Richard Mouw - DCP's next target?

[_J Green]

Kish and Gad:

It's been a long day of work for me. Thanks for your patience. A few thoughts from my perspective.

If your perception of my interpretation of the objections in the article amounts simply to a concern about seminars and books then I think I have failed at communicating and apologize for that.

The different ways the three of us responded to the article as readers intrigues me. Both of you are focused on the author, whereas my attention was drawn immediately to the subject. Could the difference simply be my biases at work? Perhaps. I certainly have them. On the other hand, I think I've demonstrated a willingness on both boards to criticize the harsh rhetoric of critics and defenders alike. And I've never even so much as met Greg, so I don't have anything personal at stake here. I simply read the article and was impressed by the evidence and concerned about the practices he documented. But I do understand that neither of you are convinced he makes his case. Further, regardles of whether or not he did make a case you feel it wasn't his place to even attempt it in that venue.

Where do we go from here? I don't know. Both of you wish to take the discussion into the realm of what the Review should or should not address as opposed what the Church itself should address. Okay, you're certainly entitled to your opinions. But I hesitate to speak to this issue for many reasons. I'm not an academic and don't work at BYU (even though I have stayed at a Holidy Inn Express recently). I don't fully understand the relationship between the Brethren and the University let alone the Brethren and the Review (if there is one -- I doubt it). I have no experience with academic journals other than reading the few I subscribe to. In other words, I couldn't pretend to speak intelligently on what the limits in scope should be for a normal academic journal, let alone one affiliated with a religious university. I sometimes watch people with no military experience or demonstrated understanding of the military aggressively articulate opinions about what the military should or should not do on any given subject, and I feel like one of those people now on this subject.

But I'll certainly give my opinion, since we all are doing so. I'm not convinced of the arguments about the Church hiding behind the Review or that the Review is taking on a role that should only be the Church's. I think that an academic journal is justified in probing any public subject that is relevant to the scope of it's intended interest. Probing the public business persona that is integrated into and props up an academic argument, if relevant, doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Further, I don't think Greg's arguments were ecclesiastical in nature or intended to usurp or replace the authority of ecclesiastical leaders. (I've been in enough stake and ward leadership callings to recognize an ecclesiastical accusation when I see one.) And because the evidence that Greg documents is convincing, logical, and reasonable to me, I don't come away with the impression that he has slimed anyone or created a hit piece.

Unfortunately, I also realize that the above constitutes a long list of disagreements between us. That likely doesn't bode well for positive or productive discussion, and I despise the kind of arguing that litters the landscape of message boards. What now?

Regards

[_Kishkumen]

If your perception of my interpretation of the objections in the article amounts simply to a concern about seminars and books then I think I have failed at communicating and apologize for that.

It would help me if I had a more complete idea of your concern. I will tell you that I am deeply troubled by the nationalistic and racist implications of some of Meldrum's teachings, so is that what you are referring to? It is hard for me to disagree with Greg Smith about that, and, even though I think that the Meldrum phenomenon is understandable within the context of the LDS Church's own historical background and teachings, I find it no less undesirable. So, yes, I think there needed to be a response of some kind to Meldrum. And, in certain respects I think Greg Smith does an excellent job of showing what those problems are, and in drawing a line between what is preferred LDS belief about certain matters and Meldrum's take.

Here is where I start to have problems:

Meldrum sent an e-mail on 9 May 2008 in which he invited those who had purchased his DVD to become members of his FIRM Foundation. This communiqué strikes quite a different tone:

After fasting and praying about it with my family, and after reading my patriarchal blessing, . . . it was clear that I was going to have to leave [my job] to work on these projects full time, but I wanted more of a 'sign' from the Lord. So I had three big projects about to close with [my job], and I told the Lord that if he wants me to make this project my #1 priority to please cause that none of these jobs go through. . . . Well, within three days all three of the jobs were either terminated by the client, lost to another company, or delayed until next year! So on Monday, April 21st, I put in my two weeks notice and began my new life working full-time on this project.18

This reply was reportedly received from a patriarchal blessing, fasting, and prayer. Meldrum then seeks a sign from God and gets it. Yet he argues that we are unjustified in concluding that this account strongly implies that God supports or agrees with what he is doing. Why would God give him a sign to spread a false theory about the Book of Mormon full-time? And why would he tell others about his sign-seeking unless he wants to influence them? Why would such divine instruction come to him and not to the president of the LDS Church?

