FARMS's Smear Campaign Against Signature Books

[_Mister Scratch]

Huh. Well, are we saying that the memo was not photocopied and supplied with the essay as per the submission guidelines?

No, no. I'm sure that the Editor in Chief of the FROB would have taken the time to photocopy the memo---provided that the memo actually exists, of course. I'm just intrigued at the fact that DCP neglected to quote any text from it, especially since he portrays it as being a kind of "grand slam" in favor of his argument.

Do you suppose that this memo---or a photocopy thereof---still exists? Or, did DCP conveniently give it to Dr. Hamblin, so that it could get "lost"?

[_Gadianton]

I have no idea if it exists. Certainly, it MUST exist at least as a photocopy, burried somewhere, and accompanying the submitted manuscript for that review. I'd feel better about this whole situation if a facsimile could be provided.

[_Pokatator]

Where is DCP's standard response?

[_Ray A]

I think it's important to bear this DCP comment in mind, too:

We hope that the contents of this volume will generate further discussion. Indeed, we will be more heartened than horrified if the present Review sparks spirited debate. (Within bounds!) But I must point out that the opinions expressed in these reviews are not necessarily those of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) or the editor—I strongly disagree with at least one of them, in fact—and that reviewers do not necessarily represent their employers or the institutions with which they are affiliated. Nor has any attempt been made to impose a harmony upon the reviewers. Furthermore, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies is an independent organization, the actions and opinions of which should not necessarily be assumed to represent the views or preferences of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of Brigham Young University or of any other group or person.

And I think that partly bears out my previous point, that Church leaders don't depend on the Review, or MI, when making decisions about individual members. In some ways they even seem world's apart.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think it's important to bear this DCP comment in mind, too:

We hope that the contents of this volume will generate further discussion. Indeed, we will be more heartened than horrified if the present Review sparks spirited debate. (Within bounds!) But I must point out that the opinions expressed in these reviews are not necessarily those of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) or the editor—I strongly disagree with at least one of them, in fact—and that reviewers do not necessarily represent their employers or the institutions with which they are affiliated. Nor has any attempt been made to impose a harmony upon the reviewers. Furthermore, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies is an independent organization, the actions and opinions of which should not necessarily be assumed to represent the views or preferences of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of Brigham Young University or of any other group or person.

Personally, I found this both disappointing and underwhelming. It's as if DCP felt obliged to tack this on---this ridiculous disclaimer. Note the "Within bounds!" nonsense. He has just written a very lengthy essay defending FARMS's quite vicious and polemical rhetoric, and this---this is his conclusion?

And I think that partly bears out my previous point, that Church leaders don't depend on the Review, or MI, when making decisions about individual members. In some ways they even seem world's apart.

I don't know that I'm following you here, Ray. Why would this tiresome disclaimer serve as evidence that Church leaders don't "depend" on the Review? And further, what "individual members" are you referring to?

[_Ray A]

I don't know that I'm following you here, Ray. Why would this tiresome disclaimer serve as evidence that Church leaders don't "depend" on the Review? And further, what "individual members" are you referring to?

Scratch, if you take a poll of the number of local Church leaders who follow the Review, you'd be lucky to find many. No leader I have ever encountered in the last 21 years was even familiar with the MI. They don't depend on scholarship for their testimony, in fact most of the lay membership avoid it. Have you seen how distrustful even TBMs have been of FARMS on Internet boards? Like Paul Osborne? Some leaders have taken them very seriously, which includes Neal Maxwell, and some apostles have agreed to speak at MI functions, as if giving full endorsement, and I do believe we've reached a point where they realise the need for this, especially when it comes to "archaeological evidences", which I think may influence their opinions, and they probably pay much attention to "DNA debates", but to say that the MI controls, or is controlling the future of Mormonism, especially in light of England's criticisms, is not a very realistic assessment.

This is a "heart religion" which relies first and foremost on testimony, not what academics say. I certainly think that the MI can influence the GAs, and very much rely on MI scholarship, but the basis of general membership conversion still remains "in the heart", and for those members, MI means nothing. Zilch.

[_Dr. Shades]

I must say, I was rather shocked by the staggering amount of double standards on display here. The article is really just a lengthy defense of FARMS's cheap-shot approach.

What makes it all the more confusing is this: My understanding is that Signature's entire complaint was that the word "Korihor" was used so liberally to describe them. According to Signature, this constituted slander since it could cause literal harm by alienating such a huge percentage of their sales base.

