FARMS's Smear Campaign Against Signature Books

[_Tom]

Although Signature has not invariably been on the attack, and has published some very good things, it has often been on the attack -- and was so, quite consciously, virtually from its beginnings.

This is hyperbole. Here is a fairly complete list of titles published and/or distributed by Signature during its first five years (1981-1985):

Of All Things! A Nibley Quote Book; Saints Without Halos: The Human Side of Mormon History; Rescue of the 1856 handcart companies; Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary; Primary Primer: Simplified Piano Duets for Young Latter-day Saints; The Canyons of Grace; A Book of Mormons; Brigham Young, the New York years; Ainge; Greening Wheat: Fifteen Mormon Short Stories; Learning, a shared experience between parent & child; God's Fools: Four Plays of Mitigated Conscience; Summer Fire; How Much for the Earth? A Suite of Poems; Charles Ramsden Bailey, his life and families; Favorite Mormon hymns: arranged for men's voices; The twentieth century American West: contributions to an understanding; After 150 years: the Latter-day Saints in sesquicentennial perspective; Tracy Collins Bank & Trust Company: A Record of Responsibility 1884-1984; Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898: Typescript; Neither White Nor Black: Mormon scholars confront the race issue in a universal Church; Ripples of intuition ; Songs that teach; Preface to Faith: a Philosophical Inquiry into RLDS Beliefs; Dialogues with Myself: Personal Essays on Mormon Experience; Thomas Robinson Cutler: Pioneer, Sugarman, Churchman; Brigham Young University: A House of Faith; and Community development in the American West: past and present nineteenth and twentieth century frontiers.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There's no question that Signature's agenda became much clearer after the first five years, as believing Latter-day Saints left its board.

[_harmony]

I haven't really changed all that much.

I was never as harsh as some want to portray me.

You're saying you haven't matured in 20+ years? Grown wiser? Learned any more diplomacy than you had years ago?

Hmmm... I think you do yourself a disservice.

For example, trying to find reasons why ex-Mormons in particular attack Dan Peterson and the MI so much? And why other apologists equally strong in their convictions remain relatively free from such attacks?

I have a fairly good idea why it happens.

So do I. Why do you think it happens?

For example, Jeff Lindsay?

Jeff Lindsay is routinely harshly mocked and derided by many ex-Mormons.

Not like you are.

but the aim of Signature in general, which was to provide books/information not generally available from LDS sources.

That was one of Signature's aims.

It has always had an agenda.

So does Deseret Books. So does FARMS/MI. So do you.

So?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So does Deseret Books. So does FARMS/MI. So do you.

I have absolutely no problem with their having an agenda.

I disagree with their agenda, of course. But I object to hidden agendas.

[_Mister Scratch]

So does Deseret Books. So does FARMS/MI. So do you.

I have absolutely no problem with their having an agenda.

I disagree with their agenda, of course. But I object to hidden agendas.

If this were truly the case that you would be a lot more forthcoming in terms of certain pieces of information. Such as what this mysterious memo actually said.

[_Mister Scratch]

"The uniformity of perspective among the essays, the pervasive use of the straw man, and the absence of any opposing viewpoint identify The Word of God as a work of propaganda. It is designed not to investigate Latter-day Saint thought, but to change it. It certainly would have been more honest to entitle this work The Words of the Disaffected: A Criticism of the LDS Concept of Scripture, but Signature has lately developed a habit of disguising the critical stance of its works with misleading titles. However, three exceptions to this criticism would be the essays by Lancaster and Bush, who have done good historical work apparently without the Korihor agenda, and the essay of Curtis, who, though she takes the naturalistic approach, does not appear to have an interest in attacking or modifying the religion of the Saints."

Did Robinson simply forget to cite Barney's essay as an exception to his criticism?

I think this is an excellent point, Tom. It would seem that Prof. Robinson's abject rage and hatred prevented him from considering the text in a fair-minded way. Also, rather curiously, I this essay is devoid of endnotes. What's up with that?

Robinson wrote:
It is dishonest to pass off the religion of the scholars as the Church of Jesus Christ

From the "korihor's press" essay, I thought this line summed up Internet Mormonism pretty well. But this is exactly what Louis Midgley demands, since to have any doctrinal commentary on the Book of Mormon requires vast scholarly knowledge.

Robinson's views are ironic in more ways than one. Consider this, from the introductory paragraph:

In its continuing assault upon traditional Mormonism, Signature Books promotes with its recent and dubiously titled work, The Word of God, precisely these same naturalistic assumptions of the Korihor agenda in dealing with current Latter-day Saint beliefs.

Does this not remind you of the PoMo approach(es) adopted by juliann and other apologists? I'm thinking specifically of her attempts to pooh-pooh away the suggestion of Celestial polygamy as indicated in the CHI. Furthermore, wasn't FAIR's recent trouncing of Meldrum an "assault upon traditional Mormonism"?

[_Dr. Shades]

Also, rather curiously, I this essay is devoid of endnotes. What's up with that?

He didn't have money for copies.

[_Ray A]

It was polemic.

Okay. You have objected to the use of the word "apologist", and so did Tom Nibley in his RBBM essay. If Professor Robinson's essay didn't resort to name-calling, do you feel Tom Nibley's did? (in my opinion that's rather clear, as he directly and personally attacked the Tanners).

I haven't really changed all that much.

I was never as harsh as some want to portray me.

In real life, I don't believe your are. Then, I doubt most of us would be considered "harsh" by others, were we all to meet in real life.

For example, Jeff Lindsay?

Jeff Lindsay is routinely harshly mocked and derided by many ex-Mormons.

Not to the extent you and FARMS are/have been. Looking at the replies some ex-Mormons made on the thread I linked to Jeff Lindsay's post, many were positive. One example comes from Natalie Collins, who hosts "Trapped By The Mormons":

Well, Jeff, once again you have proved me right.

After several exchanges and discourses, and some "gentle" poking of fun, which is my stock in trade, I discovered you to be a remarkably upstanding, genuine person who truly BELIEVES what you write and "testimonize" about. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's not a word, but hey, it fits.)

This post just confirms all of that.

We will probably never agree, but I came to realize you aren't judging. You are just trying to SHARE what you believe to be a great blessing.

That I don't share your belief is just the way things go, but WOW, what a big step toward ex/former/jack/anti-Mormons and Mormons. I've been waiting years to see it happen. You give me hope.

Kudos, Jeff. (My bold emphasis)

I haven't seen Lindsay mocked and derided on RFM the way you have been. In fact, I don't even recall an instance where his name came up, but I'm not a frequent reader of RFM, so I imagine it would occur, but not that frequently.

but the aim of Signature in general, which was to provide books/information not generally available from LDS sources.

That was one of Signature's aims.

It has always had an agenda.

The MI has no agenda? (I don't think Signature's agenda was ever hidden either. George Smith made that quite clear in the early days of Signature.)

But I think you have changed in some respects, especially in regard to people like Dan Vogel, and perhaps, even Signature itself.

Dan Vogel and I have always gotten along reasonably well, personally. I've known him for years.

Again, this is in real life, not on message boards. Regardless of what has transpired between us in the past, I think if I met Steve Benson in real life I'd have no problem with him. You also wrote "Why I am a Mormon" for Richard Abanes' book, which I'm sure you'd consider anti-Mormon, and I understand that in real life you have no problem with Abanes.

If you say you haven't changed, at least in regard to online and print polemics, and that's what you seem to imply, then I'm not going to try to read your mind. I take it you have had no regrets about the early polemics in the early editions of the Review, and you stand by Robinson, Hamblin and Nibley and others.

That's fair enough.

[_Ray A]

I haven't really changed all that much.

I was never as harsh as some want to portray me.

You're saying you haven't matured in 20+ years? Grown wiser? Learned any more diplomacy than you had years ago?

Hmmm... I think you do yourself a disservice.

There is at least the recognition of the need for change - from the man himself:

The man whom critics of the LDS Church love to hate chose his topic at the FAIR conference carefully to give those critics "apoplexy, cardiac arrest and indigestion."

Dan Peterson, borrowing the title of a book by John Gordon Stackhouse, spoke on "Humble Apologetics."

"And basically I am offering myself as the model of that," Peterson said, eliciting laughter from the crowd of about 300 people.

Humble Apologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

Thanks for posting that link, Ray. I found this part interesting:

"We are winning souls, we hope -- not so much arguments," he said. "Winning an argument can lose you a soul."

Huh. I confess that this sounds very odd. This part was also interesting, I thought:

On his mission, Peterson developed a reputation as a Jehovah's Witness basher. When a few missionaries had an appointment with one of the leading Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland, they called Peterson to help out.

"We just mopped the floor with this guy," he said. "I think it was humiliating. I was embarrassed. He wasn't very good. We just annihilated him. But the longer the evening went on, the worse I felt. I did not enjoy this. He didn't join the church. It didn't do any good. We just humiliated the guy."

Does Prof. P. feel this way about the various Internet folks he "annihilated" by way of l-skinny?