MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm looking for honest concession from you that bias does exist, which you do not appear to be willing to concede. Can't say I'm surprised.

You misunderstand me.

I've said for years, including multiple times in print, that bias is the universal human condition. I've repeatedly cited Peter Novick's brilliant 1988 Cambridge University Press book That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession to support my position. With Professor Novick's kind permission, we've even included sizeable extracts from a public lecture of his in the FARMS Review, to make that very point.

I've said this so often, and have so frequently published others (e.g., Professor Midgley) who have made similar points, that I've been falsely accused, by people who don't really understand the issues, of being a postmodernist and/or a relativist.

Again, are you willing to concede that FARMS reviews and documents might carry some taint of bias? (Or is FARMS the only organization in the world that is wholly objective? My point is that you chastise Beastie for bias and prejudice, I'm trying to see whether you can turn your critical lense on yourself and your colleagues in Mormon apologetics.)]

See above!

I have to admit that it's refreshingly different, after considerable nonsense from the likes of Tal Bachman about my supposed postmodernism, to be accused of believing that the Maxwell Institute is purely objective.

My point is that, in order to demonstrate that all or most of the roughly 250 FARMS Review authors have been lethally biased, you would need to actually examine their work on a case by case basis, showing that their deployment of evidence is so defective and their reasoning so poor that such bias must be invoked to account for their work.

That they have commitments, preferences, beliefs, and worldviews is something that I would never think to deny.

I don't know, how about a yes or no? Do you chastise your colleagues in the Mormon apologetic community for bias and prejudice when they engage in it, or do you reserve your criticism only for your opponents? Whether the answer is yes or no helps us get to a point where we can judge better whether your criticism is a principle one or one merely of convenience.

I edit between 500 and 1000 printed pages of "apologetics" for publication each year, and, sometimes, considerably more than that. Yes, I try to eliminate unfair and unsustainable arguments, unjustifiable summary judgments, poor logic, and inadequate use of evidence.

I think, legitimate and reasonable right to view their conclusions (even ex ante) with a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because notable men engage in a certain behavior does not mean it is a desirable behavior.

I see nothing wrong with defending opinions, working within paradigms, etc. In fact, I agree with Novick that it is impossible (and would be undesirable) to do otherwise.

If you're really interested in this topic, you should read Novick's book.

Besides, to turn this around, if Lewis, Said, etc. are guilty of prejudice, which you now appear to rationalize away, why hold Beastie accountable for it?

Crippling bias and mythical pure objectivity represent the two extremes. The former renders scholarship worthless. The latter, if it were ever truly to exist, would render scholarship impossible.

My judgment is that beastie comes too close to the former to make sustained conversation with her very interesting. You may disagree, but it's my life, and the number of people who would like to take me on regarding this or that is very large.

[_Daniel Peterson]

[You seem, incidentally, to be laboring under the illusion that the conclusion reached by most if not all FARMS (or, more properly, Maxwell Institute) publications is simply "The Book of Mormon is true!" But this is not at all the case, as I point out in my Editor's Introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist":

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

I don't labor under this illusion at all. I'm aware that FARMS does a variety of different types of work. You've drawn a wholly incorrect inference. I see nothing I've written to suggest this. My frame of reference is clearly FARMS' apologetic work viz Mormonism.

That's precisely what I had in mind.

[_Jason Bourne]

Before the internet, "Cover ups" could be rather passive and implicit like "the invisible hand". Just don't mention anything but that there is anti-Mormon literature out there somewhere. Now days, even an active cover up seems unlikely to work. But innoculation! Now that's bound to work. Expose curious members to a tiny part of, or a watered down version of, critical arguments, difficult history and surprising aspects of Joseph Smith's life and activites. Do it with a air of confidence from the faithful perspective and against the assumed background that of course the church is still true (the authors are LDS after all) and we have succesfull innoculation.
As soon as someone brings it up, the member can immediately take the inward stance of "oh, that? I already know about that!" and then go on back to the all is well in Zion mentality.

Innoculation is the key.

Gee you have read the book already as well? List five watered down issues please.


Sheesh. You people bitch, yes bitch, and I have too, that the Church does not give full disclosure about its history, that it typically promotes a faith promoting view. Now a book comes out that may and hopefully does, deal with a sticky issue and you bitch. Same for RSR. TD calls it faith promoting. So what if they are inoculating. You don't think it is agood and proper thing for the Church to do this? I am all for it.

But no you all just bitch about it either way. Sheeesh.

[_Jason Bourne]

Anyone know what books the LDS church has funded in the past?

The standard works are not apologetic.

Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith are not.

The History of the Church is not nor is Roberts Comprehensive History of the Church.

None of the Church manuals are apologetic.

I am sure there are others but these are quick ones off the top of my hear.

We all know that they fund and publish church manuals, magazines, etc. That's a given. And, of course HoC and JoD.

Opps

I see you got some of these. Sorry.

[_guy sajer]

I'm looking for honest concession from you that bias does exist, which you do not appear to be willing to concede. Can't say I'm surprised.

You misunderstand me.

I've said for years, including multiple times in print, that bias is the universal human condition. I've repeatedly cited Peter Novick's brilliant 1988 Cambridge University Press book That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession to support my position. With Professor Novick's kind permission, we've even included sizeable extracts from a public lecture of his in the FARMS Review, to make that very point.

