Specific Problems On Fair (And Farms If You Want)

[Log]

Reelmormon was taking to task for not listening.

Reelmormon was taken to task by non-listeners.

[why me]

Reelmormon was taken to task by non-listeners.

I remember responding to him or her quite often but the same problems would come up again and again. I think that the point is not reelmormon but what is expected from apologists.

People who are questioning themselves out of the church can read about FAIR on critic sites and just how unkind FAIR has been to people being critical of the lds church. Then, when such a person goes to FAIR and reads the response of FAIR to critic information, and see how FAIR responds to the author or maker of the piece in question, they can become disappointed that FAIR has taken someone head on with their information.

I also don't think that people are reading sites intently and that every word is digested. I think that most people are skimming their heads off picking out key words and reading around them. And critics sites are much more friendlier to questioners. The information is often repeated on various sites and since the information is repeated often, the assumption is: it must be true. All thinking can cease.

Edited May 11, 2012 by why me

[mercyngrace]

How can supporting his assertions by producing what is asked for possibly be less productive than bleating?

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't disagree with you that if he has particulars, he should be able to produce them. I don't know that most people who encounter LDS apologetics are taking notes of what they find offensive, at least initially. My personal opinion is, and this may be way off because I just don't know, is that for the average Joe like me, I simply didn't have a lot of access to the church history prior to discovering Mormonism online. My house was full of books that I could buy every month or six, depending on where I was living at the time, when I stopped at "the temple bookstore". This was LDS inspirational writing, not scholarship. The one old transplant I knew who was an ardent supporter of FARMS had a 3 ring binder into which he put newsletters or something but he wasn't really sharing any of what he learned at church or with the ward family.

I know this is derailing a bit but I am getting some where so bear with me. Apologists like to say that the material was out there and that those of us who were uninformed were so by our own omission. However, to say for most of my life I had no access to the kind of things we discuss here as a matter of routine, is an accurate assessment. It can be quite the rude awakening to discover a rich expanse of Mormon studies and thought riddled with unflattering complexities you never knew existed. Today, thanks to Google et al. everyone with wifi can peer into the barn with Emma or trace Elijah Abel's line of authority. It's a confusing experience for many people. The defensive posture of some apologists creates a hostile environment in which to work through the questions and conflict. As a result, some apologetic organizations get tarred with a broad brush. In most cases, legalistic verbal maneuvering around issues, which is how it can come across even when it is genuine, just leaves a bitter aftertaste for members who've heard time and time again (especially in wards with lots of new converts) that the gospel "just made sense."

When one first experiences the difficulty of engaging Mormonism beyond the manual, it's easy to be offended by the messenger. When the messenger is responding with flippant apologetics, predictions about when you will leave the church, hyperbole and polemics, offenses are virtually guaranteed.

Just a few weeks ago, a young almost 14 year old deacon came to our house to home teach. After he presented his lesson, the bishopric members who is his partner prodded him to bear a testimony. To this boy's credit, he did not pretend to know more than he does. He was beautifully honest and simply said 'I believe that the prophet and the leaders of the church believe this (whatever the principle was) is true, and I believe they are inspired when they are speaking as prophets.' He then shocked all present when he popped up with "Did you know that Joseph Smith said people lived on the moon and that Brigham Young said men lived on the sun?"

After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I wondered at the fact that less than two years ago, this kid was singing "Follow the Prophet" with gusto and now, still an impressionable young man, he's mastered an apologetic response that while true, may or may not serve him well in the next few years. Will learning to parse the words of the Prophet serve him well? In the long run perhaps, if he makes it that far. I don't pretend to know.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is other than mercy, compassion, and a large dose of empathy flowing in all directions but I do understand why FAIR/FARMS and some of the other apologetic sites and organizations end up with a bad name, earned or otherwise.

Sorry for the derail, Cal, I'll post the list of complaints from the other board but if I get banned, you better step up and explain that you asked for it ;P

Edited May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

Cal, here is what is posted so far:

post 1:

For brevity's sake, and for Cal, a few problematic things (off the top of my head) would definitely include:

--Bill Hamblin's "k-word"-laced rant, which is posted on the FAIR Web site.

--"Metcalfe is Butthead" from the FARMS Review

--Dan Peterson's "Text and Context," the main argument of which is that ad hominem attack is a valid and useful kind of critique. This article also quotes extensively from a wildly anti-semitic author, and forwards the argument that homosexual authors should not be trusted because they are "traitors" and "Korihors."

--Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic," in which he boasts of training his students to think that D. Michael Quinn is a "bad historian."

--DCP's "Thoughts on Secular Anti-Mormonism," which has already been dicussed at length on Mr. Stakhanovite's blog.

--The FAIR Wiki entry on Bob McCue, in which McCue was falsely accused of being an "abuser." (This was deleted after McCue threatened legal action.)

These are just a few, and it won't be hard to list a lot more, which is what I propose as the purpose of this thread. This should be useful for anyone who wants to see the extent to which the apologists have been engaging in this kind of "destructive" behavior. So let's begin with issue No. 1 of the Review.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... ol=1&num=1

In the "Editor's Introduction," DCP is pretty mild, though the editorial includes this rather foreboding passage:

Quote:

Where there is shoddy writing or shallow reasoning, we hope to point it out. Not that we necessarily enjoy doing so--although on those rare occasions where there is dishonesty or bad faith, it is a positive if not altogether saintly pleasure to draw attention to it. (No such occasions occur in this volume, although they have in the past and, no doubt, will in the future.) Rather, we hope in a modest way to improve the quality of writing and thinking on the Book of Mormon, our own not excluded, by signalizing defects and areas of potential improvement. But the purpose of the garden, the goal of the gardener, the ambition of the hungry onlooker, is to harvest wholesome vegetables and delicious fruit. Obsessive weeding for its own sake is just that--obsessive. Unfruitful. Although this Review will not hesitate to point out bad work, we will enjoy much more the opportunity to draw attention to things that have been well done.

The next article is John Welch's review of a text by Ezra Taft Benson, so as you can imagine, it is devoid of criticism.

Following this is Camille Williams's review of Susan Easton Black's Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon. Williams attacks Black for being critical of scholars:

Quote:

I am puzzled by her attack against both the "gratuitous verbiage" of critics of the Book of Mormon (p. 10), also against the efforts of "sympathetic" archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scholars (pp. 10-12). Her assertion that some studies of the Book of Mormon "are intellectually stimulating but not always spiritually edifying," often missing "the Christ-centered purpose of the book" (p. 11), suggests in perhaps a too general sense that scholars lack or destroy faith. This seems an unhappy generalization, especially since it is followed immediately by a quantitative study of Christ's names and their frequency of use--a type of the analytical approach similar to those which she appears to condemn.

And:

Quote:

Professor Black's testimony permeates her writing. She has spent years studying the Book of Mormon, but for the most part her scholarly insights are less clearly communicated than they might have been.

Two swipes here at a "Scholar Who is Testifying." This tack of going after LDS who are too "faith-oriented" and not "scholarly enough" will become a common theme in the Review.

More to come....

[mercyngrace]

The next post with specific points (though not knowing the people referenced, I'm not sure if this is an actual response to your request):

-------------- wrote:

The FAIR Blog has also joined the conversation:

Our History of Nasty Ad Hominem Attacks

.

Wyatt's own cybersquatting is a key example. He can address that. There also was a lot of stuff (e.g., DCP's attempts to insinuate that Mike Quinn was ex'ed for "homosexual sin") on the MB when it was still associated with FAIR.

I think it's fine if Wyatt only wants textual examples, though I think he should bear in mind that the folks at FAIR have a tendency to spread gossip, and sometimes their backroom chatter winds up getting "leaked." Also, sometimes the FAIR people go back in to delete stuff, such as their Facebook cyber-stalking of John Dehlin, which has now been deleted from the FAIR Wiki. So does this count? Or is Wyatt only talking about the stuff that's still accessible online?

[mercyngrace]

Another (this one isn't specifically about personal attacks so I'm not sure it fits your request):

Scratch, this may not be the type of thing you are after, but FAIR's list of benefits of polygamy was devastating to my wife when she was looking for answers. She could not believe that such a thing could be written by well intentioned members. After I posted it on this board FAIR seriously revised the list.

ORIGINAL LIST

Quote:

Any such list as this is tentative. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate. Some benefits which have been suggested include:

1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

5. Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

6. Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [2]

7. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. [3]

8. Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the "spiritual slackers" and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.

9.Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [4]

10. Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [5]

11. Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [6]

12. Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

CURRENT/REVISED LIST

Quote:

Possible benefits of plural marriage

Main articles: Polygamy because of lustful motives?, Reasons for plural marriage that have scant evidence, and Possible benefits of plural marriage

To try (prove) His people

Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

To "raise up" righteous seed

Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world

This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things"

This was a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

Family ties

Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

Higher growth rates

Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [1]

Temple recommend holders

Professor Kathryn M. Daynes makes the point that in nineteenth century Utah, more women arranged to hold temple recommends and receive their endowments. That is, female rates of temple-worthiness (or, at least, being willing to take the time and effort to get a recommend and actually go to the temple) were higher than male rates. And, these rates didn't really change much, regardless of how common plural marriage was (and, so, these higher rates cannot have been caused by plural marriage). Thus, women in Utah were in a difficult situation--more of them were willing and able to have temple sealings/eternal marriage than there were men willing and able to do so. Plural marriage changed this dynamic enormously. One temple-worthy man being married would not take that man out of the "potential married partners pool." This allowed more members to have temple marriages, sealings, and the blessings that came with these ordinances.

Widows and orphans

Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [2]

Education for women

Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [3]

Immigrants

Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [4]

Social support

Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Purpose_of_plural_marriage/Possible_benefits

[mercyngrace]

Another:

The review of Brooke's Refiner's Fire was named in part after an anti-Mormon that the BYU apologists held in particular derision. One would naturally draw the inference that Brooke himself was anti-Mormon and had deliberately set out to damage the LDS Church, although one would be hard pressed to prove such an accusation by reading the book.

FROB wrote:

Mormon in the Fiery Furnace

Or,

Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge

Reviewed by William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton

I ask, what does it help the LDS Church to have its scholars insult non-LDS scholars who have no observable antipathy toward the LDS Church?

Let's have a look at what another apologetic website has to tell us about this fellow Loftes Tryk, whom our jovial reviewers thought appropriate to compare with John L. Brooke, Distinguished Humanities Professor of History at Ohio State University, after reading this book:

Quote:

By the time I left on my mission in 1982, the Tryk's were all but completely inactive although my dad kept in touch with the family through his responsibilities in the bishopric, as a hometeacher, and as a friend. Then, sometime in 1983 I got a letter from home that really surprised me. [sHIELDS Note:

Loftes committed immoral acts which got him thrown in prison.

] His wife divorced and prosecuted him and he was sentenced to 4 years in the state prison. When I returned from Italy in 1984, Loftes was in prison, his wife had turned against the Church, and his kids, for the most part, were in all kinds of trouble themselves. Loftes blamed the Church's strict code of chastity for an unfulfilling marital relationship which led to his actions and his wife apparently agreed -- citing the same reasons for her inactivity in the Church. I passed the whole thing off as a tragic turn of events and focused on my studies at BYU.

Quote:

Anyway, that's the story of Loftes Tryk.

As with most anti's, someone who fell from grace who can't face his own weaknesses and chooses, instead, to find fault with the Church and its teachings.

And, is it any wonder, really, that his book is so weird when you consider that he wrote it from prison and the influences there? In the final analysis, we get a good laugh from his book but we can't laugh for long when we understand the circumstances of its creation and the

lives destroyed by the author -- including his own.

I ask you, in all honesty, is this the kind of scholarly practice one would want associated with the Church of Jesus Christ?

[mercyngrace]

The next:

Deceptive scholarship designed to poison the well.

John Gee's review of the second edition of Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View begins thus:

John Gee wrote:

Michael Quinn made a big mistake in publishing the first edition of his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. His publisher (see p. xiii)3 and his friends4 warned him about the mistake he was making. He chose to publish the book anyway. When Quinn's first edition came out in 1987, the reviewers pointed out fundamental flaws—including a tortured thesis,5 twisted and forged evidence, and problematic and idiosyncratic use of loaded language—and it became clear that these flaws irreparably marred the entire framework of the book.

In the second line, Gee assures us that Quinn's "friends warned him about the mistake he was making" in publishing the first edition of the book. When one consults footnote 4, this is what one finds:

Quote:

4. At least one of the historians whom Quinn thanks in his acknowledgments (see pp. xviii—xix) has told me that he advised Quinn before he went to print the first time that it would be a mistake to publish this particular work because of major historical flaws.

What?

I thought there were "friends" that warned him not to publish the first edition. Not a single "friend." And, who is this friend? How can we contact this friend unless we know who he is? Must we go through the entire list of people Quinn acknowledged? How do we know Gee is telling us the truth about this friend, unless we can reasonably contact this person for corroboration of Gee's story?

That should be an immediate warning sign that something is terribly awry in Gee's scholarly practices in this review.

When citing a source properly in academic literature, one does not say, "on condition of anonymity, one scholar told me I could quote him as saying that I was correct in my hypothesis."

Somehow Gee believes that it is OK to build a deceptive portrait about this large consensus that existed before the first edition of EMMWV was published, that it was an inferior work. This comes in the very first paragraph of the review.

What he essentially says to his reader, at the outset, is this, "Everyone else said this was a bad book and that it should not have been published. Now I will proceed to give you a fair assessment of the book."

Anyone who buys this can come buy the bridge I have for sale. Please.

Edited May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

Next one, Sorry about the wonky formatting, Cal:

In any case, back to the FARMS Review, issue 1. The next two articles are reviews of a book by Wade Brown. The first, by Donald Parry, has moments of nastiness:

Quote:

Notwithstanding the author's voluminous presentation of Hebrew poetry and parallelistic verse as demonstrated in this work, serious problems exist, both in his general thesis and in his method of formatting the text of the Book of Mormon.

Quote:

While he correctly identified these varieties, and while all of them are important figures of speech, they simply are not parallelisms. Nor can they be considered poetry of any type. In identifying them to be such, the author has overstepped the bounds of discriminating scholarship.

Quote:

On the other hand, Brown fails to include many important parallel types, all of which are attested within the Nephite scripture.

The second review, though, was written by David P. Wright, and it is a lot more reasonable:

Quote:

By its own admission, the book is not a scholarly work but rather a witness of the author's religious convictions. Indeed, it was his family for whom the work was originally written as a "as a gift of his testimony of the language of the Book of Mormon" (p. i) that had the work published. This may account for the extremely brief and undeveloped character of the author's arguments and analysis.

Quote:

The point of this review is not to question Brown's religious views, nor will it dwell on his metaphysical-historical judgments about the origin of the parallelistic form of the Book of Mormon which certainly can be questioned, even by scholars who view the book from an orthodox perspective. The point is rather to show that his layout of the text--apart from the problematic secondary material he has added--is a helpful contribution to the literary study of the Book of Mormon and has implications for further study.

Note how Wright is still critical, but he looks for the positives in the work. Parry's review, by comparison, is really a lot more negative: it is paragraph after paragraph of pointing out a variety of flaws. How, I have to ask, is this in keeping with what DCP described in his intro? Parry wraps up his review not by trying to counter his negativity with a final postive, but rather with the old, wrinkly Mopologetic refrain of, "There is still much work to be done."

The next was a positive review, by Lavina Fielding Anderson, and the next three (yes: three) were about a Book of Mormon geography book written by Bruce Hauck. More on this later, courtesy of an old thread by our dear, beloved Dean Robbers.

[mercyngrace]

Another:

Later in Gee's review of the second edition of Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, we get this gem of gentlemanly scholarly behavior:

John Gee wrote:

One could consider this book to be the result of Michael Quinn's skewed view of reality.

Although at the time Quinn wrote the book he was a fervent believer in Mormonism, Gee proceeds to assure his reader, through various impressionistic assessments, that Quinn surely is not:

John Gee wrote:

Quinn has "always seen [him]self as a Mormon apologist" (p. xi) and "a conservative revisionist in the writing of Mormon history" (p. xvii), although few others see him this way.25 The anti-Mormon John L. Smith, for instance, refers to "D. Michael Quinn who evidently believes little of Mormonism."26 On the other side of the spectrum, Stephen E. Robinson noted that Quinn's book manifested "a total lack of any pro-Mormon bias. . . . Quinn is clearly no LDS apologist. There is not a single page of the main text that would appear to be motivated by loyalty to the LDS church or its doctrines or to be apologetic of the Church's interests."27 Unfortunately, Quinn shows no sign of having understood either this fact or the reasons for the criticism of his book in the first place, and thus he is very defensive in his second edition. If anything, Quinn is now even less loyal to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than in the last edition.

The origins of this book might provide a clue to this lack of loyalty.

Let's be clear here. EMMWV is a work of history. Its value as scholarship should rise or fall in accordance with its merits as a scholarly argument. It is a difficult and challenging book in a number of ways, and not without significant flaws. What, however, is the value of assessing its scholarship on the basis that an anti-Mormon thought such and such about Quinn's religiosity? Or even Stephen E. Robinson?

What time has shown, however, is that Quinn's work was seminal in its area, however deficient in some respects, inasmuch as it brought attention to the historically significant phenomenon of folk magic in early Mormonism. By the way, contrary to Gee's correction on the matter, even scholars continue to use the word "magic," since it continues to be useful, much as Quinn's work does.

What good did it do to the many people who knew of Quinn's fervent testimony of Joseph Smith that the Church's rising star in Egyptology and apologetics was essentially calling their friend a traitor?

It may also be worth asking the following question. If Michael Quinn was using the term magic to denigrate Joseph Smith, why is it that naturalistic scholar Dan Vogel has chided Quinn for believing in magic?

[mercyngrace]

One poster wrote:

Then there's that habit FARMS and FAIR have of directly contradicting the teachings of the LDS Church in the course of purporting to defend the institution:

[here he links to another thread on that board]

I'll pull out some examples if I can find them but before I continue in this tedium, let me know if this is what you arelooking for and if these comments are valuable to you. If I'm just cutting and pasting old grudge matches, I've got better things to do....

[mercyngrace]

I want to include these two comments just because I think it shows fairness and illustrates what I posted in response to Pahoran about individual behavior tarring organizations (fair or not):

You're right that it can sometimes be tought to attribute the bad deeds of individuals to an organization, and that is probably one of the rebuttals that Wyatt himself would provide. Sometimes an organization with a lot of bad behavior also has good people/things about it. E.g., the issue of the Review I've been going through: the DCP editorial was fine, as were the reviews by David Wright, Jack Welch, and Lavina Anderson. But there were problems, too. Similarly, FAIR has decent people like Wiki Wonka and Kevin Barney. But it also has Will Schryver, Allen Wyatt, and Mike Parker. So you have to weigh everything out. If we are able to list example after example of "nastiness," then after a certain point you have to conclude that the organization itself can be blamed--especially if the Powers that Be do nothing to rein in the offenders. FAIR ultimately divested itself of the messageboard for precisely this reason, I think. But, then again, if FAIR continues to keep people like Schryver, Greg Smith, etc. on board, then you have to conclude that the organization itself is tolerant of this crappy behavior.

Anyhow, we still have work to do. I'm barely through the first issue of the Review.

--------------

Kevin Barney is a good example of why certain apologetic bodies should not be condemned wholesale (he's on the FAIR board of directors and has contributed to that "awful" FRB). He's also featured on MST, as well as Joanna Brooks, and for that I applaud DCP.

[mercyngrace]

Next:

Let's look at Matthew Brown's review of Buerger's The Mysteries of Godliness:

At the outset of his review, Brown sets us up for how we should view this work, which is one of the first, if not the first, history of LDS temple worship that was not written for the purpose of scandalizing its readers, but rather of informing them:

Matthew Brown wrote:

On 20 April 1974 members of the Mormon History Association gathered in Nauvoo, Illinois, to hear Reed C. Durham Jr. deliver a paper entitled "Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?" In this lecture Dr. Durham, the association's president at the time, agreed with the anti-Mormon allegation that Joseph Smith plagiarized ritual elements from Freemasonry1 and used them to create the endowment ceremony for the Nauvoo Temple.

OK, immediately, one should notice that Buerger's book covers a great deal more than the Nauvoo endowment. He also spends a good deal of time exploring the evolution of the practice of the second anointing, for example, addressing the question of how much it was practiced over the years, among other things.

And yet here, at the beginning, Matt Brown tells us that Reed Durham, president of the Mormon History Association at the time, "agreed with the allegation that Joseph Smith plagiarized ritual elements from Freemasonry, and used them in the endowment ceremony for the Nauvoo Temple."

This description of Reed Durham's address is grossly distorted.

First of all, Durham never uses the word "plagiarize/d" or "plagiarism" in his address. Instead, this is the language he uses:

Reed Durham wrote:

Masonic

influence

on Joseph was further highlighted when the heated anti-Masonic crusades flared up in western New York.

Reed Durham wrote:

The many

parallels

found between early Mormonism and the Masonry of that day are substantial...

Reed Durham wrote:

By the end of 1832, Joseph Smith had welcomed new brethren, along with their

influences

, into the Church.

Reed Durham wrote:

The Kirtland Temple also reflected an

influence

of Masonry.

(emphasis added)

Most reasonably intelligent college graduates can tell the difference between the word "influence" and the word "plagiarism." My music may be influenced by the oeuvre of Kraftwerk, but I have not plagiarized any of their songs. In this I am unlike the band Coldplay, which has plagiarized another artist. Most people get the distinction.

Why, then, does Matt Brown say that Reed Durham agreed with anti-Mormons who accused Joseph Smith of plagiarizing Freemasonic ritual? Was it the case that Mr. Brown simply did not understand the difference between the words "influence" and "plagiarize"? Unfortunately, this mischaracterization of Reed Durham's address is used by Brown to tarnish Buerger's work, since Buerger refers to Durham's address and claims that it was misunderstood.

(A witness of the wisdom and correctness of Buerger's assessment might be found in Kerry Shirts, "The Backyard Professor," an endowed Mormon, who, having been initiated into Freemasonry, speaks in positive terms about the symbolic relationship between Freemasonic and Mormon ritual. In fact, Shirts has engaged in fairly spirited exchanges with Louis Midgley, who, like Bill Hamblin, denies any relationship between Mormonism and Masonry.)

But to let us know how we should feel about Buerger's work, we are told that anti-Mormons greeted Durham's essay with great joy:

Matt Brown wrote:

The anti-Mormon community was overjoyed at this presentation, while Dr. Durham's LDS colleagues were stunned and called his faith and good sense into question.

I find it very interesting that one's friends' and enemies' immediate emotional reaction to any argument has become a measure of its validity in the world of LDS scholarship. I rather suspect it has not, but one would not know based on this review.

In any case, it is true that Buerger accepted the idea that Joseph Smith was influenced by Freemasonry in the construction of the temple ritual, but to any scholar of religion, this is no more controversial than arguing that Solomon's Temple or early Christian ritual reflected the art, symbolism, and ritual of their environment. Nowadays, many LDS scholars rightly do not fret over the relationship between Freemasonry and the LDS endowment, because they understand that such a relationship does not invalidate the endowment.

At the time Matt Brown wrote this review, that was less the case. Yet one wonders why it was still necessary to cloud the issue of the historical merits of Buerger's argument by making an effort to associate Buerger with anti-Mormonism at the opening of the review. What does one call the misleading characterization of a person's argument as anti-Mormon at the outset of a review smack of?

Edited May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

There's more but I'm out of time at the moment, perhaps Jason or someone else so inclined can pick this up. Also, I haven't read most of the posts just because I'm rushing this morning but I think the consensus is that the scholarship is biased in a way that actually undermines the intent of apologia.

I'll ask for experiences on other boards and see if there are specifics regarding less academic issues.

[David T]

I want to express my personal experience on here, and state why, even with all that is being presented by mercy, won't fully get to everything.

I personally think the major outlets of apologetic material have gotten substantially better, and far more 'accepting' than in the past. When I was investigating the Church, about 8 years ago, is where I had my first encounters with online apologetics. And you know, the majority of what I read looking for answers WERE helpful in opening myself up to the possibility that the thick wall of polemic anti-Mormon material I had already accessed and ingested was incorrect, or at most incomplete.

However, during this time, I do remember reading papers and articles where, in my mindset which was searching with a "the burden of proof is on you" mindset, found positions and individuals who expressed them being insulted, with thick condescending sarcasm. It was a major turn off. HOWEVER, the main issues that I was seeking answers for, I found, and helped provide a place where I could explore another option than I had originally considered.

The point being, this was 7 years ago. I have no idea who wrote the article, if it's even up any more, or if I would even agree with it today or not. Many individuals expressing a bad experience with apologetics are speaking from past experience, and they haven't documented the exact location or writer of the post - but the sentiment and feels they had did remain. This can't be discounted.

Now, when individuals have complaints against something that recently happened, and is still up today, they should generally be able to find it, But I think "prove it" can be overly harsh and unfair to individuals who had the negative apologetic experience 5-10 years ago which contributed to one's disassociation from the Church. Old wounds and old memory of what was felt will be brought up again when they are told they're making it up, or just trying to justify their apostasy, etc. etc.

Individuals uninvolved in Apologetics 7 years ago don't need to apologize for those who were affected 7 years ago. But they should still consider that these experiences were real, and seek to make sure that such an accusation would be impossible to be made today. I think FAIR especially has come a LONG way, and I have a lot of respect for how FAIR generally approaches things today.

I only ask that this is taken into consideration when stories come of individuals being negatively affected by apologetics in the past. They may in their current arguments unfairly assume that nothing has changed in the way things have been presented, but we shouldn't discount the experience they may really have had in the past when online apologetics were still finding their 'groove'.

[Trevor]

Also, sometimes the FAIR people go back in to delete stuff, such as their Facebook cyber-stalking of John Dehlin, which has now been deleted from the FAIR Wiki. So does this count? Or is Wyatt only talking about the stuff that's still accessible online?

There was no "cyber-stalking" going on. The quotes were taken from a discussion between me and John Dehlin. I was one of John's "friends" by his request. And the quotes were not deleted, they were just moved to a more appropriate page. I was not the person that originally added them to the wiki, but since they are publicly available to anyone from John's Facebook page, I'd hardly call it "cyber-stalking."

[cinepro]

I can contribute a relatively minor point to this discussion which may help illustrate the bigger issue at hand.

It will, not surprisingly, involve one of my favorite examples of the difference between the "regular" LDS who simply believe what they hear at Church and read in Church publications, and the more "nuanced" arguments put forth by apologists and unorthodox LDS. That issue being whether or not Noah's flood covered the whole planet, and whether or not the Church has an official position or doctrine on the subject.

Exhibit A

Read this blog post in its entirety:

The Church and a Global Flood

Exhibit B

Then read the Fair Wiki article on the same subject:

FAIR Wiki: Global or Local Flood

If you can understand the difference between the information in the first article and the second article, and how that information would be understood by regular LDS who are looking for information and answers, then you might begin to understand what works and what doesn't work in the current approach taken by apologists.

If you still can't figure out, here's a clue: pay special attention to the end-notes in the FAIR Wiki article. Is anything missing?

[Nemesis]

I just want to make this clear. This thread is not intended to give Scratch or any Shadite a voice here. They had the opportunity to have access to posters here and blew their chance. If this thread turns into that I will shut it down. I think this thread can be very productive for those that can make change so use it as such. Also do not use this thread or board to shame posters (board nannying) to address things and issues the way you want them to. The moderators are still setting the tone of the board so please remember that. I to wish some posters were not so knee jerkish when approaching topics and posters. It's annoying and your valid points get lost in your responses when you post in that manner.

Nemesis

[Calm]

Sorry for the derail, Cal, I'll post the list of complaints from the other board but if I get banned, you better step up and explain that you asked for it ;P

I promise, thank you for doing the extra work.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Nice, call me a liar. The video has Dr. Peterson making an outrageous claim that horses dating to the time of Christ were found in the upper Midwest. It can be seen at about 0:50. I discussed this on this board and was banned from the thread.

http://www.mormondia...gainst-meldrum/

I hate to point out the obvious, but your screen name and number of posts shows a real basis on the topic. That usually leads to extreme comments which will get you banned from a thread. Nuff said.

[Calm]

Another (this one isn't specifically about personal attacks so I'm not sure it fits your request):

I am primarily interested in personal attack claims, think "is this person being nasty or inappropriately personal?" is probably the easiest rule of measure. If this works then perhaps going into other areas might be considered to be useful, but I think handling a huge range of issues makes it less likely any individual problem will be addressed effectively.

I would also prefer just for practicality sake current issues that have not already been changed, as noted by wiki FAIR has been attempting to desnarkify its articles to the extent it is practical (when it is a conference presentation we don't have the right to edit it, for example) so if something has been removed, then people can assume it was recognized as not conducive to the environment that FAIR wants to create.

I am not suggesting ignoring noncurrent examples as this can be helpful in determining how well we have responded to suggestions for change over the years and it does contribute to demonstrating on what some people have based their perception of FAIR and FARMs and it certainly gives information about how their reputations have been created and helps to demonstrate if these are accurate perceptions of both the past and present organizations, I tend to be more practical however and think it just would be nice to concentrate more on things that can be changed, noting what has happened in the past as part of the process but recognizing it is not the end result.....if that is understandable?

If someone thinks the question "is this person being nasty" is too narrow for my purposes here, I would welcome an explanation as to why it needs to be expanded to make more effective removal of materials that are focused on negative attacks and personal insults, etc.

Edited May 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Matthew J. Tandy]

MercynGrace,

I appreciate you posting what you have. However, it occurs to me that some of it may be straining at gnats (I know it's not all from you, youa re a messenger on some). For instance, the review from Donald Parry, who I personally know. There is not a bitter or antagonistic bone in his body. I have never seen him act vindictively or personally attack someone. Anytime an argument even gets there, he abcks away and says no. And when I read what he wrote that you posted, I see nothing other than an expert on Hebrew, one of the worlds formeost authorities on the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc reviewing the actual data as an expert on hebrew. He clearly corrects errors, etc. He is not reviewing it as someone looking to see if it makes him feel good. He is reviewing it for exactly the reason he would have been asked to: From the opinion of a Hebrew Expert. Not only that, but there was nothing mean, nasty, or angry. Stating the truth plainly is something I applaud, and I appreicate he didn't insult the author directly. It is significantly in the favor of Farms Review that they recognized multiple ways to approach the book and included multiple reviews!

And this is the same thing I saw in several other items you shared. Farms Review is meant to be reviews in general from an academic perspective on items that venture into academic territory. I know, I have been hardened in some sense because when I read ANY biblical studies or historical studies journal, it often gets VERY personal when reviewing another person's work. FARMS has fr the msot part stayed far and above that, but it's still academically oriented. It's not about soothing hurt feelings, it's about analyzing and dissecting, allowing the most useful books and other materials to be lauded while those of little academic value to be relegated to the "someday amybe I will spend money on that..." pile. They are designed so others know the best books and articles to spend money and time on.

It can be reasonably argued that Farms should try to take a higher road that regular academia. That's fine. But I don't think the Farms Review should ever spare the rod. If they only reviewed about the fluffy peices and refrained from direct criticism, then I fail to see the point of even having it.

[Calm]

One poster wrote:

"Then there's that habit FARMS and FAIR have of directly contradicting the teachings of the LDS Church in the course of purporting to defend the institution....."but before I continue in this tedium, let me know if this is what you arelooking for and if these comments are valuable to you. If I'm just cutting and pasting old grudge matches, I've got better things to do....

No thank you, not at this time. Disagreements about what is and isn't doctrine in the Church isn't what I am looking for, but rather uncivil behaviour. While seeing what they think are contradictions between what the Church teaches and what FAIR presents (obviously FAIR in general does not present what we think contradicts Church teaching, but this is a matter of interpretation, not manners) may cause someone to lose faith, this is not what the accusations that I am focusing were saying. They were talking about how FAIR and FARMs treated others inappropriate, I am not so much concern with claims of how they treated arguments but people.

[Calm]

Similarly, FAIR has decent people like Wiki Wonka and Kevin Barney. But it also has Will Schryver, Allen Wyatt, and Mike Parker.

FYI, Will is not a current member of FAIR, hasn't been for awhile (this is just for info, it is not to imply anything about Will or his relationship with FAIR members, most likely he quit for the same reasons most quit FAIR, their lives get too busy).

[Calm]

Farms Review is meant to be reviews in general from an academic perspective on items that venture into academic territory. I know, I have been hardened in some sense because when I read ANY biblical studies or historical studies journal, it often gets VERY personal when reviewing another person's work. FARMS has fr the msot part stayed far and above that, but it's still academically oriented. It's not about soothing hurt feelings, it's about analyzing and dissecting, allowing the most useful books and other materials to be lauded while those of little academic value to be relegated to the "someday amybe I will spend money on that..." pile. They are designed so others know the best books and articles to spend money and time on.....If they only reviewed about the fluffy peices and refrained from direct criticism, then I fail to see the point of even having it.

I came to the same conclusion too about a few of the items that were posted. If a work contains bad scholarship or doesn't meet the goals it sets out to, then a review is where this should be discussed. No book is perfect though some come close and some books, no matter how spiritual or scholarly the intent of the author, are essentially worthless. Most are somewhere in between and it is the purpose of reviews to identify which are which and they can't do that by just listing the good things about a book or the way the author approaches her subject.

Now attaching personal issues that are not connected to the subject is inappropriate imo, (this does not include background that may have contributed to a person's viewpoint....many biographies present this kind of information for example or a person's motivation for writing material as that contributes to bias and examining an author's bias is very important in my opinion so we can see what assumptions may be hidden in the text...a good author will try to expose them himself, but is not always successful at covering all relevant assumptions and other authors may just completely ignore the issue).