For Those Who Want To Argue Polemics - Citation Included

[tonie]

"FARMS has often had a polemical edge and we are curious to see how or whether that will be accommodated." (Daniel Peterson, 1997*)

 

For those of you bent on arguing polemics of FARMS or under the former administration of Maxwell Institute, please consider the above quote that admits to FARMS being polemic, and what appears to be an admission that the polemics would continue with the concern on how BYU would regard the polemic writtings.

 

So rather than derailing threads and discussions, please use this thread to argue ad nauseum about FARMS/Maxwell Institute and the polemics of each.

 

*To Peggy Fletcher Stack (November 8, 1997), "Group Trying to Prove LDS Works Joins With BYU; BUt Can Controversial Quesions Continue?

Edited November 15, 2014 by tonie

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think the word polemics means what you think it means.

po·lem·ic

pəˈlemik/

noun

plural noun: polemics

1. a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.

   "his polemic against the cultural relativism of the sixties"

   synonyms: diatribe, invective, rant, tirade, broadside, attack, harangue, condemnation, criticism, stricture, admonition, rebuke; More

   abuse;

   informalblast;

   formalcastigation;

   literaryphilippic

   "a polemic against injustice"

   argumentation, argument, debate, contention, disputation, discussion, altercation;

   formalcontestation

   "he is skilled in polemics"

   • the art or practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute.

     noun: polemics

     "the history of science has become embroiled in religious polemics"

[tonie]

It does not matter what I think "polemic" means. What matters is the admission that FARMS was polemical, and the thinnly veiled admission that Maxwell Institute would engage in polemics.

Moreso to the admission of Maxwell Institute using polemics is Daniel Petersons "Editors Introduction:Of Polemics" wherein he defends the practice.

So those who wish to argue polemics, FARMS, and Maxwell Institute need to keep in mind both Institutions willing engaged in the use of polemics.

[thesometimesaint]

The Maxwell Institute is the former FARMS.

[3DOP]

Hi tonie.

 

Perhaps I missed it. Is there a unanimous agreement among Mormons that polemics are wrong?

 

Obviously, this "confession" of Dr. Peterson is presented as something of an admission of a condemned practice. What, according to the Latter-day Saints is wrong with polemics?

 

I can understand that polemics might be impolite in certain company, but we are talking about an organization dedicated to upholding the legitimacy of the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They debate! What rule says that debaters are no longer allowed to mention the mistakes and fallacies of their adversary? Polemics are a given.

 

One of the most important of LDS claims is that at the time of Joseph Smith, there was no true priesthood on the earth, that the priesthood had died out. The Church established by the Apostles had apostasized. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon Mormons to make an effort to try to explain this significant point. To do so without so much as a reference to the churches which existed before the Restoration, and what was wrong with them, seems absurd to me, and I am not even LDS.

 

It is not in the least shocking that Dr. Peterson admits to using polemics. What would be shocking would be if he somewhere claimed polemics should be forbidden in all religious discussion. I am amazed that anyone could think there is something wrong with polemics in debate. Again, I am not talking about offending guests at a wedding reception with attacks on somebody's church. In debate and discussion, polemics are not merely allowed, polemics are inevitable. Successful polemics are mixed with clear expressions of effort to understand the other party without any hint of rancor. If there is hate, then of course the polemics will be wrong. But where there is love and compassion polemics are a legitimate evangelistic tool.

 

Maybe the problem is that haters are often polemical. Wait a minute before going off the deep end against their polemics. Hate the hate! We can't hate all polemics.  

Edited November 15, 2014 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

Nope, the take 2 of this thread is not better than the original. Sequels always suck.

Edited November 15, 2014 by The Nehor

[tonie]

3DOP, What I care about is the inconsiderate derail of threads by those who wish to deny, till blue in the face, that neither FARMS or Maxwell Institute engaged in polemics.

FARMS admittedly did use polemics, and Daniel Petersons Editorial published by Maxwell Institute defended the use of polemics.

Polemics is the topic of the thread, Mormons and Non-Mormons are welcome to argue about whether polemic commentary is appropriate or even necessary when defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Depending on the dictionary used, I would even say that religous apologetics is polemic by its nature.

Edited November 15, 2014 by tonie

[tonie]

Nope, the take 2 of this thread is not better than the original. Sequels always suck.

How polemic of you.

[The Nehor]

How polemic of you.

 

I am trying to stay on topic you worthless slobbering git.

[tonie]

I am trying to stay on topic you worthless slobbering git.

Is polemic synonymous with ad hominem?

[The Nehor]

I am trying to stay on topic you worthless slobbering git.

 

No, but as any idiot knows, they sometimes overlap.

Edited November 15, 2014 by The Nehor

[tonie]

The Maxwell Institute is the former FARMS.

yes, I know, which makes all the more likely, that FARMS people continued the use of polemic commetary under the umbrella of Maxwell Institute.

I think it is well established that both institutions engaged in polemics, and as Scott Lloyd (in a different thread) and 3DOP have pointed out, polemic commentary is inevitable in religous topics.

[3DOP]

3DOP, What I care about is the inconsiderate derail of threads by those who wish to deny, till blue in the face, that neither FARMS or Maxwell Institute engaged in polemics.

FARMS admittedly did use polemics, and Daniel Petersons Editorial published by Maxwell Institute defended the use of polemics.

Polemics is the topic of the thread, Mormons and Non-Mormons are welcome to argue about whether polemic commentary is appropriate or even necessary when defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I see. Okay. Carry on. I have already endorsed the inevitability of polemics. It takes skill and tact. Everybody rightly ignores the tactless polemicist who doesn't care who he offends. But others are so skilled at it that the transition from apologetics to polemics is barely noticed. I don't have much more to add except to ask those who may think polemics is always bad to consider that rude people are usually polemical too. It isn't the polemics that are wrong, but the rudeness. 

[BCSpace]

So rather than derailing threads and discussions, please use this thread to argue ad nauseum about FARMS/Maxwell Institute and the polemics of each.

 

I would argue that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using polemics to fight against polemics.

[Robert F. Smith]

"FARMS has often had a polemical edge and we are curious to see how or whether that will be accommodated." (Daniel Peterson, 1997*)

 

For those of you bent on arguing polemics of FARMS or under the former administration of Maxwell Institute, please consider the above quote that admits to FARMS being polemic, and what appears to be an admission that the polemics would continue with the concern on how BYU would regard the polemic writtings.

 

So rather than derailing threads and discussions, please use this thread to argue ad nauseum about FARMS/Maxwell Institute and the polemics of each.

 

*To Peggy Fletcher Stack (November 8, 1997), "Group Trying to Prove LDS Works Joins With BYU; BUt Can Controversial Quesions Continue?

You might notice, tonie, that Peterson does not say that FARMS is a polemical organization, nor that it is dedicated to polemics, but only that it "often had a polemical edge," and that this was not characteristic of BYU or LDS Church publications or actions.  He clearly wondered whether making independent FARMS part of BYU (and the LDS Church which owns BYU) would work out very well.  Bill Hamblin (and I) did not agree that a merger was a good idea, and therefore resigned his post on the FARMS Board.  Ultimately, Bill turned out to have been right.  The merger was a bad idea and led finally to the demise of FARMS.

 

Whether polemics are all right may be debated till the cows come home, but most of what FARMS did was never polemical.  The reason Peterson raises the issue of the "polemical edge" is because his publication was tinged with polemics: The FARMS Review of Books, which began publication in about 1988.