I've said this so often, and have so frequently published others (e.g., Professor Midgley) who have made similar points, that I've been falsely accused, by people who don't really understand the issues, of being a postmodernist and/or a relativist.

This is all I've been looking for. We are agreed on this point. I don't think you're either a postmodernist or a relativist. I do, however, think you're highly biased and prejudicial in your views viz Mormonism. You seem willing to concede that (am I correct?). But I suspect you think the same of me. I can live with that. (It is most likely true to a degree.) In other areas, I think you do a good job from what I've seen.

The difference from where I sit is that I'm not biased about a belief system that is, IMHO, patently and transparently absurd and no more plausible than the theories of the John Birch society. But, my wife, who is extremely intelligent, disagrees. And I love her. So, no reason we can't be friends. (But no hugging, that's where I draw the line. I'm a personal space kind of guy.)

The book you recommend sounds like a good one. I'll try to give it a read.

I have no problem whatsoever arguing within a paradigm. I agree with you that it's perfectly reasonable--to a degree. Good and great scholars can carry it to extremes, and they do. IMHO, FARMS carries it to extremes. Again, justifying bad practice by arguing that other people do it does not carry much weight with me.

But again the big difference is that the FARMS paradigm will never change. (That is, the major paradigm. Small ones, e.g., LGT vs. HGT will change, but all will continue to be proposed in service to the major paradigm.)

I think, Dan, we agree on the broad argument here, we just have a minor disagreement about the Mormonism stuff.

But, as a personal favor, next time you chastise one of your colleagues for prejudicial attitudes toward 'anti' arguments, I'd really, really love to hear about it. :-)

[_guy sajer]

[You seem, incidentally, to be laboring under the illusion that the conclusion reached by most if not all FARMS (or, more properly, Maxwell Institute) publications is simply "The Book of Mormon is true!" But this is not at all the case, as I point out in my Editor's Introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 (2006), entitled "The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist":

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

I don't labor under this illusion at all. I'm aware that FARMS does a variety of different types of work. You've drawn a wholly incorrect inference. I see nothing I've written to suggest this. My frame of reference is clearly FARMS' apologetic work viz Mormonism.

That's precisely what I had in mind.

Then, to quote, "you chose poorly."

Ok, movie buffs, what movie is that line from?

[_Jason Bourne]

Bushman wrote an honest well balanced open book. Did you read that one? He should be applauded and he did a fine job at it and was honest and open and continues to be so. If I recall you were pleased with his comments to the press about current temple sealing policy. But RSR can hardly be called faith promoting at all.

Bushman and this new MMM book are cattle prod in the hands of the bishops, used to scare the wondering sheep back into the corral.

Look! These books were authored by active members and one was funded by the church itself! I and my bishopric have read both and like the authors have not lost our testiphonies, and neither should you... zzzzapp! zzzzzzapppp!

Did you read the book?

Keep bitching dud.

[_Trevor]

Then, to quote, "you chose poorly."

Ok, movie buffs, what movie is that line from?

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[_truth dancer]

Gee have you read the book already? If not how do you know it is faith promoting. Sheesh!

Jason, my friend, what happens to members who write a faith challenging book?

They get Xed that's what. (Or disfellowshipped, or called to order, or something along these lines).

Are you seriously suggesting the church (or its faithful members) would pay millions or even hundreds of thousand of dollars to have a book published that would destroy or challenge some testimonies?

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that members who write a book funded by the church (or its members), would not write something that would destroy testimonies or hurt the church.

Bushman wrote an honest well balanced open book. Did you read that one? He should be applauded and he did a fine job at it and was honest and open and continues to be so. If I recall you were pleased with his comments to the press about current temple sealing policy. But RSR can hardly be called faith promoting at all.

Yes I have read it and I actually met Bushman in SLC. I do think it is faith promoting. It is innoculating. I think it was clearly intended to be so.

As I have stated many times.... the way to deal with messy issues from a PR standpoint is to have some expert give just enough of the truth to have it out there, while providing the apologetic spin. This is PR 101.

I think this is the approach the church is taking and I think we will continue to see more of this.

No, I don't blame the church nor am I bitching about it. The church is not the only org who handles messy stuff in this way. Have you ever noticed how big companies handle problems? Politicians? The military? This approach is very effective.

~dancer~

[_Daniel Peterson]

We are agreed on this point. I don't think you're either a postmodernist or a relativist. I do, however, think you're highly biased and prejudicial in your views viz Mormonism. You seem willing to concede that (am I correct?).

I'm willing to concede -- in fact, I've always cheerfully volunteered -- that I'm a convinced Latter-day Saint believer, and that such belief impacts my view of the world, just as other beliefs impact the worldviews of others.

But no hugging, that's where I draw the line. I'm a personal space kind of guy.

I'm Scandinavian. We don't do hugs.

I make Al Gore look like a Jamaican contortionist who's had a bit too much to drink.

IMHO, FARMS carries it to extremes.

We diagree.

I think, Dan, we agree on the broad argument here, we just have a minor disagreement about the Mormonism stuff.

That's a relatively big one, I'm afraid.

But, as a personal favor, next time you chastise one of your colleagues for prejudicial attitudes toward 'anti' arguments, I'd really, really love to hear about it.:-)

Should I wear a wire?