Enter JP Holding

Back when I began reading the arguments of LDS apologists, I had a lot of interaction with one by the name of Kevin Graham.1 Kevin had an argument on his apologetics Web site attacking the traditional Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo and defending the LDS doctrine ofcreation ex materia, which I as a 17-year-old junior in high school had a hard time answering. In fact I was going through a point of struggling with the realization that counter-cult arguments were intellectually bankrupt and evangelical anti-Mormons were not bothering to respond to the devastating critiques of their work being put forth by LDS apologists. There were two points in my life where I came very close to joining the LDS church, and once was around this time. The sheer stupidity of the evangelical counter-cult movement nearly made me convert to Mormonism. Remember that T-shirt that told you never to underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups? It was true.
One of the things I did was to write to James Patrick Holding2 of Tekton Apologetics. I had written to him months before concerning some arguments that an atheist friend had thrown at me, and he had been very knowledgable and helpful. His arguments were intelligent yet done in a sassy, humorous style; he was (and still is) quite good at mocking his opponents while presenting capable defenses and critiques. After taking a look at Kevin’s argument, he decided he would do an article on the creation debate (which eventually morphed into this). One thing led to another and he began critiqueing other arguments by LDS apologists, eventually drawing the ire of some big-name LDS apologists on the Skinny-L list.
I’ve only occasionally seen e-mails from the Skinny-L list, but if you’re familiar with them, they have a tendency to gang up and try to “trash talk” LDS critics. It’s more scholarly than your standard Internet trolling, but it’s still just a glorified form of e-thuggery. The problem was, when they tried to trash talk JP Holding, he dished it right back. One of them said something like, “You have no idea who you’re dealing with,” and JP retorted, “No, you have no idea who YOU’RE dealing with. I am the terror that quacks in the night! I am the bubble gum that sticks in your hair!” UPDATE: He had this exchange sometime around September 1, 1999. I published the name of the LDS apologist before, but in retrospect I think I’ll keep it private. The words “quit farting around” were also used.
None of them had any idea what he was talking about. I had to explain it to one of them on a message board. If you don’t know what he was talking about, go here.
JP would eventually write a book, The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible, and his articles on Mormonism are all found here. I wrote some book reviews for Tekton and kept in touch with him as I made my journey towards attending Brigham Young University. He was always helpful and encouraging. His lasting influence on me was to teach me that I don’t have to be nice to critics of my faith, and I especially don’t have to be nice to dumb critics. The idea that the Bible teaches Christians to be perfect doormats is a myth.
In any case, the point of this post is that I am single-handedly responsible for involving JP Holding in the field of LDS-evangelical debate. You’re welcome!
—————————————-
1 As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Kevin lost faith in the LDS church last year and is currently a deist. He was, for many years, one of the more active Internet apologists for the LDS church. My early journals are peppered with accounts of our interactions.
2 Here’s the deal with his name: his name at birth was James Patrick Holding. He was adopted and his name was legally changed to Robert (Bob) Turkel. He was working as a librarian for a prison library when he started Tekton Apologetics, so he used James Patrick Holding as a writing alias to keep disgruntled inmates from looking him up as Robert Turkel on the Internet. He was very open about his real name in e-mail, since e-mail can’t be found by Internet search engines, but certain inconsiderate skeptics and Mormon apologists decided it was a big deal that his legal name was Robert Turkel and “outed” him in their writing. In 2007 he decided to legally change his name back to James Patrick Holding, to further confuse skeptics and so that people would stop bothering him about it (see thread here). So, the bottom line is, his name was James Patrick Holding at birth, he has always written publicly under that name, and that is his legal name now. Anyone who ever brought up his real name in relation to his apologetic writings is an idiot.

Comments

Enter JP Holding — 17 Comments

  1. I remember watching an episode of COPS on Fox13 about 10 years ago. The police were called to the scene of a murder in ghetto LA… or maybe Houston or somewhere. Some unnamed black young male had been knifed to death.
    The police are doing their investigation and noted the teardrops tatooed under his eyes (one for each “kill” he’d acheived). They also recognized him as one of the neighborhood toughs who had quite a local name for himself. “This guy was known as one of the badest boys in the neighborhood” one of the cops mused. He then added “no matter how big and mean you get, there’s always someone out there meaner and tougher than you.”
    It was a phrase that stuck with me and I think it applies in the world of apologetics too. No matter whether you are a Mormon or an Evangelical, or whatever else. Always keep in mind there is someone out there on the internet fully capable of handing you your apologetic butt in a can. You shouldn’t be basing your identity or your testimony ultimately on the apologetics arms race, I think.
