Part 3: An Early Lesson in FARMS Polemics
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:12 pm
This will, for now, be the last entry in my commentary on the "Archive of Agent S." Once again, to my knowledge, this material has never before been available on the Internet. The .pdfs will be up on Bond...James Bond's weblog shortly.
As you will notice, much of the material pertains to the deeply problematic LDS intellectual B.H. Roberts, who could very possibly be described as the first "Internet Mormon." Of special interest will be the "Exhibit 1-6" .pdf, which features Roberts's actual letter to President Grant. In it, he writes of discussing "difficulties" and "problems" with the Brethren. When Elder Lyman asks him if the new "difficulties" he wishes to discuss will make things worse for the Brethren, and Roberts replies in the affirmative, Lyman dismisses all of it, stating that, "I do not know why we should consider them." In other words: the best way to handle criticism of the Book of Mormon is to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist.
But I got the biggest chuckle out of John Welch's ridiculous, utterly embarrassing, "Comments on Sterling McMurrin's Biographical Essay." Have DCP, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgley, Gary Novak and other notable apologists modeled their style and technique after Welch? It seems to me that they have.
At base, Welch's diatribe (which is very oddly framed in such a way that Welch imagines himself as an Oxford U. editor) is one ad hominem attack after the next:
Or, it is steeped in a peculiarly Mopologetic form of paranoia:
This may be of some interest to those examining the "black/white" thinking of apologists:
In short, this is among the worst writings FARMS has ever produced.
Also among these materials is Roberts's letter to his daughter, Elizabeth. Readers can compare the full text of the letter with the decontextualized quotes used by Truman Madsen in Part III of "Did B.H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon"? Also intriguing in the letter is Roberts's odd mention of correcting Pres. Grant about a "mistake" concerning cement.
Readers might also find interesting Brigham Madsen's Dialogue article, which may shed some light on why apologists are so sensitive to Roberts and his work:
Well, I guess we can assume that this is the typical way that General Authorities and apologists secretly deal with Book of Mormon criticism: by emotionally testifying to the book's truthfulness, and crying.
The other materials also up for viewing include stuff from Oaks, Benson, and Quinn, along with stuff culled from Roberts's papers. Probably this will be familiar to some people, and brand new to others. It is intriguing regardless.
Overall, all of the material from the "Archive of Agent S" represents a fascinating set of juxtapositions. It presents a means for inspecting the evolution of LDS apologetics, and exposes many of its frailties. It exposes places where apologists feel most vulnerable, and demonstrates areas in which they've been less than honest.
Anyways, a final "shout out" to Agent S, and to Bond...James Bond. Thank you for this invaluable look into apologetic history.
As you will notice, much of the material pertains to the deeply problematic LDS intellectual B.H. Roberts, who could very possibly be described as the first "Internet Mormon." Of special interest will be the "Exhibit 1-6" .pdf, which features Roberts's actual letter to President Grant. In it, he writes of discussing "difficulties" and "problems" with the Brethren. When Elder Lyman asks him if the new "difficulties" he wishes to discuss will make things worse for the Brethren, and Roberts replies in the affirmative, Lyman dismisses all of it, stating that, "I do not know why we should consider them." In other words: the best way to handle criticism of the Book of Mormon is to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist.
But I got the biggest chuckle out of John Welch's ridiculous, utterly embarrassing, "Comments on Sterling McMurrin's Biographical Essay." Have DCP, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgley, Gary Novak and other notable apologists modeled their style and technique after Welch? It seems to me that they have.
At base, Welch's diatribe (which is very oddly framed in such a way that Welch imagines himself as an Oxford U. editor) is one ad hominem attack after the next:
(1)This sounds like something only a moral philosopher would say. What is McMurrin's background anyway?
(4)I wonder if this McMurrin fellow has ever had a course in logic.
(5)This is beginning to smell rather bad
Or, it is steeped in a peculiarly Mopologetic form of paranoia:
(2)I get worried enough about introductions which seem to have hidden agendas. In this instance my concerns are even greater since it is obvious that McMurrin's agenda is not even thinly camouflaged.
This may be of some interest to those examining the "black/white" thinking of apologists:
(3)To whom is scriptural literalism intellectually frustrating?
In short, this is among the worst writings FARMS has ever produced.
Also among these materials is Roberts's letter to his daughter, Elizabeth. Readers can compare the full text of the letter with the decontextualized quotes used by Truman Madsen in Part III of "Did B.H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon"? Also intriguing in the letter is Roberts's odd mention of correcting Pres. Grant about a "mistake" concerning cement.
Readers might also find interesting Brigham Madsen's Dialogue article, which may shed some light on why apologists are so sensitive to Roberts and his work:
(80)[Wesley P.] Lloyd recorded Roberts's remembrance of the reaction of church leaders to his ["Difficulties"] presentation, "In answer, they merely one by one stood up and bore testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. George Albert Smith, in tears, testified that his faith in the Book of Mormon had not been shaken by the question."
Well, I guess we can assume that this is the typical way that General Authorities and apologists secretly deal with Book of Mormon criticism: by emotionally testifying to the book's truthfulness, and crying.
The other materials also up for viewing include stuff from Oaks, Benson, and Quinn, along with stuff culled from Roberts's papers. Probably this will be familiar to some people, and brand new to others. It is intriguing regardless.
Overall, all of the material from the "Archive of Agent S" represents a fascinating set of juxtapositions. It presents a means for inspecting the evolution of LDS apologetics, and exposes many of its frailties. It exposes places where apologists feel most vulnerable, and demonstrates areas in which they've been less than honest.
Anyways, a final "shout out" to Agent S, and to Bond...James Bond. Thank you for this invaluable look into apologetic history.