The Berry-Picker's "Laughter"

[_Daniel Peterson]

In fact, you'll find that occasionally lampooning "the worst" hasn't distracted us from responding to "the best."

For a list of Gary Novak's FARMS essays, see

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=221

[_Analytics]

In fact, you'll find that occasionally lampooning "the worst" hasn't distracted us from responding to "the best."

For a list of Gary Novak's FARMS essays, see

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=221

You may have noticed that in my list of best apologetic sources, I put FARMS in at third. I did this because yes, if somebody writes a really good book criticizing Mormonism’s unique truth claims FARMS will surely write monstrous essays in response. However, FARMS comes across as attempting to offer copious responses to the best books against Mormonism, while doggedly dodging the best arguments against Mormonism.

As an example, David P. Wright’s analysis on Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon undeniably proves that the Isaiah “translation” isn’t a correct translation of an authentic Isaiah manuscript from 600 B.C., but rather is the result of somebody messing with the KJV Isaiah to make it a bit more to their liking. Rather than dealing with this head-on, the Tvedtnes review dances around the key issues, quibbles with the few peripheral points where he can, talks about how impressive Royal Skousen's research is, and vaguely implies that Wright’s analysis is nothing more than a minor variation on the same old tired, discredited arguments that have been offered and successfully refuted since the 60’s.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You may have noticed that in my list of best apologetic sources, I put FARMS in at third. I did this because yes, if somebody writes a really good book criticizing Mormonism’s unique truth claims FARMS will surely write monstrous essays in response. However, FARMS comes across as attempting to offer copious responses to the best books against Mormonism, while doggedly dodging the best arguments against Mormonism.

I find it rather strange that you picture FARMS as "writing" essays.

FARMS is a publisher or a clearing house. It isn't a person.

FARMS (or, more accurately now, the Maxwell Institute) publishes a book review. It doesn't, as such, typically respond to individual arguments in isolation. It isn't, in that sense, the kind of apologetic organization that many imagine it to be, and it never has been.

However, we've published very competent responses to issues of DNA, Book of Mormon demographics, etc.

Whatever one may think about the strengths or weaknesses of David Wright's argument, or about the strengths or weaknesses of John Tvedtnes's response, it's incorrect to ascribe any of this to some monolith called FARMS. FARMS doesn't exist as a personality or hive-mind. John Tvedtnes's response is strong or weak because John Tvedtnes wrote it that way.

I can ask people to write for me, but, since we generally pay little or nothing to our authors, I can't really compel people to do so. (Authors for the FARMS Review get a free copy of the issue in which their review appears, as well as a free copy of the thing they're reviewing -- if they don't already own it. Nothing more. Which is, by the way, pretty standard for academic reviewing.)

As a matter of fact, John Tvedtnes has long promised me a more extensive response to David Wright. But, other than reminding him and encouraging him to write it or to finish it, I have no power to force him to get it done. And now he lives in Arkansas.



.

[_Analytics]

You may have noticed that in my list of best apologetic sources, I put FARMS in at third. I did this because yes, if somebody writes a really good book criticizing Mormonism’s unique truth claims FARMS will surely write monstrous essays in response. However, FARMS comes across as attempting to offer copious responses to the best books against Mormonism, while doggedly dodging the best arguments against Mormonism.

I find it rather strange that you picture FARMS as "writing" essays.

FARMS is a publisher or a clearing house. It isn't a person....

That is a pet peve of yours, isn't it?

Let me rephrase my point.

You may have noticed that in my list of best apologetic sources, I put FARMS in at third. I did this because yes, if somebody writes a really good book criticizing Mormonism’s unique truth claims the Maxwell Institute will surely publish monstrous essays in response. However, the essays the Maxwell Institute publishes come across as attempting to offer copious responses to the best books against Mormonism, while doggedly dodging the best arguments against Mormonism as written in the very books that it reviews. Oops--did it again. I meant to say the very books that the reviewers in the reviews published by the Maxwell Institute are reviewing.

Better?

(Authors for the FARMS Review get a free copy of the issue in which their review appears, as well as a free copy of the thing they're reviewing -- if they don't already own it. Nothing more. Which is, by the way, pretty standard for academic reviewing.).

By the way, as a published academic reviewer, I can attest that you are exactly right about this.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That is a pet peve of yours, isn't it?

It's not a "pet peeve," but, yes, it's a recurrent quirk of certain critics, and I generally point it out when I encounter it.

Let me rephrase my point.

You may have noticed that in my list of best apologetic sources, I put FARMS in at third. I did this because yes, if somebody writes a really good book criticizing Mormonism’s unique truth claims the Maxwell Institute will surely publish monstrous essays in response. However, the essays the Maxwell Institute publishes come across as attempting to offer copious responses to the best books against Mormonism, while doggedly dodging the best arguments against Mormonism as written in the very books that it reviews.

Ah. Well, with your objection thus phrased, I simply disagree.

Of course, I suppose it's all in the fuzzy realm of how things "come across," perceptions rather than fact, so we'll probably have to just agree to disagree.

In any event, the FARMS Review has published literally hundreds of book reviews by literally hundreds of authors. No directive has been given out to any of them, let alone to all of them, directing them to "dodge" what Analytics considers the "best arguments against Mormonism."

[_Analytics]

That is a pet peve of yours, isn't it?

It's not a "pet peeve," but, yes, it's a recurrent quirk of certain critics, and I generally point it out when I encounter it.

Let me rephrase my point.

You may have noticed that in my list of best apologetic sources, I put FARMS in at third. I did this because yes, if somebody writes a really good book criticizing Mormonism’s unique truth claims the Maxwell Institute will surely publish monstrous essays in response. However, the essays the Maxwell Institute publishes come across as attempting to offer copious responses to the best books against Mormonism, while doggedly dodging the best arguments against Mormonism as written in the very books that it reviews.

Ah. Well, with your objection thus phrased, I simply disagree.

Of course, I suppose it's all in the fuzzy realm of how things "come across," perceptions rather than fact, so we'll probably have to just agree to disagree.

In any event, the FARMS Review has published literally hundreds of book reviews by literally hundreds of authors. No directive has been given out to any of them, let alone to all of them, directing them to "dodge" what Analytics considers the "best arguments against Mormonism."

I could be wrong--the truth is that I haven't read that many of the books or the reviews. I do fantasize about having the time to test my hypothesis though. I'd make a list of, say, 10 critical books that I've heard good things about. I'd then first carefully read the FARMS review, and based only upon the review, would try asertain what the books' main arguments are, how strong those arguments are, and the general tone and formidability of the book.

I'd then read the book and answer the same questions based upon the book, and see how closely they line up. The goal would be to see how well the review acknowledges the central arguments. I’d expect a book review to at least do that much.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I like your signature.

Yes, it would be a very interesting finding if, in fact, over its twenty years of publication, featuring hundreds of reviewers and hundreds of essays, the FARMS Review turned out, objectively, to manifest the pattern you claim to see in it in a significant way.

Since the only guidelines that Review authors receive have to do with citation styles, punctuation, and the like (a page or two, nothing more), such a discovery, if it were proven beyond reasonable objection, might say something truly interesting about Mormons -- or, at least, about Mormons of a certain educational level and intellectual bent.

[_Analytics]

I like your signature.

Yes, it would be a very interesting finding if, in fact, over its twenty years of publication, featuring hundreds of reviewers and hundreds of essays, the FARMS Review turned out, objectively, to manifest the pattern you claim to see in it in a significant way.

Since the only guidelines that Review authors receive have to do with citation styles, punctuation, and the like (a page or two, nothing more), such a discovery, if it were proven beyond reasonable objection, might say something truly interesting about Mormons -- or, at least, about Mormons of a certain educational level and intellectual bent.

It reminds me of something I recall a certain apologist saying on FAIR a little while ago. Somebody raised the question about whether or not faithful members had any doubts or were otherwise troubled by anything, and the apologist replied that of course he did, but he wasn’t going to divulge what they were because he didn’t want to give critics a roadmap of how to attack his testimony.

My view on this is that certain people have in fact written fair, incisive, and troubling criticisms of various aspects of the faith. If that is in fact true, what can somebody writing a FARMS review do when they are reviewing such a work? They certainly can’t concede that the critic makes some great points; they aren’t going to explain why they personally are forced to put the book’s central issues “on the shelf” or otherwise out of mind; much less concede that the critic (e.g. David P. Wright) successfully makes his case.

I’m probably biased because one of the few critical books I’ve read is of Dan Vogel’s “Word of God”, and I was stunned at how Stephen Robinson’s review of it dodges almost everything the book says and is designed to leave the reader with the impression that its Vogel is further out there than Walter Martin. I don’t mean to blame FARMS or its editor for Robinson’s review, but honestly—you can’t tell me you would have published it if Robinson would have said, “You know what? This book convinced me that the liberals really have a lot of keen insights into the Mormon scriptures that are worthy of respect. For the sake of intellectual integrity, we ought to take some lessons from the RLDS approach…”

For reference, here is Robinson’s review and rpcman’s review of the book I’m talking about.

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... um=1&id=74
http://www.lds-mormon.com/twog.shtml

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don’t mean to blame FARMS or its editor for Robinson’s review, but honestly—you can’t tell me you would have published it if Robinson would have said, “You know what? This book convinced me that the liberals really have a lot of keen insights into the Mormon scriptures that are worthy of respect. For the sake of intellectual integrity, we ought to take some lessons from the RLDS approach…”

I've never received such a review.

We have, however, published reviews that complimented authors or books with whom, on the whole or at least to a substantial degree, our reviewers disagreed.

There's no question that the FARMS Review represents a certain broad worldview, and that, like journals of annales historiography, Keynesian economics, Freudian psychoanalysis, Catholic theology, monetarist economics, evangelical biblical scholarship, continental philosophy, and Marxist sociology -- I apologize to Chap for these references -- we publish essays expressive of our general worldview and, by and large, don't publish essays that aren't expressive of that worldview. (FARMS was founded, to a large extent, to provide such a venue for scholarship expressive of that worldview; there already exist plenty of scholarly venues that aren't.)

But we've published reviews that were critical of me, of Hugh Nibley, of Jack Welch, etc., and we've published essays -- not a lot, but some -- that were critical of FARMS and of Mormonism.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm sure DCP was slapping his knees mirthfully as Robert Ritner announced that he was seriously considering a defamation lawsuit against The Good Professor: Ho ho ho! Hilllaaaaarious! Those wily anti-Mormons!

No, I don't find the prospect of being sued at all entertaining. It's a personal quirk of mine.

Perhaps you should get out of the business of Mopologetics, then?

But I'm intrigued by your apparent willingness to class Robert Ritner with Walter Martin, Ed Decker, and Bill Schnoebelen as an "anti-Mormon."

I wouldn't have classified him that way, myself.

I wouldn't either (and I didn't). You're not deliberately trying to engage in misrepresentation, are you?

In any case, I assume that you noticed the juxtaposition of my remark with your remarks that you hope for "better anti-Mormonism"? And, presumably, you do consider Prof. Ritner to be "anti-Mormon," given his apparent opposition to J. Gee's Book of Abraham theories?

Hi there, Prof. P. By any chance do you have access to these people's financial records? Are you able to ascertain, with absolute certainty, that these individuals "devote themselves, professionally" to these things?

If you have any evidence suggesting that either John L. Smith or Ed Decker engages in any professional activities other than his anti-Mormon ministry, feel free to share it.

Can anyone name the logical fallacy here?

And let me remind you, Prof. P., that we have no real evidence--beyond your incredibly shaky "word"; given your history, I think it is fairly safe to assume that you have engaged in a fair amount of equivocation in this regard--that *you* get paid solely to be a BYU prof. For all we know, your salary is divided up evenly with your Mopologetics.

Or, are they essentially doing the same thing that you do as a Mopologist?

Feel free to locate a few of my publications against Protestantism, or my exposés of Hinduism, or my filmed denunciations of the Catholic Church, or my tabloid articles attacking Islam.

The gist of what "they" do is attacking others. Plain and simple. And, unfortunately, that is precisely what you do.

For example, does Ankerberg have a "Best of the Bonehead Mopologists" award, or something along those lines?

I haven't the faintest idea.

Awwww. Well, I guess we'll have to chalk up a point in his favor then, won't we?

And if he did, would you find it funny?

If it were funny, yes, I would.

Which is, of course, precisely my point. If it were along the same lines as Gary "The Berry Picker" Novak's website, you (or Bill Hamblin?) would be screaming about how it was "bigoted," or indicative of his low character, or something like that.

For that matter, I think it's pretty funny that you're trying to depict me (and Bill Hamblin, of all people!) as desperately insecure and grimly humorless. But I don't think you intend this latest silliness of yours to be funny. Am I right?

More misrepresentation. The truth of the matter is that I think you, and Prof. Hamblin, and Prof. Midgley, and Associate Tvedtnes, and all the rest of the "crew" do indeed find a lot of things funny. Ganging up on people via l-skinny, for example. In fact, I bet you thought it was "hilarious" when Louis Midgley turned up at the Tanners' bookstore in order to very loudly express his disgust that they were carrying books written by "that queer" (i.e., D. Michael Quinn). That's the sort of thing that you and others on l-skinny find amusing, right? (Let me guess: you'll either not respond to this at all, or you'll dispense some extremely half-hearted, "Aw, well, *I* wouldn't have done that!" Even though you probably snickered when you learned of it.) So: I do think that you guys have a "sense of humor," if you want to call it that. But that's not what I'm getting at here.

Instead, I am arguing that this "sense of humor"--if you want to call it that--completely vanishes when it comes to certain "close-to-the-heart" Mopologetic topics. So let me ask you again: Do you find it funny that well-respected academics find many of your arguments laughable? Does knowledge of this fact sit well with you? For example, Michael Coe, in The Mormons, could hardly restrain his laughter as he discussed LDS archaeologists' failure to find any significant Book of Mormon evidence in Meso-America. The smirk on his face was unmistakable, in fact.

Do you like that, Prof. P.? Or does it bother you?

Further, how might you explain the endless (and needless) self-deprecating "humor" from yourself and Bill Hamlin on the subject of how you and he are "laughingstocks"? Why, I have to wonder, would you feel the need to do that?