Austin Farrer and Internal Polemics in the LDS Community

[_Johannes]

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.

So I understand. The thing that struck me was that DCP has quoted from possibly the most lightweight thing that Farrer ever wrote. I expect Farrer would prefer to be remembered for, say, his philosophical discussion of the problem of free will.

On the broader issue, I sincerely believe that DCP is a decent fellow who is genuinely tone deaf when it comes to polemics. I think he's a good man who effortlessly rubs people up the wrong way. It's not an uncommon phenomenon.

[_Kishkumen]

So I understand. The thing that struck me was that DCP has quoted from possibly the most lightweight thing that Farrer ever wrote. I expect Farrer would prefer to be remembered for, say, his philosophical discussion of the problem of free will.

Well, that isn't uncommon either. I have noticed that the bits apologists pick up from here or there can come from practically anywhere, regardless of how inconsequential it may be. DCP is a quote miner, and he has been shown on numerous occasions to misuse his quotes.

On the broader issue, I sincerely believe that DCP is a decent fellow who is genuinely tone deaf when it comes to polemics. I think he's a good man who effortlessly rubs people up the wrong way. It's not an uncommon phenomenon.

Yes, well, I don't know how to respond to that, exactly. People say this. And, I think everyone involved wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the culture of classic-FARMS was in some ways truly toxic. I was threatened with regard to my employment by more than one of the FARMS scholars. I am truly lucky that I, unlike some unfortunate others, did not suffer more on account of their vigilante methods. (To my knowledge, they never followed through on their threats in my case.) And I truly think there is a vigilante spirit to what they do. It is an unfortunate hold over from the days of the Whistling and Whittling Brigade in old Nauvoo.

If they feel like you are messing with their view of Mormonism, they have no compunction about making you feel uncomfortable until you stop. It is akin to those "Squirrel Busters" in the Scientology community, who go around harassing ex-Scientologist critics.

[_Johannes]

Well, that isn't uncommon either. I have noticed that the bits apologists pick up from here or there can come from practically anywhere, regardless of how inconsequential it may be. DCP is a quote miner, and he has been shown on numerous occasions to misuse his quotes.

Is that right? I'd be interested to know more.

Yes, well, I don't know how to respond to that, exactly. People say this. And, I think everyone involved wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the culture of classic-FARMS was in some ways truly toxic. I was threatened with regard to my employment by more than one of the FARMS scholars. I am truly lucky that I, unlike some unfortunate others, did not suffer more on account of their vigilante methods. (To my knowledge, they never followed through on their threats in my case.) And I truly think there is a vigilante spirit to what they do. It is an unfortunate hold over from the days of the Whistling and Whittling Brigade in old Nauvoo.

Oh, it's not just a Mormon thing. These people are endemic in other churches too. The trick is to find something for them to do that will keep them busy. If I has been DCP's bishop in the heyday of FARMS, I would very probably have discerned that Heavenly Father was calling him to spend a good solid few years as the ward Primary teacher.

I'm very sorry that threats were made against your employment, though. Very bad show.

[_Kishkumen]

Is that right? I'd be interested to know more.

One of the more notable instances around here was MrStak's dismantling of DCP's reading of Camus. I'll try to dig it up.

The trick is to find something for them to do that will keep them busy. If I has been DCP's bishop in the heyday of FARMS, I would very probably have discerned that Heavenly Father was calling him to spend a good solid few years as the ward Primary teacher.

Yes, well, I don't believe that would have been sufficient. What was required was direct intervention by his priesthood leaders telling him to cut it out. It is unfortunate but perhaps telling that such a thing never occurred. In any case, he has held demanding callings and that never stopped him from making time to do these things.

I'm very sorry that threats were made against your employment, though. Very bad show.

In retrospect I don't hold it to have been very serious. At the time I thought it was harassment and bullying that I did not need as someone who was going through a rigorous review process. Thankfully they either did not follow through on their threats of contacting my superiors at work, or my superiors were contacted and they didn't care. I know of other cases when people have had their employers or educational administrators contacted by LDS apologists. I think there are only a couple of instances in which it was not flatly laughed off by a rather bemused employer or administrator.

[_Kishkumen]

I know this is one of the posts that was related to the Camus incident:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=497277#p497277

[_Johannes]

Interesting. He succeeded in making Camus' point a great deal less interesting than it actually was.

Repeatedly denouncing theological opponents to their employers is extraordinary behaviour (although more understandable, if not acceptable, if the employer was an LDS organisation like BYU). I suppose it's the lack of boundaries in these people's behaviour that makes it disturbing - and maybe there is something specifically Mormon in that.

[_Kishkumen]

Repeatedly denouncing theological opponents to their employers is extraordinary behaviour (although more understandable, if not acceptable, if the employer was an LDS organisation like BYU). I suppose it's the lack of boundaries in these people's behaviour that makes it disturbing - and maybe there is something specifically Mormon in that.

Certainly informing on fellow employees was very much a part of BYU culture. Even Bill Hamblin found that he was being secretly recorded at one point. But that is BYU, and it amazed me that FARMS apologists would contact non-LDS employers as though intra-community religious disagreements should have any bearing on a person's employment.

I don't know that it is uniquely Mormon, but it may be more common among groups that feel their fringe status particularly strongly. I don't think the Scientology comparison is at all unfair.

[_Johannes]

Even Bill Hamblin found that he was being secretly recorded at one point.

Well, even Parsons in 1984 tripped up in the end.....

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've read a report that Dr. Peterson used the tragic suicide of an ex-Mormon to score points in his FAIR Conference talk--i.e., by suggesting that people are better off being religious. If this is true, it's appalling.

[_Gadianton]

Taking a bit of a contrarian position here, I don't think we can totally dismiss Boyce's work just because Mason and Hardy are decent blokes. The question is the relative strength Boyce gives to the LDS community. Recall that the church Boyce is defending is the same church that is against social progress on every level and charges well-meaning people 10% of their gross income for nothing in return. If I recall correctly Runtu (?) made a statement a while back indicating BKP would have a good laugh at the Saints behind closed doors occasionally. From a bird's-eye view, there is no major disconnect I can see between Boyce and a proper defense of the Church -- his voice is one I'd expect.

If belief in fundamentals is eroding, and if Boyce is breathing the fire of the Lord back into the souls of the Saints, then who can fault him, from the internal perspective of growing the Church and its power?

The problem here, if I were a business analyst sitting in a policy room filled with GAs trying to figure out how to keep the Saints from jumping ship while extracting high tithes, is that it's not obvious what direction to go. Givens, Hardy, and Mason in my opinion are apologists, and they are apologists offering "rational" defenses of the Church, they are just working within somewhat alternative frameworks. What DCP either misses or wishes to ignore is that it's not a settled matter on what defense of the Church is best. Hugh Nibley unquestionably did lots of good, but was FARMS ever really able to maintain his momentum? All things considered, I would venture Sorenson's work is the most serious empirical effort to defend Mormon scripture as the historical work it claims to be. Were people buying it? Didn't really seem to catch on, and apparently the Brethren weren't all that attached to it or they could snap fingers and restore the MI to it's past glory.

Can the new MI keep the rising generation intellectually occupied as devout members? I have no idea. It's sort of an experiment, a badly needed one, and one that probably has far more potential than the Old Guard give it. It has some real challenges though, like, not everyone thinks postmodernism is a good defense to begin with, and even if it is, I have a hard time seeing it resonate with the average member. It's much easier for a member to link the genius antiquarian Hugh Nibley with accessible discoveries that prove the Book of Mormon and feel comfortable the Church is on target with its claims.

Which brings me to what I feel is the most crucial point, and one that might be overlooked -- charisma. At the end of the day, the man or woman who best defends whatever is core to Mormonism such that members quit leaving needs charisma. Look at Rod Meldrum. It doesn't matter if his efforts are a little hokey, he's a real force to content with and has quite a following. Reconnecting with family over the last few years and I've been treated to several references to Meldrum. I doubt any of these people are aware of DCP, or Givens, or Bushman. Certainly they don't have any idea about Mason or Hardy. And Meldrum's right-wing friendly paradigm has the benefit that, from what I gather, his followers are so into the excitement of a "movement" they really couldn't care less about what critics say and perhaps don't really grasp what critics say. In fact, Meldrum seems to have created an identity out of saving faithful Book of Mormon scholarship from church intellectuals (FARMS) -- external critics are way out there in never land. That's a respectable feat. He has generated a positive element of excitement and discovery and he has created a climate where "criticism" just feels foreign, allowing him to evade it altogether.

A big problem with the post-Mopologetic Interpreter is a major lack of charisma. Even if they have a right-wing friendly message in the same realm of Meldrum's and have some potential, the whole hatchet-shop mentality just doesn't have wide or deep appeal -- oh it appeals to a certain element. But can you imagine a conference as big as one of Meldrum's where the mainstay is trashing Mason and Givens? FARMS hasn't had a strong frontman since Nibley. They've had plenty of sarcastic teen personalities making noise, and a few heavy-hitters behind the scenes doing pretty technical work that just fails to connect.

Now, I realize I said Meldrum has pitted himself against FARMS, but it's totally different -- "here are things modern church intellectuals have said -- can you believe it? Best to speak in hushed tones about these things and not dwell on them at length." He keeps the devil in the shadows, you know he's there, but the thrust is all the positive work and excitement of discovery.

Meldrum wins hands down with a big following and he's rooted in exciting big discoveries (kind of like Nibley), but is it a big passing fad? The new MI has a fresh approach that has gained respectability and put a modern face on what it means to be a Mormon intellectual, but can it really appeal to the broader membership? Interpreter rises from a movement with a long track record of traditional defenses (among other things), but the bar might be too high for accomplishing the empirical defense they wish to give and they have a fundamental lack of charisma. And so while they are a proven brand, having survived decades, it's been with relatively little growth of popularity.