Being And Becoming A "well Read Member

[Nevo]

My husband thought that as well, that he tried too hard to appear neutral.  Said he used too many "wiggle" words instead of coming right out and saying Joseph saw this vision or had this revelation.  Again, don't have my copy so I can't provide a quote, but I think he used stuff like "Joseph claimed…"

 

I wasn't of that opinion, but I automatically write that way myself a lot of the times.

 

Bushman wrote the book for believers and non-believers alike. But he also knew going in that, by trying to appeal to both audiences, he would be criticized from all sides. Many believers would feel he'd gone too far to appease critics and many non-believers would feel he wasn't sufficiently critical. And that is exactly how it played out.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Nevo

[stemelbow]

At this point, I'm wondering if you saw calmoriah's excellent response post to your response to me.

I did. I also remember the podcast she linked. I'd have to re-consult myself to be sure, but I'm not sure taken as said, in the intro, that means he tried to appease the critics. But if that's your recollection no big deal from me.

[stemelbow]

Bushman wrote the book for believers and non-believers alike. But he also knew going in that, by trying to appeal to both audiences, he would be criticized from all sides. Many believers would feel he'd gone too far to appease critics and many non-believers would feel he wasn't sufficiently critical. And that is exactly how it played out.

Sounds about right.

[Scott Lloyd]

My husband thought that as well, that he tried too hard to appear neutral.  Said he used too many "wiggle" words instead of coming right out and saying Joseph saw this vision or had this revelation.  Again, don't have my copy so I can't provide a quote, but I think he used stuff like "Joseph claimed…"

 

I wasn't of that opinion, but I automatically write that way myself a lot of the times.

In this, he was apparently endeavoring to use an objective voice.

 

We're trained to do that in journalism, and we follow it with varying degrees of strictness. Unless it is an opinion piece, we generally don't assert something as fact unless we have witnessed it ourselves. Instead, we attribute such declarations to others.

 

I imagine the convention is similar in historiography.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I did. I also remember the podcast she linked. I'd have to re-consult myself to be sure, but I'm not sure taken as said, in the intro, that means he tried to appease the critics. But if that's your recollection no big deal from me.

You can quibble over the semantic meaning of appease, but I think the word applies pretty well.

[Pahoran]

So to be a well read Mormon someone should have read a book, Mormon Enigma, that got the authors officially banned from speaking at any church meeting and was officially attacked by church leaders.  And then follow that up with Compton's book which was subjected to multiple polemic, ad hominem attacks in FARMS/BYU reviews by Richard Anderson, Scott Faulring, and Danel Bachman.

 

That sounds reasonable.

 

CFR, please; what "polemic, ad hominem attacks" were those?

 

Or were you simply parrotting the standard anti-Mormon mantra, that anything less than lavish praise, coming from the former Maxwell Institute, is to be dismissed as "polemic, ad hominem attacks?"

 

And you do realise, don't you, that that mantra is itself a rather good example of the ad hominem fallacy in action?

 

Far more so than any of the reviews you're trying to poison the well against.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[phaedrus ut]

CFR, please; what "polemic, ad hominem attacks" were those?

 

Or were you simply parrotting the standard anti-Mormon mantra, that anything less than lavish praise, coming from the former Maxwell Institute, is to be dismissed as "polemic, ad hominem attacks?"

 

And you do realise, don't you, that that mantra is itself a rather good example of the ad hominem fallacy in action?

 

Far more so than any of the reviews you're trying to poison the well against.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Thanks for showing your were unaware of the reviews and responses by the author.  The terms "polemic & ad hominem attack" actually were the words used by Todd Compton to describe the FARMS reviews of his books.  You can find that in his response: Truth, Honesty and Moderation in Mormon History: A Response to Anderson, Faulring and Bachman's Reviews of In Sacred Loneliness. 

 

Thank your for your rigorous lecture on the correct use of logical fallacies.  Once again I am enlightened by the wisdom of Pahoran. 

 

 

Phaedrus

[volgadon]

The Church Newsroom article claimed that "much of what you'll find in the essays on polygamy has been published in diverse sources and known among long-term and well-read members, historians, and Church leaders for many years." In context, "well-read" here seems to be mean well-read on church history subjects (as opposed to, say, particle physics or economic theory).

 

I think the statement is accurate. Long-term members who have pursued an interest in church history and have read broadly on the subject will have encountered most—if not all—of the books I mentioned. Someone who has not read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling or Mormon Enigma, or, for that matter, No Man Knows My History, simply does not qualify as "well-read" in my view. Those are all must-read books for anyone professing to be a serious student of LDS history and Joseph Smith.

