Twenty Years Later, an Old Chestnut gets the Review
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:42 am
The following is a "review" of FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon Volume 1
Project "Creepy Dossier"
A desperate FARMS executive makes a phone call from his office to a colleague of unknown location.
"Doctor, we need to have a sit down."
"Yes, yes indeed."
"There are -- problems -- as you know."
"Yes, yes indeed."
"I'm in favor, the discussions regarding a more formalized review..."
"Yeess...?"
"We should proceed. Look, we need to take control. Now! do you understand?"
"Indeed. indeed!"
By the mid 1980s, the plethora of Church publications by lay church members, scholars, and officials alike was expanding exponentially. The critics had been just as busy. And for years, a glut in answers to perplexing gospel questions had loomed over the face of Mormondom. It was a free for all, one might say, but given the way Mormon personalities quickly rise to cult status, a free for all that could end one day with the wrong figures at the helm. In the view of those sitting at the apologetic roundtable, their own intellectual freedom and popularity as scholars, not to mention the reputation of the institutions they were inexorably linked to was up in the air.
In response to a situation growing more critical every day, the apologists would set the stage for an apologetic coup, where a small group of elite scholars would aim to control the entire intellectual and doctrinal life of the Church. Their product, the reviews of books they'd churn out, would keep tabs on all those with something to say about Mormonism. They'd create a repository of "creepy dossiers" so to speak and effectively establish their own clipping service. The creation of the SCMC years later surely was inspired by the preliminary dossier work done by the apologists in the late 80s. The review would focus on combating the greatest dangers of the year to the apologetic agenda. In year one, the greatest threats were from within the ranks of the *belligerents* and not from the enemy camps of the critics. Today, we will examine the reviews of the two most dangerous books to the apologetic rise of power in the year of the birth of FROB. Books which threatened the popularity of the apologists with their Mormon audience and the viability of their general aspirations to fame and fortune..
Control geography and Ye Shall Dominate Doctrine with a Fist of Iron
The second most important review in this volume is Louis Midgley's angry dismissal of Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet's stately "Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon." The key charge was against the authors' Chapel Mormonism and its sometimes related call to be wary of "looking beyond the mark" by becoming too scholarly with the Book of Mormon's secondary issues such as geography. Tvedtness's later fury over not being quoted by all students of the Book of Mormon surely is representative of the general apologetic sentiment and in revenge, Midgley turns the tables on McConkie's and Millet's general skepticism toward historical scholarship.
Midgley makes a very creative and cunning argument against Chapel Mormonism and one can only speculate as to the magnitude of the Adversary's gleeful reaction over this highly original and sly proposal. He argues that folks like McConkie and "revisionists" such as Mike Quinn are two sides of the same coin. By arguing that geography and historical evidence doesn't matter, it sets the stage for advancing the argument that the Book of Mormon can be true even if Joseph just made it up. Therefore, Midgley undercuts at once the idea that plain and precious truths can ever exist let alone be known by human minds as he ties "doctrine" to
FROB v.1 pg. 93 (paragraph 4 of his review)
This holistic, contextual, and contingent view of doctrine ensures that virtually no one in the church other than FARMS could ever tell us what doctrines are to be found in the Book of Mormon. Eventually, even the apostles and the prophets would have to bow to FARMS. Midgley claimed Hugh Nibley had made advances in this holistic approach, but apparently even he fell short as Midgley does not cite any examples whatsoever of true doctrines discovered through scholarly hermeneutics as opposed to the false "Mormon scholasticism" of McConkie and every LDS instructor's manual ever printed. We may have to wait a long time to hear the true doctrine from FARMS, so in the mean time, we'll be spending thousands of dollars on their books and bank-account-breaking tiered membership programs in order to prepare for the day when our education levels are advanced enough to understand the Good News that Jesus taught the people of Nephi.
The Sacred Parchment in Danger, the Iron Fist Turned to Clay
While McConkie's book was a clear threat to the ruse of the apologists, it was not the most significant threat of that year. As the apologists understood it, both the truthfulness as well as the truths of the Book of Mormon turned on geography. And the most sacred account of the Book of Mormon's geography, as many are aware, was none other than An Ancient American Setting of the Book of Mormon by John Sorenson. So holy it was that the apologists had strictly forbidden anyone to ever review it.* And in 1988, its position was threatened. In fact, I dare say that the FROB originated primarily in a hasty reaction to respond to this danger.