 

There are two types of apologetics:  polemic and irenic (with an "e").  FARMS was highly irenic or peaceful and polite in its apologetic approach, which included republishing the complete works of Hugh Nibley, reprinting relevant articles by non-Mormon scholars, and conducting original research on a wide array of Book of Mormon related issues.  The evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen (grad students at Talbot School of Theology) came to Provo and made a close examination of FARMS, finding no evidence of polemics, and concluding that FARMS apologetics were eminently successful -- so much so that the evangelical attackers had been thoroughly defeated by them, even though those evangelical attackers did not realize it.  Mosser & Owen presented their findings as a self-critical reflection on the failure of their own fellow evangelicals in their lecture and publication, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I see. Okay. Carry on. I have already endorsed the inevitability of polemics. It takes skill and tact. Everybody rightly ignores the tactless polemicist who doesn't care who he offends. But others are so skilled at it that the transition from apologetics to polemics is barely noticed. I don't have much more to add except to ask those who may think polemics is always bad to consider that rude people are usually polemical too. It isn't the polemics that are wrong, but the rudeness. 

I would argue, Rory, that your very success in apologetics here on this board rests upon your being irenic, rather than polemic in tone.  While it is true that polemics may be conducted with vigor, and may not necessarily be rude, they are too often associated with diatribes delivered in the demigogic manner of Lenin or Hitler.  The specter of agitation & propaganda (agitprop) doesn't give me a sense that clarity and mutual understanding will be forthcoming.

 

How odd that you should appear here as the most reasonable defender of the Mormon position, and not simply by default.  You are too gracious, my friend.

[3DOP]

I would argue, Rory, that your very success in apologetics here on this board rests upon your being irenic, rather than polemic in tone.  While it is true that polemics may be conducted with vigor, and may not necessarily be rude, they are too often associated with diatribes delivered in the demigogic manner of Lenin or Hitler.  The specter of agitation & propaganda (agitprop) doesn't give me a sense that clarity and mutual understanding will be forthcoming.

 

How odd that you should appear here as the most reasonable defender of the Mormon position, and not simply by default.  You are too gracious, my friend.

Robert,

 

I smarted a bit (more than a "bit") from your remarks last weekend. I accepted your perception and doubted my own. Except for my own conscience which is of course all important to me, it doesn't matter if I hoped I was motivated by love (because nobody will admit to following what is hateful). In communication, the perception is everything. I would not be what I am except that I see it as the highest expression of love. Love is more important than truth (although they are inseparable) because love is more easy to recognize than the truth that goes with it. It is interesting that you refer to the worst villains in recent memory. Even they had to motivate by appealing to a good. Justice is a good. I am encouraged that the world's worst villains have had to appeal to a sense of justice, even if it was distorted, to gain followers who were indignant at a perceived violation of justice.   

 

In the end, there is never much long-term use in truth that is garbed in anger. Maybe truth refuses to be so enrobed? Maybe I am over-reaching for the sublime...In any case, for practical purposes, nobody except one's own partisans listen to "bitter zeal", no matter how well argued, articulated, or even true. The truth, even polemical truth, needs to be presented in a language of love. I like that. I think it has to speak well of "mankind" however "fallen" we might be ontologically.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited November 16, 2014 by 3DOP

[Pahoran]

3DOP, What I care about is the inconsiderate derail of threads by those who wish to deny, till blue in the face, that neither FARMS or Maxwell Institute engaged in polemics.

Who, for instance?

This is a CFR.

FARMS admittedly did use polemics, and Daniel Petersons Editorial published by Maxwell Institute defended the use of polemics.

Polemics is the topic of the thread, Mormons and Non-Mormons are welcome to argue about whether polemic commentary is appropriate or even necessary when defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Depending on the dictionary used, I would even say that religous apologetics is polemic by its nature.

I can see that polemics is the topic of this thread. Indeed, it may properly be described as a polemic against the former Maxwell Institute.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It does not matter what I think "polemic" means. What matters is the admission that FARMS was polemical, and the thinnly veiled admission that Maxwell Institute would engage in polemics.

Of course it matters what it means.

You want to argue about whether some X happens, but you want to brush aside as irrelevant the question of what X actually entails?

What kind of discussion is that, really?

