"Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

"Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

It seems that a recent article by Ralph "The Doink" Hancock has rattled the increasingly cantankerous Dr. Midgley, who today has been opining up a storm in the "Comments" section on "Sic et Non." Interestingly, he is directing some remarkably sharp criticism at the Brethren:

Louis Midgley wrote:That an unnamed "scientist" told you about a conversation with Elder Kimball in which he requested to snoop on BYU faculty seems to me to be gossip. I had at least five sometimes rather long conversations with Elder Kimball over the years, and nothing like his concern about teaching evolution ever once came up.

The one who made a huge fuss about evolution was Elder Benson. That is rather well documented. This happened when Dallin Oaks was President of BYU. And Elder Oaks was later called as an Apostle.

And Joseph Fielding McConkie, who I knew rather well, may have had strong opinions about this matter, but his opinions, I can assure you, did not reflect those who actually knew anything about geology, biology and related sciences. And the Brethren were aware of what they taught. And they were also aware that those faculty who knew some actual science thought that they were busy struggling to find out more about the actual way God has organized life on earth.

There is concern, of course, if someone sees in the Darwin legacy proof that there is no God. But gemli types obviously do not, would not, and should not prosper at BYU, nor in the Church of Jesus Christ. Or anywhere else.

The proper place to see how this has been fully resolved is in the entry in the the E of M, that was published in 4 massive volumes many years ago, where the item on evolution that is signed by Bill Evanson, was actually written by Elder Hinckley. This was an action by the Brethren to quash the anti-evolution opinions of some who were then teaching religion, who knew exactly nothing about science. But who had an itch that had to scratch.


Quite a lot there, no? President Benson is depicted here as someone who "made a huge fuss," and also somebody whose views, apparently, "did not reflect those who actually knew anything about geology, biology, and related sciences." Meanwhile, President Hinckley is alleged to be a ghost writer who used somebody else--Bill Evanson--to "quash the anti-evolution opinions" of the BYU religion faculty! Wow! A prophet of the LDS Church was engaged in manipulation of this kind?

And then there's DCP, who in a recent post, actually put in a significant amount of time (the post contains a highly uncharacteristic percentage of original prose) defending the notion that the Brethren are, basically, non-expert simpletons, whose only real job is to serve as "witnesses":

As it happens, I know many General Authorities. But that only strengthens what I’m about to say. It doesn’t weaken it: I hold them in the greatest respect, and I value them for attributes quite unrelated to whether or not they’ve been certified by the academic guild. Their qualifications don’t derive from their scholarly attainments, whatever those may or may not be.

Graduate degrees, deep historical studies, and academic sophistication weren’t required anciently, and they’re not required today...

[SNIP!]

[Saint Peter] didn’t learn [his faith in Jesus] from the faculty of Yale Divinity School or Berkeley’s Graduate Theological Union or Princeton Theological Seminary. He didn’t arrive at it via graduate seminars in the history of religion.

The leaders of the Church are called to be administrators of a very big and complex international non-profit organization. But, more importantly and essentially, they’re called to be witnesses, to bear testimony. Not to be scholars, not to function as academic historians, but to be witnesses. That’s their strength, as it was Peter’s.

And they’re called from within our ranks.

They are us.


This is among the more bizarre posts I've seen Peterson write. On one level, this could be interpreted as "butt-kissing"--as sucking up to the Brethren: "Look! I'm trying to show how we're all alike!" If this is true, it would dovetail quite neatly with some of the things Dean Robbers has been prognosticating about in a separate thread. The other--perhaps more charitable--reading of this, is that it's a genuine call for understanding among all Latter-day Saints: "They are us." But let's examine this a bit more closely. Who is "us"? It can't possibly be DCP and the Mopologists, because these are people who, generally speaking, are credentialed academics: a fact that they never hesitate to remind you of. Earlier in the post, DCP also says this:

The top leadership are, in a fundamental sense, just like the rest of us — or just like the rest of us Mormon men, anyway.


Wow! So, no: actually "they are" *NOT* "us," since pretty much half the Church's membership is excluded! Is this guy tone deaf, or what? Who, exactly, does he think this kind of baloney emotional appeal is going to convince? (Your answer to that question will tell you so very, very much about Mopologetics.)

But to go back to what I said about Dr. Robbers's thread: I think that the best way to read DCP's admittedly very strange blog entry, is to read it as him trying to navigate the dangerous political waters of contemporary Mopologetics. He clearly wants to assert the Mopologists' academic superiority to the Brethren: "Their qualifications don’t derive from their scholarly attainments." Maybe so, but the Mopologists' "qualification" almost entirely do. Peterson's post is simultaneously undermining the Brethren's authority at the same time that it is sneakily re-asserting the Mopologists' own (at least in certain instances), as are Midgley's comments. You can't really trust the Brethren to weigh in on the matter of academic concepts, because they are not real academics--their role is to serve as "witnesses" (leave the scholarship to the "real" pros, I guess); plus, as Midgley suggests, the Brethren rely on Mormon academics to do that kind of work.