    Happened to me once on a highly intellectual Christian blog last year. I wandered in with notions of how Greek philosophy had informed early Christian thought and full of new arguments that I had poached from other LDS thinkers, but had not really “earned” the right to use myself.
    I was “handed my hat” as they say.
    To put it simply – there’s always a bigger fish.
  2. I also think the simple fact is that the most impressive brain power in Christian thought is not really all that overly concerned with Mormonism. So Mormons haven’t usually been on the receiving end of some of Christianity’s most impressive intellectual firepower. Mostly because I don’t think a lot of Christian thinkers take us that seriously.
  3. I’ve been there many, many times before, Seth. Only I would say I had my ass handed to me, but I’m guessing you don’t swear as much as I do.
    The strange thing about the “big fish” in Mormonism is that they’re surprisingly accessible. As of last fall Dan Peterson was still posting on both Mormon Apologetics and Mormon Discussions. Several FARMS scholars and apologists came through ZLMB back in the day. Some of them came through, disappeared, then began posting under aliases, ostensibly because too many critics bothered them when they posted under their given names, but I noticed that they grew much more condescending and snarky under the veil of alleged anonymity. They often seemed to pick on the weaker, stupider critics and/or arguments while ignoring the ones that could actually pose a challenge.
    You don’t see a lot of non-LDS Christian scholars interacting with the proletariat or the dregs of anti-Christian criticism. Paul Owen posted on the old FAIR board a few times, and most of them can be reached through e-mail, but that’s about it.
    Other trends I’ve noticed in apologetics and Internet debate:
    1) Showmanship. The best apologists on both sides are the ones who can make their opponent look horribly stupid. Actually having the stronger argument is almost secondary to this.
    2) Infallibility. I never see apologists on either side admit to making mistakes, even when they’re glaringly obvious.
    3) No matter how new and fresh your opponent’s approach, always act like it’s the same ol’ same ol’. This was the problem with some of the LDS apologists and JP Holding. They wanted him to be just another stupid counter-cult apologist, and he wasn’t.
    4) Male-dominated. It’s a bit perplexing to me, but most of the people who participate in scholarship and apologetics are guys. The heavy hitters are almost always guys. The conservative Mormon and evangelical women who participate tend to be less aggressive and less logical. Their idea of an apologetic is some analogy about their children or whatever. I don’t know of any female Christian or Mormon apologists with major web sites other than Dizzle/Dee Dee Warren from TheologyWeb.
    Women scholars certainly exist, but they tend to be of a more liberal persuasion and are experts in subjects like history, sociology, counseling, education, etc. I’m no different since I ultimately went the history route, but I consider myself pretty conservative, and I did get my start in ancient languages.
  4. Bridget, you raise a fascinating point and one that I’ve noticed and wondered about as well; namely, the fact that apologetics tends to be almost entirely a male activity. I suspect part of it is the tendency for apologetics to draw the warrior persona. Granted there could be, and probably are, other factors at play but it does make one wonder. While I don’t have experience with the specific sites you mentioned I’ve seen my share of apologetics as well.
    At times we’ve discussed the merits and drawbacks of engaging in apologetics, and while I agree with some that it can have an educative value, in many respects I think all too often it leaves quite a bit of collateral damage in the wake. People rarely, at least I’ve rarely seen anyone really change their position by engaging in apologetics.
    One of the virtues I find of a more relational and dialogical approach is that when people know each other and have build a relationship there is much less showmanship and individuals are quite willing to concede weaknesses in arguments or even mistaken facts, plus there is less of a temptation to turn the whole thing into a spectacle where the goal is for others of your own faith community to look on and cheer, rather than to actually engage the person you are speaking with. In addition, I think the educational value can often be greater and it doesn’t take so long.
  5. Interesting about the dynamic of gender roles in interfaith approaches.
    It reminds me of something I discovered in Japan -
    The Japanese people generally didn’t give two straws about your logical arguments for or against Mormonism. They didn’t care about the logic of the Great Apostasy, were rather ho-hum about the ongoing need for prophets, and really didn’t seem interested in logical reasons for God.
    But man were they interested in how the missionaries and members MODELED Gospel principles in their lives. The put-up or shut-up approach to religion I guess. They just didn’t care what sort of intellectual steel trap we could construct. They only cared about how it impacted the person and his relationships with the world. It was a very, very intuitive approach to religion and very much changed the way in which I viewed religion.
    Most young apologists (on either side) seem to be operating under the assumption that if I can simply make my argument logically airtight, you’ll be forced to concede defeat and join my club.
