For Those Who Want To Argue Polemics - Citation Included

[tonie]

The OP and post #3 makes that obvious.

 

Dr. Peterson makes the case for polemics, not me:

 

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 and he believes he can speak on behalf of his colleagues, 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.

Edited November 16, 2014 by tonie

[Pahoran]

Dr. Peterson makes the case for polemics, not me:

 

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 and he believes he can speak on behalf of his colleagues, 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.

 

So what's the issue?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Robert F. Smith]

Dr. Peterson makes the case for polemics, not me:

 

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:

.................................................................................................................

 

What I think can be rightly stated, is that Dr. Peterson and he believes he can speak on behalf of his colleagues, 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.

I don't see that any of this contradicts what I said above about FARMS or Prof. Peterson.  Since they are different entities, and since Peterson's FARMS Review of Books was only a very small part of the overall activities at FARMS, it seems to me that we should not confuse one with the other.  Mosser & Owen certainly didn't, and with good reason.

 

Again, I have no problem with polemics, satire, or similar rhetorical techniques.  It is only that such was not characteristic of FARMS, whose agenda included much else than the Review of Books (which was a latecomer to the FARMS scene in any case).

[tonie]

I don't see that any of this contradicts what I said above about FARMS or Prof. Peterson.  Since they are different entities, and since Peterson's FARMS Review of Books was only a very small part of the overall activities at FARMS, it seems to me that we should not confuse one with the other.  Mosser & Owen certainly didn't, and with good reason.

 

Again, I have no problem with polemics, satire, or similar rhetorical techniques.  It is only that such was not characteristic of FARMS, whose agenda included much else than the Review of Books (which was a latecomer to the FARMS scene in any case).

 

I haven't confused anything. I think it is clear and obvious that Dr. Peterson was speaking of FARMS as a whole when he made the "polemical edge" comment.

 

As for Mosser and Owen, they did not focus solely on FARMS. Secondly, would you mind presenting the words of Mosser and Owen regarding FARMS not being polemic. 

[ERayR]

I haven't confused anything. I think it is clear and obvious that Dr. Peterson was speaking of FARMS as a whole when he made the "polemical edge" comment.

 

As for Mosser and Owen, they did not focus solely on FARMS. Secondly, would you mind presenting the words of Mosser and Owen regarding FARMS not being polemic. 

 

Do you think polemics are ever a valid form of rebuttal?

[Robert F. Smith]

I haven't confused anything. I think it is clear and obvious that Dr. Peterson was speaking of FARMS as a whole when he made the "polemical edge" comment.

I suppose for someone who has not read FARMS materials and is not familiar with the organization, it may indeed seem as though Peterson (editor of FARMS Review) is speaking of everything.  Since I was at FARMS for many years before Peterson began his association with it, I thought you might want a factual view of what FARMS was and what it did.  If you are not interested in a factual appraisal, then of course there is no point in your accepting anything I say, or in your reading the FARMS product.

 

As for Mosser and Owen, they did not focus solely on FARMS. Secondly, would you mind presenting the words of Mosser and Owen regarding FARMS not being polemic.

They never to my knowledge use the word "polemic" in their objective description of FARMS.  Instead, their description of what FARMS did and how it did it were the opposite of polemic.  Perhaps you are inferring that FARMS must have been polemic if Mosser & Owen didn't say it wasn't.  Perhaps you would like to show us how FARMS was polemic in its general activities -- apart from FARMS Review?  Is that what you are suggesting?  Then back it up with some evidence, or admit that you haven't read FARMS publications.

[tonie]

I suppose for someone who has not read FARMS materials and is not familiar with the organization, it may indeed seem as though Peterson (editor of FARMS Review) is speaking of everything.  Since I was at FARMS for many years before Peterson began his association with it, I thought you might want a factual view of what FARMS was and what it did.  If you are not interested in a factual appraisal, then of course there is no point in your accepting anything I say, or in your reading the FARMS product.

 

The Salt Lake Tribune article, in which, Dr. Peterson makes the "polemical edge" statement, does not distinguish "FARMS" from "FARM Review". A wikipedia article indicates that "FARMS Review" was established by FARMS. But Dr. Peterson, is welcome to make the distinction - whether he was saying "FARMS Review" often had a polemical edge, or it FARMS often had a polemical edge.

 

 

They never to my knowledge use the word "polemic" in their objective description of FARMS.  Instead, their description of what FARMS did and how it did it were the opposite of polemic.

 

Firstly and most importantly, Mosser and Owen were not exclusively referring to FARMS; you appear to suggest they were, which means you are attributing too much to FARMS.

 

Here is what I have found:

 

"The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages.""

 

"However, having read an immense amount of the scholarly literature published (in both LDS and non-LDS venues) by Latter-day Saint intellectuals; having read a great deal of apologetic material produced by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS); ..., we feel that we are justified in our conclusions. The scholarship of Mormon writers is often rigorous."

 

Mosser's and Owen's paper was about the entire field of literature by LDS and FARMS. Mosser and Owen did not focus exclusively on FARMS, so it appears you are attributing too much to FARMS from the Mosser and Owen paper.

 

Perhaps you are inferring that FARMS must have been polemic if Mosser & Owen didn't say it wasn't.  Perhaps you would like to show us how FARMS was polemic in its general activities -- apart from FARMS Review?  Is that what you are suggesting?  Then back it up with some evidence, or admit that you haven't read FARMS publications.

 

Daniel Peterson stated it himself – as Chairman of FARMS.  I am quite confident, if you invited him, he would be willing to answer the distinction you wish make i.e. FARMS "often polemical edge" v "FARMS Review often polemical edge".  I have provided all the evidence that is necessary to establish that “FARMS often had a polemical edge…”; the Chairman of FARMS made the claim, there is nothing else that need to be shown.

[Pahoran]

The Salt Lake Tribune article, in which, Dr. Peterson makes the "polemical edge" statement, does not distinguish "FARMS" from "FARM Review". A wikipedia article indicates that "FARMS Review" was established by FARMS. But Dr. Peterson, is welcome to make the distinction - whether he was saying "FARMS Review" often had a polemical edge, or it FARMS often had a polemical edge.

 

 

 

 

Firstly and most importantly, Mosser and Owen were not exclusively referring to FARMS; you appear to suggest they were, which means you are attributing too much to FARMS.

 

Here is what I have found:

 

"The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages.""

 

"However, having read an immense amount of the scholarly literature published (in both LDS and non-LDS venues) by Latter-day Saint intellectuals; having read a great deal of apologetic material produced by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS); ..., we feel that we are justified in our conclusions. The scholarship of Mormon writers is often rigorous."

 

Mosser's and Owen's paper was about the entire field of literature by LDS and FARMS. Mosser and Owen did not focus exclusively on FARMS, so it appears you are attributing too much to FARMS from the Mosser and Owen paper.

 

 

 

 

Daniel Peterson stated it himself – as Chairman of FARMS.  I am quite confident, if you invited him, he would be willing to answer the distinction you wish make i.e. FARMS "often polemical edge" v "FARMS Review often polemical edge".  I have provided all the evidence that is necessary to establish that “FARMS often had a polemical edge…”; the Chairman of FARMS made the claim, there is nothing else that need to be shown.

 

You've provided a single-sentence throwaway line given to us at second hand.

 

Others have a right to disagree with the vast and groaning superstructure of conclusions you here attempt to erect upon it.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[tonie]

Pahoran, I have you on ignore, I just happened to read post 33 because I was not logged in. So you are in luck, I will respond to your post.

 

I provided 3 sources

 

Each of which are, for all intents and purposes,  direct quotes of Dr. Peterson. Of course you have to question the authenticity of his multiple statements because its provides the slightest amount of validity to someone claiming FARMS and or Maxwell Institute engaged in polemics; however infrequent it may have been. But I understand, you mustn't permit any truthful negative point about the Church, FARMS or Maxwell Institute to stand. You must resort to ever attack you can to dupe others into believe that truthful statement is an anti-mormon lie.

 

What is amusingly sad, is that you even want to argue the point, despite Dr. Peterson's statement. 

 

Dr. Peterson stated FARMS "often polemical edge". Why do you, fight against Dr. Petersons words?  You post on his patheos blog, why not invite him to address the issue. Perhaps some 17 years after the fact, he will correct what you are presently trying to pass off an untrustworthy statement.  Surely what Stack and the Salt Lake Tribune published in 1997 is the worst kind of libel, right; and must not be permitted to remain. Surely Ms. Stack must be corrected of her error, and the Salt Lake Tribune should issue a formal apology to Dr. Peterson for such untrustworthy reporting.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Salt Lake Tribune article, in which, Dr. Peterson makes the "polemical edge" statement, does not distinguish "FARMS" from "FARM Review". A wikipedia article indicates that "FARMS Review" was established by FARMS. But Dr. Peterson, is welcome to make the distinction - whether he was saying "FARMS Review" often had a polemical edge, or it FARMS often had a polemical edge.

 

Firstly and most importantly, Mosser and Owen were not exclusively referring to FARMS; you appear to suggest they were, which means you are attributing too much to FARMS.

 

Here is what I have found:

 

"The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages.""