Except that we know that's not entirely true. Remember Mike Quinn, and his comments on Elder Packer? Or any number of BYU academics who were sent packing? (How about David Wright?) Plus, Midgley is depicting the situation as being highly partisan: the Brethren "like" some academics, and disapprove others. (Midgley has been carrying on yet again about how he thinks Holland's comments re: the "new" MI were "a spanking.")

So I think DCP's post is best understood as an incredibly revealing look behind the curtain of what is going on in Church/Mopologetic politics. I mean, think about it: Why would they side with Thomas Wayment? Yes: he's a credentialed academic, but he also supports views that are diametrically opposed to orthodox Mopologetic thinking. So you have Midgley slamming the "new" MI in public, and meanwhile, other forces within Mopologetics are openly siding with a respected LDS academic who doesn't care about Book of Mormon authorship, and who is openly supportive of LGBTQ+ folks.

As I've said elsewhere, this is a very, very interesting time to be observing Mopologetics.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Gadianton »

First of all, wow, what a brutal attack on Gemli. People like Gemli shouldn't thrive in the Church or "anywhere". How mean! I haven't seen the blog entry, but these cruel words must be getting all kinds of support from the regulars there. I'm sure the blog leadership is delighted.

As Symmachus recently observed, BYU has made it anything but clear where the Brethren are on evolution. Midgley ought to think about it: Why should anyone believe his own stupid stories any more than they believe Hancock's? Out of the two, Midgley has put his credibility on the line with ridiculous flights of fancy.

Anyway, I think you're right, the Brethren are being told to take a back seat to the real thinking men -- themselves. I mean, what better repository of bio-science truth than the comment section of Sic et Non, with more links to junk science than perhaps any other blog on Patheos?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Res Ipsa »

And Gemli gets to be a type. I’m jealous.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_tapirrider
_Emeritus
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:10 am

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _tapirrider »

Doctor Scratch wrote:And then there's DCP, who in a recent post, actually put in a significant amount of time (the post contains a highly uncharacteristic percentage of original prose) defending the notion that the Brethren are, basically, non-expert simpletons, whose only real job is to serve as "witnesses"

I read that DCP post the other day and wanted to scream: What about the Keys of the Priesthood? The apologists are making it clear that it isn't even the same church that I had belonged to. With the likes of Peterson disregarding the alleged authority of the apostles, Gadianton might be on to something, that the apologists "will be instrumental in bringing the first faithful fiction theory of the Book of Mormon to the world."
_Dr Exiled
_Emeritus
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:48 am

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Dr Exiled »

Yes, but Holland spanked, supposedly, the MI recently, or at least some there. Why wouldn't he or someone else do the same to the apologist usurpers like DCP? Who gets to define orthodoxy? Certainly not DCP and Midgley. Holland went to a pretty good school (Yale) and got a PhD. I think in the battle for authority, someone or more will be sent home to play with their toys.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

It would appear that Dr. Petersonis preparing a rebuttal of some kind. In the blog entry, he quotes extensively from Elder Ballard--e.g.,

Ballard wrote:Wise people do not rely on the Internet to diagnose and treat emotional, mental, and physical health challenges, especially life-threatening challenges. Instead, they seek out health experts, those trained and licensed by recognized medical and state boards. Even then, prudent people seek a second opinion.

If that is the sensible course to take in finding answers for emotional, mental, and physical health issues, it is even more so when eternal life is at stake. When something has the potential to threaten our spiritual life, our most precious family relationships, and our membership in the kingdom, we should find thoughtful and faithful Church leaders to help us. And, if necessary, we should ask those with appropriate academic training, experience, and expertise for help.

This is exactly what I do when I need an answer to my own questions that I cannot answer myself. I seek help from my Brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve and from others with expertise in fields of Church history and doctrine.


Ballard wrote: Even among the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, there are those who have very different backgrounds and training that allow a sharing of a wide range of experience to our discussion and deliberations.

When I have a question that I cannot answer, I turn to those who can help me. The Church is blessed with trained scholars and those who have devoted a lifetime of study, who have come to know our history and the scriptures. These thoughtful men and women provide context and background so we can better understand our sacred past and our current practices.


And DCP notes that:

DCP wrote:I’ll comment on them in a subsequent post. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day.


Nice try, Dr. Peterson. This still doesn't erase the fact that he and Midgley were smacking down the Brethren in highly inappropriate ways. Midgley was openly slamming President Benson and making President Hinckley look corrupt and manipulative; meanwhile, DCP's entire previous post was a gigantic backhanded "compliment." And now he's got Ballard seeming to say that, yes, you shouldn't rely on the Brethren for counsel, and instead you should go to LDS academics, because, hey: even Elder Ballard himself does that!