This threat, this stunning event I've been talking about on the board, was none other than the publication of what most here probably haven't even heard of, a book called, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon by F. Richard Hauck. Hauck was an Internet Mormon himself and an avid disciple of Sorenson and the LGT. So what could possibly be the problem? This will remain a matter for further research. But we do know a couple of things about FARMS and its "damage control" mode of operation. And I can tell you that in volume one of the Review, there are 18 books reviewed. Thirteen of those books get one or two sets of eyes and take up barely more than half the book. Five books by Nibley get five pages, for instance. And one book, one solitary book of the title aformentioned, gets three "thumbs down" reviews and takes up the rest of the space. Suffice it to say, John Clark provided the very long technical rejection and Bill Hamblin was brought in for the polemics.
According to Clark, Hauck's sin was to add unto and revise Sorenson's model too much. I mention only one infraction as it is representative of others but stood out from the overwhelming dryness of the debate, wetting my cheeks with tears of joyous laughter. Apparently, Hauck, in order to maintain his model, proposed the "Two Bountiful Theory". And in an irony only topped by Bill Hamblin which we shall review shortly, John Clark dismissed this proposition on the grounds of simplicity and prefered the singular Bountiful model by the authority of "Occam's Razor!"
Entire empires supposedly have split over whether a picture constitutes a graven image. But I think these trivial disputes are backed by far more serious problems. From what I can tell, the apologists are very cliquish, and Hauck had never been part of the "inner circle". Given the depth of his research, he could have gathered a significant following around him to quote his work more often than the output of FARMS. Everything was at stake, as geography controls both the truth and message of the Book of Mormon text and hence, all Mormon doctrine.
And this lone crusader, Hauck, had credentials. A Phd in archaeology for starters and his research was right in line with his Book of Mormon interests. Further, he engaged in extensive Book of Mormon field work, something almost none of the apologists could ever claim. I've provided an interesting link covering his work at the end of this article. Quite frankly, Hauck was more qualified than Sorenson, Clark, Gardner**, and all the others. After all the promotion of the Mesoamerican LGT and the center of control the apologists had won, for someone to end up owning it outside of the royal bloodline was unthinkable. He had to be stopped. And if Clark failed to convince us on logical grounds, Hamblin's theatrics might yet keep FARMS in business.
Professor Hamblin, a layman, could not have expected to add much to Clark's lengthy analysis but he could fuel the outrage. Most instructive about Hamblin's work as shown by Mister Scratch and others, are the first sentences of each of his paragraphs, so our primary consideration of Hamblin's review will be just that. Beginning with his opening paragraph and moving down:
"This is a seriously flawed book.."
"I feel there are several major problems..."
"A related problem..."
"Hauck also makes some grandiose..."
"Hauck's work is also flawed..."
"A dubious assumption..."
"...last sentence manifestly false..."
...
I think the reader quickly gets the idea, the well is so poisoned that she'll fall dead from asphyxiation before ever reaching the door to Deseret Book. But before I close my comments on Hamblin, I promised to mention Hamblin's now world-famous irony. In one place where Hauck makes an archaeological claim Hamblin doesn't think holds water, Hamblin challenges by retorting with a harrassing barrage of rhetorical questions,
FROB v.1 pg. 72 (paragraph 4 of his review)
Let the tears of laughter flow once again my friends!
A Devious Plot Redeemed
Though the project of the apologists to keep the Book of Mormon in all its facets including the doctrines of the entire Church strictly under their control is quickly revealed, I still have to give this volume four out of five stars. After all, the plot was pulled off with incredible skill and in many places, serious argumentation. And the secondary consideration to produce a volume of reviews fulfilled a hungry and valid market nitch. But most notably, one can not help but hold back a feeling of sadness when considering Lavina Fielding Anderson, David P. Wright, Todd Compton, Mark V. Withers, Bill Hamblin, Louis Midgley, and John Welch though all with their various perspectives, stood together that year as brothers and sisters in the Gospel to produce something unique and novel. Perhaps an apologist will one day thumb through this work and soften his heart in consideration of the testament to that kinship which, because of this volume, will never be forgotten.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/article ... tions.html
*There may exist some review before the FROB that very few people know about, or by someone associated with FARMS predating FARMS or done by someone by some means that could be somehow associated with FARMS. Note also that the five books of Nibley's turned over to Compton clearly predate the year of the review and FARMS often reviews works not published in the year of the installment. All attempts to find a review by FARMS of their assumed canon have failed, though I've "stumbled forward" on endless references to the book from apologists. From our volume under review, L. Ara Norwood writes, typically, "Actually, John L. Sorenson's work demonstrates that a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon is very plausible.11" The footnote doesn't cite anything bolstering the claim, but simply references The Book, almost with the confident circularity Christians use to establish the authority of the Bible by its own self-citation.
**Gardner is also growning in popularity and interestingly, his Book of Mormon commentaries have not been reviewed by FROB.
A shout out to the scholar I harrassed for answers to some questions I had. I only asked one so if you're reading this, you know who you are.
Project "Creepy Dossier"
A desperate FARMS executive makes a phone call from his office to a colleague of unknown location.
"Doctor, we need to have a sit down."
"Yes, yes indeed."
"There are -- problems -- as you know."
"Yes, yes indeed."
"I'm in favor, the discussions regarding a more formalized review..."
"Yeess...?"
"We should proceed. Look, we need to take control. Now! do you understand?"
"Indeed. indeed!"
By the mid 1980s, the plethora of Church publications by lay church members, scholars, and officials alike was expanding exponentially. The critics had been just as busy. And for years, a glut in answers to perplexing gospel questions had loomed over the face of Mormondom. It was a free for all, one might say, but given the way Mormon personalities quickly rise to cult status, a free for all that could end one day with the wrong figures at the helm. In the view of those sitting at the apologetic roundtable, their own intellectual freedom and popularity as scholars, not to mention the reputation of the institutions they were inexorably linked to was up in the air.
In response to a situation growing more critical every day, the apologists would set the stage for an apologetic coup, where a small group of elite scholars would aim to control the entire intellectual and doctrinal life of the Church. Their product, the reviews of books they'd churn out, would keep tabs on all those with something to say about Mormonism. They'd create a repository of "creepy dossiers" so to speak and effectively establish their own clipping service. The creation of the SCMC years later surely was inspired by the preliminary dossier work done by the apologists in the late 80s. The review would focus on combating the greatest dangers of the year to the apologetic agenda. In year one, the greatest threats were from within the ranks of the *belligerents* and not from the enemy camps of the critics. Today, we will examine the reviews of the two most dangerous books to the apologetic rise of power in the year of the birth of FROB. Books which threatened the popularity of the apologists with their Mormon audience and the viability of their general aspirations to fame and fortune..
Control geography and Ye Shall Dominate Doctrine with a Fist of Iron
The second most important review in this volume is Louis Midgley's angry dismissal of Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet's stately "Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon." The key charge was against the authors' Chapel Mormonism and its sometimes related call to be wary of "looking beyond the mark" by becoming too scholarly with the Book of Mormon's secondary issues such as geography. Tvedtness's later fury over not being quoted by all students of the Book of Mormon surely is representative of the general apologetic sentiment and in revenge, Midgley turns the tables on McConkie's and Millet's general skepticism toward historical scholarship.
Midgley makes a very creative and cunning argument against Chapel Mormonism and one can only speculate as to the magnitude of the Adversary's gleeful reaction over this highly original and sly proposal. He argues that folks like McConkie and "revisionists" such as Mike Quinn are two sides of the same coin. By arguing that geography and historical evidence doesn't matter, it sets the stage for advancing the argument that the Book of Mormon can be true even if Joseph just made it up. Therefore, Midgley undercuts at once the idea that plain and precious truths can ever exist let alone be known by human minds as he ties "doctrine" to
Midgley wrote:Bushman wrote:...religion, an economy, a technology, a government, a geography, a sociology, all combined into a complete world.
FROB v.1 pg. 93 (paragraph 4 of his review)
This holistic, contextual, and contingent view of doctrine ensures that virtually no one in the church other than FARMS could ever tell us what doctrines are to be found in the Book of Mormon. Eventually, even the apostles and the prophets would have to bow to FARMS. Midgley claimed Hugh Nibley had made advances in this holistic approach, but apparently even he fell short as Midgley does not cite any examples whatsoever of true doctrines discovered through scholarly hermeneutics as opposed to the false "Mormon scholasticism" of McConkie and every LDS instructor's manual ever printed. We may have to wait a long time to hear the true doctrine from FARMS, so in the mean time, we'll be spending thousands of dollars on their books and bank-account-breaking tiered membership programs in order to prepare for the day when our education levels are advanced enough to understand the Good News that Jesus taught the people of Nephi.
The Sacred Parchment in Danger, the Iron Fist Turned to Clay
While McConkie's book was a clear threat to the ruse of the apologists, it was not the most significant threat of that year. As the apologists understood it, both the truthfulness as well as the truths of the Book of Mormon turned on geography. And the most sacred account of the Book of Mormon's geography, as many are aware, was none other than An Ancient American Setting of the Book of Mormon by John Sorenson. So holy it was that the apologists had strictly forbidden anyone to ever review it.* And in 1988, its position was threatened. In fact, I dare say that the FROB originated primarily in a hasty reaction to respond to this danger.
This threat, this stunning event I've been talking about on the board, was none other than the publication of what most here probably haven't even heard of, a book called, Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon by F. Richard Hauck. Hauck was an Internet Mormon himself and an avid disciple of Sorenson and the LGT. So what could possibly be the problem? This will remain a matter for further research. But we do know a couple of things about FARMS and its "damage control" mode of operation. And I can tell you that in volume one of the Review, there are 18 books reviewed. Thirteen of those books get one or two sets of eyes and take up barely more than half the book. Five books by Nibley get five pages, for instance. And one book, one solitary book of the title aformentioned, gets three "thumbs down" reviews and takes up the rest of the space. Suffice it to say, John Clark provided the very long technical rejection and Bill Hamblin was brought in for the polemics.
