In particular, I am interested in examining Dr. Peterson's now rather infamous, "Questions to Legal Answers."
http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... um=1&id=78
The piece begins with an epigraph from Ring Larnder: "Shut up." While readers might at first be led to believe that this is an angry shout directed at critics, the truth is more complex. In fact, DCP is using the epigraph as a means of painting FARMS and apologists in a noble, martyr-ish light. The basic premise of this article, at base, is that FARMS was the victim of legal bullying by Signature Books:
A couple of weeks later, the FARMS office received a letter, dated 14 June 1991, from an attorney retained by Signature Books. In it, he mentioned the Insights newsletter, as well as the three reviews by Professors Anderson, Midgley, and Robinson. "These publications by FARMS," the lawyer declared, "contain libelous statements about Signature Books, Inc. and the authors of these works. These publications, inter alia, falsely state that Signature Books, Inc. and these authors are 'dishonest' and are 'anti-Mormon'. In FARMS's next newsletter, please publish a retraction of these publications and statements and an apology to Signature Books, Inc. and the authors."
For those who are wondering, the Insights newsletter had characterized Signature as "Korihor's Press." DCP continues:
Clearly skulking behind this attorney's polite request was the threat of a lawsuit. We felt then and feel now, however, that no secular court would ever attempt to draw a line between "orthodoxy" and "heresy," or between "Mormon" and "anti-Mormon," because, in order to determine what "anti-Mormonism" means, it would first have to decide what "Mormonism" is—what is essential to it, and what, when attacked, would constitute its attacker an "anti-Mormon." Such theological issues exceed both the authority and the competence of secular courts in a free society.
In other words, DCP and his colleagues were apparently simultaneously frightened, and yet totally certain that they would never lose a lawsuit against Signature. He goes on to note that:
There was, in fact, a powerful question of principle involved that would be worth protecting in court: A vigorous review process is of the essence of free speech in the publishing business.
How odd, then, that so many TBMs would come to favor the censorious moderating practices at FAIR/MAD, where critical posts would be vaporized on the basis of moderator whim.
Elsewhere in the piece, DCP complains about the criticism he weathered in the press, citing text from a letter written by Larry Burgess:
"If Mr. Peterson honestly believes the 'Book of Mormon' has a divine origin," Burgess continued, "he should stick to the evidence rather than playing the crybaby by accusing Signature Books of some sinister plot to limit his freedom of speech."16
DCP also took to task the author of a letter written on behalf of Signature:
FARMS, he submitted, "has evidently lost sight of basic civility and resonsibility [sic]."
Interestingly, footnote 16 reads as follows:
16. "Crybaby"? Perhaps this is what is meant by "infantile name- calling. [sic]
You'll notice that DCP forgot to include the terminal set of quotation marks. I'm sure he appreciates my kindness in including the "[sic]", which will help readers to avoid confusion.
A bit further along, DCP again champions the FARMS cause, and he once again tries to paint the Review as a dissenting voice which was victimized by the oppressiveness of Signature Books. This time, Dr. Peterson cites his own letter, which was published in a variety of local newspapers:
I am astonished, therefore, to see Mr. Smith invoking pieties about "free inquiry" and the "unlimited interchange of ideas." Some people imagine his publishing company to be a champion of unfettered research and open expression, especially in contrast with the allegedly repressive hierarchy of the LDS Church. Yet when, in this case, views critical of the company and of several of its books appeared, Signature immediately reached for the coercive apparatus of the state in order to suppress those dissenting voices.
Obviously, this is a bit of a stretch. The letter from the attorney made no actual mention of a lawsuit. Instead, this is DCP "reading beneath the surface." Interestingly, in a letter written by Signature founder George Smith, a further bit of intrigue is revealed:
"In his purported espousal of free inquiry," Mr. Smith wrote, "Peterson failed to mention the attempt by a former FARMS president to have all Signature Books titles banned from the BYU Bookstore."
How interesting! Indeed, this is standard practice for many Church-related booksellers. One is hard-pressed to find critical books on, say, the website for Deseret Book. Clearly, someone is looking to prevent easy access to certain texts.
In any event, DCP immediately dismisses Smith's allegation:
This, however, is the kind of mythology that flourishes in the absence of open communication, especially when people are eager to believe the worst of those with whom they disagree.
He adds a footnote to this remark, which demonstrates just how much the tone of the Review had alienated people:
24. Representatives of FARMS attempted, even after publication of the "Correction or Clarification," to open up a dialogue with Signature Books, but the attempts proved fruitless. A telephone call was not returned; a written invitation to get together went unanswered.
Surely readers are wondering how Prof. Peterson managed to defuse this rather serious criticism from Smith. "These were accusations worth looking into," he writes. In terms of evidence which would defuse Smith's allegations, this is, I'm afraid, all we get:
I now have in my possession a "memorandum" written last year by the "former FARMS president" and signed by the BYU employee in question. The memorandum summarizes the conversation between the two that evidently inspired George D. Smith's accusation. Nothing in it suggests an attempted "ban" on all Signature titles, much less an effort to "distort the truth and corral the marketplace of ideas." FARMS welcomes all the good books Signature has published, but wishes to call attention to those that are not good. Nobody at FARMS questions Signature's right to sell its books in any bookstore willing to carry them.
Readers will no doubt recognize shades of the missing 2nd Watson letter. Notice how DCP, normally a scrupulously academic and scholarly user of citations, fails to provide a single line of verbatim text. Instead, we are merely left to trust that his interpretation of this obviously secretive internal memo is accurate. Personally, I would have preferred to see a reproduction of the full text, much as I'd like to see the text of Professor Hamblin's letter to Michael Watson.
