What Has The New Farms Produced?

[MikeParker]

I've been a FARMS subscriber for at least 20 years. I've never been wealthy and hence have never been able to donate any amount of substance to FARMS/NAMI. I wished I could have (at least until recently).

But I did contribute the minimum annual amount, plus enough to pay for a suscription to the Review. I did so largely because that journal filled a critical need. It has been the ideological successor to the writings of Parley Pratt, B.H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and other Latter-day Saint scholars who chose to defend our faith against its critics. There is nothing sordid in that endeavor; it has a long and respectful history.

So my annual contribution — which started, I believe, around $25 a year and was $65 or so when I renewed last spring — was dedicated to supporting an organization that did certain things of which I approved enough to open my wallet. I have been unemployed for over a year now, and that last contribution was particularly difficult for me, but I did it anyway. Consider it my widow's mite.

Small donor nonetheless, I expected my money to support a direction with which I agreed. But all of that came to a screeching halt and now the Institute is pursuing a completely different agenda — one with which I don't necessarily have a problem, but one in which I'm just not all that interested. (The last thing the world needs, IMHO, is another "Mormon studies" journal. What it does need is a solid, scholarly program that is unashamed to support the Book of Mormon as a historical text.)

Last summer, after it became clear what this new direction was, I called the Institute and asked to cancel my subscription. I also asked for a partial refund of that year's fees, if it was available, and any prepayment I had made for the Review. (I believe I was paid up through the next two or three issues.) I spoke with a very nice young woman who took my information and promised to get back to me. She never did. I'm still getting NAMI materials in the mail.

My subscription expires at the end of March, so I'll be interested to see what happens after that. Will I keep getting Insights, JBMORS, and even some future incarnation of the Review?

[MikeParker]

To clarify my previous post:

My issue isn't so much about the money as it is about the fact that I asked for it last summer and got crickets. And since my annual subscription is almost up by now, I didn't expect any refund would be forthcoming anyway.

My larger point was one of direction of the Institute. I agree with the assertion others have made that it was A¹, and now it's A², but A² is being funded by money that was raised from people who supported, believed in, and expected A¹. I'm one of them, albeit in a small way.

"Betrayal" is a strong word, but that's, in essence, what's happened here. Lots of people ponied up for a vigorous defense of the Church, and instead they'll get something else (we know not what yet).

[bdouglas]

In regards to the enthusiasm ..... again, you are in a bubble. The Mormon Studies world -- a world much larger than you may imagine -- is thrilled with the new direction of the MI. They like the new MI but either don't know or don't care about leadership changes.

This is certainly true in my case. I'm a businessman, and I have no idea of the ins and outs of this whole dispute. But I did send in some money to the MI recently, and will continue to do so in future. I'm confident things will all shake out for the best.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is, to me, the central point of this entire controversy. Of course, you employ Luke's name above as a place-holder for the strange confederacy of alienated and/or apostate Mormons and a substantial group of seemingly faithful LDS academics who, notwithstanding their pretensions to faith in the restored gospel, share with the former a common ideological perspective.

This common ideological perspective (and its opposition) are perhaps best explained with a simple example related to the study of the Book of Mormon.

Traditional FARMS-style apologetics has, for example, published works that focus upon the witnesses of plates of Mormon, and how their testimony establishes the reality of those plates.

The "Mormon Studies" people are entirely disinterested in such questions, and consider them beneath the purview of "true scholarship." Instead, for example, they choose to examine the Book of Mormon from the perspectives of comparative literature; or how its publication is situated within the context of contemporary events, etc.

Both approaches, in my judgment, have their points of merit, and I am convinced that, by and large, Apologetics is willing to accommodate Mormon Studies. However, that tolerance is not reciprocated, for the simple reason that the Mormon Studies people believe their endeavors are demeaned, in the eyes of their Religious Studies peers, by any association with apologetics.

Therefore, in order to position themselves more favorably in the Religious Studies world, the Mormon Studies people have conspired to excise anything that talks of or would defend the claims of gold plates, angels, and the many other supernatural elements that form such a large part of the origins of the restored gospel.

In short, the Mormon Studies folks are ashamed of the things Mormon Apologetics is shamelessly willing to defend.

I haven't wanted to draw a conclusion such as the above, because I dread it so. But alas, it is looking more and more like it is indeed the case.

How I wish that someone in a position to know could offer me a sincere assurance to the contrary.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

This is certainly true in my case. I'm a businessman, and I have no idea of the ins and outs of this whole dispute. But I did send in some money to the MI recently, and will continue to do so in future. I'm confident things will all shake out for the best.

The sad part of all this is there was room enough for both. It didn't have to go down this way. It appears to me that academic arrogance has reared its ugly head.

[William Schryver]

The last thing the world needs, IMHO, is another "Mormon studies" journal. What it does need is a solid, scholarly program that is unashamed to support the Book of Mormon as a historical text.

Although essentially a refrain of my comments above, your observation touches upon a very important aspect of this still-developing tale of intrigue: There is no lack of publishing venues for those who find the typical "Mormon Studies" approach to their liking. Indeed, the number and variety of journals catering to "Mormon Studies," when compared to similar journals focused on other areas of religious studies, is entirely disproportionate to the number of Mormons, both in the United States and worldwide. Sunstone, Dialogue, JWHA, MHA ... there are probably at least a dozen or more journals focused on Mormon Studies! Unfortunately, most of those journals have come to be dominated, especially in recent years, by voices more or less hostile (both overtly and covertly; explicitly and implicitly) to the truth claims of Mormonism, as well as its leadership, both historical and contemporary.

There was only ONE journal whose focus was faithful scholarship relating to Mormon scripture. Contrary to the now almost universally accepted myth constructed in recent years, that journal was not at all dominated by articles that could be characterized as apologetic in nature, and only a fraction of the articles that could be accurately characterized as "apologetic" in nature were also polemical. While I believe it is very important to emphasize the fact that neither apologetics nor polemics are BAD, per se, (quite to the contrary!) it is also true, and should be emphasized, that such articles did not, by any means, represent the majority of the published output of the Review.

At any rate, the Review was "the only game in town" when it came to publishing full-throated defenses of Mormonism against its most vociferous critics. And it did it VERY well! Especially when it was very important to do it well, such as in the case of Grant Palmer's infamous An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, and Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, both of which were--quite justifiably--given the "Dresden treatment" at the hands of the capable scholars and researchers who used to hang their hats inside the Maxwell Institute offices.

In assimilating FARMS in 1997, BYU and the Church made a very conscious decision to thereby grant a quasi-authoritative timbre to the apologetic voice emanating from its subsequent publications. To this day, I remain convinced that the faithful scholars of FARMS/NAMIRS never once violated the serious and sacred responsibility that necessarily attached to their being subsumed by Brigham Young University, and the quasi-authoritative imprimatur thus afforded their publications.

Of course, their uniqueness and the unparalleled quality of their work served to prop them up as not only a standard of scholarly excellence, but also as the most hated target of Mormon apostates and critics. The FARMS Review became, for these people, the one voice that simply must be silenced. Therefore, to that end, they began to erect, lie upon cunning lie, the myth that the apologetics emanating from the Maxwell Institute was nothing but an unremitting litany of vicious ad hominem attacks upon otherwise undeserving "serious scholars." To their credit, they took the long view of matters, and over the course of several years they patiently built this myth to the point that it is now accepted virtually without question, notwithstanding the fact that there is virtually no evidence whatsoever to support it! In the past year, numerous challenges have been made to its purveyors to provide examples of what they assert has been the typical vicious product of LDS apologetics in the Review. Of course, they can't do it. But now it no longer matters ...

It has been an absolute tour de force of propaganda. The sole quasi-authoritative voice for LDS apologetics has been silenced -- leaving nothing but for Bradford and his confederates to salt the fields and spit on the graves.

[Kristian]

In fact, that has happened here. Some of us were discussing the Hymn on the Soul a week or two ago.

Good to hear.

[Kristian]

You didn't answer my question about the "three full-time researchers whose primary focus is apologetic research."

Gee is 1, who is not funded by MI

Roper is 2, who is funded by MI, (I should add that Roper now works with the Willes center, not MI, so is technically not an MI employee any more)

who is number three? I hope you don't mean poor Dan McKinley who was fired a couple of days ago by Bradford. Whoops!

Dan's good friend Paul Hoskisson is doing very interesting work on the Book of Mormon.

[Bill Hamblin]

The sad part of all this is there was room enough for both. It didn't have to go down this way. It appears to me that academic arrogance has reared its ugly head.