 

My grandmother was a Gospel Doctrine teacher for 29 years, and absolutely loved Mormon Enigma. Even sent a copy to my mom in Israel. She taught when it came out, and she continued to teach even after discussing information from it on occasion. Not that my grandmother was typical. She wasn't, and she was proud of that. My point though is like yours. Well-read members read that book when it came out.

[Pahoran]

Thanks for showing your were unaware of the reviews and responses by the author.  The terms "polemic & ad hominem attack" actually were the words used by Todd Compton to describe the FARMS reviews of his books.  You can find that in his response: Truth, Honesty and Moderation in Mormon History: A Response to Anderson, Faulring and Bachman's Reviews of In Sacred Loneliness. 

 

Thank your for your rigorous lecture on the correct use of logical fallacies.  Once again I am enlightened by the wisdom of Pahoran. 

 

 

Phaedrus

 

Phaedrus,

 

I asked for references to support the claims of "polemic and ad hominem attack."

 

You did not support those accusations.  Instead, you merely passed the buck to someone else who made those accusations before you.

 

You ought not to repeat mere gossip as fact, Phaedrus.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

I guess it just amazes me that any long term member of the Church would not have understood that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I mean how could a person read the 132nd Section and not have asked the question. Are we so addicted to avoiding asking questions or not talking about anything not explicit in the Sunday School manuals that we become some kind of mental zombie or something?

[readstoomuch]

As far as Compton and In Sacred Loneliness, I think the FARMS folks did take issue with him.  I think they were even harsh at times.  Compton also wrote a critique of Brodie in Brodie Revisited.  I spent a bunch of time studying polygamy over the years.  In the end, it comes down to each persons opinion.  You weigh things.  Dynastic ties, no children, secrecy of implementing a major cultural change in a puritan minded population and bits, polyandry and scraps of primary accounts.  Mostly, second and third hand reports.  After studying this over the years, my take was that JS was way more interested in the ordinances than carnal desires.  The amount of time spent teaching the Quorum of the Annointed the endowment was amazing.  The need to finish the work before he died also is inspiring.  The whole picture is much more unique than counting the number of noses that somebody was sealed to or whatever you want to count.  

 

What am I saying.  You have to read all of the accounts and weigh them.  Comptons was by far the best up to that time.  Then you read the critiques of him as well as Hales work.  They all give you a picture that is useful.  I would add Gary Bergeras books about the anointed quorum and early temple work.  I read all of those and more.  In the end Joseph Smith`s polygamy is between God and all of the others involved.  I am responsible for what I do with the knowledge and light that I am given.  

[Calm]

My grandmother was a Gospel Doctrine teacher for 29 years, and absolutely loved Mormon Enigma. Even sent a copy to my mom in Israel. She taught when it came out, and she continued to teach even after discussing information from it on occasion. Not that my grandmother was typical. She wasn't, and she was proud of that. My point though is like yours. Well-read members read that book when it came out.

My mom read it too.

[phaedrus ut]

Phaedrus,

I asked for references to support the claims of "polemic and ad hominem attack."

You did not support those accusations. Instead, you merely passed the buck to someone else who made those accusations before you.

You ought not to repeat mere gossip as fact, Phaedrus.

Regards,

Pahoran

You're making a CFR on my opinion? Um, ok... look at my original post here, I logged into my account and wrote that. There is your reference.

I also happen to share that opinion with Todd Compton(and many others). The Wikipedia entry for The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) has it's own subsection titled Polemics that discusses the ad hominem attacks used by FARMS. That just may be a strange coincidence.

It's also my opinion that FARMS has published some very interesting articles by genuine scholars. It also has published some pretty shoddy work by amateur hacks.

Phaedrus

Edited November 14, 2014 by phaedrus ut

[Kevin Christensen]

You're making a CFR on my opinion? Um, ok... look at my original post here, I logged into my account and wrote that.  There is your reference.

 

I also happen to share that opinion with Todd Compton(and many others). It might be just a coincidence that the Wikipedia entry for The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) has it's own subsection titled Polemics that discusses the ad hominem attacks used by FARMS.  That just may be a strange coincidence.

 

It's also my opinion that FARMS has published some very interesting articles by genuine scholars.  It also has published some pretty shoddy work by amateur hacks.

 

Phaedrus

I've read every volume of the Review, and I've also had several essays published in the review. That ought to be one of the prerequisites for making generalizations about the review. And referencing Wikipedia on any Mormon topic ought to be done with some awareness of what goes on there. FAIR provided a most enlightening essay on the back stage antics there.