 

"However, having read an immense amount of the scholarly literature published (in both LDS and non-LDS venues) by Latter-day Saint intellectuals; having read a great deal of apologetic material produced by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS); ..., we feel that we are justified in our conclusions. The scholarship of Mormon writers is often rigorous."

 

Mosser's and Owen's paper was about the entire field of literature by LDS and FARMS. Mosser and Owen did not focus exclusively on FARMS, so it appears you are attributing too much to FARMS from the Mosser and Owen paper.

 

Daniel Peterson stated it himself – as Chairman of FARMS.  I am quite confident, if you invited him, he would be willing to answer the distinction you wish make i.e. FARMS "often polemical edge" v "FARMS Review often polemical edge".  I have provided all the evidence that is necessary to establish that “FARMS often had a polemical edge…”; the Chairman of FARMS made the claim, there is nothing else that need to be shown.

Sounds like you adhere to the guilty till proven innocent theory, which means that no material from FARMS need be read by you  in order to reach your false conclusion.  Only hearsay by the editor of FARMS Review.  That is the source of your flawed case.  Certainly much later, when Peterson is chairman of the FARMS board, that seems to give his opinion about his own publication the final word.  No evidence need be examined, which is what anti-Mormons depend upon as de rigueur..

 

Fairminded people, such as Mosser and Owen, usually insist on examining the primary sources.  You do not.

 

As a matter of fact, in personal correspondence with Mosser & Owen, I faulted their focus on Mormon scholars in Utah to the exclusion of those outside Utah, of whom there were and are many, most of whom simply do not use polemics.

 

Again, there is nothing wrong with polemical arguments, but to falsely claim that certain people, publications, and organizations are polemical is irresponsible if that is not an accurate description.  Why do you seem to thrive on hearsay rather than on primary sources?

[tonie]

Sounds like you adhere to the guilty till proven innocent theory, which means that no material from FARMS need be read by you  in order to reach your false conclusion.  Only hearsay by the editor of FARMS Review.  That is the source of your flawed case.  Certainly much later, when Peterson is chairman of the FARMS board, that seems to give his opinion about his own publication the final word. 

 

You have failed the Chairman of FARMS in 1997, which was Dr. Daniel Peterson, was speaking about FARMS Review, instead FARMS. You can keep repeating your little mantra, but that does not mean it is true.

 

My source is not flawed, my source is the Chairman of FARMS.

 

Please prove, that the Chairman of FARMS was ONLY speaking of FARMS Review, when he made the comment about FARMS often having a polemical edge.

 

No evidence need be examined, which is what anti-Mormons depend upon as de rigueur..

 

And you have not provided a iota of evidence that Daniel Peterson speaking as Chairman of FARMS was only referring to FARMS review.

 

 

Fairminded people, such as Mosser and Owen, usually insist on examining the primary sources.  You do not.

 

The Chairman (former) of FARMS is my primary source.  Do you not take Daniel Peterson at his word?

[ERayR]

Pahoran, I have you on ignore, I just happened to read post 33 because I was not logged in. So you are in luck, I will respond to your post.

 

I provided 3 sources

 

Each of which are, for all intents and purposes,  direct quotes of Dr. Peterson. Of course you have to question the authenticity of his multiple statements because its provides the slightest amount of validity to someone claiming FARMS and or Maxwell Institute engaged in polemics; however infrequent it may have been. But I understand, you mustn't permit any truthful negative point about the Church, FARMS or Maxwell Institute to stand. You must resort to ever attack you can to dupe others into believe that truthful statement is an anti-mormon lie.

 

What is amusingly sad, is that you even want to argue the point, despite Dr. Peterson's statement. 

 

Dr. Peterson stated FARMS "often polemical edge". Why do you, fight against Dr. Petersons words?  You post on his patheos blog, why not invite him to address the issue. Perhaps some 17 years after the fact, he will correct what you are presently trying to pass off an untrustworthy statement.  Surely what Stack and the Salt Lake Tribune published in 1997 is the worst kind of libel, right; and must not be permitted to remain. Surely Ms. Stack must be corrected of her error, and the Salt Lake Tribune should issue a formal apology to Dr. Peterson for such untrustworthy reporting.

Edited November 18, 2014 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

nevermind.  we must be politically correct afterall.

Edited November 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yessireee  what this world needs is more polemics about polemics

 

METAPOLEMICS

 

Oh boy!  Let's argue about arguing!!   THAT should set the world straight!   There's someone wrong on the internet!

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, I have you on ignore, I just happened to read post 33 because I was not logged in. So you are in luck, I will respond to your post.

