the theology you propose is anything but Christian. It is not much more than a demand to out-Pharisee the Pharisees (zealots after the law).
Is THAT what the theology you propose understands what Christ meant when He said "... except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
It is best to consider the setting under which he said the above (following the presentation of what is now known as the Beatitudes).
Closing that chapter is
Which raises the question, 'how to be perfect?'. I suggest it is not in regards to law itself, but towards the origins and intent of the law. For one can think of themselves as outwardly keeping every aspect of the law, yet inwardly be as the Pharisees which He condemned.
If we have learned anything regarding the documented relationship of the children of Israel to God and His given laws, is that no flesh can keep them. Anything less than perfection, is not enough.
Good works gets no one into heaven, for none are good enough. Except One.
Ping for later comment