So the controversy wasn't one of critique or defining the word "Mormon" or "anti-Mormon." It was all about slander and customer bases.

Did DCP address this baseline issue in his article at all?

They don't depend on scholarship for their testimony, in fact most of the lay membership avoid it. . . but to say that the MI controls, or is controlling the future of Mormonism, especially in light of England's criticisms, is not a very realistic assessment.

I disagree. I'll explain why in a moment:

This is a "heart religion" which relies first and foremost on testimony, not what academics say. I certainly think that the MI can influence the GAs, and very much rely on MI scholarship, but the basis of general membership conversion still remains "in the heart", and for those members, MI means nothing. Zilch.

Yeah, but keep in mind that you referenced conversions. I can agree with you on that. This does not, however, address all of your own paragraph immediately previous to it: That of controlling the future of Mormonism.

You see, the future of Mormonism isn't contingent on what converts someone. The future of Mormonism is only contingent on what retains someone. After the honeymoon phase, converts typically come across the straight dope sooner or later and need answers. Since the General Authorities don't have any answers, they must rely on the MI, FAIR, etc. and their ilk. Hence the G.A.s' need to be circumspect and avoid saying anything which will contradict MI et. al.

So, in a very roundabout way, apologists indirectly influence the course and direction--and hence the future--of Mormonism.

[_Ray A]

Yeah, but keep in mind that you referenced conversions. I can agree with you on that. This does not, however, address all of your own paragraph immediately previous to it: That of controlling the future of Mormonism.

You see, the future of Mormonism isn't contingent on what converts someone. The future of Mormonism is only contingent on what retains someone. After the honeymoon phase, converts typically come across the straight dope sooner or later and need answers. Since the General Authorities don't have any answers, they must rely on the MI, FAIR, etc. and their ilk. Hence the G.A.s' need to be circumspect and avoid saying anything which will contradict MI et. al.

Shades, in my case FARMS (and DCP in particular) played a strong role in my sundry returns to the Church. However, if it were not for my belief in the Book of Mormon, FARMS would have got no where. No Book of Mormon, and the Church would never have seen me again. A major turning point for me on the historicity question was reading two books, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon (Metcalfe), and volume 6 of the Review, which was a review of the Metcalfe book. I read those two books over and over, comparing them with detailed notes, and in the end I gave New Approaches the thumbs up. As far as historicity was concerned, FARMS lost the battle, in my case. But I was not your average unquestioning member, and by that time I had been reading Signature books for ten years. All of the members, in both wards I attended, were either ignorant of, or uninterested in the "problems" that confronted me. They were baffled that I could lose my basic faith because of books. The leaders, concerned about me, often advised me to "avoid anti-Mormon literature". These are all the "stalwarts", the faithful, I'm talking about, for whom "gospel scholarship" means nothing, and FARMS means nothing. Their Church membership is not dependent on logical analysis, and they are the vast majority. I was the exception to the rule, and I am in the small minority. Most members are not like me, or you, or those who frequent message boards, whom I call "the thinkers", the questioning.

Look at the poll I did on the Review. Seven people voted that they had read a "large amount" of the Review, and this board is largely ex-Mormon, but also has informed Mormons, yet only seven could say they had read a large amount. What does that tell you? That FARMS can save the Church? That FARMS can control the future of Mormonism?

I'll concede some points. If you're talking about the overall apologetic effort, FARMS, FAIR, SHIELDS, Mike Ash ("Shaken Faith Syndrome"), Michael Griffith, et.al , then yes, they, overall, may have some effect in "retaining". There is essentially a battle for minds and hearts going on, but I don't think MI controls this, though they do have a large influence in apologetics. I believe FAIR has done a better job than FARMS/MI on the Internet, and they both work together. How far and wide this "battle" will go, I don't know, nor how many members in the future will turn to them for help, but I suspect the majority won't. It says the believers will "overcome by faith", not "overcome by faith with the help of the MI". I really wonder if you have an understanding of how deep this faith is, Shades, since it's been a long time since you were a true believer. I think you underestimate it, and the strength of it.

