The Hatchet is Passed On to FAIR

[_LifeOnaPlate]

What I see is a "turf war". I think the scholars are trying to remove the influence the self-taught, non-academics types like Meldrum, Yorgason and others have on the LDS population, that challenge the scholar positions.

Many FAIR volunteers are regular folks, self-taught, etc. So this assertion is largely unfounded.

While they may think their actions, are well-intentioned, and I'm certain they have a long list of reasons for going after these people, I am skeptical that this doesn't come down to plain pride and competition.

For some? Maybe. For most? Not that I've seen.

I say, let the members decide who makes a better case for their theories. And I say that LDS should be very careful about contending with other LDS. If they want to point out the problems with Meldrum's research, then do it carefully, without questioning the man's loyalty to the church--a cheap tactic that should not be stooped to.

Just above you imputed pride to the reason for FAIR's response. Shouldn't you be more careful about contending with other LDS? ;)

They have the right to critique, yes. But my complaint is with how it has been done. I stated my concerns at the very beginning when I first read comments from FAIR regarding Meldrum's DVD and presentation. I don't think LDS should attack other LDS.

Where and how? I suggest writing straight to FAIR.

I don't agree with every aspect of the Meldrum review, or the way FAIR as a group has handled it. I do know, however, that many FAIR members have worried over the issue and tried to be as straightforward and careful as possible. I'm personally not really interested in the whole geography thing as much as others may be, it is a rather peripheral issue for me. Still, I remember listening to talk tapes on my mission about the Nag Hammadi library and other things where speakers were basically making terribly unsound claims and closing with testimony and whatnot. Upon discovering the major flaws with those tapes I wished someone had told me sooner. I made it a point to take responsibility and look into things for myself without just relying on a DVD or tape. With Meldrum, his presentation deserves to be critiqued. I believe that. I believe it should be done with utmost care, but FAIR isn't a one-minded machine that just plunks out information; there are many personalities involved. So while we have a crowd here assuming the worst for FAIR (a big shock for this site, I know), and some gleefully laughing over the whole affair, and others looking down their noses at the evil folks at FAIR, it would do us all well to take a step back for a minute and take a nice deep breath.

Again, having watched much of the process from the inside has strengthened my belief that while FAIR is imperfect, of course, it is full of members who want the best for the Church, and the members of the Church.

Finally: if anyone has specific complaints about the review, please provide direct, full quotes, not simply links and random words in quotation marks. Thanks, I appreciate honest input.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I cannot say. Only Prof. Peterson can explain the history of that strange and wonderful publication.

Not at all. The Scartchmeister, who's glanced at some of the articles that have appeared in the Review, knows far more about it and about its history than I do.

We've never come under serious pressure from anybody, though -- unless, perhaps, the Scartchmeister knows better.

[_Ray A]

Finally: if anyone has specific complaints about the review, please provide direct, full quotes, not simply links and random words in quotation marks. Thanks, I appreciate honest input.

Life, here is one problem I see.

* Mr. Meldrum has attempted to assert revelation for those outside of his stewardship, and has used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.
* The DVD contains much material that is misrepresented because the author is unfamiliar with the large body of work--produced over decades by faithful Latter-day Saints--that addresses the very topics he seeks to address.
* The DVD plants erroneous information, concepts, and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile critics when these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of the Church.

Let me hypothetically re-phrase that:

The Prophets have attempted to assert....revelation, and have used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.
* The DVD contains much material that is misrepresented because the the Prophets are unfamiliar with the large body of work--produced over decades by faithful Latter-day Saints--that addresses the very topics they seek to address.
* The Church videos plant erroneous information, concepts, and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile critics when these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of the Church.

Now don't get me wrong, I think it's Sorenson's model or bust. I've followed this literature for a very long time, from Sorenson's early '80s Ensign article, to his 1985 book, and as far as I'm concerned he's right - it's Mesoamerica, or nowhere. But there's a problem with average members who read statements of past prophets, and the Book of Mormon, and want Meldrum to be right. That's why he's so popular.

[_christopher]

As you mentioned, it would seem that FARMS had the choice of going down two paths in the early days. I'll explain this better later, but for now, I'll just say the project of FARMS in volume one is terrifying and ensured its doom. But the manner in which this project was carried out actually bordered on respectable. It would seem to me that how FARMS originated only carried a strong hint of what was to come to pass, and history could have happened a different way. The forces of "good" could have won it, it would seem. But alas, it was not to be.

Do you think that (the forces of good) was tried earlier with Thomas Ferguson and the New World Archaeological Foundation, and when that failed they only had one other path to go?

[_Dr. Shades]

But there's a problem with average members who read statements of past prophets, and the Book of Mormon, and want Meldrum to be right.

What exactly is that problem?

[_Daniel Peterson]

the hubris drunken mind of the apologist

I love that phrase.

No generalizations here!

Wow! That is quite an embarrassment for Tvedtnes, who by now has become well-known as a spiteful gossipmongerer and a foul-mouthed "hatchet man."

In Scartchworld. Population 2, or maybe even 3.

On a sidenote: I am kind of interested where Tvedtnes published this "half dozen articles." If it was in some other FARMS publication, I'm going to have to say that I'm not very impressed.

Note, once again, the Scartchmeister's striking and quite comprehensive unfamiliarity with FARMS publications. He doesn't know.

He's read very, very little. Yet he's set himself up as something of a historian of "Mopologetics." LOL.

Notably, there are two reviews of Yorgason's scholarship in this issue of FROB. The other is by Paul Hoskisson. Interestingly, while Dr. Hoskisson is critical of the book, he finds a way to present his views professionally and sans the personal attacks. Brent Yorgason was cruel to no one, he did not deserve a brutal hacking. The difference? Hoskisson was doing a Book Review, Tvedness was doing apologetics.

And I notice, Gad, that in the early installments of FROB, the apologists could have opted for either of two paths: the scholarly, respectable path of reviewing books in earnest, or the "belligerent" path of the apologists as we know them. Well, I think it's quite clear that they chose to follow the aggressive, arrogant, snot-nose approach that was pioneered in part by J. Tvedtnes.

Paul Hoskisson was announced at the end of August as the new director of FARMS, within the Maxwell Institute, replacing Dr. S. Kent Brown, who has just retired from the University.

Professor Hoskisson earned his Ph.D. at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, following studies at the Universität Tübingen in Germany. He is a Semitic philologist with special interests in Mesopotamian studies and the library of ancient Ugarit. For a time, before coming to BYU, he taught at the Universität Zürich, in Switzerland. He's an old friend. He and I have traveled as speaking companions, among other places, in the Midwest and in Central Europe. (He and I often speak Schwyzerdüütsch together obwohl er eigentlich in Österreich auf Mission war). His wife is from Spain, and teaches Spanish at BYU.

[_Ray A]

But there's a problem with average members who read statements of past prophets, and the Book of Mormon, and want Meldrum to be right.

What exactly is that problem?

That should be obvious. A problem which FAIR is trying to rectify, by quoting GAs who weren't as dogmatic as JFS, who pretty much called the LGM "heresy", quoting past prophets. JFS thought the LGM "unthinkable". The other reason Meldrum is popular is because a literal reading of the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, does not account for "others", and states that the Jaredites/Nephites were the only ones on the continent. That's how I read it 34 years ago.

[_Gadianton]

As you mentioned, it would seem that FARMS had the choice of going down two paths in the early days. I'll explain this better later, but for now, I'll just say the project of FARMS in volume one is terrifying and ensured its doom. But the manner in which this project was carried out actually bordered on respectable. It would seem to me that how FARMS originated only carried a strong hint of what was to come to pass, and history could have happened a different way. The forces of "good" could have won it, it would seem. But alas, it was not to be.

Do you think that (the forces of good) was tried earlier with Thomas Ferguson and the New World Archaeological Foundation, and when that failed they only had one other path to go?

Christopher, you're treading on dangerous ground. I don't have a good answer for this question.

But my complete "review" of volume 1 might shed some light. This has been delayed as my research has taken a surprising turn, and led me to results I had not expected at all.

Let's just say that what might have ultimately undermined any good at work in the early days of FARMS was a very specific event that hastily triggered the small group to go into full damage control mode. Had not this urgency been made manifest, the side effect from the more broad control agenda of the leadership of the group, the side effect of having a number of differing perspectives opine on a wide range of LDS books, might have been enough to establish a market for the FROB as a very positive and successful venue that couldn't be fully controlled by its handlers.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Finally: if anyone has specific complaints about the review, please provide direct, full quotes, not simply links and random words in quotation marks. Thanks, I appreciate honest input.

Life, here is one problem I see.

* Mr. Meldrum has attempted to assert revelation for those outside of his stewardship, and has used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.
* The DVD contains much material that is misrepresented because the author is unfamiliar with the large body of work--produced over decades by faithful Latter-day Saints--that addresses the very topics he seeks to address.
* The DVD plants erroneous information, concepts, and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile critics when these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of the Church.

Let me hypothetically re-phrase that:

The Prophets have attempted to assert....revelation, and have used that revelation as a substitute for solid scholarship.
* The DVD contains much material that is misrepresented because the the Prophets are unfamiliar with the large body of work--produced over decades by faithful Latter-day Saints--that addresses the very topics they seek to address.
* The Church videos plant erroneous information, concepts, and expectations in the minds of viewers, making them easier targets for hostile critics when these errors are inevitably trumpeted by enemies of the Church.

Now don't get me wrong, I think it's Sorenson's model or bust. I've followed this literature for a very long time, from Sorenson's early '80s Ensign article, to his 1985 book, and as far as I'm concerned he's right - it's Mesoamerica, or nowhere. But there's a problem with average members who read statements of past prophets, and the Book of Mormon, and want Meldrum to be right. That's why he's so popular.

Can you show me a quote by a GA that says a HGM was given Joseph Smith by revelation?

[_Black Moclips]

Just goes to show how nothing good can come of making church topics hobbies. Inevitably, you will actually learn something (or think you did) and you will want to share it, only to then my taken down by church authorities and/or apologists. Better to just play video games. For the Alliance!