Dave's Mormon Inquiry

Old FARMS, New FARMS

It has been a few months since the folks running the Maxwell Institute decided to blow up the venerable FARMS Review and start from scratch with a new publication entitled the Mormon Studies Review.

So how's that project going?

Old FARMS

The new Mormon Studies Review remains nothing but an announcement at this point — an announcement with no visible updates in four months, as far as I can tell. One issue of the MSR was actually published under long-time FARMS Review editor Daniel Peterson, but the Maxwell Institute has since reclassified that single issue as Volume 23, No. 1 of the FARMS Review. The editor's introduction to that orphaned issue of the MSR makes interesting reading. So far the new MSR's publication score is -1, having depublished the only issue ever published but published no new issues. Makes you wonder what they're doing with all that tithing money they're still getting (it's not like the Maxwell Institute's budget was cut when the FARMS Review was axed).

FAIR Jumping Over a Cliff?

The ad hominem virus may be contagious. Having killed FARMS, it has apparently jumped to FAIR. At least that's what I take away from a recent post at the FAIR Blog, "It's a Matter of Relevance." Let's vary the metaphor a bit: FARMS has driven off a cliff. FAIR walks up to the edge, surveys the wreckage below, and announces: "Let's jump." Alas, just when we need the sort of practical apologetics that FAIR has pursued so successfully over the years, they post a spirited defense of attackogetics. This is very discouraging.

Inoculation Works

I finally picked up and read a copy of Simon Southerton's Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Signature, 2004) a couple of weeks ago. Yet I still attended church last week and have not drafted a resignation letter. Inoculation works.

Translation and Apologetics

There is a lot of Mormon apologetics out there, perhaps because there is a lot of Mormon criticism. It has gotten better over the years, but one still sees both good apologetics and bad apologetics. A post from a few weeks ago at Faith-Promoting Rumor that points up one difference between the good and bad sort is "Translation Styles and Book of Mormon Apologetics and Exegesis." The observation made in the post is that an author cannot shift between tight and loose translation styles to enhance her arguments as she moves from chapter to chapter or point to point.

FAIR Combats New Outbreak of Folk Doctrine

It's always dangerous for bloggers to criticize people for not knowing what they're talking about, but FAIR does not lack for courage. The FAIR Blog has posted "Using and misusing scholarship and revelation" and "The Truth Will Out at Last," their latest posts in a running controversy with what might be termed a zealous Book of Mormon entrepreneur.

The New Mormon Apologetics

Or is it just the same as the old apologetics? Plenty of reflection on this question at the FAIR Conference this year, as reported in a collection of terribly useful summaries at Life on Gold Plates (quotes are from the summaries):

• "Online Apologetics" by Scott Gordon, FAIR President. He suggests that FAIR spun off its message boards because they focused on "controversial discussions" conducted in an "in your face" style. He ends with a quote from Elder Ballard noting that "there is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs. There is no need to become defensive or belligerent. ... We simply need to have a conversation."
• "What is FAIR and what isn't FAIR" by John Lynch notes that "FAIR does not debate" and that "FAIR would hope to bridge relationships even among different opinions."
• And "Humble Apologetics" by Dan Peterson, with similar comments and plenty of quips. My favorite: "The difference between apologists and historians is that the first attack the opponent and the latter want to take them to lunch." So I guess the new approach is that we should strive to be less like apologists and more like historians.

Generations

The tireless Kevin Barney is hosting a discussion of LDS apologetics for teenagers over at BCC, trying to get a handle on the tone, approach, and content of a fireside-type presentation to LDS youth on that topic. Reflecting on this, it occurred to me that one of the challenges is how the topics that get thrown at Mormons (and that therefore get discussed by LDS apologists) change from generation to generation and how this might be a problem.

Otterson Stands Tall

The LDS public relations machine doesn't always get a lot of respect from bloggers. But I've been watching the steady and reasonable performance by Michael Otterson, the LDS Public Relations Director, over at the new On Faith site and feel compelled to compliment the man publicly. He deserves an award. Anyone who has to put up with that much crap from "commenters" (I used a more colorful description in my first draft) — and can maintain a pleasant and friendly demeanor at the same time — deserves more than an award. Do COB employees get performance bonuses?

LDS-Related Conferences

DN has a short article summarizing presentations at the recent FAIR Conference. [And see here and here for commentary and reflection at Millennial Star.] What jumped out at me in the Deseret News article was that the FAIR Conference was described as one of "three local LDS-related conferences" that happen in August, the other two (noted at the end of the article) being the SLC Sunstone Symposium and BYU Education Week. I guess there are now two general categories, "LDS General Conference" (in April and October) and "LDS-related conferences" (in August). Since the LDS-related conferences are about ten times more interesting, expect some suppressive fire from the other general category before too long. Look for Alternate Voices II, coming soon to a widescreen projection TV near you.

LA Times Story

The pretentious LA Times story (headline: "Bedrock of a Faith is Jolted") is making quite a splash. When LDS.org posts an official response, you know it got someone's attention. The response itself — two short paragraphs — probably merits its own post, but here I'll just talk about the LA Times article. Other B'nacle posts here and here also discuss the article, with a comprehensive list of relevant links on the BoM-DNA topic conveniently collected at Messenger & Advocate. I'll sort of run down a random list of my reactions to the article.

A Taste of Barker

Margaret Barker, a non-LDS scholar, has published a couple of books that have received attention and praise from LDS apologists. This week, Meridian has a short article on Barker's work with the subtle title Plain and Precious Things Restored. As an aside, I think Meridian really owes the author a free portrait package -- a guy who writes as much as the article's author does really deserves a better head shot to post.

Responding to Krakauer

An LDS friend of mine (who has not read Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven) was approached by a colleague who had read the book over the holidays, who asked him: "So, how do you respond to the claims Krakauer makes in the book?" Don't you just love it when people expect you to be some kind of apologetic expert on every aspect of Mormon history and doctrine? Anyway, I thought I would ask DMI readers (i.e., everyone reading this, including visitors from T&S) to give their own thoughts on how they would respond (or have responded) to such an inquiry.

Lost Tribe Introduction

Light reading for this week's online essay of the week: The Introduction to Simon Southerton's Losing a Lost Tribe, recently posted at the publisher's website. My earlier post on this book got 83 comments, so I'm guessing a lot of you are interested! Here's his paragraph summarizing present LDS views of the origins of Native Americans/Nephites/Lamanites:

The absence of physical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon has had little impact on the millions of Mormons who consider the book to be a true record of the ancestors of Native Americans and Polynesians. Many LDS scholars have been eager to leap to the defense of the book and to criticize mainstream scientific views. The church employs academics at its own university who defend the Book of Mormon on a professional basis. Mormons are liberally provided with uplifting accounts of evidence that seems to support the book. Frequently this proof—and criticism of Gentile (non-Mormon) science—is delivered to church members by General Authorities speaking during world conferences. Consequently, Mormons remain deeply suspicious of Gentile theories, particularly any that conflict with widely accepted beliefs of the church.

Trends in Apologetics

New feature: a weekly review of an online essay, starting off with Recent Trends in Book of Mormon Apologetics: A Critical Assessment of Methodological Diversity and Academic Viability, in the latest edition of the Farms Review, by Benjamin Judkins. The trend? He thinks it's getting better, noting "the increasing methodological sophistication and professionalization of the field." I'd agree, although I have yet to see anyone self-identify as a professional Mormon apologist.

External Approaches. Judkins holds out Terryl Givens' By the Hand of Mormon as an exemplar of the new apologetics, which he splits into external and internal approaches. "External" means archaeological, although he notes Nibley was "persistently hostile toward the role of archaeology in Book of Mormon studies." He continues:

How the Jaredites actually fit into the Nephite myth complex and what evidence of them one can rationally expect to see are examples of issues that have yet to be addressed by the Latter-day Saint scholarly community. Finding answers to these questions is difficult . . .

While these difficulties haven't stopped the external approach from moving forward with new energy in recent years, Judkins sounds a methodological note of caution by reviewing the controversy that bedevils biblical archaeological claims resting on considerably better artifacts than the Nephite quest is likely to produce in the near future. Nevertheless, he gives a brief but friendly review of the more promising Mormon developments.

Internal Approaches. He discusses the textual school (think chiasmus) and the ethnographic school (think Nibley). Methodologically, he highlights the need for a theory of translation, noting that the textual school almost necessarily forces one to "adopt a direct, word-for-word theory of translation," but pointing out the problems this raises. He is rather blunt in describing these "overly literal theories," which "while respectable by the standards of seventeenth-century biblical scholarship, must be considered very marginal today." Wow. But self-criticism is always a good sign. Judkins is friendlier toward the ethnographic approach, noting that it "does not pressure scholars to adopt any particular theory of translation and transmission."

Overall, I found Judkins' essay to be a refreshingly candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Mormon apologetics. It's well worth your ten minutes to give it a quick read.

FARMS and Authorship

I just queued up Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (FARMS, 1997). It presents a number of general essays on the related "Book of Mormon origins" themes of authenticity, authorship, translation, historicity, and geography. Noel Reynolds, one of the restrained voices within FARMS who seems to be liked and respected by all, is the editor and contributed a general introduction, short section introductions, as well as one of the articles.

He seems to use the term "anti-Mormon" to refer to anyone who proposes ideas that conflict with the FARMS ideology. Mormons scholars make a variety of arguments that clearly conflict with Catholic faith claims, but wouldn't consider themselves "anti-Catholic," yet they reflexively use "anti-Mormon" to describe not just Christian publishing houses that put out tracts targeting LDS beliefs, but also scholars, dissenting Mormons, and even faithful Mormons who don't belong to the Church of FARMS. He notes that "Earlier in this century, skepticism about [the supernatural account of the origins of the Book of Mormon] was widespread within the LDS community, particularly among the more educated" (p. 2). This ought to be a clue that such views are not "anti-Mormon," but even Reynolds can't avoid employing that term to turn disagreement about ideas and history into an allegation of disloyalty.

"Vocal doubters are a small and shrinking minority that finds itself much closer to anti-Mormons in its interests and views than to the general LDS community" (p. 2). Even if you accept this characterization, this suggests a sociological shift within Mormonism more than anything. The conservative view has been institutionalized, FARMS being a prime illustration of the trend, and competing beliefs have been shouted down or silenced.

"The contributors to this volume are not trying to 'prove' the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" (p. 3). Right, just like "anti-Mormons" aren't trying to prove it wrong.