My response is, "OK, and so?" At this point I think Smith steps over the line. Since you claim not to be an academic, and therefore not to know much about this stuff, I can tell you that it is not standard academic practice in a book review to refer to marketing emails to drum up support for a peripherally related foundation. This, in fact, is so far off of the reservation in terms of standard academic practice, I would have to say that at this point Smith's piece bears almost no resemblance to an academic book review.

Yet this very kind of thing seems to be almost SOP in FARMS reviews. In another thread, sethpayne cites a terrible "review" by Davis Bitton of Mike Quinn's book, Same Sex Dynamics, in which he talks of the confusion of educated citizens of Cache Valley Utah when they read the book.

Huh? What bearing does that have on Mike Quinn's argument? Why on earth is that relevant in any way? Is this an academic book review, or a newspaper piece on UFO hysteria?

In Matt Brown's review of Buerger's book, Mysteries of Godliness, you again get the same kind of impertinent reference to public outcry over the book, which, again, has absolutely no bearing on the scholarly merit of the book.

So, I ask you, J Green, if this is an "academic journal" and these are "academic book reviews," then why is it that I, an actual academic, see no relationship between these impertinent observations about tangentially related marketing, vague, undocumented instances of alleged public confusion, and the like, and academic practice as I or any of my friends and colleagues in academia would recognize it? Because, I can tell you, the colleague who tried to pass that kind of nonsense off as an academic book review would be laughed out of the room. And I do not say this for dramatic effect.

So, what is there to say about this tendency in FARMS reviews? If it were just a onetime occurrence, we could chalk it up to an authorial and editorial lapse and move on. The problem is that it appears and reappears in multiple reviews over the years. This, it seems to me, is a real problem, which bears on the academic reputation of BYU. The powers that be need to figure out whether the FARMS review is going to be an academic journal, or a forerunner to an ecclesiastical disciplinary procedure. The nonsense I have quoted above may be acceptable for the latter, but most definitely is not appropriate for the former.

I say that no one should want it to be the latter, or anything close to it. The problem is that, whether you think it amounts to that or not, its appearance is definitely inappropriate in scholarly terms, raising the question of some kind of hinky relationship between Church authorities and the personal takedown this review represents.

Part of the disconnect between us, I think, is that, where it regards the quoted passage above, you have your LDS sensibilities cap on, whereas I have both my academic and LDS sensibilities caps on. I "get" why Meldrum's marketing using answers to prayers, his patriarchal blessing, references to GAs, and the like is problematic. What I don't get, as an academic, is why this is included in a review of Meldrum's book. That it is raises big red flags for me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Greg Smith's article isn't really about Meldrum's book--or at least, that's not what it mainly seems to be about. As I noted above, Smith's article is constructed to portray Meldrum as a "charlatan." J Green thinks this is fine because he finds the evidence "convincing, logical, and reasonable," which I think completely misses the point. If Meldrum's book is "unscientific," fine. Why do we need all the other stuff about how he is supposedly bilking people out of money? J Green would probably respond that it's valid to criticize Meldrum's appeals to his own spiritual authority, though I still don't see how or why that's necessary or useful in terms of critiquing the science behind Meldrum's claims. J Green either doesn't get that this is a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem, or he thinks that ad hominem is a valid type of formal, scholarly critique. But the thing is: you don't need to drag the man's character into the discussion in order to show how and why his academic work is flawed. And yet, a big chunk of Greg Smith's article does just that. And that's why I've said that the article's rhetoric is designed to smear Meldrum: it's not enough in the Mopologists' eyes to simply discredit Meldrum's thinking and research; they have to convince readers like J Green that Meldrum is a "snake oil salesman" as well. And, hey, what do you know? It worked!

I agree with you, Reverend that this is totally atypical for academic work. The only people I know who are familiar with the Review and who refuse to admit that this kind of thing is highly atypical, are LDS who are loyal to the Mopologists. Even LDS scholars like Richard Bushman and Eugene England have come out and said that they thought the Mopologists' antics in the Review were out of line.