As for the leadership, well in spite of FARMS insisting that the LGM, LGT is "the only true model", the Church has not stated this officially. Even with the Watson incident, there is still no official statement on Book of Mormon geography, and the Meldrum affair proves that for many/most members, the field of interpretation is still wide open. Sorenson has been writing about this, including in the Ensign, since c.1984. Has any of it sunk in? Very little has. The Church has had 24 years and more to make an official statement, but they have never even come out and said "we believe Dr. Sorenson is correct". You know Packer's aversion to scholarship as far as the gospel is concerned. As far as I know, he's never shown an interest in formal apologetics, and doesn't believe that faith and testimony rests upon this, and I believe he's very far from alone on this. Maxwell was an "intellectual", like B.H.Roberts (but not quite in his mould), and a rare breed among the GAs. Are they paying attention? Sure. Does their faith rest upon this? Far, far from it. Will they revise the geography and make an official statement? Maybe, when the Prophet receives a revelation. Not on the say-so of FARMS. And until the Prophet receives a revelation, the MI isn't going to "control" anything.

We in our little message board world magnify all this because we are familiar with all the issues, and because they have directly affected us, but they have not affected the vast majority. And of the vast majority who leave, they don't leave because of apologetic battles, they leave for a wide variety of reasons, which could include simply not wanting to live the Mormon lifestyle anymore. In my area the inactivity rate is about 75-80%, and that has been consistent even before FARMS was a twinkle in John Welch's eye.

Have you analysed Uncle Dale's (Dale Broadhurst) reasons why people leave the Church? He posted this on FAIR on July 21, 2006, and I was so impressed with his reasoning that I copied it. Here they are:

As I may have mentioned a time or two, I host a Solomon Spalding web-site and get
e-mail regarding that subject every day. It has been very, very rare that I've seen an
active LDS investigate that subject, and then lose their testimony. It has happened a
couple of times, but I think that is extremely unusual.

On the other hand, I frequently get communications from ex-members, or from
disgruntled members who are already "a leg and two arms" out of the Church. Those
sorts of folks suddenly become super-interested in the whole Book of Mormon authorship matter,
as though it were the most important thing in the world. But, as I said, that isn't what
moves previously faithful members out of the LDS Church.

What does? Here's my guesses, in order:

(1) Personal unhappiness, discomfort, embarrassment, hurt, insult, or criticism.

(2) Family problems -- troubles with non-LDS family members -- divorces, etc.

(3) Transgression -- a desire to live a less "holy" life, or less restricted life -- often
prefigured by secret experimentation in elements of an alternative lifestyle.

(4) Evangelism -- being convinced that another denomination is more "true" or
more "correct," or more "accepting, or more something...

(5) Seeing hypocrisy in ward/branch/stake leaders or prominent members. Seeing
"unworthy" members given seemingly inapproptiate callings, etc.

(6) Disagreements over doctrines, matters of history, conflicts in authority, etc.

Uncle Dale

So why would the Church leaders worry so much about apologetics, or think it necessary to "bow" to apologists?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Where is DCP's standard response?

Happy to oblige:

The following is a standard response:

Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. A particular focus of his hatred is the FARMS Review, which I founded and edit.

The FARMS Review has been appearing, now, for very nearly twenty years. The entirety of every issue of the Review is available on line, at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Anyone interested in inspecting the FARMS Review for himself or herself, without Scartch’s defamatory spin, without Scartch’s hostile selection and editing, without looking through the distorting Scartchian lens, is entirely welcome to do so.

I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time -- especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

I've been out of town. And, anyway, I'm losing interest.

[_Mister Scratch]

I actually think that both Shades and Ray are right on this. I think it is important to keep in mind that the Church really exists on a number of different planes. (Shades's old "Chapel/Internet Mormon" dichotomy comes to mind.) Will apologetics in general, and MI/FARMS in particular, have much of an impact on the day-to-day activities of the rank and file? Probably not. But "the Church" is also composed of ideas: of theories, doctrines, and so forth. It is this latter aspect, to my mind, that is controlled more by apologetics than even the GAs.

Think about it for a moment: how much of the decision to revise the Book of Mormon intro was based on revelation given to the Brethren vs. apologetic theory? Another telling piece of evidence, in my opinion, was Bill Hamblin's ability to get Michael Watson to revise his "One Cumorah" letter. Yet another is the fact that DCP was "tapped" by the SCMC to try and persuade an intellectually struggling member to stay in the Church. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that FARMS is controlling the intellectual direction of the Church, and thus, by extension, it is reformulating and reinterpreting doctrine to the extent that Mormonism is beginning to seem more like a pernicious form of gnosticism.