Regards,

Pahoran

[tonie]

You might notice, tonie, that Peterson does not say that FARMS is a polemical organization, nor that it is dedicated to polemics, but only that it "often had a polemical edge," and that this was not characteristic of BYU or LDS Church publications or actions.  He clearly wondered whether making independent FARMS part of BYU (and the LDS Church which owns BYU) would work out very well. 

 

Dr. Peterson acknowledged FARMS use of polemics. He even indicated the frequency at which FARMS resorted to polemic commentary; which, in Peterson’s words was “often”.  Meriam-Webster dictionary defines “often” as “many times: on many occasions”.  Dr. Peterson admits FARMS, “often” or in other words on many occasions or many times, had a polemic edge. I’ll take him at his word. As I believe he chooses his words very carefully.

 

Dr. Peterson also defended the use of polemics. His defense of polemics is found in “Editors Introduction: Of Polemics”, which was re-published by Neal A. Maxwell Institute:

 

I [Daniel Peterson] ran across a remarkable little essay in the remarkable journal First Things. Its author, James Nuechterlein, has faced the same question, "Why are you so polemical?" His answer is mine, as well. Such writing, such debate, such confrontation, he says, is not "everyone's vocation, and it is not the highest vocation, but it is inescapably ours. It would be disingenuous of us to pretend to an attitude of disinterestedness and neutrality in the culture wars that rage about us .... And it's hard to imagine that a journal of opinion that had no opinions would be of use or interest to anyone. Blandness in the pursuit of truth is no virtue."

 

Dr. Nuechterlein points out that polemical writing is not necessarily the kind that he would have chosen for himself or for his magazine. "We take no particular pleasure in engaging … the enemies of traditional morality and religious faith; indeed, the ongoing conflict … is dirty business from which no one emerges with entirely clean hands or uncoarsened sensibilities."  This is precisely my [Dr. Daniel Peterson] attitude, and I am confident that it represents the attitude of most if not all of my colleagues. I am not, by native temperament, confrontational, and, with my associates, would rather write affirmatively.

 

What I think can be rightly stated, is that Dr. Peterson, is at times and by a perceived necessity, a reluctant polemist.  And in his opinion, Dr. Peterson, believes there is a time and place for polemics.

 

“I have, though, argued that satire and sharp polemic can be a good thing. And I stand by that.” Dr. Daniel Peterson, board that cannot be linked to, October 22, 2008.

 

 

 

[M]ost of what FARMS did was never polemical.

 

And yet, "often" FARMS was polemical. 

 

 

 

The evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen (grad students at Talbot School of Theology) came to Provo and made a close examination of FARMS, finding no evidence of polemics, …

 

CFR that Mosser and Owen published that FARMS had no evidence of polemics; would you cite their words?

Edited November 16, 2014 by tonie

[ERayR]

Of course it matters what it means.

You want to argue about whether some X happens, but you want to brush aside as irrelevant the question of what X actually entails?

What kind of discussion is that, really?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

If you can get it set up that way it is one you are bound to win.

[Pahoran]

If you can get it set up that way it is one you are bound to win.

 

So you see this thread as less about exploring a question than it is about proving a point?

 

That might explain something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

So you see this thread as less about exploring a question than it is about proving a point?

 

That might explain something.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

The OP and post #3 makes that obvious.

[Darren10]

Tonie

CFR that Mosser and Owen published that FARMS had no evidence of polemics.

Robert F. Smith did provide a reference. Smith wrote:

Mosser & Owen presented their findings as a self-critical reflection on the failure of their own fellow evangelicals in their lecture and publication, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205.

[tonie]

Tonie

Robert F. Smith did provide a reference. Smith wrote:

 

 

Yes, I needed to clarify. I read the paper he mentioned. And I believe Robert is creating too much credit to FARMS than was given by Mosser and Owens.  I did not read where Mosser and Owen indicated that FARMS or other Scholars were not polemic. I read that Mosser and Owen considered LDS Scholars were erudite, and "adequately" addressed issue brought up by critics.