Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Kishkumen »

So, every now and then I visit "Sic et Non" to see what is going on in the world of apologetics from the perspective of Dr. Peterson. Today I saw an entry on the publication of the final installment of Dr. Duane Boyce's poor contribution attacking the writings of Terryl Givens, Grant Hardy, and Patrick Mason. And, I could not but help being struck by the irony of the entirety of Dr. Peterson's entry. On the one hand, he announces the publication of a pretty poor criticism of the writings of faithful LDS scholars. And then on the other hand he reminisces about the history of FARMS up to the present:

Throughout its existence until 2012, those who led and contributed to what began as the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and eventually became the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship operated with something of an unofficial motto, drawn from an essay by the Anglican theologian and philosopher Austin Farrer, a close friend of C. S. Lewis — it was Farrer who took the last sacraments to Lewis just before the latter’s death — as well as of J. R. R. Tolkien and Dorothy Sayers. It was a great favorite of Elder Neal A. Maxwell — see, for example, “Elder Neal A. Maxwell on Consecration, Scholarship, and the Defense of the Kingdom” — and it’s a great favorite of mine, as well:

“Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” (Austin Farrer, “Grete Clerk,” in Light On C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb [New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1965], 26.

I don’t know that the current Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship views itself in these terms any more. But I’m confident that FairMormon, and the Interpreter Foundation and Book of Mormon Central and Brian and Laura Hales — see LDS Perspectives and Joseph Smith’s Polygamy — do regard their missions in very much that light. In my judgment, they’re trying to move the original FARMS vision forward.


Now, these two parts of the post are clearly related to each other. On the one hand, Peterson is announcing what he knows has become a quite contentious series of articles. These articles have been greeted with much deserved criticism and unhappiness from some quarters (including me). And, I think that there is an implicit apologia for their publication in the second part of the post, the history of FARMS.

But, here's the thing, I don't believe it is at all accurate to say that the mission to defend LDS belief from external criticism has much to do with words of Austin Farrer. Austin Farrer's words, quoted by Peterson above, have mostly to do with defending the faith from its external critics. And, one can arguably extend them to their application to dissidents and internal critics.

I think, however, that it is a huge stress to apply Farrer's sentiment to the pieces written by Dr. Boyce. Think of this: In a Church that has no catechism, no explicitly articulated system of "right belief," Boyce has taken up the role of guardian of orthodoxy. Is there a Mormon orthodoxy? Only in a very general sense, as in: In keeping with the teachings of the modern prophets. But Boyce goes way beyond that, and his criticisms have been shown to be flawed.

So, I ask: Even if we grant that Farrer's words persuade us that there must be apologia for LDS belief, do they apply to the task of voluntarily criticizing fellow members for the sake of protecting the perceived orthodoxy of the critic?

I say, "No." And this is a real problem. DCP seems to associate these two tasks--apologia and the unofficial guarding of doctrinal purity--either explicitly or implicitly. It is as if he is saying to others, "Well, you may not like our publication of Boyce, but what we do is real important and someone needs to do it." OK. Sure. Arguably, someone needs to defend Mormon faith. That does not include, however, doing what Boyce has done. And I think it is misleading to publish Boyce on the basis of Farrer's charge to believers.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Kishkumen wrote:Think of this: In a Church that has no catechism, no explicitly articulated system of "right belief," Boyce has taken up the role of guardian of orthodoxy.


As a side note, such arguments as DCP and Boyce are making also imply that prophets and apostles are not sources one can use to settle internal differences.

What is it a prophet does again?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _I have a question »

I may be reading the situation wrong, but it seems to me that Mormon Apologists, in the wake of Hamblins utter (and simple) annihilation by Jenkins, have retreated to fighting the Bogey Man that is Runnells or to picking holes in each other's apologetic efforts.

Looks to me like an ever-decreasing circle.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Kishkumen »

I have a question wrote:I may be reading the situation wrong, but it seems to me that Mormon Apologists, in the wake of Hamblins utter (and simple) annihilation by Jenkins, have retreated to fighting the Bogey Man that is Runnells or to picking holes in each other's apologetic efforts.

Looks to me like an ever-decreasing circle.


Yes. And, hey, I can understand them picking apart, Runnells. They have utterly failed to understand and deal with the real problem Runnells represents, but I can't fault them for giving it their best shot. I may fault them for how they go about it, particularly the obvious stop-gap declarations of victory or smearing of Runnells that resound with the echos of their obvious failures and impotence, but, yeah, I see why they go after Runnells.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand the benefit of tactlessly declaring Givens, Hardy, and Mason "dangers" to Mormon intellectual discourse. That one baffles me. I can imagine a series of articles in which Boyce declared his substantive differences with their thought, and showed, using accurate readings of their material, where he differed and what the stakes might be. Politely, mind you. But Boyce's stuff read like a ham-handed attempt to raise an alarm of real peril, and he implicitly staked out his position as the savior of true doctrinal purity and intellectual rigor. Not only is that kind of sad, but it looks ridiculous.

And one wonders why it should be deemed acceptable to behave so tactlessly and insultingly to fellows in the faith.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _I have a question »

Kishkumen wrote:
I have a question wrote:I may be reading the situation wrong, but it seems to me that Mormon Apologists, in the wake of Hamblins utter (and simple) annihilation by Jenkins, have retreated to fighting the Bogey Man that is Runnells or to picking holes in each other's apologetic efforts.

