Episode #129 – The Great and Marvelous Goat Man

34259 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fthisweekinmormons.com%2F2012%2F07%2Fepisode-129-the-great-and-marvelous-goat-man%2FEpisode+%23129+-+The+Great+and+Marvelous+Goat+Man2012-07-24+20%3A24%3A18Geoffhttp%3A%2F%2Fthisweekinmormons.com%2F%3Fp%3D3425

1. Tevya

   July 25, 2012

   

   On the FARMS issue: first, I think your idea that the Prophet is involved is wrong. He can't be involved in everything every dept of BYU does. If he is involved, then he need only say something. Currently the appearance is that a few lower-level admins at BYU made and/or facilitated this decision and that's it.

   Daniel Peterson's job at Maxwell Institute was the head-editor for what used to be the FARMS Review. FARMS used to publish this, and several other publications on a fairly regular basis. It also worked with Deseret Book to publish all of Hugh Nibley's writings, as well as CD recordings of his lectures, etc. In short FARMS was an excellent resource for learning about all kinds of great scientific, historic, and anthropological research that's related to the restored gospel. Along with that, or perhaps as a natural side-effect, much of this was also apologetic in nature, or served an apologetic purpose even when that was not the purpose of the author.

   Because it published all this, and did so regularly, it was also an excellent place to get your work published if you were an academic, researcher, or just an amateur that had really done his research. It didn't need to be apologetic in nature, just interesting to it's primary audience: Mormons. If it helped or was interesting to outsiders as well, great, but that wasn't the point.

   The rate, and to some extent the quality, of published research from FARMS has declined in the past decade (according to Bro. Peterson, because Bro. Bradford often delayed publication without explanation). This seems to be because of decisions on the part of Bro. Bradford, who wants to eliminate not only the apologetic nature of FARMS but also any publishing that's LDS-centric. His goal seems to be (based in part on his own article in the FARMS Review: http://goo.gl/Kk5zO ) to get away from apologetics (which is actually defending against, or responding to, critics–look it up) and actually start apologizing for the Church! He wants to publish stuff that would argue for a softer (or appear to soften the) moral and doctrinal stance of the Church. In short: he wants to appeal to everyone, except people within the Church.

   FARMS was originally founded to appeal to, and serve, people within the Church, while adhering to academic and scholarly set by academia. Plain and simple: it's audience was Mormons first, and everyone else second. People within the church are mad, because they feel like he's taken that away from them. And has been doing so, by slowing publication over years. They're also mad because many of them have been helped, when confronted with anti-Mormon attacks, by the apologetic work FARMS has done.

   Here's more I wrote on the subject: http://sacredsymbolic.com/restore-farms/

   EDIT: On a lighter note: thanks for the shout-out! I was alone in my office and it kinda creeped me out to suddenly hear "hi Tevya."

   Reply
   • TWiM

     July 27, 2012

     

     And a fair point. Immediately after I said President Monson might have had something to do with it, I regretting it. I left it in the show for the sake of, well, letting even our mistakes shine forth. Considering I have often made arguments against many BYU administrative decisions specifically because I knew they were being made by non-appointed leadership (i.e. – not Cecil) and had no base in coming from Salt Lake, it did seem foolish to run all the way to Church HQ in my statement.

     That said, while FARMS is minor, the Brethren do have their fingers more in BYU's day-to-day than they often let on. I will back off and not say that the decision came with the support of Salt Lake, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some involvement on that end. Our entire PR shift in the church has been to appease everyone (which I don't like). This fits that.

     Did we inappropriately define apologetics?

     Hi, Tevya!

     -Geoff

     Reply
     • Tevya

       July 27, 2012

       

       Thanks. Good points. I agree. Let's stop trying to appease everyone. Though I think some strong statements in General Conference from the Brethren have been fairly "this is where we stand, and we won't apologize for it" type comments.

       No, you got apologetic right, that quip was intended for everyone who still things apologetics is about apologizing.

       Reply
2. JohnE

   July 26, 2012

   

   While I think Tevya is correct in that President Monson likely had nothing to do with it, I think he is incorrect in saying that "currently the appearance is that a few lower-level admins at BYU made and/or facilitated this decision and that's it". Not only was the President of BYU part of this, but so were a few other general authorities.

   I for one an glad for the new directions FARMS will be taking. FARMS is known for often being overly bombastic and using ad hominem attacks while defending the Church. It lacks peer review and outside of conservative Mormon circles it does not have much respect. To me they seemed to be so bogged down in parallelomania that they become almost useless in resolving the most basic concerns of those struggling with faith. Mormon Studies is moving away from the polemics that FARMS was founded on and it is about time that BYU catches up.

   Reply
   • Tevya

     July 27, 2012

     

     I guess you have some inside info. And if GA's were involved, that still doesn't automatically make it the correct decision.

     As for FARMS itself, you mention the same supposed problems with the organization that many people claim. Yet, aside from the occasional misstep (none of us are perfect), nobody seems to be producing hard evidence of these supposed "ad hominem" attacks. The simple fact is, if somebody blatantly lies, makes stuff up, or otherwise commits grievous errors of rhetoric and logic, it's going to sound like you're attacking them when you point those out. The author has to take responsibility. That can appear like an ad hominem attack, when there are serious problems with the work, but it's not. When it's really truly bad scholarship, adding a little humor to drive home just how bad it is, still does not constitute an ad hominem attack.

