DiscussMormonism.com

I was perusing an old ZLMB thread, and came across some very interesting tidbits. The old thread is called "'Dishonesty' in apologetics," and dealt in part with BKP's infamous directive to historians to write only faith-promoting histories. (Cf. "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect".) Perhaps predictably, the discussion circled around to the old issue of paradigm shifts, and the willingness (or unwillingness) of some folks to examine their world-view. Here is an interesting post from Alf Omegus:

Alf Omegus wrote:

FreeThinker wrote:I still don't see much if any difference between what FARMS does and what is routinely done in many areas of science and scholarship. Adherents to paradigms or worldviews commonly deal with challenges to their models (and there are always such challenges) on the assumption that, since their paradigms are correct, seeming anomalies must be -- and can be -- accounted for within their paradigms. Scientific worldviews and paradigms are abandoned only when and if the cost of accomodating such anomalies becomes prohibitive.

Any survey of the history of science will provide many illustrations of this process: Newtonian physics giving way to relativistic physics, quantum theory succeeding earlier models, wave theories and particle theories of light, Darwinian theory followed by neo-Darwinism, psychoanalysis giving way (thank heaven!) to modern psychotherapy, the steady state and the Big Bang (followed by various models of the Big Bang), the Ptolemaic theory and its ever-multiplying cycles and epicycles, and so on and so forth.

Yes, and the common theme in all of the examples you cite is a willingness to reconsider dogmatically held assumptions. Tell me, are you willing to consider a paradigm in which an ahistorical Book of Mormon is compatible with Mormon faith?

Obviously, we all know that the answer is going to be, "No." (Bear in mind that "FreeThinker" is Daniel C. Peterson's sockpuppet.) It is at this point that the thread starts to become very interesting:

FreeThinker wrote:

Alf Omegus wrote:Tell me, are you willing to consider a paradigm in which an ahistorical Book of Mormon is compatible with Mormon faith?

I've considered it and decided that it is untenable. I wouldn't excommunicate anybody on that basis alone, but I don't think it works. Nor, given the state of the evidence, do I feel any pressure in that direction.

Alf's very apt reply:

Alf Omegus wrote:If you were involved in deciding the editorial policies at FARMS, would you consider that conclusion final enough to make it a foundational principle, a conviction on which all work done in the name of FARMS should rest? Would a sincere believer who disagreed with you be able to publish her views there? Can you imagine a scholar from, say, seventy-five years ago having a similarly dismissive response to a limited geography for the Book of Mormon?

(emphasis added)

Little did Alf know, "FreeThinker" was actually the big cheese in charge of the 'editorial policies'!!! But read on, it gets better:

FreeThinker wrote:I doubt that any editor would favor supporting or publishing work that she considered untenable. Beyond that, the issue of whether one can be a communicant Latter-day Saint while not believing in the historicity of the Book of Mormon exceeds the mandate of FARMS, as I understand it.

Alf Omegus wrote:Okay, that wasn't outrageously provocative, but I have to get a clarification. It sounds like you're saying that a believer in an ahistorical Book of Mormon ought to argue for that position, and that it's none of FARMS's business how such a belief affects his standing within the Church. Do you imagine that FARMS would (or ought to) allow competent, faithful scholars on both sides of such an issue to prosecute the argument within its pages?

(And I'm sorry, but declaring as a matter of policy that "[w]ork done in the name of FARMS rests on the conviction that the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and other ancient scripture such as the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses are all . . . authentic, historical texts" is nothing if not dogmatic, whether or not the individual contributors hold their respective convictions dogmatically.)

FreeThinker wrote:

Alf Omegus wrote:It sounds like you're saying that a believer in an ahistorical Book of Mormon ought to argue for that position, and that it's none of FARMS's business how such a belief affects his standing within the Church.

I'm not necessarily talking about public argument or public teaching of the position. That would be something that the Church might understandably not appreciate, nor tolerate. But I would think that a believer in an ahistorical inspired Book of Mormon ought to be prepared to offer reasons for her belief, and for her seeming conviction that such belief is consistent with orthodoxy. And you're right, it is none of FARMS's business how such a belief might affect her standing in the Church. That's the Church's business.

(emphasis added)

Okay, let's take note of this. Here is the editor-in-chief of FARMS Review stating, on record, that the Church shouldn't "tolerate" anyone who argues in favor of an ahistorical Book of Mormon. Very interesting. He also says that FARMS, as a purportedly serious academic journal, ought to allow opposing viewpoints, and that arguments dealing with Book of Mormon ahistory are "none of FARMS's business," meaning, I guess, that they ought to be tolerant of these competing views?

Let's let The Good Professor clarify:

FreeThinker wrote:

Alf Omegus wrote:Do you imagine that FARMS would (or ought to) allow competent, faithful scholars on both sides of such an issue to prosecute the argument within its pages?

I don't think it will happen, and I'm not sure that it ought to happen. (Although FARMS has published a piece by at least one scholar who, at the time -- I don't know what his position is now -- believed in an ahistorical but inspired Book of Mormon: David Wright. And it has published a lengthy essay by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen that was deeply critical of fundamental Mormon beliefs.)

(emphasis added)

I think this is very important, since he is basically admitting that FARMS Review is operating under a mandate in which a balanced scholarly approach will not be "tolerated". Alf Omegus drives home this point:

Alf Omegus wrote:

FreeThinker wrote:There are plenty of venues (e.g., Sunstone, Dialogue, and the publications of Signature Books, to say nothing of the numerous evangelical, secular, and other outlets that push the same position) where arguments are frequently mounted for the ahistorical and fictional character of the Book of Mormon.

While there are a lot of people arguing against a historical Book of Mormon, how many are apologists for the faith? Shouldn't such a scholar find a sympathetic editor at FARMS?

An excellent question. There seems to be an unwritten set of rules as to who can join the "fraternity" of FARMS authors. Here is DCP's telling reply:

FreeThinker wrote:

Alf Omegus wrote:So why should the Church tolerate talk of such unorthodox views as a limited geography for the Book of Mormon or a principally non-Semitic origin for the aboriginal Americans?

By calling the limited geography theory and its derivative ideas "unorthodox," you're begging an important question. Many people in the Church, including Church leaders at the highest levels, have held such "unorthodox" views for a century or more. What do you mean by "unorthodox"?

Alf Omegus wrote:While there are a lot of people arguing against a historical Book of Mormon, how many are apologists for the faith? Shouldn't such a scholar find a sympathetic editor at FARMS?

Since FARMS was established to examine the Book of Mormon as an authentically ancient document, that's rather like asking that anti-Darwinians find a sympathetic editor and a publishing venue in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. FARMS as such doesn't do theology. Its interest is in history and ancillary disciplines. But if you abstract out the arguments against Book of Mormon historicity advanced by your advocate of an ahistorical-but-inspired Book of Mormon, arguments which you have admitted can be and are being published in numerous other places, all that is really left to your advocate is the essentially theological argument that an ahistorical Book of Mormon is compatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. (However, that position, too, would readily find a platform in Sunstone, Dialogue and Signature Books -- and has, in fact, done so.)

(bold emphasis added)

I have highlighted this portion of the text in order to underscore what I've said elsewhere in recent weeks: FARMS scholars are in effect "hiding" their research from mainstream academia, partly due to apparent embarrassment, and partly due to the fact that doing so would likely violate some mysterious boundary sketched out by the GAs. I mean, here is DCP telling us, in very plain language, "Its [i.e., FARMS Review's] interest is in history and ancillary disciplines." And yet what has he said to Yme and others? That this is purely religious material, that it wouldn't find any interest in the secular academy, etc., etc., etc. He claims that they are doing secular work, in secular disciplines, and yet the whole thing appears to be a stacked deck---a cabal of Church yes-men who do the Brethren's bidding, including (apparently) helping to disseminate non-doctrinal viewpoints, such as LGT.

This brings me to my main point. Of course, the GAs in this day and age cannot risk being held accountable for their interpretations of Church doctrine, so this job falls to the apologists at FARMS. I find this very, very interesting, as this seems to reinforce the suggestion that FARMS exists as a kind of "buffer" for the Brethren. We all know about the long-standing bit of advice given out to members, stating that letters should not be written to the GAs, who are far too busy to bother with such twaddle from the rank-and-file. Instead, FARMS has stepped up to fulfill the role of trying to deal with all the problems which ought to be dealt with by the Brethren.

Mister Scratch wrote:This brings me to my main point. Of course, the GAs in this day and age cannot risk being held accountable for their interpretations of Church doctrine, so this job falls to the apologists at FARMS. I find this very, very interesting, as this seems to reinforce the suggestion that FARMS exists as a kind of "buffer" for the Brethren. We all know about the long-standing bit of advice given out to members, stating that letters should not be written to the GAs, who are far too busy to bother with such twaddle from the rank-and-file. Instead, FARMS has stepped up to fulfill the role of trying to deal with all the problems which ought to be dealt with by the Brethren.

Well, they have to justify their paycheck somehow.

harmony wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:This brings me to my main point. Of course, the GAs in this day and age cannot risk being held accountable for their interpretations of Church doctrine, so this job falls to the apologists at FARMS. I find this very, very interesting, as this seems to reinforce the suggestion that FARMS exists as a kind of "buffer" for the Brethren. We all know about the long-standing bit of advice given out to members, stating that letters should not be written to the GAs, who are far too busy to bother with such twaddle from the rank-and-file. Instead, FARMS has stepped up to fulfill the role of trying to deal with all the problems which ought to be dealt with by the Brethren.

Well, they have to justify their paycheck somehow.