    I’m convinced it doesn’t really work that way. It certainly didn’t in Japan anyway.
    But thing is, I don’t think it works in America either. Americans like to pretend that they are logical creatures – but they really aren’t. They make their decisions based on gut impulse first and foremost. Only then do they look for a logical framework to hang around that initial sense impression.
    This is why I’ve always held that apologetics is the endeavor to help the faithful not feel stupid for beliefs they chose for utterly unrelated reasons.
    Most of my participation on apologetics battleground blogs is purely damage control. It has nothing whatever to do with converting the person on the other side. It’s merely an attempt to make a showing and reassure any Mormon lurkers who might otherwise think our religion has no answers to whatever attacks are being thrown out.
    This blog (and a couple others) is different. I come here more because it’s a relaxing change of pace to shoot the breeze with people who’ve “been-there-done-that.” Without any particular expectation of “winning” an imminent theological scrum.
  6. Your comments (from both of you) remind me of an apologist friend I had who was quite active on all kinds of message boards and forums (I don’t want to say who it was). After I had known him for about a year, he confessed to me that he had not been active in the LDS church since ending his mission years before, and that there had been plenty of other things in his life that were not lining up with church doctrine. That amazed me, that he spent so much time passionately arguing for a religion he was not practicing. I never looked at Mormon apologists the same again, and since then I’ve found that the phenomenon isn’t necessarily unique to Mormon apologetics.
    I agree that apologetics is usually for the benefit of the observers and lurkers, although I have seen some conversions. I’ve known or know of 4 men who were involved in LDS apologetics who left the church in the last 10 years (Mike Reed, Kevin Graham, Runtu and a young man about my age who used to participate on Answering Mormonism). Jan from FAIR converted to Mormonism in part due to having her exchanges and questions answered on the FAIR board years ago.
    I’ve been pretty honest about the fact that part of the reason I am an evangelical today is because of the youth group I found in high school and how much they loved me. There were three LDS students sitting near me in the class where my Presbyterian friend approached me and invited me to her church (see my testimony). I’ve often wondered, what would have happened if one of the LDS students had reached out to me instead? I’m pretty sure I’d be Mormon or at least ex-Mormon right now.
    As far as the gender thing goes, you know what’s funny? When you annoy your male opponents so much that they literally threaten to beat you (!). My other favorite is when someone tells me, “It’s a shame to see such a beautiful woman who believes in ______.” ORLY? Would it be less of a shame to see an ugly woman believing in something you consider false? Idiots.
  7. Hi Bridget, I knew JP’s first book was on Mormonism, but till now did not know the story of how it came to be written. Thanks for filling in the blanks!
    However, it should be noted that JP began stirring up a hornets nest from the beginning of his quest to become a net-pologist. Very early on he submitted a reply to Farell Till’s publication, The Skeptical Review, which Till published and replied to (so their discourse has a lengthy pedigree, with JP going after Till in the beginning). JP also went after every article in The Jury Is In, going after each author’s article as it appeared, including going after Dr. Price’s online book, Beyond Born Again. JP was no doubt “defending the faith” as he saw fit. But his pro-active incursions led to little shared understandings, though they did lead to people going after him.
    By the way, I personally know two ex-Mormons. Wow, that’s a fundamentalistic religion! Though I also read that Mormons give more money to charity than any other denomiation by far, since they stress tithing moreso than any other denomination.
  8. Hi Bridget, I also have thought about the ex nihilo question, as have many Evangelical scholars.
    See the webites of these moderate Evangelicals on the question:
    Chrisendom: ‘Creation out of nothing’ in Genesis 1?
    http://www.christilling.de/blog/2008/04/creation-out-of-nothing-in-genesis-1.html
    And these articles as well, which are not written by Christians but which cite theologians:
  9. Edward, welcome to the blog! Your name sounds familiar.
    However, it should be noted that JP began stirring up a hornets nest from the beginning of his quest to become a net-pologist. Very early on he submitted a reply to Farell Till’s publication, The Skeptical Review, which Till published and replied to (so their discourse has a lengthy pedigree, with JP going after Till in the beginning). JP also went after every article in The Jury Is In, going after each author’s article as it appeared, including going after Dr. Price’s online book, Beyond Born Again. JP was no doubt “defending the faith” as he saw fit. But his pro-active incursions led to little shared understandings, though they did lead to people going after him.
    All true. I appreciate JP’s aggressive stance, I think it fills a niche. I realized after a while that can never be me, though; I’m more interested in ecumenical understanding and pretty honest about the weaknesses in my own beliefs. I can be aggressive and defend the doubts of the flock if needed, but that’s not really my focus. I think JP would agree that what I do has its place, too.