Of course they are not incompatible. Classic-FARMS had always done Mormon Studies type stuff. Nothing was stopping Jerry or Carl or Morgan or Kristian from doing academic secularly oriented Mormon Studies if they wanted, nor from publishing it with FARMS if they wanted.

The point of the coup was to get rid of Classic FARMS and the FARMS Review (and Dan Peterson). It was not to allow NAMIRS to do secular Mormons Studies. Nothing was preventing this from being done.

[Bill Hamblin]

This is, to me, the central point of this entire controversy. Of course, you employ Luke's name above as a place-holder for the strange confederacy of alienated and/or apostate Mormons and a substantial group of seemingly faithful LDS academics who, notwithstanding their pretensions to faith in the restored gospel, share with the former a common ideological perspective.

This common ideological perspective (and its opposition) are perhaps best explained with a simple example related to the study of the Book of Mormon.

Traditional FARMS-style apologetics has, for example, published works that focus upon the witnesses of plates of Mormon, and how their testimony establishes the reality of those plates.

The "Mormon Studies" people are entirely disinterested in such questions, and consider them beneath the purview of "true scholarship." Instead, for example, they choose to examine the Book of Mormon from the perspectives of comparative literature; or how its publication is situated within the context of contemporary events, etc.

Both approaches, in my judgment, have their points of merit, and I am convinced that, by and large, Apologetics is willing to accommodate Mormon Studies. However, that tolerance is not reciprocated, for the simple reason that the Mormon Studies people believe their endeavors are demeaned, in the eyes of their Religious Studies peers, by any association with apologetics.

Therefore, in order to position themselves more favorably in the Religious Studies world, the Mormon Studies people have conspired to excise anything that talks of or would defend the claims of gold plates, angels, and the many other supernatural elements that form such a large part of the origins of the restored gospel.

In short, the Mormon Studies folks are ashamed of the things Mormon Apologetics is shamelessly willing to defend.

This insight inspired a kind of ah-ha moment for me.

I suddenly realized that every person I knew who had written for or been associated with classic-FARMS was united--despite difference on all sorts of issues--by one academic issue. They accepted the historicity of the BOM.

Then I realized there were only four people associated with NAMIRS whose views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon I did not know. To my knowledge, these four people, and these four alone, have never orally or in writing affirmed a belief in the historicity of the BOM. I know where everyone else stands. But I have no idea where these four stand. Those four are, in fact, the Junta of the coup: Jerry Bradford, Morgan Davis, Carl Griffin and Kristian Heal.

Now, I very well may be wrong. Maybe they do accept BOM historicity. I think now is a perfect moment for them to affirm a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon--if that is their belief.

At any rate, if this is true, it explains a great deal of what's going on. In fact, it explains just about everything that's going on.

[Scott Lloyd]

This insight inspired a kind of ah-ha moment for me.

I suddenly realized that every person I knew who had written for or been associated with classic-FARMS was united--despite difference on all sorts of issues--by one academic issue. They accepted the historicity of the BOM.

Then I realized there were only four people associated with NAMIRS whose views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon I did not know. To my knowledge, these four people, and these four alone, have never orally or in writing affirmed a belief in the historicity of the BOM. I know where everyone else stands. But I have no idea where these four stand. Those four are, in fact, the Junta of the coup: Jerry Bradford, Morgan Davis, Carl Griffin and Kristian Heal.

Now, I very well may be wrong. Maybe they do accept BOM historicity. I think now is a perfect moment for them to affirm a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon--if that is their belief.

At any rate, if this is true, it explains a great deal of what's going on. In fact, it explains just about everything that's going on.

Gerald Bradford, for one, is a contributor to Mormon Scholars Testify. It has been quite a while, though, since I read his contribution, and I don't recall if he specifically mentions the Book of Mormon or its historicity.

Edited to add:

Link.

Edited again to add:

Here's one from Kristian.

And one from Morgan Davis.

Sorry, I haven't had time to thoroughly examine any of these yet for references to Book of Mormon historicity.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bill Hamblin]

Dan's good friend Paul Hoskisson is doing very interesting work on the Book of Mormon.

So there were once four:

Gee--endowed chair not funded by NAMIRS

McKinlay--fired three weeks ago

Hoskisson--works for the Willes Institute, which is administratively linked to NAMIRS for bureaucratic reasons, but also has an independent endowment and separate budget. (Hoskisson may well be paid by Religious Education, since he is still a professor there.)

Roper--who was recently administratively moved to be in the Willes Institute.

In other words, your claim that "three full-time researchers whose primary focus is apologetic research." is a bit exaggerated.

[Bill Hamblin]

Gerald Bradford, for one, is a contributor to Mormon Scholars Testify. It has been quite a while, though, since I read his contribution, and I don't recall if he specifically mentions the Book of Mormon or its historicity.

Bradford doesn't mention it there.

Note I'm not saying they don't believe in the Church. I'm saying that, to my knowledge, they've never publicly affirmed a believe in BOM historicity.

[William Schryver]

This insight inspired a kind of ah-ha moment for me.

I suddenly realized that every person I knew who had written for or been associated with classic-FARMS was united--despite difference on all sorts of issues--by one academic issue. They accepted the historicity of the BOM.

Then I realized there were only four people associated with NAMIRS whose views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon I did not know. To my knowledge, these four people, and these four alone, have never orally or in writing affirmed a belief in the historicity of the BOM. I know where everyone else stands. But I have no idea where these four stand. Those four are, in fact, the Junta of the coup: Jerry Bradford, Morgan Davis, Carl Griffin and Kristian Heal.

Now, I very well may be wrong. Maybe they do accept BOM historicity. I think now is a perfect moment for them to affirm a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon--if that is their belief.

At any rate, if this is true, it explains a great deal of what's going on. In fact, it explains just about everything that's going on.

I would go a bit further and suggest that the only accurate measure of their belief in the BoM historicity is their published articles to date. I'm confident that, if pressed with an explicit public query, all four will, more than likely, affirm a belief in BoM historicity. I mean, how could they not? Therefore it becomes imperative to actually examine the public record and see if their claimed belief is attested therein.

I know that my immediate reaction, upon reading Bradford's revealing The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia, was that he seemed to hold very serious reservations on the question of BoM historicity.

Even so, I maintain that it was always possible for the journals of the MI to accommodate the kind of thing for which Bradford advocates in his article, as well as traditional FARMS-style apologetics. However, one can certainly understand why someone who has serious doubts about the historicity of the BoM (or the BoA, the Book of Moses, etc.) would be naturally inclined to silence the voices of those who seek to establish the very thing he disbelieves.

[William Schryver]

Gerald Bradford, for one, is a contributor to Mormon Scholars Testify. It has been quite a while, though, since I read his contribution, and I don't recall if he specifically mentions the Book of Mormon or its historicity.

Edited to add:

Link.

Edited again to add:

Here's one from Kristian.

And one from Morgan Davis.

Sorry, I haven't had time to thoroughly examine any of these yet for references to Book of Mormon historicity.

Thanks for the links, Scott. I am going to take the time right now to read them myself.

Even so, I think we should refrain from publicly questioning the convictions of any of these brethren, for the simple reason that they are more than able to speak for themselves on this question (and I welcome them to do so). That said, as I read their testimonies at MST, I will be looking for explicit expressions of belief in what, to me, are the fundamental elements of the restored gospel.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bradford doesn't mention it there.

Note I'm not saying they don't believe in the Church. I'm saying that, to my knowledge, they've never publicly affirmed a believe in BOM historicity.

Noted.

I did read this paragraph from Morgan Davis's piece, from which a belief in Book of Mormon historicity could be inferred:

Along the way, beginning at about the age of seven, I read the scriptures faithfully. I remember getting up at 6:00 in the morning regularly to read my Book of Mormon by the big bookcase in our basement. I remember puzzling my way through phrases like “great and abominable church” and the passages of Isaiah, which seemed opaque to me. I remember my mother recommending an article by Bruce R. McConkie on how to read Isaiah, which I studied at the top of a guava tree at a park near our home in Manila, where we were living at about the time I received the Aaronic Priesthood. I remember reflecting on the complexity of the Book of Mormon, which made J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, which I also read that summer, seem like a child’s bedtime story; and I thought, “there is no way that someone could have made this all up.” I still think that—more now than ever. (After all, I am now a member of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU.)

Edited February 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Are you guys for real? Really? Looking up people's online testimonies and returning here to report what and what not was included?

Think about what you are doing.

[Bill Hamblin]

Noted.

