Over at Patheos, Joe Spencer posted "Apologetics Again — But This Time with Feeling." Joe argues that Mormonism needs traditional apologetics but that it also needs more than just traditional apologetics. He argues that what Mormonism really needs is something like deep and informed scriptural exegesis that uncovers important doctrinal truths and themes that have not, as yet, been expounded by LDS leaders and intellectuals or at least not properly framed and emphasized. Other denominations would call that activity theology.
Whether you call it theology or Mormon studies or close reading or scriptural exegesis, I agree that Mormonism needs more of it. I would also agree that there is a place in Mormonism for traditional apologetics. People on both sides of the recent unpleasantness regularly claim the same thing, that we need them both, so it's a little unclear what the argument was about. (Okay, it's mostly about the money, but it is impolite to actually come out and say that. If there was justice in the world, some of that Old FARMS money would have followed the Old FARMS mission to the Interpreter Foundation. But there isn't and it didn't.)
So if I simply agree with what Joe said in the post, what's my point? First, I wrote up a longish two-paragraph comment but then couldn't post it because the Disqus login screen (Patheos uses Disqus for comments) doesn't like me and I didn't want to sign in using Facebook because that gives Disqus all my Facebook profile information, and why the heck do they think they deserve all that information just to post a stupid comment at Patheos? So I just decided to post my comment here, where anyone can comment with just a name and an email address.
Second ... well, I can't really remember what I said in my original two-paragraph comment, but here is one sentence that summarizes my reaction: How does Joe's prescription differ from this simple argument: "We need to produce less traditional LDS apologetics (but not none) and more LDS theology."