Looks to me like an ever-decreasing circle.


Yes. And, hey, I can understand them picking apart, Runnells. They have utterly failed to understand and deal with the real problem Runnells represents, but I can't fault them for giving it their best shot. I may fault them for how they go about it, particularly the obvious stop-gap declarations of victory or smearing of Runnells that resound with the echos of their obvious failures and impotence, but, yeah, I see why they go after Runnells.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand the benefit of tactlessly declaring Givens, Hardy, and Mason "dangers" to Mormon intellectual discourse. That one baffles me. I can imagine a series of articles in which Boyce declared his substantive differences with their thought, and showed, using accurate readings of their material, where he differed and what the stakes might be. Politely, mind you. But Boyce's stuff read like a ham-handed attempt to raise an alarm of real peril, and he implicitly staked out his position as the savior of true doctrinal purity and intellectual rigor. Not only is that kind of sad, but it looks ridiculous.

And one wonders why it should be deemed acceptable to behave so tactlessly and insultingly to fellows in the faith.


I believe the technical term for what Boyce produced, and Peterson published, is "Hit Piece".
Are Givens, Hardy and Mason such a threat to the apologetic style of Peterson et al such that he would promote something as shoddily put together as the Boyce stuff? Do Givens, Hardy and Mason represent the new NAMIRS that Peterson cannot bring himself to appreciate? Is it now Interpreter vs NAMIRS?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Kishkumen »

I don't know, IHAQ. I really don't understand. All I can say is that it is possible Boyce is a friend of DCP's whom DCP respects and simply would/could not refuse to publish. On the other hand, I know that DCP has sour grapes about Mormon Studies and its role in the changes at Maxwell. While I am not sure I would go so far as to say that publishing Boyce is an overt reaction to those events, I can't help but see it aligning with his overall view of that history.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Tom
_Emeritus
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Tom »

I notice that Dr. Peterson has opined a bit more on Boyce's articles. At the same time, Dr. Peterson can't bring himself to identify what those "important points" and "important warnings" are. I'm not surprised.

I like Grant Hardy, Patrick Mason, and Terryl Givens very much, and I like their work.

I also like to include a variety of approaches and voices in Interpreter -- we don't have a rigid party line -- and I think open discussion is a very good thing.

Furthermore, I thought that Duane Boyce's article makes some important points, sounds some important warnings, and contains some very interesting material.

Moreover, it passed our peer review process -- with which I'm not even directly involved.

Had our peer reviewers regarded it as worthless junk, it would not have appeared. Had I thought so, it would not have appeared. Had our managing editor thought so, it would not have appeared.

Some bright readers have liked it very much. Others have not. On the whole, I think it's generating a valuable conversation. That doesn't upset me.

If Duane Boyce is taken to argue that the work of Hardy, Mason, and Givens is wholly without merit and dangerous, I disagree with him. I don't take him to be arguing that.
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
_Johannes
_Emeritus
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:50 am

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Johannes »

Things I thought I would never see: Austin Farrer quoted on a Mormon message board......

Farrer is a largely forgotten figure in the Church of England today, but he was a major scholar in his time. May he rest in peace. I find it amusing to contemplate what he would make of the output of Classic FARMS.

That quote, by the way, appears to have been taken from a relatively lightweight essay on C. S. Lewis, rather than one of Rev. Farrer's more intellectually challenging works (of which he wrote many).
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Kishkumen »

So, am I surprised in the least. What to say?

Look, Peterson has spent years cultivating a community that is fine with this kind of material. So, it really says nothing to me that other people agree with him. Big surprise. If you build it, they will come. And he has been suffered to smear the names of decent people for decades. So, he feels like he is alright in doing this stuff. Hell, thanks to LDS.org he feels positively vindicated.

But, it just doesn't jibe with the spirit of Christlike love for people to be dumping on each other in this way, even if it is done with a veneer or under the appearance of "scholarship." This was the FARMS dodge for years. They presented themselves as the smart professors who were correcting those silly apostates. Except, they very often got it wrong. And they ended up tarnishing the reputations of decent people. So, harm was done.

These articles must necessarily be read in that context. I don't care if Peterson thinks this stuff is OK. His opinion on that ought not to be trusted. Anyone who thinks this is fine ought not to be trusted in their opinion. Trust more measured voices like Kevin Christensen and Jeff Lindsay. They seem closer to getting the problems this sort of material represents.

When it comes to having a proper sense of restraint on this kind of thing, Peterson is like a recovering alcoholic who is on the verge of liver failure.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

Post by _Kishkumen »

Johannes wrote:Things I thought I would never see: Austin Farrer quoted on a Mormon message board......

Farrer is a largely forgotten figure in the Church of England today, but he was a major scholar in his time. May he rest in peace. I find it amusing to contemplate what he would make of the output of Classic FARMS.

That quote, by the way, appears to have been taken from a relatively lightweight essay on C. S. Lewis, rather than one of Rev. Farrer's more intellectually challenging works (of which he wrote many).


Well, Mormons tend to view C.S. Lewis and anything connected to him with a kind of reverence. It is as though the world of Lewis were on the edge of canonical.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply