DiscussMormonism.com

Some of you might be aware that I'm juggling two weighty matters at present concerning Mormon Studies. The first is, of course, following Scratch's unearthing of a tremendous wealth of documents which give us some insights into the origins of LDS apologetics. The other has been following the controversies surrounding LDS scholar, Brother Rodney Meldrum, who has been the target of vicious criticism and the butt of jokes over at FAIR/MAD for weeks now.

Interestingly, it doesn't seem like FARMS has much to say so far concerning Meldrum. Why? I seemed to have recalled that they have never been easy on the Chapel Mormons out there. Given Meldrum's popularity, are we going to see a review of Meldrum in a future FROB? If not, why not? Did FARMS get in trouble with church leaders over its equal treatment of crtics and Chapel Mormons alike? I am seriously wondering if this is the case.

It's almost as if FARMS has looked its little brother FAIR in the eyes, and handed it an object wrapped in red cloth. The look says, "Take this, for I cannot use it here. You have seen what I've done, now go and do likewise." Inside the cloth is a dirty, rusty old hatchet.

Certainly FAIR has learned its craft from FARMS, and it's material is very much rooted in the FROBian style of apologetics. Inspired by Scratch's recent third installment, I recalled an review I read as a teenager and went digging around the boxes for two old chestnuts, volumes one and two of the FARMS Review. I'll guess they'll have the last laugh, as it's now revealed my hard-earned money as a teenager went to buy their books. Those trips to the theaters of Europe? Yep, I helped pay for them.

Anyway, I thought I'd give an outline of the polemics of FARMS directed against its own brothers and sisters that might be of use in understanding the historical context and methods of FAIR in their "review" of Brother Meldrum.

As many of you remember, the Church used to have a fireside series called Know Your Religion. One popular installment of this program was Little Known Evidences of the Book of Mormon, by Brent Yorgason. Brent went on to put his lecture in print. Brent of course, like all Chapel Mormons, believes what the prophets have taught and assumes the Hill Cumorah is in New York like Brother Meldrum. A fatel mistake, apparently.

Some highlights of the review by John A. Tvednes,

"[Yorgason] has undertaken a scholarly appraisal of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, he is not well equipped to handle such a task..[should] have asked an expert...could have used a good editor...breaks most of Strunk's rules of style."

And that's just the first paragraph!

"The book is also misnamed"

"First, I shall explain my dismay at reading the rest of the book"

"Yorgason's dogmatic assertions..."

"The back cover describes Yorgason as "an entertaining historical scholar." I would delete the last two words in order to give the statement greater accuracy."

"Historiography is not Mr. Yorgason's strong suit."

Perhaps most insightful into the hubris drunken mind of the apologist is this one,

"He should have referred to the many other articles written on the subject, including the half dozen I have published."

And to sum it up, he offers this crude patronization/insult,

"His testimony is, in fact, the strongest evidence he presents..."

And this, my friends, is likely where FAIR learned how to deal with fellow members of the Church who they disagree with.

Notably, there are two reviews of Yorgason's scholarship in this issue of FROB. The other is by Paul Hoskisson. Interestingly, while Dr. Hoskisson is critical of the book, he finds a way to present his views professionally and sans the personal attacks. Brent Yorgason was cruel to no one, he did not deserve a brutal hacking. The difference? Hoskisson was doing a Book Review, Tvedness was doing apologetics.

Wow! That is quite an embarrassment for Tvedtnes, who by now has become well-known as a spiteful gossipmongerer and a foul-mouthed "hatchet man." And I notice, Gad, that in the early installments of FROB, the apologists could have opted for either of two paths: the scholarly, respectable path of reviewing books in earnest, or the "belligerent" path of the apologists as we know them. Well, I think it's quite clear that they chose to follow the aggressive, arrogant, snot-nose approach that was pioneered in part by J. Tvedtnes.

On a sidenote: I am kind of interested where Tvedtnes published this "half dozen articles." If it was in some other FARMS publication, I'm going to have to say that I'm not very impressed. After all, as one of the few fully-paid apologists, that was what he would have been expected to do.

Gadianton wrote:As many of you remember, the Church used to have a fireside series called Know Your Religion. One popular installment of this program was Little Known Evidences of the Book of Mormon, by Brent Yorgason.

