DCP's "Humble Apologetics"

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Trevor, for the reasonable and charitable letter. I have indeed considered these things, and I continue to consider them.

And I'm not unconcerned when some people whose opinions I respect think that the Review has gone too far. Even when, as I very often do, I disagree. (Of course, I need hardly point out that there are some people whose opinions about me, the Review, and most other things seem to me of no merit whatever.)

I do find, as on message boards, that published wit or irony is often mistaken for malice or anger. I regret that.

Many years ago, a former friend who has left the Church and who has worked for a very long time with a certain dissident or revisionist publishing house called me at home to criticize me for an article that I had published criticizing his company. (It was the last time he's ever spoken to me, even to say Hello.) He went on for almost an hour, pointing out that I'm a poor writer, a fool, an irrational fanatic, and etc. I was really surprised at how calmly I took his abuse (which, it must be said, was delivered calmly and matter-of-factly). I realized that his opinion didn't matter to me at all -- something that I would have told myself, but that I discovered was actually true. But, toward the end of the call, when he told me that my "anger" was "simply dripping from every page," I had to correct him. I seldom get angry. I'm a pretty Type-B personality. "I was laughing at you," I said. And that was precisely the truth. I had enjoyed writing the article very much. (And I stand by it, too.)

In Stephen Naifeh and Gregory White Smith's very poor book about the Hofmann case, The Mormon Murders, they criticize what they call "the great grinning mashed potato goodness of Mormon Utah." The phrase has stuck in my mind. It's not altogether untrue. But I don't like blandness. I don't want the FARMS Review to be bland. In my opinion, though there's very much value in it, BYU Studies is so heavily edited that distinct authorial voices don't survive the process. I've never wanted that to be the case for the Review. And it isn't.

I hope that helps, at least partially, to see where I'm coming from.

It's nice to converse with an adult, by the way. Thanks.

[_Trevor]

Thanks for the candid response, Daniel. I do understand that you take the defense of your faith and your responsibility to the membership very seriously. I also know from the report of others who know you in person that you are a good-humored fellow. Some of your friends are on my list of favorite people, and I sincerely hope that the friendship they have extended to both of us was based on good taste.

Although I have found myself to be not infrequently in disagreement with you, I would not say that you are a poor writer, a fool, or an irrational fanatic. I have come to see you as a person who, at least as far as Mormonism is concerned (I have not read your other scholarship), thinks and writes intelligently in accordance with his deeply held convictions, and that you are, to the best of your ability, true to your commitments to your faith. All of this, of course, comes through your particular personality, and it seems that you do delight in having fun with the wit and fencing that often attends the apologetic enterprise.

You are also fascinated with the psychology behind anti-Mormonism.

I am fascinated by the different sides of the argument. I started reading Nibley in 1988 and first encountered the Sunstone and September Six types at BYU ('92-'96). I was a huge fan of Nibley's writing. (Funny thing is that my father was interested in Nibley as an undergrad at BYU too. He and Griggs were fellow physics majors and used to discuss Nibley a little.) In my Comp. Lit. courses, I started to delve into different hermeneutic and theoretical approaches to texts, and in that way I was drawn into reading material in "other voices" publications.

I continue to have sympathy for all of these different positions and approaches. What really distressed me was the extremely polarized nature of the discussion between these different groups. Too often it seemed to me that certain things I was interested in or struck by met with flat rejection or dismissal by apologists, LDS scholars at BYU, and even GAs. I have always liked Elder Oaks, but I was really put off by his talk on "other voices" and his address to FARMS on Book of Mormon historicity, although I am still thinking through the latter.

I came within a hair's breadth of submitting an application to Bushman's summer seminar on apologia. I had no idea at the time that it was restricted to Church educators. That may seem quite humorous to you, and frankly I would not blame you for finding it humorous. Still, I believed I had thoughts on the subject that might be useful. Most likely my application would have been rejected, even if the seminar had been more broadly conceived, but I thought that I at least might get a reading of some of my ideas in the application essay.

LifeOnaPlate quoted what I thought was an excellent insight about apologetics that reflects my own thinking pretty well:

"What I feel most individuals who struggle with "the facts" need most is not one specific narrative (ie. "what really happened"), but rather context for the events and an alternative world-view that reframes the disconnect between expectations and our best understanding of reality." --Kent

It is not perfect, but I think the author of this comment is reaching in a very useful direction. I am not sure that the FROB is the right forum for such an effort, but it is worth thinking about all the same. An alternative world-view need not be one that places those members in conflict with their Church authorities. I don't think I am picturing a "child of the 60s rebellious" approach, but one that helps people think through and work through things for themselves and leaves them better off for the effort. Sometimes I think you guys are not doing as well as you might at reaching the members who want your help.

Anyway, thanks for the response. It won't terribly bother me if I have failed to persuade you. I understand that you are much closer to the subject than I am, and it is very likely I am not seeing some crucial things. All I can do is provide the perspective of one who went through the struggles not a few members have gone through, but who did not always find reviews in the FROB helpful.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, yet again, for your reasonable and substantive posts. They're a breath of fresh air.

You are also fascinated with the psychology behind anti-Mormonism.

That's true. I've said it many times, but some seem to prefer to believe that I'm dissembling. I'm not. I find egregious religiously-motivated (or anti-religiously-motivated) bad behavior extremely interesting. (As you might guess, given the nature of my academic field, I see a lot of it.)

I came within a hair's breadth of submitting an application to Bushman's summer seminar on apologia. I had no idea at the time that it was restricted to Church educators.

Was it? Seriously, if it was, I didn't know that.

I had essentially no contact or connection with the seminar, except that Richard asked me to join them one day for their discussion and then took me out to lunch afterward. If I recall correctly, everybody around the table either worked for CES or for BYU or had done so -- there was at least one retiree -- except for a graduate student from the UC system. (And, for all I know, maybe he teaches for CES, too; he just wasn't introduced to me that way.) It never occurred to me that this was the result of policy. I thought that maybe the applicant pool had simply been skewed in that direction.

That may seem quite humorous to you, and frankly I would not blame you for finding it humorous. Still, I believed I had thoughts on the subject that might be useful. Most likely my application would have been rejected, even if the seminar had been more broadly conceived, but I thought that I at least might get a reading of some of my ideas in the application essay.

I don't really find the idea humorous. It would have made for interesting discussion.

I'm sure we're not helping everybody who needs or wants help. That's one of the reasons why I give this matter on-going thought. I know that our efforts have helped more than a few; I've heard from them. But I don't believe that any one approach will help everybody. The response that allays all concerns of Worrier A may well offend Worrier B, or leave him unsatisfied, or even suggest new reasons for doubt. I've seen it happen. Ideally, the approach would be tailored to each individual. Unfortunately, that simply isn't possible in every way.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I came within a hair's breadth of submitting an application to Bushman's summer seminar on apologia. I had no idea at the time that it was restricted to Church educators.

Was it? Seriously, if it was, I didn't know that.

Technically, this year Bushman preferred not to include grad students. Interestingly, however, the only one who still submitted a request to participate, Stephen Flemming, was included.

[_Mister Scratch]

How can this be so? Again: you yourself pointed out that it is *unusual* to send out book reviews to peer reviewers. And yet, here you are saying that it's "presumed" and "routine" and "expected."

It's routine internal procedure in academia generally. Do you have a problem with the fact that I wanted to raise the standards of the FARMS Review a bit higher than is common in academic book reviewing, and assimilate them to the broader standard?

No, I don't have a problem with you wanting to elevate standards. It is just that I, along with Trevor and a lot of other people, have I hard time seeing how "standards", particularly with respect to nastiness of tone, have been improved by the peer review. Frankly, it makes me wonder what kind of peer review is going on.

I guess, though, that you have said that you find this sort of stuff funny, that you despise blandness, etc. So, I suppose that engaging in ad hominem attack, making jokes about people's work and the like is what constitutes peer review at FARMS. And I'm not trying to "mischaracterize" the work of the MI, or anything like that. I am trying to get a genuine picture of just what, exactly, you guys are up to---a picture that goes beyond your (apparently deliberately) vague, "It's meant to help the editor," or, "it's meant to catch mistakes." Again: as Trevor, myself, and others have pointed out, key problems related to tone continuously slip through the cracks, and in the end, I cannot help but feel that some failure is occurring in the peer review process.

In other words, the use of peer reviewing for book reviews can be said to be a form of propaganda in and of itself.

Except that, as I've just pointed out -- incidentally, have you ever undergone tests for short-term memory loss? -- we've never made a public issue of peer reviewing, which we regard as purely an internal procedural matter, the academic equivalent of basic quality control on a production line.

Once again, though---what "quality" are you trying to maintain? I mean that in all honesty. With all the viciousness and ad hominem attack that turns up, what is it that you guys are looking for? Typos? Also, I am still confused about how all of this accounts for Bill Hamblin's rather bald statement that he "always includes jokes" about "space aliens" and whatever else in the FARMS articles he writes.

Do you deny that the peer reviewing at FARMS is meant to lend legitimacy to the whole enterprise?

In the sense that we use peer review to try to maintain or improve the quality of our work, not at all.

Again: which particular aspects of "quality"? And how does the peer review process relate to the "tone problems" which have already been mentioned?

If you think otherwise, feel free to draw upon your extensive network of creepy "anonymous informants" and to search through your creepy "dossiers" in order to find evidence to support your view.

What "dossiers"? I have a feeling that you have never read a single one, and that you are guilty of the same sin as those critics on the MMM book thread. Anyways, I'm not sure why you think that dossiers assembled by a critic are wrong. You know, since you have contributed to the far more unethical and disturbing "dossiers" at SHIELDS, and the fact that you work for an organization that conducts spying and surveillance operations on dissident members.

[_Trevor]

Was it? Seriously, if it was, I didn't know that.

Judging by the composition of the group, I would have assumed it was. In any case, I decided against it, as we had too much else going on this summer. It is difficult under the circumstances to leave my working wife and two children by themselves.

I had essentially no contact or connection with the seminar, except that Richard asked me to join them one day for their discussion and then took me out to lunch afterward.

Well, I hope both you and they enjoyed yourselves and benefited from the interaction.

I'm sure we're not helping everybody who needs or wants help. That's one of the reasons why I give this matter on-going thought. I know that our efforts have helped more than a few; I've heard from them. But I don't believe that any one approach will help everybody. The response that allays all concerns of Worrier A may well offend Worrier B, or leave him unsatisfied, or even suggest new reasons for doubt. I've seen it happen. Ideally, the approach would be tailored to each individual. Unfortunately, that simply isn't possible in every way.

Yes, I know that you have been able to help a number of people. I wouldn't deny it. All that I would ask of the LDS apologists, particularly the most prominent ones, is that you look for ways to reach out further to those LDS people who don't find the current approach helpful and yet sincerely desire to make sense of the conflicting information they confront when they encounter information on Mormonism that does not fall in the usual range of correlated materials.

I think what it will require is a more intensely theory-conscious approach, and I have been impressed with what I have seen from a couple of folks like Ben McGuire. Although this is not your province at this point, I would guess, such an effort will probably also require more acceptance of alternative approaches to certain contested issues, if not as a matter of official position (which would be unreasonable to expect anyway), at least by a greater level of tolerance. Personally, I see a distinction between publishing one's own opinion and trying to establish doctrine for the entire Church.

The latter is surely beyond your control--something I also understand. At the same time, I remain astonished at how eager everyone (including non-believers) seems to be to construe membership in the LDS Church so narrowly.

And, lest I forget, thanks for the exchange. It has been enjoyable.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, I suppose that engaging in ad hominem attack, making jokes about people's work and the like is what constitutes peer review at FARMS.

That doesn't even make sense.

The content of an article -- counterfactually assuming, for the moment, that your implied characterization of Review articles as largely "engaging in ad hominem attack, making jokes about people's work and the like" is true -- is something entirely distinct from the peer review process through which that article goes. You've committed a category mistake, similar to confusing a baked potato with the act of sticking a fork into it to see whether it's done.

I am trying to get a genuine picture of just what, exactly, you guys are up to---a picture that goes beyond your (apparently deliberately) vague, "It's meant to help the editor," or, "it's meant to catch mistakes."

There's nothing "vague" about my explanation, neither "deliberate" nor inadvertent.

Again: as Trevor, myself, and others have pointed out, key problems related to tone continuously slip through the cracks, and in the end, I cannot help but feel that some failure is occurring in the peer review process.

