Part 3: An Early Lesson in FARMS Polemics

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to break in here and thank Scratch (and Bond) for these interesting materials. It seems like a wealth of interesting reading has emerged here lately---some of Ray A's links should be applauded here as well.

It will take me some time to sort through this and offer any comments if I have them. The semester has started and I'm busy with all that brings. While Mormon history is only tangential to my work on western americana, which itself is only tangential to my work as a whole, the history of the Mormon problem with history intrigues me mightily. The lessons that can be learned have wide application, as well.

Thanks again.

[_Mister Scratch]

Have you ever cried after encountering tough criticism of the Church?

No.

Well, then, I guess you have never put your faith to the ultimate test, ala the Brethren of B.H. Roberts's time.

[_The Nehor]

Well, then, I guess you have never put your faith to the ultimate test, ala the Brethren of B.H. Roberts's time.

A faith for which the ultimate test is looking at the current state of apologists vs. critics is a fairly weak faith and hardly worth destroying in any case. Somewhere Abraham is laughing as you compare him being asked to sacrifice his son with hearing people ramble on about how faith is a mistake/lie/sham.

As further evidence that criticism is not the ultimate test I would point out that I have not been translated or been transfigured after passing this test.

[Guest]

In short, this is among the worst writings FARMS has ever produced.

As has been demonstrated over the past few days, Master Scartch is relatively unfamiliar with what FARMS has produced. Unsurprisingly, here as elsewhere, he levels sweeping negative judgments on the basis of little or no evidence.

Any bets, incidentally, as to whether he's read Professor Welch's newest book, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon?

In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if he hasn't read Opening the Heavens (January 2005) or Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness (January 2006).

He knows, or claims to know, that there's a "rumor" out there that a U-Tube video exists of me weeping. But if something isn't either gossip or gossipworthy and hasn't been spoon fed to him by his creepy network of anonymous "informants," he doesn't know about it.

What say you, Scartch? Are you any more familiar with these books than you are with Peter Novick's remarks about Louis Midgley's views on Mormon historiography -- which are available both in print and on line, and which go directly to the heart of several of your favorite themes, but which you plainly don't know about?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

This whole Scratch reveals series reminds me of that old TV slogan, "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you!"

[_Mister Scratch]

In short, this is among the worst writings FARMS has ever produced.

As has been demonstrated over the past few days, Master Scartch is relatively unfamiliar with what FARMS has produced. Unsurprisingly, here as elsewhere, he levels sweeping negative judgments on the basis of little or no evidence.

I am familiar enough with it, particularly the apologetic aspects of it, though I would be the first to admit that I'm nowhere near as familiar with FARMS publications as you, my dear Professor. Tell me: Do you boast to your Islamic Studies colleagues about how well you know FARMS publications? It seems to me that you would be embarrassed to do so.

It is interesting that you don't bother to defend that crappy Welch piece.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am familiar enough with it

I see no evidence that you're very familiar with it at all.

It is interesting that you don't bother to defend that crappy Welch piece.

I think it's a pretty good piece, though I think people should read it in its entirety rather than merely your cherry-picked and spun passages. As for defending it, I don't take you seriously enough to waste the time, and I know you too well to think that it wouldn't be a waste of time.

It's interesting that you tacitly admit that you haven't read Professor Welch's newest book, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, nor even Opening the Heavens (January 2005) or Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness (January 2006). For a self-described student of "Mopologetics," you're not much of a student of "Mopologetics."

Big surprise.

[_gramps]

Perhaps, DCP might have a response to this question:

Do you know why Truman Madsen didn't cover Roberts' final manuscript in his biography of Roberts? (I think McMurrin mentions this somewhere in the literature on Bond's blog.)

Was Madsen prevented from doing so, by the Church, perhaps? (I noticed somewhere in browsing through FARMS materials, in a footnote in a piece you authored, you mentioned he was holding on to material that others hadn't had a chance to see. You didn't seem pleased. If my memory is faulty, I apologize in advance.)

Most everyone in my circles back in the early 80s already had a copy of The Truth, The Way, The Life. It was a little silly to hold it back or to virtually act like it didn't exist, don't you think?

I, also, for the record, after having read through it, couldn't figure out why it was supposedly so controversial? Did you find anything at all "controversial" in his last manuscript?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I expected something more from this series. But why!?

[_Ray A]

Perhaps, DCP might have a response to this question:

Do you know why Truman Madsen didn't cover Roberts' final manuscript in his biography of Roberts? (I think McMurrin mentions this somewhere in the literature on Bond's blog.)

That's a good question, and I'm not answering for DCP. I related this more than two years ago on MDB, not long after this board took on a new format then, which has recently changed again. I read this biography in 1983. I thought it was great, and it was one of the books which spurred me on to eventually reading the seven volume History of the Church. However, I felt that Madsen was pulling my leg in some parts, and I felt there must have been more of a story to Roberts' "controversial writings", which Madsen only briefly touched upon. I was literally hungering for more information about Roberts, whose life began to fascinate me. So I wrote Madsen thanking him for a very fine biography, and in the end of the letter concluding with the question that was bugging me. What more can you tell me about Roberts, I sense there's a lot more you didn't cover. Maybe not in those exact words, but my intention was to that effect. Madsen sent me a reply thanking me for praising his book, but on the further questions in regard to Roberts, he referred me to a Church historian. I forget the historian's name, and I'm too lazy to dig up my old files. To me this was more leg-pulling, so I decided to pursue my own avenues of research. It was not until Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon was published in 1985 that I finally got my answers. My former praise of Madsen suddenly nose-dived. It's still a great book in other aspects, and one I'd even read again, but omitting the Roberts controversy was, in my opinion, a cardinal sin for a biographer. I was disappointed, and revised my opinion of Defender of the Faith as hagiography, not biography.

Brigham Madsen's (no relation as far as I know) introduction to Studies of the Book of Mormon was a refreshing read by comparison, and the Roberts controversy final unfolded for me.

Was Madsen prevented from doing so, by the Church, perhaps? (I noticed somewhere in browsing through FARMS materials, in a footnote in a piece you authored, you mentioned he was holding on to material that others hadn't had a chance to see. You didn't seem pleased. If my memory is faulty, I apologize in advance.)

I don't believe the Church had anything to do with it. Madsen, from what I know of him now, didn't need to be forced into protecting Roberts, nor the Church. He's a willing soldier for hagiography. And don't get me wrong, I think he's a highly spiritual and gifted writer, but not if you're looking for historical facts. A deeply spiritual man, and author of books like Christ and the Inner Life, no one gets better than Madsen in that department. I wasn't impressed with his Ensign article on Roberts either, however, and scrutinised it and found many more omissions, but to be fair, it was published in the main faith-promoting medium of the Church.