DiscussMormonism.com

The following is a quote from a comment on T&S made by Blake Ostler to Steve Smith. Link to OP: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/06/guest-post-why-i-find-developments-at-the-maxwell-institute-concerning/

I include it here since it amazingly happens to capture what I consider the worst aspects of DCP-style apologetics AND the mainstream bloggernacle all in one post:

1- Over-reliance on philosophy (see the last pargraph). I am a history guy myself so I apologize to those more philosophically inclined on this board, but I have dabbled enough in philosophy to learn that (i) I prefer Aristotle to Plato, (ii) way too many philosophers since Plato have assumed that those who don't like or engage in philosophy are stupid and (iii) philosophers are very good at using lots of big words like a smoke screen.

2- Parallelomania: a favorite tactic for FARMS types going back to Hugh Nibley. Grant Palmer also suffers from the same affliction. It's actually quite widespread among biblical scholars as well (the term was not coined by a Mormon).

3- Insult the intelligence of the questioner (see the first sentence).

I could see immediately with your response to form critical elements in the Book of Mormon that I identified that you do not possess the background to assess these issues when you called such forms mere “parallels” with the Bible. A form is not a mere parallel. A form functions in a particular life- or ritual-setting and is presented in a particular order to fulfill its function. That is true of form critical prophetic calls and covenant renewal rites and is especially true of legal procedures. No one in Joseph Smith’s day had written about any of the forms that I have identified nor even had a clue about form criticism to detect them. Suggesting that such ordered forms in that fit their function in the correct situation are mere parallels is to miss what they reveal altogether.

Thus, it isn’t a fact that there is no evidence to support the Book of Mormon historicity — as you attempt to make it appear; nor is it a matter that only a conspiracy theorist would put the “evidence” together in this wild manner as with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Rather it is a matter of properly assessing the evidence and providing a theory or theories that best accounts for all of the evidence. Rather than an either entirely modern or entirely ancient text, the evidence of the Book of Mormon suggests an ancient text that has been moderated through a 19th century commentator. In this case, there is strong evidence of antiquity based on the text itself.

We have’t found strong archaeological evidence in MesoAmerica — but I would ask what the likelihood is that there should be such evidence if what the Book of Mormon claims is true? The problem ve is that there simply is no way to answer that question. Without knowing the answer to that question, we don’t know if the lack of evidence is evidence of lack of evidence where there should be some. What we do know is that views of pre-Columbian America have been modified often and drastically within the last 20 years — and that we have not excavated most of the known sites. So I suggest that the issue remains scientifically tentative and leaves room for faith. However, the evidence strongly supports an ancient ur-text based on the forms and rituals evidenced in the Book of Mormon.

What that means is that FARMS has employed a very acceptable paradigm. It assesses the evidence without assuming that it is impossible that the Book of Mormon is a modern production by Joseph Smith. However, for every non-Mormon review of the Book of Mormon the assumption of modern origin is so controlling that there could not possibly be any evidence for antiquity. The mere assumption determines what can count as evidence.

This is not an issue of post-modern philosophy. It is an issue squarely addressed within the tradition of analytic philosophy and how assumptions and paradigms such as methodological naturalism control what we can possibly detect based on evidence and what we must not consider as evidence based on mere unproven and very questionable assumptions.

I could see immediately with your response to form critical elements in the Book of Mormon that I identified that you do not possess the background to assess these issues when you called such forms mere “parallels” with the Bible.

What a poorly written, train wreck of an attempt to write a sentence. I stopped reading at that point. If what he has to say is important for others to read, then he can give his composition the effort to achieve clarity that the topic demands.

I thought this part of Bohn's piece was a guffaw-worthy understatement:

Peterson’s approach to scholarly apologetics may not be for everyone, particularly since his writing can occasionally have an edge to it. But Peterson, whom I know and respect, is an honest and dedicated academic who engages in high-quality scholarship focused on defending the foundations of the Church and its beliefs. I cannot help but believe that Peterson’s limitless energy and clear integrity will be sorely missed in his former capacities at the Institute. The same can be said of people like Jack Welch, Louis Midgley, Bill Hamblin, George Mitton and others who have either been dismissed or marginalized as a result of changes presently occurring at the Institute

Occasionally? Ha! Dear me.

I definitely agree with Steve Smith:

2) It ruthlessly criticized fellow LDS whose goals were not necessarily attack the church but merely try to understand it in a different light. These include Grant Palmer, Rod Meldrum, and John Dehlin (had he not made an appeal to a GA to intervene). I thought these attacks were unbecoming for an institution that was indirectly supported by tithing (since it was supported by tithing-funded BYU).

Here's a reasonable fellow:

Jim F wrote:Jim F on June 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I have hoped not to get into this fracas, particularly since the principles are people I count as friends.

But I’m going to make an exception to point out that what happened is not a change “that re-directs the Institute’s focus away from apologetics and Mormon-centered research and toward a more generic emphasis on religious scholarship.” Reading the Institute’s announcement (http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/news/in ... &type=news) shows that this is not announced as a change in the Institute’s mission or focus.

Instead it is a change in one of the Institute’s publications. The announcement says that the change is to help the Institute to “align its work with the academy’s highest objectives and standards.” Lots of people are reading the tea leaves to figure out what that means, some with unjustified glee, others with self-righteous indignation.

The truth, however, is that no one knows exactly why Dan was let go as editor. All reasons are conjectural, even if there is evidence to support them. But whatever we might be able to reasonably conjecture about the Institute asking Dan to step down, everything everyone is saying about what the Mormon Studies Review will now become is complete conjecture without the benefit of any facts at all. The announcement of the change is sufficiently vague that it could portend a completely new kind of journal or one with only a minor change in emphasis.

Lots of people are using this event to leverage their particular position within Mormon intellectual discussions, but that’s what most of what is going on amounts to, political spin (spinning a lever!).

I suggest that we wait and see before we jump on any bandwagons.

Kishkumen wrote:What a poorly written, train wreck of an attempt to write a sentence. I stopped reading at that point. If what he has to say is important for others to read, then he can give his composition the effort to achieve clarity that the topic demands.

It was almost Droopyesque in its opacity.

Kishkumen wrote:Here's a reasonable fellow:

Jim F wrote:Jim F on June 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I have hoped not to get into this fracas, particularly since the principles are people I count as friends.

But I’m going to make an exception to point out that what happened is not a change “that re-directs the Institute’s focus away from apologetics and Mormon-centered research and toward a more generic emphasis on religious scholarship.” Reading the Institute’s announcement (http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/news/in ... &type=news) shows that this is not announced as a change in the Institute’s mission or focus.

Instead it is a change in one of the Institute’s publications. The announcement says that the change is to help the Institute to “align its work with the academy’s highest objectives and standards.” Lots of people are reading the tea leaves to figure out what that means, some with unjustified glee, others with self-righteous indignation.

The truth, however, is that no one knows exactly why Dan was let go as editor. All reasons are conjectural, even if there is evidence to support them. But whatever we might be able to reasonably conjecture about the Institute asking Dan to step down, everything everyone is saying about what the Mormon Studies Review will now become is complete conjecture without the benefit of any facts at all. The announcement of the change is sufficiently vague that it could portend a completely new kind of journal or one with only a minor change in emphasis.

Lots of people are using this event to leverage their particular position within Mormon intellectual discussions, but that’s what most of what is going on amounts to, political spin (spinning a lever!).

I suggest that we wait and see before we jump on any bandwagons.

That would be Jim Falcouner and I have always found him to be an eminently reasonable fellow . . . which is amazing given the fact that he is a philosopher. Note that later on DCP chimes in to challenge him.

I find myself mostly agreeing with this guy:

themormonbrit wrote:I must agree with Raymond. I am pleased to see that the Maxwell Institute is planning on broadening their horizons and adding another important dimension of religious scholarship to their work, one that is focused more on simply generic religious scholarship. I think this is something we sorely need more of, particularly from a Mormon perspective.

However, I also think the Maxwell Institute made a big mistake in getting rid of Peterson and the others you mentioned. While I often find Peterson’s approach, and the FARMS approach in general, to be somewhat unsatsifying and occasionally distasteful for me personally at this point in my life, there was a time when their work was invaluable for me, in helping me deal with certain concerns I have. At the very least, they do their best to come up with convincing arguments (admittedly, sometimes they fail) that are often of great help to those with questions regarding their faith.

In a way, they could be compared to a criminal trial. The role of a lawyer is not to convince the judge of their own views. Often, a defence attorney will personally think that it is likely that the defendant is guilty. His job is not to tell the judge that. His job is to try and scrounge together the best evidence and make the best case he can for the defence. Same deal with the prosecutor. This enables the judge to then evaluate the evidence and decide which is more convincing.

I see Peterson and FARMS as being somewhat equivalent to the LDS Church’s ‘defence lawyer’. Not because they have doubts about the church’s claims, but because I don’t see their role as being the same as that of a regular scholar. They are given a position to try and defend. Their role (like that of an attorney) is not to discover the truth. That is for people on faith journeys to do. It is merely to scrounge together the best evidence they can, and come up with the best case possible. Similarly, I believe anti-mormon writers have a responsibility to scrounge together the best evidence they can, and come up with the best case possible to support their position. It is then for us to act as the judge, evaluate the arguments, and come to a conclusion ourselves.

So perhaps what FARMS does cannot really be classified as objective scholarship. Perhaps it is really closer to advocacy. But I don’t see this as a bad thing. The more arguments laid before us, the more likely it is that we will come to the truth. If there are genuinely strong arguments that never see the light of day because no-one is willing to advocate them, then our conclusions will be lacking key information, and thus will be less reliable.

My major point of disagreement with this fellow is in the idea that BYU is an appropriate venue to carry on this kind of advocacy. It may or may not be. He seems to think it is.

This whole mess has had one tangible effect: it has brought out some stunningly bad writing from some quarters.

Prof. P. chimes in:

Jim F., I have solid and direct reason to believe that the new direction being charted by the Institute omits anything that most Latter-day Saints would recognize as apologetics. (If that isn’t the case, then I’m at a loss to see precisely where my position and Jerry Bradford’s clashed, and why some sort of emergency intervention was thought so necessary that it had to be carried out suddenly, mid-volume, and at the virtually certain risk of alienating supporters and major donors and of subjecting me, personally, to extraordinary, massive, personal defamation and humiliation across the Internet. After all, I’m not the least bit opposed to Mormon studies. Quite the contrary.) And, at a very minimum, there is the incontrovertible fact that the Review, which has long represented the Institute’s apologetic aspect at its most explicit, has been put on indefinite hiatus. Given that the Institute’s publication of books has dwindled to virtually nothing, it’s difficult to see exactly where the “new course’s” apologetics efforts are going to appear, now that the Review is gone.

(Note: I’m currently in Austria, and will be out of the States for the next three weeks or so, with only sporadic and sometimes expensive access to the Internet, so I’m unlikely to be able to participated in any sustained conversation, here or elsewhere, online.)

LOL!!! I love the last part. He has been able to blog consistently, but he is unlikely to be able to participate in this discussion.

I have a suggestion as to the whys of his replacement: you were editor for 23 years, dude.

Punkt.