    I had a skeptical friend my age I used to argue with in high school, and it was just exhausting and stupid. He would go and pull something off of Infidels.org to attack me with, I would respond with something off of Tekton, he would get stumped and write in to a skeptical Web site for help, I would get stumped and write in to a Christian apologist like JP. It really never ended and neither of us would lay down or concede on even our really stupid arguments. I don’t think either of us was really thinking for ourselves, either. We were both puppets of our respective camps.
    I like what I have here. Most of the LDS folks who come by here (and some of my friends of other faiths, or lack thereof) have been-there-done-that and we’re here to further our understanding of each other.
    Thank you for the links on creation ex nihilo. I’ll get to it when I can, but I have a reading list a mile high right now…
    Though I also read that Mormons give more money to charity than any other denomiation by far, since they stress tithing moreso than any other denomination.
    True. They’re also said to be the second wealthiest church in the world (behind the Roman Catholic Church), which is pretty impressive given that they’ve only been around since 1830.
  10. “I had a skeptical friend my age I used to argue with in high school, and it was just exhausting and stupid. He would go and pull something off of Infidels.org to attack me with, I would respond with something off of Tekton, he would get stumped and write in to a skeptical Web site for help, I would get stumped and write in to a Christian apologist like JP. It really never ended and neither of us would lay down or concede on even our really stupid arguments. I don’t think either of us was really thinking for ourselves, either. We were both puppets of our respective camps.”
    I am sure you are aware of the term coined by LDS missionaries called “Bashing.” It’s ultimately a pointless endeavor. In Texas I became quite good at it…until I became aware of how counter-productive it truly is.
    One thing I will admit (And I bet Seth will admit this too being an attorney and all) is that there are times when I enjoy the banter. The problem is keeping it on a healthy level and growing from it. If you’re out to push buttons, you’ve successfully sunk to the level of Mormon- Evangelical levels that have plagued us for years. It truly IS time to move on from that.
  11. Edward, welcome to the blog!
    Thanks for the cordial greeting.
    #
    I appreciate JP’s aggressive stance, I think it fills a niche.
    “Fills a niche?” How evolutionary of you to say so. *smile*
    #
    I realized after a while that can never be me, though; I’m more interested in ecumenical understanding and pretty honest about the weaknesses in my own beliefs. I can be aggressive and defend the doubts of the flock if needed, but that’s not really my focus. I think JP would agree that what I do has its place, too.
    We each fill our niches.
    #
    I had a skeptical friend my age I used to argue with in high school, and it was just exhausting and stupid. He would go and pull something off of Infidels.org to attack me with, I would respond with something off of Tekton, he would get stumped and write in to a skeptical Web site for help, I would get stumped and write in to a Christian apologist like JP.
    I was involved in such exchanges myself for a couple years in the 1970s sending back and forth hand written and hand typed letters 20+ pages long with three friends, two of whom had left the fold and I was trying to win them back by filling myself with arguments from Lewis, Williams, Chesterton, McDowell, Schaeffer, Stott, and others.
    #
    It really never ended and neither of us would lay down or concede on even our really stupid arguments.
    I concede there’s a lot I don’t know, and have more questions than answers and don’t like labeling my suspicions or hunches by calling myself anything in particular. Even agnostic doesn’t quite fit.
    #
    I don’t think either of us was really thinking for ourselves, either. We were both puppets of our respective camps.
    Insightful remark.
    #
    I like what I have here. Most of the LDS folks who come by here (and some of my friends of other faiths, or lack thereof) have been-there-done-that and we’re here to further our understanding of each other.
    Hmmm, there was a book featuring the stories of non-practicing or doubtful or fallen away Mormons, titled, Leaving the Fold. Don’t know if it’s still at amazon. There’s about five books with that title, though the subtitles differ in each. I’m the editor of one of them, featuring the first-person stories of people leaving fundamentalist Prot. Christianity for moderate/liberal, other religions, agnosticism, atheism. I had no idea when my own book appeared there were already two others with the same title, one being that Mormon book I ran across.
    #
    Thank you for the links on creation ex nihilo. I’ll get to it when I can, but I have a reading list a mile high right now.
    Who doesn’t? The links are pretty interesting. Nothing really to do with Mormonism, as these deal with moderate Christian biblical scholarship. The last post at the atheistic site quotes from a modern Jewish translation of the Scriptures concerning the ex nihilo question. They’re all pretty interesting.