So Tvedtnes was putting the hatchet to the book form of a presentation endorsed by the church? Wow.

John Tvedtnes wrote:"He should have referred to the many other articles written on the subject, including the half dozen I have published."

ROTFLMFAO!! Does this guy's hubris know no bounds??

Thanks, Gadianton, for giving me the best laugh I've had all day!

Scratch wrote:Well, I think it's quite clear that they chose to follow the aggressive, arrogant, snot-nose approach that was pioneered in part by J. Tvedtnes.

Indeed. But you know, I spent some time in volume one of the FROB tonight. I'll have a review of it available later this week. I really have to honestly think about what I'm reading. This old chestnut contains some fascinating sub-chestnuts. The fury of L-skinny definitely remains latent within its pages.

As you mentioned, it would seem that FARMS had the choice of going down two paths in the early days. I'll explain this better later, but for now, I'll just say the project of FARMS in volume one is terrifying and ensured its doom. But the manner in which this project was carried out actually bordered on respectable. It would seem to me that how FARMS originated only carried a strong hint of what was to come to pass, and history could have happened a different way. The forces of "good" could have won it, it would seem. But alas, it was not to be.

Shades wrote:So Tvedtnes was putting the hatchet to the book form of a presentation endorsed by the church? Wow.

Shades, volume one of the FROB which I have discovered anew tonight makes it clear that FARMS burst on the scene in an attempt at an apologetic coup. More on this forthcoming. It has become clear to me that FARMS originated to stamp out Chapel Mormonism, not to wage war on critics, a task for which it evolved and retooled for.

Shades wrote:ROTFLMFAO!! Does this guy's hubris know no bounds??

An appropriate question. I believe the answer is, "No". But his strong personality likely plays a key role in the evolution of FARMS. More on this later, but this review I cited which is near the end of volume 2 is the first outright hatchet job.

Shades wrote:Thanks, Gadianton, for giving me the best laugh I've had all day!

No Shades, thank you, for reading my humble contribution.

Who could be hateful to the man who wrote Chester, I Love You?

As a little girl I read that book and sobbed and sobbed, heartbroken from chapter one about the distant, but sure day poor Chester would end up as the main course of Mr. Larson's Thanksgiving dinner.

I read a few other books by Yorgason, but the one I remember best is Chester, I Love You. With an opus like that, who cares what he wrote about evidences of the Book of Mormon?

;)

Kimberly Ann

Speaking of volume 1 of RBBM, I've always wondered how Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet reacted to Louis Midgley's review of their Book of Mormon commentary.

KimberlyAnn wrote:Who could be hateful to the man who wrote Chester, I Love You?

As a little girl I read that book and sobbed and sobbed, heartbroken from chapter one about the distant, but sure day poor Chester would end up as the main course of Mr. Larson's Thanksgiving dinner.

I read a few other books by Yorgason, but the one I remember best is Chester, I Love You. With an opus like that, who cares what he wrote about evidences of the Book of Mormon?

;)

Kimberly Ann

You know Kim, it sounds like Brent Yorgason has a big heart, just like Chester from his story. How would he have known that his book foreshadowed his own fate at the hands of the apologists?

Tom wrote:Speaking of volume 1 of RBBM, I've always wondered how Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet reacted to Louis Midgley's review of their Book of Mormon commentary.

Tom, you're a sneaky devil. I do have a question for you, as one who seems to have kept up on "The Review". How often are books like McConkie's given "the treatment" in current editions?

What I see is a "turf war". I think the scholars are trying to remove the influence the self-taught, non-academics types like Meldrum, Yorgason and others have on the LDS population, that challenge the scholar positions.

While they may think their actions, are well-intentioned, and I'm certain they have a long list of reasons for going after these people, I am skeptical that this doesn't come down to plain pride and competition.

It seems that FAIR/FARMS have been quite agressive in attacking these others they are practically labeling "snake oil salesmen" and working to discredit them. While I don't agree with Meldrum' opinions, I believe he has as much right as the scholars to push his theories--not in church meetings, but he has the right to write books and sell DVDs, as much as the academics have to write their books and make their documentaries.

I say, let the members decide who makes a better case for their theories. And I say that LDS should be very careful about contending with other LDS. If they want to point out the problems with Meldrum's research, then do it carefully, without questioning the man's loyalty to the church--a cheap tactic that should not be stooped to.