First, it is very different for one of the actual Brethren to be saying this than it is for a highly controversial and arguably disreputable Mopologist to be saying it on their behalf. Ballard's remarks can be read as him trying to depict himself as humble: e.g., "Even though I'm one of the Lord's anointed, I still have questions! It's okay to have questions!" Peterson's co-opting of this kind of thing, on the other hand, winds up coming across as self-serving. Plus, a somewhat more cynical reading of Ballard's quotes would be to assume that he's reinforcing the old Brethren ban on rank-and-file members writing letters to the General Authorities. Read in this way, his meaning could be: "Hey, look: I don't have all the answers. I'm busy; I'm doing the Lord's work. If you have questions, go and pester the BYU apologists."

But we also need to read this with context in mind. This discussion is happening in the wake of both the 2012 ejection of the classic-FARMS people from the MI, and also the recent talk that Elder Holland gave at the "new" MI, which Midgley has described as a "spanking." So this latest post of Peterson's is him wandering into yet another trap: if Elder Ballard truly is advising the Latter-day Saints to seek out the advice of scholars and academics, then which academics does he have in mind? Is this a case where troubled Mormons, rather like Joseph Smith himself, need to kneel down and pray, and to ask Heavenly Father which of the factions of LDS scholars is "true"? Perhaps not. Given the current politics within the Church, you would seemingly have to side with the scholars that are affiliated with the Lord's University, so the new Maxwell Institute is where you should look, and not the goofballs at Mormon Interpreter who were tossed out on their asses. Ballard's comments have to read as an endorsement of ideas such as a fictional Book of Mormon (Grant Hardy), or the loving acceptance of homosexuality (Thomas Wayment).

So, no--sorry. The self-serving attempt to toss the Brethren overboard ("Don't go to them! They're not scholars--they're merely 'witnesses.' We're the only ones who have real answers!") is a failure. It is plainly a problematic move--possibly even grounds for charges of apostasy--to assume doctrinal authority over the Brethren. While it's true that the General Authorities *have* more or less totally abrogated their responsibilities on this matter, the fact remains that, hierarchically speaking, the Brethren's authority must be respected. This is a truth about the Church that is far, far more fundamental that the belief in a historical Book of Mormon. The Mopologists are really playing with fire here.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Gadianton »

You know, I wonder if tensions are going to increase when the Brethren find out that juicy bit that Midgley just revealed, that he was a personal mentor to John Dehlin while Dehlin was at BYU. Presumably then, Dehlin's apostasy was in part driven by Midgley's failed mentorship. Think of all the problems Dehlin has caused for the Church, and think about how all this could have been avoided if he would have had proper guidance while at BYU. As you point out, if those lacking wisdom are to be pointed to the gospel scholars, it would seem that first on the list would be the present occupants of the Maxwell Institute. And I really have to wonder, if Dehlin would have been at school post 2012 and mentored by Hardy or Wayment, how might things have been different?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:You know, I wonder if tensions are going to increase when the Brethren find out that juicy bit that Midgley just revealed, that he was a personal mentor to John Dehlin while Dehlin was at BYU. Presumably then, Dehlin's apostasy was in part driven by Midgley's failed mentorship. Think of all the problems Dehlin has caused for the Church, and think about how all this could have been avoided if he would have had proper guidance while at BYU. As you point out, if those lacking wisdom are to be pointed to the gospel scholars, it would seem that first on the list would be the present occupants of the Maxwell Institute. And I really have to wonder, if Dehlin would have been at school post 2012 and mentored by Hardy or Wayment, how might things have been different?


I'm sure they already know about the Midgley/Dehlin connection. David Bokovoy and Blair Hodges were also "mentees" of the Mopologists; as were, arguably, Kerry Shirts and Kevin Graham. Of course, the Mopologists will point to people like Smoot, Rappleye, and Gee. But I would suggest that the best way to look at this is the way that the Brethren themselves are likely to be looking at it: i.e., in terms of percentages. Who is doing the better job of retaining the Latter-day Saints? There are, of course, multiple ways to crunch the data: raw numbers, "quality" of retained members (however you want to define that); or overall percentage. If you are able to calculate/identify all the Mormons who've had direct contact with the various factions of Church academics, who is doing the best job? The BYU Religious Education faculty? What about FAIR? Or FARMS? Or the New MI? Unfortunately for the Mopologists, the Internet provides a very long, thorough, and incontrovertible record of evidence showing just what the Mopologists have done. There is no hiding the fact that they've driven people away. And they are in a tough spot because they cannot say that about other apologetic factions. (How many has Meldrum driven away?)

Also:Is Dr. Peterson publicly repenting for his comments?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Kishkumen »

Lou’s vicious thoughts about gemli reveal him for who he is, and such is the kind of person who stands at the center of classic-FARMS apologetics. A heart that nurtures hatred.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: "Sic et Non" Reveals Growing Tensions with The Brethren

Post by _Kishkumen »

What strikes me about Ballard’s comments is the fact that the LDS Church is led by a lay priesthood of spiritual amateurs. Yes, go to a trained therapist if you need help. But, by all means, do not seek out a bishop or stake president when you need spiritual help. They, at least most, don’t know much of anything to help. The apologists are generally trained in topics that have little to do with spirituality. Most instances in which the Brethren have met with doubters, at least those we have heard about, end in failure.

So a doubting member is, sad to say, kind of SOL.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply