The Apostate Myth Of Mormon Apologetics

[CASteinman]

These followers lead by James(Brother of Jesus) and Simon Peter referred to themselves was as Nazarenes and also began using the term "the way" to describe themselves.

This was apparently still true many years later as we read in Acts 24 how Paul was in a "sect" called "The Way". Every time I read that I think of how people say "Mormonism" is a cult.

[cinepro]

In the past, I have expressed my frustration with the sometimes juvenile tone of the FARMS Review. I enjoyed reading many, many of the articles over the years, but that's how I always looked at them: as articles. They weren't "book reviews". To be most accurate, they should have been "articles discussing a book", or "articles on certain subjects inspired by the reading of a book".

If I wanted real "book reviews", I would turn to BYU Studies. Every book review I've read by them was exemplary in discussing, ironically enough, the book. After reading the reviews in BYU Studies, I felt like I had a better understanding of the book's style, its message, and its quality. It took the tone and format that a review was supposed to take.

I suspect this contrast would be obvious in any situation where the same book was reviewed by both publications. Here is one example, using the reviews for George D. Smith's book Nauvoo Polygamy: “. . . but we called it celestial marriage”

Interestingly, both reviews point out errors and issues the reviewers had with the book. But which review is better written, and more "scholarly" in tone? Which best represents the tone that a college publication should strive for?

One cannot, it is said, judge a book by its cover. After reading George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy, however, I've found that one can sometimes judge a book by its first page. Readers can judge for themselves," promises the book's dust jacket. Why it was felt necessary to state the obvious becomes clear upon reading the first page: this book needs judging, and as that hasn't been done by the author or the editor or the publisher, we, the poor readers (who must pay for the privilege) are obliged to do it ourselves. Fortunately, it isn't hard. Unfortunately, the author won't like it

FARMS Review

Problems notwithstanding, George Smith’s Nauvoo Polygamy is an excellent book. He undertakes the unenviable task of fleshing out the details

of an institution that played a central role in Mormon society and culture during the nineteenth century.

BYU Studies Review

I would suggest that if you read both reviews and can't see a difference (or the superiority of the BYU Studies review), then you are incapable of ever understanding what problems (I suspect) Bradford and other at the MI are trying to correct. I am not saying this to defend their actions, but only to point out that some people may not be capable of seeing what others have seen, for whatever reason.

Edited June 26, 2012 by cinepro

[Cobalt-70]

There are many examples, but a good one is Peterson's review of Stan Larson's book on Thomas Stuart Ferguson and how he lost his faith. This is good because it includes two ad hominem attacks in a single review. First, Peterson attacks the character and qualifications of Ferguson himself, the subject of the work, arguing that no Mormon knows who he is, he's an amateur, and not really an archaeologist, and his life is not very interesting. Peterson then resorted to name calling, labeling him "doubting Thomas Ferguson."

Now that Ferguson was sufficiently ridiculed in the first round, now it was time for Peterson to turn the guns on the character of Stan Larson, the author. Larson was, Peterson said, "partisan" and "defensive." Besides, Peterson argued, Larson had ulterior motives for writing his book, because really he just wanted to criticize apologetic writings on the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.

After a gratuitous poke in the eye to Fawn Brodie, Peterson then turned back to Ferguson, and argued that while we ought to be charitable about Ferguson eternal salvation, ultimately, "the question that frankly comes to our minds when we consider the claim that Thomas Ferguson lost his faith is 'So what?'" And by the way, Ferguson was "methodologically incautious" and "uncritical." It could not have been the Book of Abraham that caused him to lose his faith, according to Peterson, because the evidence of Book of Abraham authenticity is so incredibly compelling that nobody could fail to believe. Ferguson, Peterson argued, was also "embarrassingly naive" for questioning issues about Book of Mormon plants, animals, metals, script, and language.

Then it was time to attack Larson's character again. It turns out, according to Peterson, that Larson was plagiarizing the ideas of Deanne Matheny with regard to his discussion of Book of Mormon plants. Larson also was "lacking in attention" because he didn't bother to rebut Sorenson's speculative response to Matheny in the Review that Peterson thinks solved all the issues and answered all the questions. After a long section outlining Peterson's beliefs in fringe linguistics and in Sorenson's version of fringe archaelogy, Peterson concluded that if Ferguson lost his faith in the Book of Mormon, he did so because he was a sloppy researcher.

Another example is this review by Mitton and James of Quinn's book on Mormon same-sex interactions. It began by questioning Quinn's motives. After the intro, the review describes its thesis: that Quinn is an incompetent, dishonest fraud. Their purpose is to "call into question both his competence and his honesty." And then they proceed to do so, in a review that is practically longer than the book itself. Rather than simply disagreeing with his points, the authors throughout their review frequently accuse him of making false statements and being dishonest, of undermining the Judeo-Christian tradition, or of slander. The review concludes by accusing Quinn of being an anti-Mormon, and of persecuting Mormons, an then launches an attack on Quinn's sexual orientation, and finally argues that Quinn is seeking to corrupt moral thought among church members.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Bikeemikey]

As per the tread title: of course all those apologists engaging in reasoned argument about he beliefs and in defense of their beliefs will go apostate :-).

[Verum]

Evidence of ad-hominem attacks can be found but I do agree that it is not rampant, but I would say FARMS has been more guilty of having a more polemic, hostile style in responding to critical work that challenge church history and origins. Much of the work that is published goes to great lengths to completely strip all credibility of authors that produce any critical material about the church’s history and claims to divine origins. Below are some examples.

For the record, I hope FARMS continues to further its work for "religious scholarship through the study of scripture and other texts" and to "deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints while promoting mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths." A lot of great work has come about the I really do appreciate.

Duane Boyce On Michael Quinn”

“To some degree a determined and willful blindness must be at work to produce this much distortion.”

“A person has to work hard to think this poorly; it is the sheerest kind of sophistry.”

I wish Quinn would not speak as casually as he does of sacred things. He writes of these matters in the same tone he might use to describe dinner appointments or baseball scores. I have no hesitation in saying that this is just wrong and that only a peculiar and deep kind of blindness could fail to see that it is wrong.”

James Allen On Grant Palmer, where he attacks Palmer’s credibility as an LDS Institute teacher:

“Why, one might ask, has Palmer's publisher emphasized his having been "three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah" (back cover)?³⁶ Is this a way of portraying him as a loyal "insider" since Signature Books clearly wants him to be seen as being right there in the center of CES things? Or is it a way of puffing Palmer's credentials since "Institute director" sounds more impressive than "seminary teacher"? In addition to this claim of his being a "three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion," Palmer himself claims in the opening line of his preface to An Insider's View that "for thirty-four years I was primarily an Institute director for the Church Educational System (CES)" (p. vii, emphasis added). "Primarily"? I have looked into this claim and it turns out to be a bit of an exaggeration. With Palmer's assistance, I have been able to reconstruct his CES assignments.”

Nibley on Fawn Brodie, where you can see the polemic style to completely discredit Brodie as a credible source…

“Nothing could more clearly reveal its own sad lack of resources or its pathetic eagerness to find some sort of explanation for Joseph Smith than this acclaim of such a poor effort to make seminar rhetoric sound like history.”

Edited June 26, 2012 by Verum

[wenglund]

In the past, I have expressed my frustration with the sometimes juvenile tone of the FARMS Review. I enjoyed reading many, many of the articles over the years, but that's how I always looked at them: as articles. They weren't "book reviews". To be most accurate, they should have been "articles discussing a book", or "articles on certain subjects inspired by the reading of a book".

If I wanted real "book reviews", I would turn to BYU Studies. Every book review I've read by them was exemplary in discussing, ironically enough, the book. After reading the reviews in BYU Studies, I felt like I had a better understanding of the book's style, its message, and its quality. It took the tone and format that a review was supposed to take.

I suspect this contrast would be obvious in any situation where the same book was reviewed by both publications. Here is one example, using the reviews for George D. Smith's book Nauvoo Polygamy: “. . . but we called it celestial marriage”

Interestingly, both reviews point out errors and issues the reviewers had with the book. But which review is better written, and more "scholarly" in tone? Which best represents the tone that a college publication should strive for?

I would suggest that if you read both reviews and can't see a difference (or the superiority of the BYU Studies review), then you are incapable of ever understanding what problems (I suspect) Bradford and other at the MI are trying to correct. I am not saying this to defend their actions, but only to point out that some people may not be capable of seeing what others have seen, for whatever reason.

Perhaps you have an overly-narrow and rigid perspective of what a book review is "supposed" to consists of--maybe owing to your limited exposure to academic reviews? However, I respect your point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 26, 2012 by wenglund

[phaedrus ut]

Perhaps you have an overly-narrow and rigid perspective of what a book review is "supposed" to consists of--maybe owing to your limited exposure to academic reviews? However, I respect your point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's funny that all we seem to be getting from you lately is backhanded insults implying how much smarter you are than everyone else without you addressing a topic directly. In addition to the above post I offer my examples from the past 12 hours here herehere here here and here .

Wade, we all know you're a genius but can you be a little more gentle when you're constantly reminding us?

Phaedrus

Both of you end the personal comments immediately or leave the thread.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cinepro writes:

Interestingly, both reviews point out errors and issues the reviewers had with the book. But which review is better written, and more "scholarly" in tone? Which best represents the tone that a college publication should strive for?

What an interesting proposition. Truth be told, the one review (in BYU studies) was merely 4 and a half pages long (with about 1900 words), while the other was almost 13 times as long (almost 25,000 words not including the notes). The first had 10 footnotes, the second had 228. I think that there is something absolutely flawed in the underlying premise you make that tone is far more important than substance. Both reviews mention the assassination of Parley P. Pratt. Here is the bit from the BYU Studies review (they don't really overlap since they are looking at different aspects of it):

Every book has problems, including those books I have written. In the present case, it is certainly controversial if not outright false that the assassination of Parley P. Pratt was “the proximate cause of the Mountain Meadows Massacre” (333). The author apparently borrows this argument from Will Bagley’s Blood of the Prophets.7 More recent work by Ronald Walker, Richard Turley Jr., and Glen Leonard demonstrates that this perception is inaccurate. Mormon militiamen generally from Cedar City carried out the massacre because of local conflicts with the Baker-Fancher party.8

Here is the bit from the Review:

Legal presentism can also be seen in G. D. Smith's description of the murder of Parley P. Pratt. Pratt's last wife, Eleanor, "was sealed to him without divorcing her legal husband, who fatally shot Parley near Van Buren, Arkansas" (p. 333). There is, however, much that we are not told. Eleanor's husband was a heavy drinker, which in 1844 resulted in separation. The couple was reconciled, and the family moved to San Francisco. While in California, Eleanor discovered the church. Her husband forbade her to join and "purchased a sword cane and threatened to kill her and the minister who baptized her if she became a Mormon." Eleanor attended meetings, and one Sunday at home, "while Eleanor was singing from a Mormon hymn book she had purchased, Hector tore the book from her hands, threw it into the fire, beat her, cast her out into the street, and locked the door." [137]

Eleanor lodged a complaint of assault and battery against Hector and planned to leave him until prevailed upon by local church members and her physician. At that point, said Eleanor, "I presume McLean himself would not deny that I then declared that I would no more be his wife however many years I might be compelled to appear as such for the sake of my children."[138]

Eleanor was not baptized until 1854, and she had the written permission of her husband to do so. However, he forbade her to read church literature or to sing church hymns at home. It is not clear, then, why G. D. Smith feels Eleanor owed an observance of all the twentieth-century legal niceties to a violent, abusive, tyrannical drunkard. Through it all, as a church leader, Parley Pratt had tried to help the couple reconcile.

Eleanor had her children baptized, and Hector responded by filing a charge of insanity against his wife so he could have her committed to an asylum. Hector sent her children by steamer to their maternal grandparents' home, confined Eleanor to the house, and again threatened to have her committed for insanity. Eleanor eventually found her children at her parents' home, but they refused to let her take them. [139] Eleanor went to Salt Lake City and married Pratt on 14 November 1855. As we have seen, she considered herself divorced from Hector from the time he violently threw her from their home in San Francisco. They never received a civil divorce, however.

From which authority, exactly, would G. D. Smith prefer that Eleanor receive a divorce? She was in Utah; Hector was in San Francisco. He had abused, beaten, confined, and threatened to institutionalize her. As we have seen, notions of divorce were also more fluid in the mid-nineteenth century, especially on the frontier. It is unlikely that most contemporaries would have insisted that Eleanor required a formal divorce.

Pratt was arrested on trumped-up charges, freed by a non-Mormon judge, and pursued by Hector, who shot the unarmed apostle six times and stabbed him twice. He was left to bleed to death over the course of two hours. [140] In G. D. Smith's worldview, are men like Hector entitled to hold women emotionally or martially hostage, civil divorce or no? I suspect not. But in his zeal to condemn the church, he does not provide his readers with the facts necessary to understand the Pratts' choices.

Actually, the tone sounds just fine to me (even for a collegiate production). Perhaps you should have gotten past the first paragraph ....

Ben M.

[wenglund]

There are many examples, but a good one is Peterson's review of Stan Larson's book on Thomas Stuart Ferguson and how he lost his faith. This is good because it includes two ad hominem attacks in a single review. First, Peterson attacks the character and qualifications of Ferguson himself, the subject of the work, arguing that no Mormon knows who he is, he's an amateur, and not really an archaeologist, and his life is not very interesting. Peterson then resorted to name calling, labeling him "doubting Thomas Ferguson."

Actually, this is good because it provides and excellent example of how, in several respect, people like you, who don't understand logic, confuse relevant personal comments and clever witticisms as ad hominem fallacies.

In Larsen's book, like with other material publish by the counter-cult community, Ferguson's alleged reputations and qualifications were proffered to give credibility to Ferguson's work and his later disaffection. It was an argument that Larsen and others first made, and as such, not only wasn't Peterson and Roper's response ad hominem, but a perfectly logical critique and challenge.

This has been explained before, but evidently it bears repeating. In order for personal comments to qualify as ad hominem fallacies, the personal comments must be logically impertinent to the argument being challenged. In the example you gave, the personal comments were logically germane to challenging the argument.

For example, if someone argues that Mr. X is one of the most intelligent people on the planet, it is not ad hominem for someone to challenge that claim by pointing out Mr X's idiocies. Whereas, if Mr. X presents and argument for chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, it would be ad hominem to counter that argument by claiming that Mr. X is an idiot.

Do you now see the important difference?

Next!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 26, 2012 by wenglund

[cinepro]

Cinepro writes:

What an interesting proposition. Truth be told, the one review (in BYU studies) was merely 4 and a half pages long (with about 1900 words), while the other was almost 13 times as long (almost 25,000 words not including the notes). The first had 10 footnotes, the second had 228. I think that there is something absolutely flawed in the underlying premise you make that tone is far more important than substance. Both reviews mention the assassination of Parley P. Pratt. Here is the bit from the BYU Studies review (they don't really overlap since they are looking at different aspects of it):

Here is the bit from the Review:

Actually, the tone sounds just fine to me (even for a collegiate production). Perhaps you should have gotten past the first paragraph ....

Ben M.

To be clear, I'm not trying to put myself in a position of defending anything Bradford has done, or being critical of the way in which Dan Peterson edited the Review. I certainly don't support the changes that were made, and certainly not the manner in which they were made. I also regularly read the Review, and enjoyed almost all their articles.

I simply feel like I "see" something that others have a hard time seeing, and I suspect that what I am seeing is also what Bradford and others might have seen, and I feel like this has helped me understand what has happened. So I will do the best to explain what I am seeing, and if it helps others understand better, then great. If not, I can live with it as well.

Here is another example of what some people may find problematic about the FARMS Review as a college-level collection of Book Reviews and articles.

If you take the time to compare the FARMS Review with BYU Studies for any book that might be considered "critical" or controversial, I suspect the difference in approaches will become clearer and clearer. Which approach is better? I guess we'll each have to decide.

Here is a comparison of the conclusions for David Bergera's "The Mysteries of Godliness", a study of the history of the Temple:

BYU Studies:

(Reviewed by Danel Bachman and Kenneth Godfrey)

Readers who wish to become more knowledgeable about the historical development of the endowment ceremony itself will probably learn something from reading The Mysteries of Godliness. However, those who desire to understand the spiritual aspects of temple worship and the impact of temple ceremonies on individual Latter-day Saints will be disappointed with this treatment of temple worship.

FARMS Review:

(Reviewed by Matthew Brown)

Faithful Latter-day Saints will likely find this book offensive because of the direct assault it makes on the doctrinal teachings of the LDS Church and on the character of its founding prophet. They will probably wonder why members of their own faith would want to promote traditional anti-Mormon points of view among them. And perhaps they will be reminded of a prophecy uttered long ago that warned of wolves entering in among the flock (see Acts 20:29—30).

Again, it is interesting to read both reviews and compare their content, attitude and tone. The difference can be striking.

[cinepro]

Here's another one. Compare the reviews for Dan Vogel's "Joseph Smith" The Making of a Prophet". For those not familiar with the book, it is a lengthy exposition on Joseph Smith's early life and the coming forth of The Book of Mormon, tying in Joseph's psychology to The Book of Mormon text to theorize where the stories in the Book of Mormon might have originated. It is basically a book-long argument shouting "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon!" I would expect both the BYU Studies and FARMS Reviews to be similarly disdainful and negative.

But again, compare the tone of their conclusions:

BYU Studies:

Kyle Walker

In summary, Vogel’s book fails to document solidly patterns of individual and family behavior that would justify his conclusions regarding Joseph Smith and his family of origin. While I share the belief that tools from the mental health profession can assist in understanding historical topics and characters in a new light, such professionals must use historical sources responsibly and utilize sound methodology in order to find general acceptance by the historical community. Although Vogel has entertained psychological and family systems issues in his analysis of Joseph Smith, the thesis of the book fails to bridge the chasm between psychology and history, and instead diverges into other directions.

FARMS Review:

Alan Goff

Vogel's readings of the Book of Mormon are small not because the book is tiny but because his presuppositions and ideology are diminutive; a group cannot afford to have its scripture's least competent and most hostile readers setting the agenda on interpreting foundational texts. Meissner warns that psychobiography is particularly subject to problems of countertransference where the biographer transfers issues or emotions from his own psychological makeup onto the biographical subject. "The vulnerability of the method to these sources of distortion or coloring of the data is greatest at those points where the gaps in the material must be filled, or where the interpretation of certain behaviors or patterns of behavior comes under interpretive scrutiny." Vogel has rejected the Mormon tradition and symbolically taken other fathers—Comte and Freud—but his approach is not adequate to deal with the Mormon past and Mormon scripture. Vogel's ideology and method are not up to the task of elucidating such a complex text, and he imposes his own crude and reductive ideas on the Book of Mormon. Combine this textual deficiency with philosophical naivete, an undertheorized concept of historiographical writing, and ideological saturation, and Vogel's book is broadly inadequate. For a biography in which ideology is the overwhelmingly dominant ingredient, to show no awareness of the function and nature of ideology severely hampers the effectiveness of a work of historical explanation. Performing simplistic readings is simple; complexity is difficult, and rare.

[wenglund]

It's funny that all we seem to be getting from you lately is backhanded insults implying how much smarter you are than everyone else without you addressing a topic directly.

My reply to cinepro wasn't an insult (backhanded or otherwise), just a plausible explanation for his differing point of view from mine. Nowhere in that post did I claim or insinuate anything about me, let alone that I was smarter than him. My reply took the form of a question intended to avoid drawing a conclusion on my part, and also to spur thought and consideration. I also closed the post with a genuine statement of respect for his opinion. So, I am not sure how you derived from my reply your stated perception of what you suppose all I have been giving here lately, but it clearly isn't from what I actually said.

As for the other examples you listed, if needs be, I would be happy to address them in the threads where they occurred and have relevance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Cinepro writes:

Here is another example of what some people may find problematic about the FARMS Review as a college-level collection of Book Reviews and articles.

My issue is a little different Cinepro. I have read a lot of material. I am something of a voracious reader at times. And I have read thousands of scholarly, peer reviewed articles and reviews. You are creating this standard of a "college-level collection" but what you provide doesn't actually even match the venom we sometimes find in profession peer reviewed journals.

There is certainly a difference - but that difference seems to me to be a rather superficial charge. I think that I am far more interested in content than I am about some of these aspects - and it seems to me that when we focus on the look and feel as opposed to the content, what we are saying is that the tone is obviously the most important aspect of these works - when that is anything but the truth. It may be that the tone is an important aspect, but so is the content - and to say that an obviously inferior review as far as content goes is the better review because you like the tone more means that you aren't really interested in the content - and that strikes me as being very problematic - particularly when you want to insist that there is some sort of collegiate standard that should be met.

Ben M.

[cinepro]

And finally, there's the review for Will Bagley's "Blood of the Prophets". Compare the thoughtful, mature conclusion in BYU Studies with the FARMS Review. Apparently, it was amateur-hour over at FARMS, and they were letting anybody write reviews by that time.

BYU Studies

The evidence that Bagley has assembled makes it clear that we need a thoroughly new study of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That study, however, should not allow speculation, rhetoric, and flawed logic to replace clear evidence. While Bagley does present new evidence, his interpretation is essentially the same as the nineteenth-century anti-Mormon argument. In this sense, his study does not provide anything new.

Compare that to this invective-filled hatchet-job published by FARMS:

But salacious rumor is what we are often served up by Blood of the Prophets in an agenda-driven account of history. We should approach the work with a healthy dose of cynicism. I, for one, am convinced even more after reading Blood of the Prophets that there is no competent evidence to show that Brigham Young and George A. Smith were accessories before or after the fact.

Edited June 26, 2012 by cinepro

[Benjamin McGuire]

So let me ask you Cinepro - are the criticism leveled at Bagley's book in the FARMS review deserved? Are valid points raised? Does the book itself suffer from some serious defects in scholarship? Or are you simply concerned with what the tone of the review is and not at all interested in the actual content? Have you read the review (more than simply doing a search for invective)? Do you agree with the assessment of the book's problems (even if you don't agree with the tone or style of the review)?

Ben M.

[cinepro]

So let me ask you Cinepro - are the criticism leveled at Bagley's book in the FARMS review deserved? Are valid points raised? Does the book itself suffer from some serious defects in scholarship? Or are you simply concerned with what the tone of the review is and not at all interested in the actual content? Have you read the review (more than simply doing a search for invective)? Do you agree with the assessment of the book's problems (even if you don't agree with the tone or style of the review)?

Ben M.

Both reviews point out the weaknesses in the book. The reason I am comparing reviews between BYU Studies and FARMS is because they're written by people with similar knowledge and (assumably) testimonies of the gospel. I'm not comparing FARMS reviews with "Mormon Research Ministry" or even a more secular journal like the MHA.

Obviously, the FARMS reviews have a lot more latitude for space, so they go into much more detail. That's not the point.

If it is your impression that both reviews of Bagley's book are similar in tone and the only difference is the amount of detail, that's fine. As I said before, I understand that some people can't see the difference, and others can see the difference but don't have a problem with it. I only point this out for the benefit of those who can see a difference, on the assumption that it may have part of Bradford's disenchantment with the Review.

In other words, I seriously, seriously doubt anyone inside the MI ever accused the Review of getting the details wrong, or of not providing enough support for their criticisms. That can't be the issue here. I've never once read something in the Review (that I can remember) and thought "Hmmmm, I think they're mistaken or lying, or haven't provided enough detail."

But I have had the reaction of thinking "Hmmm...that's a cheap shot." Or "Hmmm...I read the book and this review discusses the book without really addressing it."

Edited June 26, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

I think this blog post touches on what I'm trying to say:

Book reviews may be of interest to scholars, but the typical book review is completely different from the typical scholarly article or essay. The typical book review acknowledges and sometimes announces the publication of a book and gives potential readers a sense of what the book is like. It may also offer some critical commentary to help people decide whether they want to buy/read the book, and what they should expect to get out of it if they do. The reviewer may indicate points she agrees with and points she would criticize, but the criticisms are usually expressed in a brief way that is intended to be suggestive rather than decisive. They may suggest lines of analysis that could be developed and expanded on another occasion in an essay, or perhaps in a book, which would count as scholarship.

When a book review is a review of a scholarly book, then, it is usually written by a scholar, for an audience of scholars, but intended mainly as commentary on scholarship, both about this particular piece, and about interesting possibilities for further scholarship, rather than a piece of scholarship itself.

However, there are two crucial ambiguities in the nature of the category. First, there is ambiguity about how much commentary to give, and in what depth. Some book reviews only describe, some only describe and praise, and some may get quite long and go into great depth, including sustained, reasoned critique. While some publications have a certain form and length for their reviews, the format varies widely by publication. There is no clear line between a long, careful book review and a straight-up article, because if the critique is sustained enough and thoroughly enough developed, it pretty much starts to look just like a scholarly article.

[Bill Hamblin]

None of the examples Cinepro provided are actually ad hominem in any sense of the word.

Being negative and critical of the ideas is not ad hominem. When most of the apostates say FARMS is ad hominem, what they really mean is that FARMS publishes negative, sometimes harshly negative reviews. (Though that is hardly all FARMS has done.) This is completely normal in the academic world. Negative reviews and responses happen all the time. If you're going to play in the major leagues, you've got to expect that.

Pointing out lack of credentials is not ad hominem. If I wrote a book on astro-physics, it might be relevant for a reviewer to note that I don't understand calculus. If I open an office as a brain surgeon, it might be relevant for people to note I do not have a medical degree.

Pointing out the underlying assumptions of an author (Marxist, atheist, Republican, Mormon etc.) is not ad hominem. It is providing intellectual context for the ideas being discussed. A book cannot be understood without understanding the intellectual history of the author, nor the broader intellectual context of the book. Discussing this is the duty of a reviewer. It is not an ad hominem.

Furthermore, in all these cases the FARMS reviews are much more substantive and informative than the BYU review because they review essays.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think this blog post touches on what I'm trying to say:

There is a difference between a book review (usually under 1000 words) and a review essay, which is an independent article, engaging the ideas of a book, but also adding its own independent analysis. There is simply no reason to judge a review essay (often published by FARMS) by the criteria of a review essay. They are overlapping but distinct academic forms.

[Mike Reed]

You are creating this standard of a "college-level collection" but what you provide doesn't actually even match the venom we sometimes find in profession peer reviewed journals.

There's the rub. Sometimes vs. regularly.

[Bill Hamblin]

There's the rub. Sometimes vs. regularly.

CFR. You're blowing smoke again.

[Benjamin McGuire]

No Mike, its not the rub. What is being described doesn't occur regularly in the Review. That is part of the Myth that this thread is referring to.

Tell you what - the last issue on the website is Vol. 23 No. 1. You can find it here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1

it contains 3 pieces authored or co-authored by Lou Midgley, one by Greg Smith (author of the now widely speculated about piece on Dehlin), and one by Dan Peterson - the current ring leaders of all that is evil with NAMI. Why don't you show us how this issue is such a wonderful example of the sort of thing you suggest occurs regularly in the Review?

Maybe both issues from Volume 22?

Let's stop simply taking what might be viewed as the worst of the worst and claiming that it is wholly representative of the entire publication.

Ben M.

[Grundelwalken]

How is this for starters?

This is the concluding paragraph in Stephen E. Robinson’s review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, published in the FARMS Review of Books, Volume 3, Issue 1 (1991):

Quote

I suppose by now it is clear that I did not like this book. I did not like it primarily because it is dishonest. It is dishonest to pass off the religion of the scholars as the Church of Jesus Christ. It is dishonest to pass off Protestantism in Mormon dress as the religion restored through Joseph Smith. It is dishonest to pass off a rejection and a denial of that religion as merely a "reinterpretation." It is dishonest to pass off ex-Latter-day Saints, non-Latter-day Saints, Reorganized Latter-day Saints, disaffected Latter-day Saints, and hard-core anti-Latter-day Saints as "Mormon" essayists. Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of Signature Books camouflaged as a "Latter-day Saint" press. I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.

I keep hearing about this ad hominem challenge in the writings of Mormon scholars but I REALLY must not know what a real ad hominem is because.... well, I just don't see it. Maybe it's my blinders and I don't want to see it but the personal attacks to obfuscate and derail the argument doesn't show up in my mind. I need to go back to school so these things make more sense to me. MW

[juliann]

And finally, there's the review for Will Bagley's "Blood of the Prophets". Compare the thoughtful, mature conclusion in BYU Studies with the FARMS Review. Apparently, it was amateur-hour over at FARMS, and they were letting anybody write reviews by that time.

BYU Studies

Compare that to this invective-filled hatchet-job published by FARMS:

All I see from this is that the polemicists have had to drop back from crying ad homenim, which they have overused to the point of silliness, to "tone". I still recall an all out brawl in one top New Testament journal because of the fury over a sociologist stepping into the biblical scholar turf. Grad seminars were always highlighted with stories of battles so this new rallying cry of "tone", as Ben points out, doesn't address much at all except personal preference and arguing over vocabulary words. It is....odd.

Let's look at your tonish vocabulary. "Invective filled hatchet job". What are we meant to do with that? What real information does it give us?

Let's look at the vocabulary you dismiss as a invective flled hatchet job (as best I can surmise and I do have to admit it is a highly speculative task)

salacious rumor ( don't know if "salacious" is the problem or if rumor has now become invective, or only the combination)

agenda-driven (not sure why this is objectionable)

healthy dose of cynicism

(I am assuming "cynicism" is the problem?)

no competent evidence

(seems rather straight forward summation rather than a hatchet job)

You seem to have created the standard of "tone" based on the criteria of "thoughtful" and "mature". These are some of the vocabulary words you gave the stamp of approval.

Bagley flippantly claims

Ignoring his source, however, in a rhetorical flourish

Bagley's rhetoric

making generalizations from juicy anecdotes

misusing and ignoring evidence

Bagley's case rests on the assumption

his research proves deficient

Bagley ignores

tries to support his fictional tale

Bagley refuses to believe

he whitewashes

rhetorical device of inserting a chapter of idyllic prose

Bagley should at least have gotten a clue

should not allow speculation, rhetoric, and flawed logic to replace clear evidence.

, his interpretation is essentially the same as the nineteenth-century anti-Mormon argument.

We can notice immediately that the line seems to be drawn between vocabularly words. "Salacious" is invective and a hatchet job whereas "juicy" is mature and thoughtful.

"Agenda driven" is invective and a hatchet job whereas "anti-Mormon argument" is thoughtful and mature.

Although I agree with those who think this is a battle over the narrative, it may be much narrower. It seems to be a battle over a dictionary.

And the most invective laden hatchet job is the labeling of an extensive information filled review as an invective laden hatchet job based on a preference of one synonym over another.

[Mike Reed]

CFR. You're blowing smoke again.

Blowing Smoke. <chuckle> You are an angry venomous person, Bill. You can't see this in yourself, so why should I waste my time showing it in your colleagues' work? You can't see the obvious, as you've demonstrated in your reaction to Cinepro's examples. I'm satisfied with stating the obvious, and citing my own sense of the matter that I have obtained while reading reviews from FARMS/Neal A. Maxwell Institute over the past many years. That's my reference. Take it for what it's worth.

It is worth a thread ban