I'm glad you replied here, Harmony, because I think this really drives home what you've been saying about there being a lack of spiritual wisdom and discernment amongst Church leaders. I mean, here is the Editor-in-Chief of FARMS Review basically telling us that many of the Brethren are secret doubters who have questions about Church orthodoxy and who believe in non-doctrinal things, but who nevertheless can't reckon with these issues publicly, since that would give the impression of a "divided front." Instead, the job of dealing with doctrinal and spiritual problems has fallen on the shoulders of FARMS, which has to try and resolve problems despite a lack of ecclesiastical authority. What an odd position to be in! In addition to this, FARMS is in a bit of a jam. DCP readily acknowledges that change takes place in any kind of valid intellectual inquiry, but where has this ever been noted in FARMS scholarship? Are apologists admitting that the change to the Book of Mormon intro represents a paradigm shift? Or are they instead offering up more spin, so as to convince the TBMs that, in fact, nothing ever actually changes?

To someone outside your little circle of cheerleaders, these posts are just bunk. You haven't read or udnerstood a word of what was said in the dialogue. And then you make an absolutelyu untrue interpretaiton by saying that General Authorities are doubters! And that they don't interpret Church doctrine.

Let me say, this falls right into the standard, laughable anti-Mormon strategies. Misunderstand, mistinerpret, write up out of whole clothoutrageous things, and then point fingers and mock and ridicule.

Mister Scratch wrote:

harmony wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:This brings me to my main point. Of course, the GAs in this day and age cannot risk being held accountable for their interpretations of Church doctrine, so this job falls to the apologists at FARMS. I find this very, very interesting, as this seems to reinforce the suggestion that FARMS exists as a kind of "buffer" for the Brethren. We all know about the long-standing bit of advice given out to members, stating that letters should not be written to the GAs, who are far too busy to bother with such twaddle from the rank-and-file. Instead, FARMS has stepped up to fulfill the role of trying to deal with all the problems which ought to be dealt with by the Brethren.

Well, they have to justify their paycheck somehow.

I'm glad you replied here, Harmony, because I think this really drives home what you've been saying about there being a lack of spiritual wisdom and discernment amongst Church leaders. I mean, here is the Editor-in-Chief of FARMS Review basically telling us that many of the Brethren are secret doubters who have questions about Church orthodoxy and who believe in non-doctrinal things, but who nevertheless can't reckon with these issues publicly, since that would give the impression of a "divided front." Instead, the job of dealing with doctrinal and spiritual problems has fallen on the shoulders of FARMS, which has to try and resolve problems despite a lack of ecclesiastical authority. What an odd position to be in! In addition to this, FARMS is in a bit of a jam. DCP readily acknowledges that change takes place in any kind of valid intellectual inquiry, but where has this ever been noted in FARMS scholarship? Are apologists admitting that the change to the Book of Mormon intro represents a paradigm shift? Or are they instead offering up more spin, so as to convince the TBMs that, in fact, nothing ever actually changes?

The idea that the FARMS apologists are in charge of the henhouse, not the GA's, is very disturbing. Apologists have no stewardship, no calling, no setting apart that gives them the mantle and keys needed to declare doctrine.

We're all in trouble, if Daniel's in charge.

I'm going to post this entire talk so we can parse and analyze what Elder Packer actually said, and see if Scratch's characterization of it is anything other than his usual polemical gesticulations. That Mr. Scratch even fancies himself concerned with "intellect" at all is a real knee slapper at the outset.

charity wrote:To someone outside your little circle of cheerleaders, these posts are just bunk. You haven't read or udnerstood a word of what was said in the dialogue. And then you make an absolutelyu untrue interpretaiton by saying that General Authorities are doubters! And that they don't interpret Church doctrine.

Let me say, this falls right into the standard, laughable anti-Mormon strategies. Misunderstand, mistinerpret, write up out of whole clothoutrageous things, and then point fingers and mock and ridicule.

The worship of Daniel continues.

Coggins7 wrote:I'm going to post this entire talk so we can parse and analyze what Elder Packer actually said, and see if Scratch's characterization of it is anything other than his usual polemical gesticulations.

Actually, we already have, but we can do it again. It's a good exercise.

That Mr. Scratch even fancies himself concerned with "intellect" at all is a real knee slapper at the outset.

Poisoning the well in the beginning, Loran? Shame. Shame.

harmony wrote:

charity wrote:To someone outside your little circle of cheerleaders, these posts are just bunk. You haven't read or udnerstood a word of what was said in the dialogue. And then you make an absolutelyu untrue interpretaiton by saying that General Authorities are doubters! And that they don't interpret Church doctrine.

Let me say, this falls right into the standard, laughable anti-Mormon strategies. Misunderstand, mistinerpret, write up out of whole clothoutrageous things, and then point fingers and mock and ridicule.

The worship of Daniel continues.

Scratch and Daniel worshippers square off in the ring in a steel cage match to the death.

Maybe I am just underinformed, but I would like to know the title of a history or book of Mormonism that isn't "faith promoting" and at the same time isn't deemed "anti-mormon" by FARMS. Brodies "No Man Knows My History" was the kindest interpretation of the facts that I've read, yet it takes one review from an accused child molestor to deem the book anti-mormon and invalid in the LDS community(No Ma'm that's not History, Nibley).