Further on, some of DCP's prose begins to seem extraordinarily two-faced, in light of more recent developments (such as on this messageboard):
On the whole, Americans have the right to hold "untrue and grossly unfair" opinions if they choose to do so.
Likewise, to call someone a "geek" is not libelous because no simple test exists, agreeable to all, to determine the presence or absence of "geekhood" in a given individual.26 And "anti-Mormonism," like "geekhood," is a matter of opinion.27
Elsewhere, Prof. Peterson offers up a rather lengthy defense for the validity of Stephen Robinson's quip "Korihor's back, and this time he's got a printing press," which effectively helped launch the whole spat. DCP also adds that,
I would rather hope that, in the words of the 1990 Supreme Court decision, public discussion and disputation in Mormondom "will not suffer for lack of imaginative expression or the rhetorical hyperbole which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation" and which, that court expressly declared, has received "full constitutional protection."
Curiouser and curiouser. He goes on to note that:
No serious Christian, however, would want to guide his or her personal life solely on the basis of the law's minimal requirements. There is a higher standard.
And yet is this borne out in the pages of FARMS Review? Much of the rest of Prof. Peterson's article is given over to very lengthy defense in favor of the use of insult and derision, and of complaining about "caricatures" in the work of Signature Books authors. Obviously, this is a rather glaring example of the tu quoque fallacy, and it does not do much to bear out DCP's suggestion that "[t]here is a higher standard."
Further along, DCP questions whether satire is a legitimate form of criticism:
"Satire does not flourish in the Mormon culture," Elouise Bell has written, "and with good reason—it is dangerous." (The more profound reason, I think, is that satire can easily cross the line into cruelty or injustice—something that ought to concern any professing Christian.) "The only thing more dangerous than satire," says Bell, "is its absence."
In this next excerpt, we can see the full extent of FARMS sophistry and equivocation in action:
Stephen Robinson indeed raised the issue of "dishonesty." However, he had reference specifically to Dan Vogel's book, and not to any particular individual connected with it or with Signature.71 What would constitute "deception" in the world of writing and publishing? This question, too, demands open discussion. Is it possible to charge a book with dishonesty, without thereby implicating its author(s) and publishers? Perhaps and perhaps not. Louis Midgley is, I think, correct in his assertion that "books . . . do not just happen; they are intentional acts."72 Nevertheless, critics often assert of a work of art or scholarship that it is "dishonest" or "inauthentic," without directly asserting the dishonesty of artist or author. Those who wish to infer such dishonesty are certainly free to do so, but they cannot claim that it was directly asserted by the critic. And, indeed, it is not at all clear that a book's "dishonesty" is precisely the same kind of thing as an individual person's "dishonesty," even if that person is the author of the book. Furthermore, intellectual dishonesty is not a crime. (If it were, most political commentators would be in jail.) What, though, should we do if we perceive disingenuousness in a publication? Should we be punished if our perception is inaccurate? Are charges of intellectual dishonesty slanderous or libelous?
Anyone who can parse out the actual logic and "honesty" underlying this passage deserves a gold star.
In another intriguing passage, DCP discusses Signature in way which could very easily be applied to the LDS Church itself:
Do publishers have a duty to identify their materials in a way that will not mislead readers? The reviewers and I think that they do. Perhaps others do not, or do not feel that Signature has misled potential buyers of its books. Once again, this is a subject that cries out for calm, open discussion, not for legal action.
Do Churches have a duty to identify problems in their history in a way that will not mislead members and potential converts?
Elsewhere, DCP engages in meaningless microcritique of very petty points:
Another paragraph referred to Dan Vogel's anthology as "including the perspectives of five active LDS scholars, five active RLDS scholars, and two non-Mormon scholars." It seems likely that the advertisement was intended as a direct response to the reviews of Midgley and Robinson. The stress on the word "active" certainly points in this direction, as does the choice of these particular books for emphasis from among Signature's numerous publications.
Of particular interest, though, is the ad's list of "five active LDS scholars, five active RLDS scholars, and two non-Mormon scholars." This yields a total of twelve scholars. Yet there are fifteen contributors to the volume, if the posthumously conscripted John A. Widtsoe is not counted. (Perhaps Elder Widtsoe was one of the "active LDS scholars"?) Why bother to enumerate contributors if you aren't going to enumerate all of them? What happened to the other three contributors? Why are they not included? If they do not fit into the threefold categorization of active LDS/active RLDS/non-Mormon, where do they fit?
This is evidence in support of the claim that Signature is "biased" and that it has an "agenda"? Coupled with the other rather harsh articles written by Midgley and others, it starts to seem, in fact, like FARMS is engaging in smear tactics. Where, I must ask again, is this mysterious memo DCP alluded to?
In conclusion, and because I think this bit will be interesting to Dr. Robbers and others who are committed to learning the full truth about FARMS Review, it is worth noting this bit from the conclusion of DCP's article:
We remain committed to the sometimes thankless task of trying to the best of our ability, with fairness, candor, and honesty, to review books on the Book of Mormon. As I have attempted (at excruciating length) to show, many important questions about this process remain for reflection. Still, I hope that our record suggests that we have been even-handed. We have criticized pro-Mormon books at least as often as we have criticized anti-Mormon books.
Sadly, FARMS's record does not reflect "even-handedness" in any way, shape, or form. Rather, it reflects a great deal of bias and vindictiveness, just as Eugene England observed.