[_Chap]

Greg Smith's article isn't really about Meldrum's book--or at least, that's not what it mainly seems to be about. As I noted above, Smith's article is constructed to portray Meldrum as a "charlatan." J Green thinks this is fine because he finds the evidence "convincing, logical, and reasonable," which I think completely misses the point. If Meldrum's book is "unscientific," fine. Why do we need all the other stuff about how he is supposedly bilking people out of money? J Green would probably respond that it's valid to criticize Meldrum's appeals to his own spiritual authority, though I still don't see how or why that's necessary or useful in terms of critiquing the science behind Meldrum's claims. J Green either doesn't get that this is a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem, or he thinks that ad hominem is a valid type of formal, scholarly critique. But the thing is: you don't need to drag the man's character into the discussion in order to show how and why his academic work is flawed. And yet, a big chunk of Greg Smith's article does just that. And that's why I've said that the article's rhetoric is designed to smear Meldrum: it's not enough in the Mopologists' eyes to simply discredit Meldrum's thinking and research; they have to convince readers like J Green that Meldrum is a "snake oil salesman" as well. And, hey, what do you know? It worked!
....

Isn't it amusing that when critics point to flaws in the conduct of Joseph Smith - or Brigham Young - as a reason for doubting the doctrines they taught, apologists come back with the answer that "no-one ever said prophets had to be perfect", so that character is irrelevant to the validity of a person's teaching.

Why doesn't the same apply to Meldrum, I wonder?

[_Albion]

For what it's worth...I was in the Tabernacle when Mouw made this statement and I was one of those totally outraged by it. I think he was dishonest and sucking up to his hosts.

[_Kishkumen]

Why doesn't the same apply to Meldrum, I wonder?

Precisely because this isn't in the end about science, but about power. "Science" is only being employed to the extent that it is useful for quashing objectionable teachings. I don't have a problem with that. If an idea is bad, or leads to a bad place, then better to nip it in the bud. But as the Good Doctor and others have pointed out, the Mopologists are not content to do that, so they add all of this character assassination in there to boot.

Their defense is really as follows: "Yeah, but Meldrum is a snake-oil salesman, and that is important for people to understand as they see why his book is wrong." But as the Good Doctor has pointed out rightly, Greg Smith did not need to depict Meldrum as a charlatan (a questionable claim) in order to show why his science was bad and (I would add) the implications of his teachings are disturbing in terms of nationalism and race.

Unfortunately, since the LDS Church's claims are themselves shaky on the same grounds of science (e.g., Lamanite DNA), the apologists proceed, in their palpable insecurity, to the character assassination of the man in order to shore up the moral authority of the alleged "good guys" whom they represent (morality and priesthood authority being the real grounding of their legitimacy, not the scientific value of their claims). The sad thing is that a perspicacious outside observer is bound to see that this is the product of weakness and insecurity, not confidence and real strength. They thus make the problem worse, and come off looking like bullies.

[Guest]

So, I ask you, J Green, if this is an "academic journal" and these are "academic book reviews," then why is it that I, an actual academic, see no relationship between these impertinent observations about tangentially related marketing, vague, undocumented instances of alleged public confusion, and the like, and academic practice as I or any of my friends and colleagues in academia would recognize it? Because, I can tell you, the colleague who tried to pass that kind of nonsense off as an academic book review would be laughed out of the room. And I do not say this for dramatic effect.

So, what is there to say about this tendency in FARMS reviews? If it were just a onetime occurrence, we could chalk it up to an authorial and editorial lapse and move on. The problem is that it appears and reappears in multiple reviews over the years. This, it seems to me, is a real problem, which bears on the academic reputation of BYU. The powers that be need to figure out whether the FARMS review is going to be an academic journal, or a forerunner to an ecclesiastical disciplinary procedure. The nonsense I have quoted above may be acceptable for the latter, but most definitely is not appropriate for the former.

There is so much in the Review that just does not come off as academic quality being a primary concern. Sure, smart people with degrees publish stuff that is sometimes worthwhile - the Bushman review is a good example - but the Mitton & James article exposes itself for a hit piece in its first two lines. I can't fathom the following ever appearing in an academic venue:

Line 1: Love flies out the door when money comes innuendo.1

Why is that there? It adds nothing to the discussion other than to set the stage of accusing Quinn of duplicity. Uncalled for and clearly not even close to the case.

Line 2: D. Michael Quinn is a former Mormon historian now turned homosexual apologist.2

Why is this there except to try to poison the reader's opinion of Quinn to begin with? It was asked earlier in the thread what "Homosexual apologist" even means. Not sure other than it is clearly a pejorative. Maybe we can look to the associated footnote to figure out what that means...

Footnote 2. Quinn, whose Ph.D. in social history is from Yale University, taught history at Brigham Young University for twelve years. However, since 1988, he has been an "independent scholar and freelance writer" (inside back fold of dust cover). This appears to be another way of saying that Quinn has not secured a university post. See the report of an interview with Quinn by Mark Silk in which he relates that Quinn is "looking for an academic position." Lingua Franca 6 (July—August 1996): 23. Contrary to some claims that have been made in connection with the promotion of his book, Quinn was never dean of graduate studies or chairman of the History Department at Brigham Young University. In the preface to the book (p. ix), Quinn calls attention to his departure from the university and also to his excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1993.

...or maybe not. Instead we find another egregious dig at Quinn as an unemployable, excommunicated bum. It's almost as if the authors had this "zinger" for which they couldn't find a place in the text and decided to invent a non-sensical footnote rather than not include it. Including extra odd footnotes (no matter how non-sensical) also has the advantage of giving an air of a well researched article.

[_J Green]

Kish,

You're probably right about my reading the article with a "LDS sensibilities" lens. I think that's accurate. I guess I am who I am. I hope that recognizing my paradigms may help me to step back a little and see issues from other perspectives as well. But as I've pointed out, I think another aspect in play is that for most of the issues you have with the Review, I'm the wrong guy to discuss them with. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to interact with a reader's hat on, but most of our discussions drift into areas where you need to talk to the author or editor--someone who is smart about the intent and process. And though you have valid, thoughtful questions, I've seen Review authors and editors discuss these issues online over the years with equally thoughtful and valid answers. And I simply don't want anyone following this conversation to think I'm a viable substitute for one of them. I'm comfortable discussing translation with a Brant Gardner or a Royal Skousen on my own terms because I have both academic training in it as well as extensive professional experience. But in this I can only react as a reader and not act as a substitute for the real experts on this issue. And with that reader's hat on, a few thoughts:

If your perception of my interpretation of the objections in the article amounts simply to a concern about seminars and books then I think I have failed at communicating and apologize for that.

It would help me if I had a more complete idea of your concern. I will tell you that I am deeply troubled by the nationalistic and racist implications of some of Meldrum's teachings, so is that what you are referring to? It is hard for me to disagree with Greg Smith about that, and, even though I think that the Meldrum phenomenon is understandable within the context of the LDS Church's own historical background and teachings, I find it no less undesirable. So, yes, I think there needed to be a response of some kind to Meldrum. And, in certain respects I think Greg Smith does an excellent job of showing what those problems are, and in drawing a line between what is preferred LDS belief about certain matters and Meldrum's take.

Yes, this is one area I find distasteful. The other area is the next one you cover, where things I consider sacred--e.g., patriarchal blessings, fasting and prayer, etc.--are used in a marketing e-mail intended for soliciting business. As you say, likely my LDS sensibilities in play.

Here is where I start to have problems:

Meldrum sent an e-mail on 9 May 2008 in which he invited those who had purchased his DVD to become members of his FIRM Foundation. This communiqué strikes quite a different tone:

After fasting and praying about it with my family, and after reading my patriarchal blessing, . . . it was clear that I was going to have to leave [my job] to work on these projects full time, but I wanted more of a 'sign' from the Lord. So I had three big projects about to close with [my job], and I told the Lord that if he wants me to make this project my #1 priority to please cause that none of these jobs go through. . . . Well, within three days all three of the jobs were either terminated by the client, lost to another company, or delayed until next year! So on Monday, April 21st, I put in my two weeks notice and began my new life working full-time on this project.18

This reply was reportedly received from a patriarchal blessing, fasting, and prayer. Meldrum then seeks a sign from God and gets it. Yet he argues that we are unjustified in concluding that this account strongly implies that God supports or agrees with what he is doing. Why would God give him a sign to spread a false theory about the Book of Mormon full-time? And why would he tell others about his sign-seeking unless he wants to influence them? Why would such divine instruction come to him and not to the president of the LDS Church?

My response is, "OK, and so?" At this point I think Smith steps over the line. Since you claim not to be an academic, and therefore not to know much about this stuff, I can tell you that it is not standard academic practice in a book review to refer to marketing emails to drum up support for a peripherally related foundation. This, in fact, is so far off of the reservation in terms of standard academic practice, I would have to say that at this point Smith's piece bears almost no resemblance to an academic book review.

Your input carries more weight than mine does here. As an observer, I would be equally interested in hearing input from Greg or another expert who differs so I could weigh the various arguments. But with my reader's hat on and trying to look at this from other perspectives in spite of my acknowledged biases, I have three observations that I would make purely from the standpoint of how the essay itself is constructed. The first two deal with reasons why textually this concept may fit here, and the third addresses why it may not.

First, this concept is included in what is essentially the introduction. After preliminary remarks (that include this subject), Greg starts his thesis paragraph: "This review consists of three broad sections." He then starts the actual review with Part I. Given that this is introductory material, why is it even there? Well, to the author it appears that he is setting the background for the review by explaining an ongoing conversation. Greg had done a review (published with FAIR) in which he had made certain points about an earlier iteration of Meldrum's material. Now reviewing the current version, he feels that Meldrum has responded to his earlier review in the current version he is now reviewing. How do you handle reviewing material that is a response to your own ealier review? Do you continue the conversation or do you ignore it? If you do provide a response, do you feature it in the main body of the review or do you fit it into the introduction to provide context for the current review and acknowledge to readers that this is indeed a lengthier discussion than it looks? I can see reasons for both options, but strictly from a reader's view of the construction of this particular essay, I think the response fits where it does in the flow of acknowledging a previous conversation that has continued into material currently under review.

Second, I think that there is a similarity in methodology that is apparent in the way the business model plays on religious affiliation in reacting to outside authority (criticizing LDS scholars, CES, Sunday School and other curricula that doesn't agree with it) and the way that the academic material reacts to outside authority (the distasteful lineage issues, criticism of genetics expertise, etc.). Identifying repeated patterns helps establish the thesis and suggests underlying reasons for those patterns.

Third, I also think from a reader's viewpoint that the review could work without this idea in the introduction. If you took the main body of the essay, starting with Part I and very minimal introduction, you certainly would still have a decent review, as Gad suggests. Under this option, Greg could choose to keep this review to essentially the main body (Part I and beyond) and then update his previous essay in FAIR to acknowledge the continuing conversation and respond to it there.

Of course, your response to this is likely, "If it works without it, why include it?" Well, I've given a few reasons why I think it works with it from a reader's perspective and I think the argument could be made that those reasons make the essay better. It acknowleges that Greg thinks this is an ongoing conversation and it establishes a pattern that strengthens the issues discussed in the main body of the review. But once again, I would remind everyone that I'm not a viable substitute for any reason Greg (being the expert on all things Greg) does or doesn't do anything.

a terrible "review" by Davis Bitton of Mike Quinn's book, Same Sex Dynamics . . .

In Matt Brown's review of Buerger's book, Mysteries of Godliness . . .

So, what is there to say about this tendency in FARMS reviews?

Well, I haven't even finished considering this article yet. I'm more of a plodder when it comes to looking at and considering evidence. A George Smiley, if you will. I followed the thread dedicated to these types of issues in FARMS through the first three or four pages and found the net to be rather widely cast. Many of the issues dealt with quality or accuracy of footnotes or other issues that focused not on the tone of FARMS reviews (which was supposed to be the thesis) but rather the quality of its scholarship. I suspect that if you took your skills to hone the thesis statement and its supporting evidence in that thread you would focus on a small group of cases that could be evaluated. But when the scope of problem shrinks then the overarching motif of a FARMS "tendency" starts to become problematic.

Also not explored to any extent in the portion I read is the idea of variations in reviews on the same work, where one review may be more critical than another. Has an adequate comparative analysis been done on reviews of the same work? Can we detect anything from it? What does it mean in terms of a monolithic FARMS voice? Is there one? Can we really speak of tendencies and trends or are different voices given freedom to articulate their views as they see fit within the realm of their subject matter expertise? If the latter, what does this mean in terms of perceptions about relationships to Church Headquarters, etc.?

Part of the disconnect between us, I think, is that, where it regards the quoted passage above, you have your LDS sensibilities cap on, whereas I have both my academic and LDS sensibilities caps on. I "get" why Meldrum's marketing using answers to prayers, his patriarchal blessing, references to GAs, and the like is problematic. What I don't get, as an academic, is why this is included in a review of Meldrum's book. That it is raises big red flags for me.

I acknowledge my biases. I do think you raise good questions, and I enjoy pursuing them with you. But I also have to say that from the same reader's perspective, so far I'm not impressed with the organization of the material being used to prove the overall thesis against FARMS. I think it a bit scattered and disorganized, which dilutes the power of any argument. Similar to the paper of a freshman who doesn't understand how to stay on point in a persuasive argument. And if you cull the herd to make your case focused, you may weaken your overal argument of scope and trends. But I'll be interested to watch your progress.

Regards

[_J Green]

Why doesn't the same apply to Meldrum, I wonder?

Precisely because this isn't in the end about science, but about power. "Science" is only being employed to the extent that it is useful for quashing objectionable teachings. I don't have a problem with that. If an idea is bad, or leads to a bad place, then better to nip it in the bud. But as the Good Doctor and others have pointed out, the Mopologists are not content to do that, so they add all of this character assassination in there to boot.

Their defense is really as follows: "Yeah, but Meldrum is a snake-oil salesman, and that is important for people to understand as they see why his book is wrong." But as the Good Doctor has pointed out rightly, Greg Smith did not need to depict Meldrum as a charlatan (a questionable claim) in order to show why his science was bad and (I would add) the implications of his teachings are disturbing in terms of nationalism and race.

Unfortunately, since the LDS Church's claims are themselves shaky on the same grounds of science (e.g., Lamanite DNA), the apologists proceed, in their palpable insecurity, to the character assassination of the man in order to shore up the moral authority of the alleged "good guys" whom they represent (morality and priesthood authority being the real grounding of their legitimacy, not the scientific value of their claims). The sad thing is that a perspicacious outside observer is bound to see that this is the product of weakness and insecurity, not confidence and real strength. They thus make the problem worse, and come off looking like bullies.

I think that it is a bit premature to say it isn't about science for Greg. I don't know him but I get the impression from the article that it clearly is very important to him and that it is the driving force behind the paradigms by which he looks at anything, including Meldrum's material. I don't' get the sense that he personally is about the power or that he is being used as Manchurian author to squash a rival faction seeking to overthrow FARMS power and prestige. From the little I've read, Greg has a singular voice. I have a hard time seeing a FARMS voice, in any case.

Cheers.

[_Kishkumen]

I think that it is a bit premature to say it isn't about science for Greg. I don't know him but I get the impression from the article that it clearly is very important to him and that it is the driving force behind the paradigms by which he looks at anything, including Meldrum's material. I don't' get the sense that he personally is about the power or that he is being used as Manchurian author to squash a rival faction seeking to overthrow FARMS power and prestige. From the little I've read, Greg has a singular voice. I have a hard time seeing a FARMS voice, in any case.

I have to get back to the other response later. I'll briefly comment on this now: taken in the context of Greg's review of Laura Compton, which had little or no science in it, but much of the same attack on the person, I would say that the continuity between his "reviews" is more indicative of where he is coming. I am not saying that Greg does not take his science seriously; I am saying that the science is not the motivating factor. The motivating factor is protection of the LDS Church from its internal enemies or at least potential internal enemies, as both reviews make abundantly clear.

I said nothing about a rival faction trying to squash a rival factions seeking to overthrow FARMS' power and prestige. I think it is odd that you bring that up. Why do you?