I did read this paragraph from Morgan Davis's piece, from which a belief in Book of Mormon historicity could be inferred:

That's good to know. But it, in fact is not an affirmation of historicity. It could be an affirmation that the complexity points to the BOM is revealed from God.

This type of ambiguity when the chance to affirm historicity presents itself makes one wonder.

For the record, I believe in the historicity of the BOM. See, it's really easy to affirm.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you guys for real? Really? Looking up people's online testimonies and returning here to report what and what not was included?

Think about what you are doing.

I'm only trying to be fair.

If they object to having them looked up, why put them online?

[Scott Lloyd]

That's good to know. But it, in fact is not an affirmation of historicity. It could be an affirmation that the complexity points to the BOM is revealed from God.

This type of ambiguity when the chance to affirm historicity presents itself makes one wonder.

For the record, I believe in the historicity of the BOM. See, it's really easy to affirm.

So do I, for the record.

[Calm]

I'm only trying to be fair.

If they object to having them looked up, why put them online?

I suspect they put them online for the purpose of inspiring people.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suspect they put them online for the purpose of inspiring people.

Undoubtedly.

And I meant no disparagement by linking to them. I was only trying to keep the record straight.

If my conviction were ever called into question, I would hope that someone would cite my public testimony, whether it be published on the Internet or elsewhere.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[William Schryver]

Are you guys for real? Really? Looking up people's online testimonies and returning here to report what and what not was included?

Think about what you are doing.

I assert that it is altogether proper to confirm that those given the charge of heading up this particular organization, which was founded upon the very premise of defending the fundamental truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as embodied in its founding scriptures.

That said, I have just finished reading all three testimonies. My perception is that all three men would feel rather comfortable as members of the Community of Christ. In particular, I found Bradford's "testimony" (which he chose to entitle "What It Means to Me to be a Latter-day Saint") more or less inscrutable in terms of what he really believes in relation to the fundamental truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It appears to me that his beliefs are in a state of flux, and likely susceptible to alteration depending on the prevailing intellectual winds of any given day.

Everyone stop the religious tests immediately.

[William Schryver]

That's good to know. But it, in fact is not an affirmation of historicity. It could be an affirmation that the complexity points to the BOM is revealed from God.

This type of ambiguity when the chance to affirm historicity presents itself makes one wonder.

For the record, I believe in the historicity of the BOM. See, it's really easy to affirm.

For the record, I also affirm my conviction of the historicity of the Book of Mormon; that there really were Nephites; that a resurrected Nephite, named Moroni, really appeared to the 17-year-old Joseph Smith, and that this Moroni was the final author of a record inscribed on metallic plates, which he really did deliver to the young Prophet Joseph, and that the Prophet really did translate that ancient record by the gift and power of God.

[Emerson]

Although essentially a refrain of my comments above, your observation touches upon a very important aspect of this still-developing tale of intrigue: There is no lack of publishing venues for those who find the typical "Mormon Studies" approach to their liking. Indeed, the number and variety of journals catering to "Mormon Studies," when compared to similar journals focused on other areas of religious studies, is entirely disproportionate to the number of Mormons, both in the United States and worldwide. Sunstone, Dialogue, JWHA, MHA ... there are probably at least a dozen or more journals focused on Mormon Studies! Unfortunately, most of those journals have come to be dominated, especially in recent years, by voices more or less hostile (both overtly and covertly; explicitly and implicitly) to the truth claims of Mormonism, as well as its leadership, both historical and contemporary.

This is very admittedly a threadjack, so I honestly wouldn't feel offended if it is ignored, but I was hoping I could ask you a question on this, especially your last sentence.

I fully agree that Mormon studies has more of a quantity than quality when it comes to academic(ish) journals, especially now that the best work in the field is being published in journals that don't specialize in the subfield. But, while heaven knows many of the articles in these journals lack substance, I am not so sure they can be described as "dominated...by voices more or less hostile...to the truth claims of Mormonism, as well as its leadership, both historical and contemporary." Do you feel this is the case with all the journals, or just a few? Personally, I find that JMH, Dialogue, and BYUSQ produce, in general, the best content. (JWHA is very spotty, and Sunstone doesn't, in my estimation, produce anything that fits the rubrik of "Mormon Studies.") Were there recent articles in the three major journals I listed that imply a dominance of hostility toward Mormonism?

I am genuinely curious, and would love an answer, if you have the time and interest.