     For me, and many others, FARMS has provided an excellent source of knowledge, information, and insight that have 1. strengthened and increased my understanding and testimony of the doctrines of the restored gospel, and 2. occasionally provided an offsetting view of anti-Mormon attacks. I just don't see how those results can so quickly be labeled as negative, and therefore merit the dissolution of FARMS.

     Reply
     • JohnE

       July 27, 2012

       

       I agree with you that GA's being involved does not automatically make the decision correct but at least it shows it was not a few rough lower level administrators.

       As for ad homenem attacks I think that the Grant Palmer book review by David Bitton is a great example of the type attacks that FARMS is known for, namely taring down the person instead of the material presented. I would agree that it is good to have defenders of the faith, but when people don't address the issues or do so by being condescending to the author it can leave a bad taste in peoples mouths. Strengthening testimonies is no excuse to treat those who you disagree with like one dimensional anti-Mormons with nothing valuable to add to the conversation. I think that they have been getting better over the past few years, but in my opinion it is too little too late.

       If FARMS is going to be a part of an academic institution (BYU), they need to play by the rules of scholarship. For FARMS this would mean becoming peer reviewed and also treating those they disagree with respect and then professionalism.

       Reply
       • Tevya

         July 30, 2012

         

         Again, there may be the occasional misstep, but don't you think it's a little silly to condemn a whole organization and all it's publications (many, many written and submitted by scholars, amateurs, and enthusiasts that had nothing to do with the organization, beyond submitting articles to it) based on that? The vast body of work publiched by FARMS/MI does not contain ad hominem attacks or anything else. People just like to accuse it of that, based on one or two papers that got through their careful peer review process, to printing.

         Your last paragraph is entirely false. But you don't have to believe me. Scott Gordon said, "here's one I run into a lot: 'there is no peer review at the Maxwell Institute. [It] doesn't exist.' This is not only false, but it's quite ironic. The Maxwell Institute does have a very rigorous peer review, while most Anti-Mormon websites do not." (FAIR Podcast 5/11/2011 – which you should listen to, as he specifically addresses your accusation of the ad hominem attacks. Find it here: http://goo.gl/22RUy )

         It would seem JohnE that you're not very familiar with FARMS/Maxwell Institute, but rather wrote it off and have false ideas about how it was setup and run, based on the opinions of other people.

         Reply
         • JohnE

           July 31, 2012

           

           Yeah, it is silly to condemn an entire organization for the missteps of a few and I hope it didn't come off that I was condemning everything that FARMS does. However, my first encounter with FARMS was about 10 years ago and it was not a good experience. As someone ready to go on a mission I found the book reviews and posted videos as condescending and dismissive to real concerns I had. Ultimately I went on a mission, but it was in no way due to FARMS. As my studies have progressed I have found some redemptive qualities in FARMS. They do raise good questions and some of the writers do fantastic scholarship. I usually study topics in depth, and I make sure to get the opinions of FARMS and FAIR when doing so. However, I still see many writers being too dismissive about different concerns and incredibly bogged down in paralellomania. The fact that they were writing a 100 page article about John Dehlin (which catalyzed the recent changes at FARMS) suggests that that they still spend time and resources tearing down the criticizer. While I am not going to defend how Peterson and others were fired, I can say I am hopeful about the new directions MI will be taking.

           There is no doubt that FARMS claims peer review, however they do not follow commonly accepted peer review standards, namely, that the peer reviewers for FARMS must be faithful LDS members. This makes all the difference. This shows that the publications of FARMS are first on foremost loyal to promoting faith in the foundational claims of the LDS Church. Finding out the truth at all costs by utilizing the best current scholarship in and out of faithful Mormonism then becomes a secondary priority. I do not have a problem with institutions promoting faith, but I do have a problem with so-called peer reviewed journals placing faith above scholarship. If you are going to place faith above scholarship, then that's cool with me, but don't pretend that you are following accepted standards of peer review.

           FARMS’ lacks credibility in the academic world because people understand that its pool of peer reviewers only includes those who have a vested interest in the truth claims of the Church. This leads many academics to not take it seriously, even if it may produce quality work. If an anti-Mormon publication claimed peer review and followed the established practices of peer review except they would only select peers that were avowed anti-Mormons how credible would they be to you? Would you waste much time with them? Would you question their claims of being peer reviewed? Would you be wary about everything they publish because of who they self-select as peers? I know I would be very skeptical about what they wrote. Even if what they produce was excellent scholarship, its influence in the academic world would be marred by its association with a publication that uses questionable ways of doing peer review.

           If you believe that FARMS produces quality work, then you should be excited for the new directions FARMS is taking. It will hopefully allow the already quality works to have more influence in academic circles and it will hopefully eliminate the character attacks.
3. Sarah

   August 7, 2012

   

   Al – great, clear stance re: Joseph Smith / religion / facts.
   Since Geoff asked, I don't have a good answer how I reconcile both, except as Al stated – I know Joseph Smith translated the the Book of Mormon and was a true prophet. Polygamy and Joseph Smith does bother me because it's so spotty and secretive and totally presented differently in my youth than realty… but like the FB article that was posted a few weeks back mentioned, luckily I am/was able to talk and ask questions to my parents and discussion was in my home growing up, which allowed me to question and develop my testimony at the same time.

   Also – "Women of Color"?!?! Seriously!??! Dumfounded.

   Reply