I am in raptures of overwhelming gratitude that you have so graciously condescended to notice someone as unworthy as I.

 

I provided 3 sources

 

Each of which are, for all intents and purposes,  direct quotes of Dr. Peterson. Of course you have to question the authenticity of his multiple statements because its provides the slightest amount of validity to someone claiming FARMS and or Maxwell Institute engaged in polemics; however infrequent it may have been. But I understand, you mustn't permit any truthful negative point about the Church, FARMS or Maxwell Institute to stand. You must resort to ever attack you can to dupe others into believe that truthful statement is an anti-mormon lie.

What did that poor straw man ever do to you, that you have to beat it up so unmercifully?

What "truthful negative point" do you imagine you have established?

Who or what have I "attacked?"

Permit me to show you what an "attack" actually looks like:

You must resort to ever[sic] attack you can to dupe others into believe[sic] that truthful statement is an anti-mormon lie.

That is an attack, Ms Tonie.

And it is entirely unjustified and unsupported.

It reflects no evidence, whether textual or otherwise.

Feel free to retract it; or not, as you prefer.

Remembering that, after all, it reflects upon nobody but your good self.

What is amusingly sad, is that you even want to argue the point, despite Dr. Peterson's statement. 

 

Dr. Peterson stated FARMS "often polemical edge". Why do you, fight against Dr. Petersons words?

Do you actually believe what you post?

Where have I tried to "fight against Dr. Petersons[sic] words?"

Did you not actually read the post to which you purport to respond? I rather explicitly referred to "the vast and groaning superstructure of conclusions you here attempt to erect upon" Dr. Peterson's statement.

So here's a suggestion: instead of relying upon the hint-and-run method, why not actually make an argument? Why not spell out your reasoning?

Are you, perhaps, afraid that it won't stand up to scrutiny?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

For toni:

 

tonie, on 17 Nov 2014 - 7:51 PM, said:

Pahoran, I have you on ignore, I just happened to read post 33 because I was not logged in. So you are in luck, I will respond to your post.

I am in raptures of overwhelming gratitude that you have so graciously condescended to notice someone as unworthy as I.
 

tonie, on 17 Nov 2014 - 7:51 PM, said:

I provided 3 sources
 
Each of which are, for all intents and purposes,  direct quotes of Dr. Peterson. Of course you have to question the authenticity of his multiple statements because its provides the slightest amount of validity to someone claiming FARMS and or Maxwell Institute engaged in polemics; however infrequent it may have been. But I understand, you mustn't permit any truthful negative point about the Church, FARMS or Maxwell Institute to stand. You must resort to ever attack you can to dupe others into believe that truthful statement is an anti-mormon lie.

What did that poor straw man ever do to you, that you have to beat it up so unmercifully?

What "truthful negative point" do you imagine you have established?

Who or what have I "attacked?"

Permit me to show you what an "attack" actually looks like:

tonie, on 17 Nov 2014 - 7:51 PM, said:

You must resort to ever[sic] attack you can to dupe others into believe[sic] that truthful statement is an anti-mormon lie.

That is an attack, Ms Tonie.

And it is entirely unjustified and unsupported.

It reflects no evidence, whether textual or otherwise.

Feel free to retract it; or not, as you prefer.

Remembering that, after all, it reflects upon nobody but your good self.

tonie, on 17 Nov 2014 - 7:51 PM, said:

What is amusingly sad, is that you even want to argue the point, despite Dr. Peterson's statement. 
 
Dr. Peterson stated FARMS "often polemical edge". Why do you, fight against Dr. Petersons words?

Do you actually believe what you post?

Where have I tried to "fight against Dr. Petersons[sic] words?"

Did you not actually read the post to which you purport to respond? I rather explicitly referred to "the vast and groaning superstructure of conclusions you here attempt to erect upon" Dr. Peterson's statement.

So here's a suggestion: instead of relying upon the hint-and-run method, why not actually make an argument? Why not spell out your reasoning?

Are you, perhaps, afraid that it won't stand up to scrutiny?

Regards,
Pahoran

Edited November 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

Robert here is a link to the article from which Dr. Peterson's quote is taken.  Will you show from the article text that Peterson was not referring to FARMS?  Is the original article in its full text, primary source enough for you?

 

"FARMS has often had a polemical edge..."

Edited December 21, 2014 by tonie

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert here is a link to the article from which Dr. Peterson's quote is taken.  Will you show from the article text that Peterson was not referring to FARMS?  Is the original article in its full text, primary source enough for you?

 

"FARMS has often had a polemical edge..."

You are good at repeating yourself, tonie, but seem unable to carry on a serious discussion.  My reply, given in post #15 above, still applies:

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.