    #
    True. They’re [Mormons] also said to be the second wealthiest church in the world (behind the Roman Catholic Church), which is pretty impressive given that they’ve only been around since 1830.
    You mean Mormonism is the second wealthiest church in the U.S., or the world? Maybe in the U.S. Though Southern Baptists have tons of money, have a high rise church in Dallas I think, and have millionaire members. And Pat Robertson and the Pentecostals in general are also quite a growing concern, even worldwide, starting in the early 1900s at the Azuza St. Mission to half a billion in numbers worldwide in a mere century. And according to adherents.com the world religion with the greatest number of adherents after Catholicism is Sunni Islam. Though I keep reading things like Rodney Stark saying that Mormonism is growing at a rate that could overtake Catholicism if it continues. Well, that’s true of everything if it continues. The PEW report said that at present the “fastest growing” group among religious Americans was those becoming “unaffiliated with religion.” No kidding. Not that I expect religion or atheism to one day “win out.” Religious philosophers can be quite sophisticated and can defend a variety of theisms, including process theology. No sir, religion will probably be here to stay, at least until silicon chips start pumping ions, and they grow smart enough to take over, or leave us here stranded on this planet. (Have you read about qbit computers, quantum computers, and also ones based on photon movement instead of electron movement? Light speed computers! They even discovered a new property of silicon recently, some kind of weirdly strong magnetism that resulted when you placed the silicon layers just right. Who knew?
  12. Oh, I almost forgot to mention a third ex-Mormon whom I know, better than the rest, he left Mormonism for Christianity, and today is a Preterist Christian who also reads widely (including books by skeptics–that’s sort of how he came into contact with me). Very nice guy, was on Strobel’s TV show as a guest once, “Faith Under Fire” (on the side of faith), and produced a comedy film mocking all those pyramid schemes, and also produced a documentary just last year, “The First Mormon President?” He’s also a comic magician and founder of “Clean Comedians.” His name is Adam Christing. He’s studied Mormon history in detail. I even aided him in obtaining reference materials on the topic (I work in a college library). He also runs a website titled “The Meaning of Life”
  13. Edward ~ “Fills a niche?” How evolutionary of you to say so. *smile*
    Heh. I’m actually an agnostic on protology. Theistic evolution, old earth creationism, day-age creationism, gap creationism, progressive creationism, I really can’t decide. I’m pretty sure I’m not open to young earth creationism (even though I was as a teenager) simply because most of the people who believe in it seem to be raving idiots and/or jerks. In any case, I haven’t decided yet and I’m not a hasty buyer.
    I was involved in such exchanges myself for a couple years in the 1970s sending back and forth hand written and hand typed letters 20+ pages long with three friends, two of whom had left the fold and I was trying to win them back by filling myself with arguments from Lewis, Williams, Chesterton, McDowell, Schaeffer, Stott, and others.
    Interesting. I take it that your friends persuaded you instead?
    Hmmm, there was a book featuring the stories of non-practicing or doubtful or fallen away Mormons, titled, Leaving the Fold. Don’t know if it’s still at amazon.
    I see your book on Amazon.com, but I’m not seeing the LDS one. I did some amount of hanging out at ExMormon.org back in the day and have quite a few ex-LDS friends. Some of them even joked that I can take credit for their apostasy if I want to so that I can up my numbers. They didn’t switch to evangelical Christianity, but some EVs think it’s a good thing if a Mormon leaves the church at all.
    You mean Mormonism is the second wealthiest church in the U.S., or the world?
    No, they’re estimated to be the second wealthiest church in the world and the wealthiest church in the U.S. on a per capita level. No one really knows for sure since the church won’t publish its finances, but they’re rich. I think this estimate comes from Mormon America by Richard and Joan Ostling, which I think is one of the best all-around treatments of Mormonism on a conversational level out there.
  14. Mormonism is THAT wealthy? Wow.
    I guess the big churches like to watch their money grow via long term yield investments instead of spending it on charity as soon as possible. The guy who threw the money lenders out of the temple now has led to “the Vatican Bank,” and unknown Mormon billions.
    My story is online if you google, “If It Wasn’t For Agnosticism I Wouldn’t Know WHAT to Believe”
    Leaving the Fold: Candid Conversations With Inactive Mormons by James W. Ure (Paperback – Dec 1999) is still at amazon:
  15. Mormonism is THAT wealthy? Wow.
    Lie down before you both hurt yourselves. Then think: If you considered the donation amounts and property values of every established Protestant and Nondenominational Christian church in the United States, in aggregate, the figure would certainly be larger.
    I’d love to be able to prove that. Anyone know of any good sources for such a thing?
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity