Devastating Assessment of FARMS Legacy

[_Philo Sofee]

Thanks to all for your kind words.

Well stop writing then! (don't you even pretend to dare stop writing)

[_Doctor Scratch]

I suppose I have mixed feelings about the text quoted in the OP. Did the FARMS publications really push forward scholarly understanding of LDS-related issues? I don't know. TT suggests that FARMS "successfully championed" things like chiasmus and the LGT, but I don't think that's really to their credit. Just because junk theories are "championed" doesn't make those theories "successful" or valuable. There were other scholars (Arrington was mentioned) who were trying to do good work in Mormon Studies and they were booted out of the Church, with FARMS swooping in to finish things up with their usual smear tactics. I guess the basic thesis that TT is offering is that FARMS enabled people to treat Mormonism in a more scholarly way, but I don't know that I buy it. Did we really need FARMS to accomplish this? I rather doubt it, and even if it contributed in a small way, I wonder if it was worth that casualties that the Mopologists inflicted on dozens--if not hundreds--of people.

[_Kishkumen]

I suppose I have mixed feelings about the text quoted in the OP. Did the FARMS publications really push forward scholarly understanding of LDS-related issues? I don't know. TT suggests that FARMS "successfully championed" things like chiasmus and the LGT, but I don't think that's really to their credit. Just because junk theories are "championed" doesn't make those theories "successful" or valuable. There were other scholars (Arrington was mentioned) who were trying to do good work in Mormon Studies and they were booted out of the Church, with FARMS swooping in to finish things up with their usual smear tactics. I guess the basic thesis that TT is offering is that FARMS enabled people to treat Mormonism in a more scholarly way, but I don't know that I buy it. Did we really need FARMS to accomplish this? I rather doubt it, and even if it contributed in a small way, I wonder if it was worth that casualties that the Mopologists inflicted on dozens--if not hundreds--of people.

Robert M. Price has noted, and I agree, that any intensive reading of a text can yield insights that others may not have noticed before. So much in the LDS scriptures had really gone unnoticed before Nibley and FARMS came along. While one can always find fault (and rightly so) with the ultimate results of specific arguments, I think credit is due for getting people to read and think in greater depth and in different ways. Where it will ultimately lead, I do not know. I do know that Don Bradley often reads the old FARMS stuff, and he finds good stuff there. The conclusions aren't always the best, but lots of interesting things pop up in the course of the investigation.

[_harmony]

Robert M. Price has noted, and I agree, that any intensive reading of a text can yield insights that others may not have noticed before. So much in the LDS scriptures had really gone unnoticed before Nibley and FARMS came along.

Actually I think it was Benson who told the members to read the
!#@%$ book. And condemned the church as a whole because of the ignorance of the members regarding the Book of Mormon.

[_Kishkumen]

Actually I think it was Benson who told the members to read the
!#@%$ book. And condemned the church as a whole because of the ignorance of the members regarding the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, and how many scholarly articles on Mormon scripture did he publish again?

[_harmony]

Actually I think it was Benson who told the members to read the
!#@%$ book. And condemned the church as a whole because of the ignorance of the members regarding the Book of Mormon.

Yeah, and how many scholarly articles on Mormon scripture did he publish again?

Now you've made me laugh and everyone is looking at me, expecting a joke.

He didn't need to write scholarly articles. He was published several times a year in the Ensign.

[_Kishkumen]

Now you've made me laugh and everyone is looking at me, expecting a joke.

Sorry!

He didn't need to write scholarly articles. He was published several times a year in the Ensign.

Yes, well, he also didn't provide detailed, in-depth readings of the Book of Mormon in the Ensign. I guarantee it.