I interpret Dan's comments to mean that Bradford pulled the plug on the basis of his own final word--i.e., that they talked about it beforehand, and then Bradford mad the "executive decision" to cancel the publication without telling Dan, "Woody," or any of the other Old Guard MI crew. This is what I was told by my "informant," and it was corroborated by people who are connected to BYU and are friendly with MsJack and Kevin Graham.

I doubt very much that Bradford would put the kibbosh on Will's writings totally out of the blue, with no explanation and no apparent reason whatsoever. In other words: this is just DCP exaggerating and spinning what actually happened in order to make Bradford look bad.

What next? The prophet calling Shades to consult about the next revelation? I didn't realize we were so important, especially after years and years of Dan telling us we're worthless.



2005?

It does not matter in the long term whether or not Dan, William, Bill Hamblin, Midgley, et al manage to convince the administration at BYU or the authorities of the LDS church to revive FARMS. It matters in the short term, because if they accomplished that, they could get back to running the FARMS journal and producing material there for the rest of their careers. But it won't matter in the long run, and here's why: it isn't administrators and authorities who need to be convinced. Rather, it's the rising generation of young LDS scholars completing graduate work in biblical studies, history, and other relevant fields, who need convincing.

Without heirs and proteges, the days of the FARMS crowd are numbered. And almost the entire generation of younger Mormon studies scholars (people in their 20s and 30s) has rejected the FARMS approach. Even those who were originally inspired by and drawn to FARMS in their youth have since become disillusioned with their former mentors, and the few who remain nominally interested in apologetics are forging a dramatically kinder and gentler path. A new generation of Hamblins and Midgleys and Petersons and Gees is not on the rise.

So yeah, keep on rolling sock puppets and baiting people on with whispers of clandestine meetings where the antics of key FARMS apologists are being discussed and the criticisms of them found wanting. There will always be enough people on this forum to care enough about something as transparently stupid as that to drag it on for 15 pages. The real score can be seen by examining the number of young people who have valued the FARMS approach enough to model their lives after it. If you're not a fan of the FARMS approach, then what a glorious future it is.

Maybe this is why Will is so important to Dan: Dan is running out of acolytes and has to take what he can get.

Now that's just depressing.

Oh, it's just a little insider tidbit between Will and I. He knows what I'm talking about.

This is absolutely on the money. That's why I'm convinced now that Bradford and Co. won't worry at all about the online antics of Peterson's group if they really still have to defend the decision that was made. They know they've got the "youth movement" on their side, and they're going to use that to their advantage.

And the purpose of the snipe hunt is....

... to divert attention away from the fact that the apologists have only snake oil to sell.

Seriously, the whole "just what have these guys done" shtick was invented by one of the Scott Mopologists wasn't it?

"We want evidence of ad hominems...."

I want evidence that the apologists care about truth and are doing honest scholarship. Haven't seen it so far.

The reality is that plenty of folks have referred to the antics of the FARMS crew as having contributed to their alienation from Mormonism.

In fine apologetic form, and perfectly consistent with Ludd's snipe hunt, the task has become one of invalidating these responses to apologists.

All they can say is, "well these people are apostates, so of course they hate us and want to shut us up."

They overlook, of course, the conflicting evidence that a good number of apologists are respected and have not excited such a negative reaction.

Where are Kevin Barney's Malevolent Stalkers?

Anyone? Anyone?

I get emails from questioning Mormons regularly and I send them to FAIR and FARMS first. Not once has anyone ever come back and said Hey, FARMS makes a lot of sense. They come back to me confused and wanting to know the real story and I tell them. FARMS may not drive people out of the church but they are invaluable in showing how lousy and dishonest most apologetics are.

It just goes to show that a different approach is needed.

Some of it is downright embarrassing. When people ask me about Joseph Smith and polygamy I send them to Sam Katich's article. Every single person who I've sent that article has seen it for what it is. Utter ____.

Agreed. Some of it is embarrassing. A lot of it, in fact. But nothing quite so shameful as the dog-pilings visited on Mike Quinn and Grant Palmer, or Greg Smith's hit pieces. It is one thing to fall short in the defense of one's beliefs, but quite another to beat on members of your own Church.

I suppose it was effective in one of the primary missions of Mopologetics:

Pruning off the saints apologists don't like or agree with.

They are really stupid, aren't they? What kind of person defends their religion by kicking out the faithful?

Today I attended an LDS meeting for the first time in a while. In the High Priests Group, the lesson was on missionary work. One wise fellow noted that they were having trouble getting adults to ferry kids to activities. He said that when so many kids fail to go on missions, and 70% of youth will end up as inactive adults, it would be a good idea to focus more effort on the members they already have.

FARMS has, but unfortunately too much of it has been the wrong kind of attention. The kind that hastens alienation.

No, in this case, I'm inclined to think that the diversion is aimed elsewhere. Perhaps Will/Ludd will be along to clear the air, though I suspect that he's going to "take a break" from the board.

Or Richard Bushman's. Or Teryl Givens's. Or Kathleen Flake's. Or Richard Turley's. Or Mike Quinn's. Or, hell, even Louis "Woody" Midgley's.