According to Clark, Hauck's sin was to add unto and revise Sorenson's model too much. I mention only one infraction as it is representative of others but stood out from the overwhelming dryness of the debate, wetting my cheeks with tears of joyous laughter. Apparently, Hauck, in order to maintain his model, proposed the "Two Bountiful Theory". And in an irony only topped by Bill Hamblin which we shall review shortly, John Clark dismissed this proposition on the grounds of simplicity and prefered the singular Bountiful model by the authority of "Occam's Razor!"
Entire empires supposedly have split over whether a picture constitutes a graven image. But I think these trivial disputes are backed by far more serious problems. From what I can tell, the apologists are very cliquish, and Hauck had never been part of the "inner circle". Given the depth of his research, he could have gathered a significant following around him to quote his work more often than the output of FARMS. Everything was at stake, as geography controls both the truth and message of the Book of Mormon text and hence, all Mormon doctrine.
And this lone crusader, Hauck, had credentials. A Phd in archaeology for starters and his research was right in line with his Book of Mormon interests. Further, he engaged in extensive Book of Mormon field work, something almost none of the apologists could ever claim. I've provided an interesting link covering his work at the end of this article. Quite frankly, Hauck was more qualified than Sorenson, Clark, Gardner**, and all the others. After all the promotion of the Mesoamerican LGT and the center of control the apologists had won, for someone to end up owning it outside of the royal bloodline was unthinkable. He had to be stopped. And if Clark failed to convince us on logical grounds, Hamblin's theatrics might yet keep FARMS in business.
Professor Hamblin, a layman, could not have expected to add much to Clark's lengthy analysis but he could fuel the outrage. Most instructive about Hamblin's work as shown by Mister Scratch and others, are the first sentences of each of his paragraphs, so our primary consideration of Hamblin's review will be just that. Beginning with his opening paragraph and moving down:
"This is a seriously flawed book.."
"I feel there are several major problems..."
"A related problem..."
"Hauck also makes some grandiose..."
"Hauck's work is also flawed..."
"A dubious assumption..."
"...last sentence manifestly false..."
...
I think the reader quickly gets the idea, the well is so poisoned that she'll fall dead from asphyxiation before ever reaching the door to Deseret Book. But before I close my comments on Hamblin, I promised to mention Hamblin's now world-famous irony. In one place where Hauck makes an archaeological claim Hamblin doesn't think holds water, Hamblin challenges by retorting with a harrassing barrage of rhetorical questions,
Hamblin wrote:But who predicted it? Where is the modern location? What Book of Mormon site is referred to? Who conducted the archaeological dig? What professional journal published the findings? Who reviewed the findings?...
FROB v.1 pg. 72 (paragraph 4 of his review)
Let the tears of laughter flow once again my friends!
A Devious Plot Redeemed
Though the project of the apologists to keep the Book of Mormon in all its facets including the doctrines of the entire Church strictly under their control is quickly revealed, I still have to give this volume four out of five stars. After all, the plot was pulled off with incredible skill and in many places, serious argumentation. And the secondary consideration to produce a volume of reviews fulfilled a hungry and valid market nitch. But most notably, one can not help but hold back a feeling of sadness when considering Lavina Fielding Anderson, David P. Wright, Todd Compton, Mark V. Withers, Bill Hamblin, Louis Midgley, and John Welch though all with their various perspectives, stood together that year as brothers and sisters in the Gospel to produce something unique and novel. Perhaps an apologist will one day thumb through this work and soften his heart in consideration of the testament to that kinship which, because of this volume, will never be forgotten.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/article ... tions.html
*There may exist some review before the FROB that very few people know about, or by someone associated with FARMS predating FARMS or done by someone by some means that could be somehow associated with FARMS. Note also that the five books of Nibley's turned over to Compton clearly predate the year of the review and FARMS often reviews works not published in the year of the installment. All attempts to find a review by FARMS of their assumed canon have failed, though I've "stumbled forward" on endless references to the book from apologists. From our volume under review, L. Ara Norwood writes, typically, "Actually, John L. Sorenson's work demonstrates that a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon is very plausible.11" The footnote doesn't cite anything bolstering the claim, but simply references The Book, almost with the confident circularity Christians use to establish the authority of the Bible by its own self-citation.
**Gardner is also growning in popularity and interestingly, his Book of Mormon commentaries have not been reviewed by FROB.
A shout out to the scholar I harrassed for answers to some questions I had. I only asked one so if you're reading this, you know who you are.