If I agreed with you about the tone, I would agree that the peer review process has failed. But I don't.

And, in fact, we've routinely toned down certain submissions to the Review. My editors and I are in the process of doing that right now to two different manuscripts.

With all the viciousness and ad hominem attack that turns up

I don't accept your premise.

what is it that you guys are looking for? Typos?

Among other things, yes.

Also, I am still confused about how all of this accounts for Bill Hamblin's rather bald statement that he "always includes jokes" about "space aliens" and whatever else in the FARMS articles he writes.

I think he was exaggerating a bit. But I'm typically the first person to see submissions to the FARMS Review, and Professor Hamblin has sometimes inserted jokes to amuse me. I make the first cut. If I don't think an article is good enough even to consider, I don't waste the time of my associate editors or any peer reviewers. By the time a manuscript goes out for peer review, any obviously extraneous jokes are gone.

What "dossiers"?

The ones you've mentioned. I didn't invent the word and attribute it to you out of thin air.

You know, since you have contributed to the far more unethical and disturbing "dossiers" at SHIELDS,

Those aren't "dossiers," they're not "unethical," and they don't strike me as "disturbing." Other than that, we're almost on the same page.

and the fact that you work for an organization that conducts spying and surveillance operations on dissident members.

And flouridates public drinking water, conducts psy-ops campaigns against non-Mormons, maintains whole fleets of silent-running black helicopters, and beams mind-controlling radiation into the brains of unsuspecting citizens.

[_Daniel Peterson]

All that I would ask of the LDS apologists, particularly the most prominent ones, is that you look for ways to reach out further to those LDS people who don't find the current approach helpful and yet sincerely desire to make sense of the conflicting information they confront when they encounter information on Mormonism that does not fall in the usual range of correlated materials.

I think about that constantly.

I think what it will require is a more intensely theory-conscious approach, and I have been impressed with what I have seen from a couple of folks like Ben McGuire. Although this is not your province at this point, I would guess, such an effort will probably also require more acceptance of alternative approaches to certain contested issues, if not as a matter of official position (which would be unreasonable to expect anyway), at least by a greater level of tolerance.

You might be surprised to know how much attention I've given to matters of theory, etc. It just hasn't shown up (yet) in publication.

I've actually been agitating for a while to convene some sort of symposium on issues of what might be termed "meta-apologetics." There's a great deal of good literature on the history of apologetics (Avery Cardinal Dulles's book on the subject is an obvious example) and on theoretical issues involved with the apologetic enterprise. (Certain evangelical philosophers have given them quite a bit of attention.) I think Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists could benefit from this.

[_Trevor]

And flouridates public drinking water, conducts psy-ops campaigns against non-Mormons, maintains whole fleets of silent-running black helicopters, and beams mind-controlling radiation into the brains of unsuspecting citizens.

Anything but the flouridation... not flouridation! Next you'll tell me that you guys are behind that sinister plot to use aluminum in cookware.

[Guest]

I think about that constantly.

I honestly did not realize that. I rather had the impression that a small proportion of these folks were being written off--not maliciously, mind you, but simply because they were being misunderstood. When I first arrived at the FAIR Board, being a liberal LDS type, I felt like I was being treated like an anti-Mormon. Then I evolved to a position where at times that perception was fully justified.

I understand now what drove the initial perceptions. It is rather surprising to me that it took so long for me to understand. Now I appreciate the limits of these fora much better, and I have given up expecting things from them that are not likely to happen.

You might be surprised to know how much attention I've given to matters of theory, etc. It just hasn't shown up (yet) in publication.

I've actually been agitating for a while to convene some sort of symposium on issues of what might be termed "meta-apologetics." There's a great deal of good literature on the history of apologetics (Avery Cardinal Dulles's book on the subject is an obvious example) and on theoretical issues involved with the apologetic enterprise. (Certain evangelical philosophers have given them quite a bit of attention.) I think Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists could benefit from this.

Once again, I am surprised, and I think this is a great thing. I look forward to seeing what comes of this. I was unaware of developments in apologetic theory. I was thinking more in terms of the lit-critical sophistication I have seen in a couple of the apologists in their readings of the Book of Mormon. Thanks for the book suggestion, by the way.