Here is the Wikipedia information:

Some have accused FARMS of engaging in mean-spirited polemics. One example of this occurred with Signature Books' publication of Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. The publication of this book immediately resulted in five negative book reviews by FARMS.[15] Ron Priddis of Signature Books responded to these reviews by stating: "Is nothing beyond the reach of sarcasm by FARMS polemicists?" Priddis refers to the book reviews by FARMS as "tabloid scholarship."[16]

What we have here is not a demonstration of any actual mean-spirited polemics, but a report of an accusation of mean-spirited polemics. I've read Palmer's book, and all five of the reviews. I don't agree that "sarcasm" and "tabloid scholarship" provides a meaningful analysis or demonstration of their content. Even the most negative review, by Davis Bitton, was not done by a tabloid writer, but by a senior, well-established Mormon historian.

Dismissing the authors of the Reviews as "polemicists" is not quite the same thing as acknowledging their actual training, experience, qualifications, and actual arguments and documentation.

 

Some authors associated with FARMS have been accused of making ad hominem attacks.[17] FARMS has also been accused of labeling someone an "anti-Mormon", and then discounting their works as biased, based largely on this pronouncement.[18]

Which ones? How often? Are the criticisms accurate? And if you can find an actual ad hominem attack, how typical is it? Are they representative of the 300 plus authors who published in the Review?

 

In a speech offered before the Sunstone Symposium (titled "Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books"), John Hatch said, "After reading the (FARMS) reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism's past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church's past. As one who hopes to some day contribute to the body of the New Mormon History, I am deeply troubled by what I see as continued efforts to attack honest scholarly work."[19

Ah yes... I read that essay. It is not particularly insightful. Basically, it amounts to a young undergrad declaring that "I am offended that anyone could criticize someone whose book I admired." On the basis of some reviews of Quinn and Compton, and a personal antipathy to Midgley, he dismissed all of FARMS up to that point, and of course, could not be reacting to anything published later. For the record, I was in the process of responding in detail years ago, when Louis Midgley asked me to give the young kid a chance find his way.

Scholarly work can be honest without being beyond criticism. There is such a thing as an honest mistake, as well as a disputed interpretation, after all. (Compton himself criticized Nibley in the Review. I notice that no one had a cow over that.) People do the best they can with the evidence and frameworks at hand. People who disagree can be engaged, or more easily, dismissed as "not us," but rather polemicists and hacks and whatever. All without bothering to be specific as to the persons, the specific arguments, and just how representative, or not, the individual cases may be.

The wikipedia article dutifully reports the accusations that suit the political agenda of the Wikipedia editors, without having to bother with the scholarly business of gaining perspective. The objective tone of the report disguises the fact that the existence of the report serves the subjective agenda behind the reporters.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Wikipedia

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited November 15, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Scott Lloyd]

I've read every volume of the Review, and I've also had several essays published in the review. That ought to be one of the prerequisites for making generalizations about the review. And referencing Wikipedia on any Mormon topic ought to be done with some awareness of what goes on there. FAIR provided a most enlightening essay on the back stage antics there.

Here is the Wikipedia information:

What we have here is not a demonstration of any actual mean-spirited polemics, but a report of an accusation of mean-spirited polemics. I've read Palmer's book, and all five of the reviews. I don't agree that "sarcasm" and "tabloid scholarship" provides a meaningful analysis or demonstration of their content. Even the most negative review, by Davis Bitton, was not done by a tabloid writer, but by a senior, well-established Mormon historian.

Dismissing the authors of the Reviews as "polemicists" is not quite the same thing as acknowledging their actual training, experience, qualifications, and actual arguments and documentation.

 

Which ones? How often? Are the criticisms accurate? And if you can find an actual ad hominem attack, who typical is it? Are they representative of the 300 plus authors who published in the Review?

 

Ah yes... I read that essay. It is not particularly insightful. Basically, it amounts to a young undergrad declaring that "I am offended that anyone could criticize someone whose book I admired." On the basis of some reviews of Quinn and Compton, and a personal antipathy to Midgley, he dismissed all of FARMS up to that point, and of course, could not be reacting to anything published later. For the record, I was in the process of responding in detail years ago, when Louis Midgley asked me to give the young kid a chance find his way.

Scholarly work can be honest without being beyond criticism. There is such a thing as an honest mistake, as well as a disputed interpretation, after all. (Compton himself criticized Nibley in the Review. I notice that no one had a cow over that.) People do the best they can with the evidence and frameworks at hand. People who disagree can be engaged, or more easily, dismissed as "not us," but rather polemicists and hacks and whatever. All without bothering to be specific as to the persons, the specific arguments, and just how representative, or not, the individual cases may be.

The wikipedia article dutifully reports the accusations that suit the political agenda of the Wikipedia editors, without having to bother with the scholarly business of gaining perspective. The objective tone of the report disguises the fact that the existence of the report serves the subjective agenda behind the reporters.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Wikipedia

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Implicit in the phrase "mean-spirited polemics" is the assumption that polemic is always and necessarily a bad thing.

 

I contend that it isn't. It is merely one form of argumentation.

 

Consider this from Wikipedia:

 

A polemic /pəˈlɛmɪk/ is a contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific understanding and the falsity of the contrary position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about very controversial topics. The art or practice of such argumentation is called polemics. A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is a polemicist or a polemic. ...

 

Along with debate, polemics are one of the most common forms of arguing. Similar to debate, a polemic is confined to a definite controversial thesis. But unlike debate, which may allow for common ground between the two disputants, a polemic is intended only to establish the truth of a point of view while refuting the opposing point of view.

 

In theory, some positions (though certainly not all) are so utterly and egregiously false that they deserve to be refuted by whatever means is necessary, including polemic. Though harsh, polemic may or may not be "mean-spirited" or dishonorable. It depends on how and to what it is applied.

 

Furthermore, if one is engaged in defense against polemical attack (as was often the case in the old FARMS Review of Book), the defensive argument might of necessity have to take on a polemical nature to effectively rebut the polemical attack.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Ah yes... I read that essay. It is not particularly insightful. Basically, it amounts to a young undergrad declaring that "I am offended that anyone could criticize someone whose book I admired." On the basis of some reviews of Quinn and Compton, and a personal antipathy to Midgley, he dismissed all of FARMS up to that point, and of course, could not be reacting to anything published later. For the record, I was in the process of responding in detail years ago, when Louis Midgley asked me to give the young kid a chance find his way.

 

A very charitable act on the part of Dr. Midgley, I would say.

[Kevin Christensen]

A very charitable act on the part of Dr. Midgley, I would say.

I thought so.  That particular essay, despite it's popularity, was ripe for analysis rather than just oohing and ahhhhing. (For instance, the author at times characterizes himself as just a typical naive member, and at other times, as one who spent a lot of time in the library stacks.  That tells me that he's not particularly self-reflective.)  That particular incident, with Midgley asking me to hold off remains one of the reasons why I have realized that much of what goes on in the bloggosphere involves a few people "controlling the narrative", and a great many people unconciously being controlled by it, rather than widespread serious inquiry into realities.

 

As Kuhn explains, paradigms are defined by standard examples, which embody a set of methods and assumptions.  It's deciding what stories to tell, and to therefore generalize from, of all the infinite stories that could be told.  So it pays to notice who tells what particular stories, and why.  Joseph Campbell points out that one of the functions of any mythology is to sustain a particular social order.  So if a lot of people are choosing to tell and retell a particular story as a means of characterizing an opponent, when it turns out that that particular story involves an exceptional rather than typical incident, or that it involves third or fourth-hand late sources, rather than first hand, contemporary eye-witness, then the realization that such stories are repeated by purposeful choice, rather than, impersonally facing self-interpreting facts, can open one's eyes to how social politics operate.  The unduly famous broken acrostic is a good example.  It was actually censored by Peterson.  But the story became a means to distract attention from the actual arguments of the essay, and a means to unfairly generalize about anyone associated with the Review.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited November 17, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[juliann]

So to be a well read Mormon someone should have read a book, Mormon Enigma, that got the authors officially banned from speaking at any church meeting and was officially attacked by church leaders.  And then follow that up with Compton's book which was subjected to multiple polemic, ad hominem attacks in FARMS/BYU reviews by Richard Anderson, Scott Faulring, and Danel Bachman.

 

That sounds reasonable.

The first book I remember reading was Van Waggoner. There is a difference between knowing about polygamy and knowing everything about polygamy. I also wonder how members wouldn't have any idea about it. But I grew up in an era where we did regularly talk about polygamy as the true form of marriage awaiting us all. Although it was said that no one would be forced, it was made quite clear that that couple would not "advance" as far as polygamists. Emma Smith was talked about with derision because she didn't support Joseph in polygamy and denied it. It wasn't until the 70s that she got a glowing article in the Ensign.

 

With current manuals blocking out mention of even BY's wives, it certainly wouldn't be hard to miss the extent of it for younger people. I had no excuse because the polygamy sections in Section 132 weren't avoided, technically no one should be excused from not reading our own scripture. But I doubt many have read the D&C aside from GD classes.

 

And even though I knew about JS's polygamy, I never once remember being aware of further detail aside from BY. I didn't learn all that until I found the internet. Now that the discussion has turned to a tasteless analysis of where and with whom some of the women spent their nights, I'd prefer to know less. 

[Kenngo1969]

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132.

 

Numerous Ensign articles.

 

All of which shows that the Church was conspiring to "hide" the information by publishing it in venues no Church member ever reads.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh, come on, Pahoran!  Everybody in the Church of Jesus Christ knows that there's no better place for it to hide information than in the Ensign!

 

Sorry;  Couldn't resist.

[DBMormon]

I discussed this very issue on my guest blog post at wheat and Tares 

http://www.wheatandtares.org/15431/shame-on-you-for-not-knowing

Edited November 15, 2014 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

Thanks for showing your were unaware of the reviews and responses by the author.  The terms "polemic & ad hominem attack" actually were the words used by Todd Compton to describe the FARMS reviews of his books.  You can find that in his response: Truth, Honesty and Moderation in Mormon History: A Response to Anderson, Faulring and Bachman's Reviews of In Sacred Loneliness. 

 

Thank your for your rigorous lecture on the correct use of logical fallacies.  Once again I am enlightened by the wisdom of Pahoran. 

 

 

Phaedrus

 

What one might call polemic another might call a vigorous review.

[BCSpace]

Prior to the Gospel Topic essays and without encountering what would deemed "anti-Mormon" materials, what Church materials should should have caused an average member to realize Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

 

 

 

Has anyone mentioned the scriptures? They teach that God authorized plural marriage exists from time to time.

[Rivers]

Has anyone mentioned the scriptures? They teach that God authorized plural marriage exists from time to time.

Especially D&C 132.  It explicitly talks about Jospeh Smith as a polygamist.  Unfortunatley for me, I never read section 132 all the way through until I was on my mission.  I first leaned most of the ugly details of JS's polygamy when I read Rough Stone Rolling which I picked up from Seagul Book years before the the Gospel Topics essays. 

 

Now I am curious to know.  Prior to the publication of RSR, was there anything published by Seagul Boook or Desseret Book that delved into any of the details of JS' polygamy?  Or was RSR pretty revolutionary in that regard?

[thesometimesaint]

Especially D&C 132.  It explicitly talks about Jospeh Smith as a polygamist.  Unfortunatley for me, I never read section 132 all the way through until I was on my mission.  I first leaned most of the ugly details of JS's polygamy when I read Rough Stone Rolling which I picked up from Seagul Book years before the the Gospel Topics essays. 

 

Now I am curious to know.  Prior to the publication of RSR, was there anything published by Seagul Boook or Desseret Book that delved into any of the details of JS' polygamy?  Or was RSR pretty revolutionary in that regard?

 

That was in a different age. While there has always be scandal mongers. As a rule people just didn't talk publicly about their intimate lives of what happened behind closed doors.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I guess it just amazes me that any long term member of the Church would not have understood that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I mean how could a person read the 132nd Section and not have asked the question. Are we so addicted to avoiding asking questions or not talking about anything not explicit in the Sunday School manuals that we become some kind of mental zombie or something?

 

 

This attitude abounds in the church...and irritates.

 

I was aware that JS probably had a couple of plural wives, quite possibly because he needed to support starving widows, but I had no details about the practice. The details are shocking. I think the OP asked a good question because the church has strongly implied, as recently as last conference, that you cannot trust what you read on the internet or books because they have no truth filter which puts the member at risk of falling prey to anti-mormon information. Good, faithful members tried to be obedient. They didn't want to read unauthorized materials so that left them to read the seminary/institute manuals, maybe some BH Roberts and then Bushman when it came out.

 

The church did not produce the information itself and cast a wide shadow of doubt on anything a member might read, so its not unreasonable for people to not know. It is also true that when a person thinks they know something, they stop searching. So it is also reasonable that a member who thought they knew all about Joseph's polygamy (based on seminary/institute/sunday school etc) would see no reason to dig deeper because they believed the church version. Besides, they didn't want to risk exposure to antimormon material.

 

Last week I asked an intelligent, lifelong member if he had read the polygamy essay. He said "No. I already know all of that stuff." So I asked, "When did you learn about Joseph having 30-40 wives, some of which were married to other men and some as young as 14 years old. His face went white and he sputtered for an answer. Clearly he didn't know everything, but he saw no reason to read the essay because he thought he did. He trusted the knowledge he had received previously from the church only to find out there was more to the story. This is a common occurance and it may be uncharitable to blame the individual who trusted the church's previous teaching.