MsJack and the future of FARMS

[_Aristotle Smith]

thanks for the explanation.

but let me ask you one more question:
if everything goes as you've said and this next generation with relevant training doesn't materialize, do (1) the people running and (2) the people sponsoring FARMS prefer to pack it in, or do they "go to war with the army you have"?

I wrote a long post laying out what I think is going to happen with LDS apologetics that I think answers this.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24439

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree that the future depends on future scholars and that the prospects for future scholars doing FARMS type work is dim at best, probably non-existent. But, I think that FARMS actually has very little to do with this. Though, I have seen it blamed for this and I expect it to continue to receive blame for this.

FARMS type scholarship really needs people who are trained in biblical and meso-american studies. For this comment, I'm going to focus mostly on the biblical studies aspect of doing FARMS type work.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: Mormons who do graduate level work in biblical studies almost invariably leave the LDS church. And, the few who stay almost always maintain their faith only by clinging to a very robust fideism, there really isn't that much of a connection between their scholarly work and their faith. But the bottom line is that neither of these groups will be doing apologetics for the LDS church based on some scholarly engagement with scripture.

The root of the problem is that modern biblical studies can really eat at one's belief in and trust of the Bible. Source criticism, redaction criticism, form criticism, textual criticism, etc. can really eat at one's beliefs, especially if you come from a fundamentalist background (and yes, Mormonism is functionally fundamentalist). But the real kicker is that all of those critical techniques work at least 10x better in killing faith in Mormon scripture than they do in the Bible. Pretty much every trained LDS scholar I think ends up realizing that there really isn't a way to defend or engage Mormon scripture from a critical standpoint. So, they either decide they aren't going to put their doubts on the self and leave, or they put their doubts on the shelf and cling to fideism (this is the "Mormonism works for me" crowd).

The end result is clear, no one is left to defend Mormon scripture, which was the primary purpose of FARMS. This is something I have constantly been driving home, FARMS apologetics sucks because it's the best defense you can make of Mormon scripture from a psuedo-scholarly standpoint. Or to put it another way, and I'm going to yell to make my point here.

CRAPPY FARMS MOPOLOGETICS IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM, IT IS MERELY THE SYMPTOM OF THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.

And the underlying problem is that people-in-the-know know they can't honestly engage Mormon scripture in a scholarly way, at least not with the techniques and tools they spend years honing in graduate school.

Interesting theory. Do you have examples of LDS "who do graduate level work in biblical studies almost invariably leave the LDS church?" I think David B (How do you spell his name?) is still in.

Also I wonder how many mainline Christians fall prey to this as well? I think Bart Ehrman certainly did. Is secular study detrimental to faith?

[_Jason Bourne]

That's the job of the Public Affairs Department.

[And they suck at it!

Yep and then you end up with this tripe:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101

[_Jason Bourne]

Parker and Stone are having a much bigger impact on Mormonism's image these days.

I think this musical is coming to my town!

[_bcspace]

I disagree on at least one point. The "tone" of apologetics will ultimately remain the same because the scriptures and the doctrine won't be going away any time soon. Also, there is, and will remain, no new ground directly related to apologetics for "up and coming" scholars to deal with. It'll all be rehash and repackaging because anti Mormon arguments themselves are just rehash.

Truth is truth, rehashed or not. You guys are the ones making up desperate ad hoc theories that convince only yourselves.

No. That's your department and well-illustrated on this board. You guys can hardly even describe the Church without lying about it in some fashion and hoping (desperation) no one will notice.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Interesting theory. Do you have examples of LDS "who do graduate level work in biblical studies almost invariably leave the LDS church?" I think David B (How do you spell his name?) is still in.

I mentioned that David Bokovoy is still in (though he won't be doing apologetics). His mentor, David P. Wright, left the church, or rather was excommunicated. He's now agnostic. Stan Larson was a Bible scholar and was excommunicated as well. Ed Ashment did graduate Egyptology work and has left the church. There are others whose names I have forgotten.

But there are also people like Jared Anderson, who did graduate work in New Testament, who though nominally Mormon won't be doing any apologetics for the church. Stephen Thompson has a Ph.D. in Egyptology, but he won't be defending the Book of Abraham, though last I heard he is still a member. If you want an entire group, check out the blog "Faith Promoting Rumor." Pretty much everyone there is doing or has done graduate work in biblical studies or religious studies. With one possible exception, I doubt any of them will be doing apologetics for Mormon scripture.

But remember my point wasn't that doing graduate level work guarantees that you leave, that's not the case. I am only making the weaker claim that it makes it highly unlikely that you will do apologetics defending Mormon scripture.

Also I wonder how many mainline Christians fall prey to this as well? I think Bart Ehrman certainly did. Is secular study detrimental to faith?

It happens to Christians all the time. Bart Ehrman was basically a fundamentalist who held an easily debunked view of biblical inspiration. The more fundamentalist you are, the more likely this will happen. What you see with Ehrman is the exact same phenomenon I am describing.

[_Samantabhadra]

[quote=TrashcanMan79]I've somehow managed to miss this. What forgery?[/quote]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8107

[_Servant]

One more thing, this is why FARMS has almost always been populated with people who have been trained in related fields, but never in biblical studies. Nibley was a classicist and an Arabist. DCP is an Arabist/Islamist. Midgely did political science. Lots of people with degrees in American history. Also, for some reason lots of lawyers. All fine things to study, but not really the specific training needed to defend Mormon scripture.

Look what has happened to the two people who did have the correct training. David P. Wright had great potential to do apologetics and even started writing some stuff for FARMS in the early days. But, he was honest in analyzing Mormon scripture and was rewarded with excommunication. David Bokovoy wasn't even let in the door, BYU slammed it in his face before he arrived. I think he realizes the problems with doing apologetics in a Mormon context as a biblical scholar and has pretty much sworn off the whole enterprise.

The one wild card is Maklelan. He's not fully trained up yet, but my guess is that BYU will take even less kindly to his ideas than they do to Bokovoy's.

I find it hard to believe that the Mormon powers that be would take kindly to the statement that the resurrection of Christ was a "quite late development" - as one of the "scholars" mentioned above stated on this forum. The resurrection of Christ is central to the Christian faith, as well as Mormonism, is it not? Once you cast doubt upon that, you might as well pack it up and work for John Spong (if he's hiring).

[_angsty]

I've somehow managed to miss this. What forgery?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8107

That was one weird-ass thread. Not sure how I missed it back in the day.

[_Sethbag]

Aristotle, would you mind giving a short synopsis of Maklelan's ideas, which you say the church won't be too happy with? I haven't paid enough attention to him to realize that he's got unorthodox ideas.