Were DCP and other BYU Apologists Ordered to "Tone it Down"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think Doctor Scratch presents a very convincing case that the Brethren ordered the apologists to abandon the "small shop" hack polemics.

I feel the need to add that I cannot say for certain that it was the Brethren, per se, who ordered the FARMS apologists to "knock it off." It could have been someone high up in BYU's administration, or it could even be, as Ray suggested, something more "internal", such as DCP telling everyone via skinny-l that they needed to practice "humble apologetics."

I want to emphasize that I don't have all the answers here. But I want to. I want to know why these stalwart FARMS supporters of SHIELDS, seemingly all of the sudden, totally jumped ship and turned their loyalties over to FAIR. I also want to know why this shift of loyalties seems, rather remarkably, to coincide so neatly with a lot of very significant changes at BYU.

[_Ray A]

I'll be doing a lot more reading and re-checking before I reply here. It may not be until tomorrow, because I don't want to address this flippantly. Bear with me until then.

[_WjExMo]

And yet the material gathered by Daniel and others remains on SHIELDS.

Has DCP changed recently? Some of the posts on SHIELDS are only a few years old. DCP's tactic is to verbally tongue whip critics of the Cult, then turn around and post their responses on SHIELDS.

So be aware, if DCP emails you, and you tell him to “F” off, he'll post it on SHIELDS.

[_Ray A]

I don't know, Ray. Yes, it's *plausible* that all of the BYU apologists simultaneously decided to ditch SHIELDS, calm down a bit, and ally themselves with FAIR... But don't you think it's far more logical and reasonable to assume that they were simply told to "cut it out"?

It's possible, maybe even likely. Criticism of FARMS goes back to the early '90s, and in particularly DCP, who was the editor of the Review. I definitely remember editorials where DCP had to defend himself against such criticisms, and not just from England. Come to think of it, the BYU merger and the subsequent name change to The Maxwell Institute seems to support your thesis. There were "rumblings" from within all along. If someone did "order" them to cut it, then some more solid evidence to back that up would be better. In the meantime it's just an assumption, but not without some merit.

I know that Joseph Fielding Mc Conkie, for one, was against the polemical and "proof-laden" approach, and it's possible that voices like his may have had some influence.

[_Kishkumen]

I feel the need to add that I cannot say for certain that it was the Brethren, per se, who ordered the FARMS apologists to "knock it off." It could have been someone high up in BYU's administration, or it could even be, as Ray suggested, something more "internal", such as DCP telling everyone via skinny-l that they needed to practice "humble apologetics."

All of this is very intriguing indeed, gentlemen. If the Brethren were involved in any way, I would imagine that a "quip" would have been all that was needed to let Dr. Peterson know that his priesthood leaders were displeased with the posture of FARMS and organizations like SHIELDS. Unfortunately, that is precisely the kind of message that would be difficult to corroborate. I remain hopeful that something more substantive may appear. If only there were an actual letter to that effect. If anyone has sources inside the COB, now would be the time to use them.

Let me thank you for your inquisitiveness, Doctor Scratch. Too few people have taken interest in the history of Mopologetics. It must be one of the most significant aspects of late 20th and early 21st century Mormonism, and very few people know much of anything about it. Consider that these men have been responsible for shaping the interpretation of Mormon scripture and doctrine with an influence that is unrivaled outside of the apostles and First Presidency. Anything you can do to shed further light on it is a real contribution.

[_Ray A]

From a link I gave on another thread, Noel Reynolds discussed FARMS:

the foundation for ancient research and Mormon studies
FARMS in 1979 john W welch organized the foundation for ancient
research and Mormon studies FARMS welch s vision was to create a
support institution for scholarly research and publication premised on the Book of Mormon s antiquity growth in the first five years was rapid and by the late 1980s increasing numbers of scholars from a variety of disciplines had become interested in lending their expertise to some aspect of Book of Mormon studies financial support grew as ideas for new scholarly projects matured
by the mid 1990s the sustained and expanding scholarly output ofbelieving latter day saints had become a force to be reckoned with in large part because of FARMS the sheer volume of scholarly investigation that finds the book ofmormon text credible and related to the ancient world in countless ways left critics far behind where they had once been the agenda setters they could no longer keep up
one attempt by critics to recapture the initiative appeared in 1993 editor brent metcalfe compiled a collection of essays into new approaches to the Book of Mormon explorations in critical methodology 157 which was intended to administer a great blow to the Book of Mormon s prospects of ever being taken seriously as a genuinely ancient book this effort however
fell short few of the contributors were recognized publishing scholars
A large portion of their arguments were readily refutable with already
published studies and they had studiously avoided responding substantively
to the many competent studies in support of the book s authenticity
these defects and more were explored in the 1994 and 1995 volumes of the
FARMS annual review of books on the Book of Mormon 158
in the 1990s FARMS has published a steady stream of books journals
articles newsletters updates and reviews about the Book of Mormon in
recognition of the focused contributions of FARMS in coordinating
research on the Book of Mormon and making significant results inexpensively available worldwide president gordon B hinckley invited FARMS in september 1997 to become a part of BYU in directing this strong step toward the future he expressed his desire to see the work of FARMS grow even further

by the way, I think Reynolds underestimated the impact of New Approaches.

Nothing negative is said about FARMS, but Reynolds was a regular contributor himself, with 44 articles. I don't believe he was acerbic, however, judging by the contributions he made, two of them benign reviews in the FROB. Whether he was concerned about polemics is moot, but he seems to have distanced himself from it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray---

I'm not quite sure I follow you here re: the Reynolds stuff. How do you see this fitting in to the "tonal shift" that appears to have taken place in the late '90s-early-aughts?

[_Ray A]

Ray---

I'm not quite sure I follow you here re: the Reynolds stuff. How do you see this fitting in to the "tonal shift" that appears to have taken place in the late '90s-early-aughts?

It's possible that less polemical peers at FARMS/BYU may have influenced a shift in "tone" (speculation). What I think however is that criticisms over the years possibly have had more influence than a GA or GAs telling them to tone it down. I'm not sure how many GAs are even interested in FARMS, or read MI publications regularly, and Steve Benson has quoted Maxwell as defending it. The Review is/was probably the only polemical section.

Matt Paulson and John Hatch have both been outspoken critics.

Hatch:

"Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books." Hatch said, "After reading the (FARMS) reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism's past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church's past. As one who hopes to some day contribute to the body of the New Mormon History, I am deeply troubled by what I see as continued efforts to attack honest scholarly work."

Short of a direct quote from a GA criticising FARMS (I know of none), it has to remain speculation that they were told to tone it down. But they should take criticisms like this to heart:

It's one thing to disagree--as I certainly disagree with their position--but it's another to be mean-spirited, sarcastic, and generally obnoxious in how they present their information. If "pride" is still a sin, then the FARMS folks are certainly guilty of disobeying Mormon 10:32*. Overall, I think Paulson has done a service to the Christian community in putting this book together, and it ought to be read by those who are interested in Mormon/Christian apologetics.

*This citation is wrong, but other scriptures support the idea that "contention" and "mockery" are against the spirit of Christ, and the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray---

I'm not quite sure I follow you here re: the Reynolds stuff. How do you see this fitting in to the "tonal shift" that appears to have taken place in the late '90s-early-aughts?

It's possible that less polemical peers at FARMS/BYU may have influenced a shift in "tone" (speculation). What I think however is that criticisms over the years possibly have had more influence than a GA or GAs telling them to tone it down. I'm not sure how many GAs are even interested in FARMS, or read MI publications regularly, and Steve Benson has quoted Maxwell as defending it. The Review is/was probably the only polemical section.

Yes...that's right. I recall Benson's quote. When was that, by the way? Did it occur prior to the period in question? RE: your observation that it was the "less polemical peers"....I wonder about that. Remember, we know that there are a lot of Profs. at BYU (as per silentkid, The Dude, etc.) who are really disgusted with FARMS, and also remember that DCP went to the mat over some BYU dean or other lower-rung administrator because the administrator asserted his "suzerainty." So: I would think that it would have to be someone with quite a bit of clout doing the ordering.

[_Ray A]

Yes...that's right. I recall Benson's quote. When was that, by the way?

That was 1993

Maxwell also told me that one of the purposes of FARMS was to prevent the General Authorities from being outflanked by the Church's critics.