Last year when I butted heads with Dan over at MAD he came up with this nonsense that I always accuse everyone with whom I disagree, of lying. He got upset that I used the word disingenuous and the moderators censored my post and thread-banned me for being insulting.

And it really doesn't do you any good to issue me a rejoinder to the effect of -- yeah, well, point out the last time I called somebody a liar who wasn't lying.

And it really doesn't do you any good to issue me a rejoinder to the effect of -- yeah, well, point out the last time I called somebody a liar who wasn't lying.

You will never hear me denying that some of FARMS' stuff is over-the-top tone, a point I made which led to my excommunication from the lds-apologetics list (a cousin of skinny) when I stated some concerns about Grant Palmer criticism.

I don't think anyone is particularly happy with how Grant Palmer was handled by the Church. I wish he would have attended his ex-communication trial however instead of resigning. Even if the ex-communication was a foregone conclusion, it is important to stand up for the truth as best you see it.

I don't think anyone is particularly happy with how Grant Palmer was handled by the Church. I wish he would have attended his ex-communication trial however instead of resigning. Even if the ex-communication was a foregone conclusion, it is important to stand up for the truth as best you see it.

Again, sticking to the fine example from the opening post.

Compare and contrast what Peterson writes about Inventing Mormonism by Marquandt and Walters with what Bushman writes in the actual review of that book in the very same issue of the FARMS Review (6.2). Call me crazy, but I think it points to the same kinds of tensions that are manifesting now and have been around basically forever.

I know this is a ghastly long comment, but I think the comparison and contrast will be worth the time.

In the intro, Peterson reproduces a letter from “a local leader of the Church in a distant country.” According to the letter as reproduced, the man does not describe himself as “troubled” necessarily, much less as a “casualty” resulting from “attack” in some “war.” Unless it occurs elsewhere in a portion of the letter that was not reproduced (and if so why would that not have been used?), it is Peterson who couches the letter in this language.

The man simply asks whether there has been “any refutation of the claims” in a Signature Books publication, in the book Inventing Mormonism (also essentially published by Signature), and in some articles in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Again, he does not say that the authors of these publications are on the attack or that he is a casualty of war. What the man says is:

“I am almost persuaded that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon, the First Vision and … of the temple ceremonies. … If their claims are valid, it deprives Mormonism of its special appeal….Their arguments and evidences, I think, are solid. I’m asking for more compelling evidences or arguments.”

The man may or may not have been considering the prospect of leaving the church as a result of this near persuasion. But let’s say that he was. At any rate we know that he was a local church leader in his area, and that he found what he had read to be rather convincing.

So how does Peterson respond? He sends along a copy of the previous issue of the FARMS Review (6.1), the issue reviewing the first Signature Books publication mentioned by the man. In Peterson’s intro there, the man would have been quickly brought up to speed on the feud between FARMS and Signature, or vice-versa, and glancing at the table of contents he would have seen from Midgley’s contribution that there was a “Current Battle over the Book of Mormon.” If he had pursued Midgley’s review further, he would have found Midgley “Surveying the Battlefield,” starting with Brodie’s well-known biography.

Back story, which the man could have gone on to discover: among other things, two years before in FARMS Review 3.1, BYU Religion professor Stephen Robinson opened his review of another Signature Books publication with the now famous quip: “Korihor’s back, and this time he’s got a printing press.” This was of course in reference to the satanically deceived anti-Christ who is eventually trampled to death in Alma chapter 30. Based on this and two other FARMS pieces, Signature (implicitly) threatened to sue unless there was some kind of retraction. On my reading, Peterson defended Robinson at length in spite of a call from England, founder of Dialogue, for “Healing and Making Peace—In the World and the Church,” and there was anything but a retraction in the FARMS Review.

See http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... id=78#ref2

Returning to the intro to 6.2, Peterson says that he “was very pleased” to send 6.1 to the man, and that he is “also happy” that 6.2 treats the book Inventing Mormonism which the man referred to in his letter. This pleasure and happiness seem to be tied to the hope of saving the man as a soon-to-be or already lost casualty of war, even if the local church leader did not know he was one.

Next something curious happens. Suddenly there is a move from the publications that the man mentioned in his letter to the way these publications are being used by “hardcore anti-Mormons.” Such as:

“Utah Missions Incorporated, of Marlow, Oklahoma, enthusiastically offers Inventing Mormonism for sale, along with classics like Latayne Scott’s Why We Left Mormonism and The Mormon Mirage, David Reed and John Farkas’s Mormons Answered Verse by Verse, and a volume of Colleen Ralson’s dreadful anti-Mormon cartoons. Luke Wilson, of Gospel Truths Ministries in Grand Rapids, Michigan, remarks of the same book that it provides ‘airtight and inescapable evidence’ of Joseph Smith’s dishonesty.”

So it is not only about the publications that have nearly persuaded this local church leader. It is about the less than academic world of outright religious rivalry. Here the pugilistic and martial language enters … the French saying about a vicious animal defending itself from attack, etc. “We did not pick this fight with the Church’s critics,” Peterson says, “but we will not withdraw from it.”

Wait, what fight and with whom? With the authors of the publications mentioned in the man’s letter? With ‘hard core anti-Mormons’ that are using and selling these publications along with others less professional? It is impossible to sort out in Peterson’s intro and perhaps intentionally so. Answering the man’s letter, reviewing the publications he mentions in it, and one-upping the antis are rolled into a single enterprise.

And where might this polarizing technique leave the man himself? By his own account, this local church leader was ‘almost persuaded’ by the publications, thinking their arguments and evidences to be ‘solid.’ In other words, it is safe to say that the man was torn. The rhetorical force of Peterson’s intro to 6.2, assuming the man read it, is to put immense pressure on the tear until only one part or the other is left. Peterson does not suggest ways in which the tear might be patched or stitched together, not to mention how it might have been avoided in the first place with more pliable fabric.

Now compare and contrast this with the actual review of Inventing Mormonism in the FARMS Review, where Bushman concludes:

“All in all, Inventing Mormonism is a far cry in both spirit and substance from the iconoclastic studies of Mormonism that descend from E. D. Howe and Alexander Campbell to Fawn Brodie and the early Wesley Walters. The book assembles material that has not been part of the record before, and in good faith offers variant readings of Joseph Smith’s history. I have taken exception to the most critical conclusions, but I like the book. I admire the research, and I appreciate the generous, fair-minded tone of the writing. The book makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered.”

The contrast is unmistakable. There is disagreement here, perhaps a kind of apologetics even. But instead of polemical language the book under review is said to have a ‘generous, fair-minded tone,’ and to make ‘a genuine effort to be irenic.’ Instead of ruling it out as guilty by association with Peterson’s ‘hard core anti-Mormons,’ Bushman says he likes, admires, appreciates ….

Bushman hopes that ‘Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered.’ Did they? I would venture that Peterson for one did not in his intro to 6.2 or in his reply to the man whose letter he reproduced. Hopefully the man himself did.

I've said before that I think the comparison between someone like Bushman versus someone like Dan Peterson is absolutely striking. This is a terrific analysis, imo.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromo ... direction/

27. For example: Peterson derides Sandra Tanner at some length for asserting (in his words) that “Latter-day Saints [are] more Hindu than Christian” or that “the faith of the Latter-day Saints is as much Hindu as Christian.” Since when, Peterson retorts, have Mormons worshipped Vishnu, revered the Vedas, or taught karma and reincarnation? (“Skin Deep,” 100–01; “In the Land of the Lotus Eaters,” vi). But Tanner never said that the religious content of Mormonism resembles that of Hinduism. Rather, she asserted that Mormon “theology is as close to Christianity as Hinduism”—i.e., that Mormonism, like Hinduism, should be viewed as a non-Christian religion (quoted in Peterson, “Skin Deep,” 100). Either Peterson is knowingly mischaracterizing Tanner to his readers for the sake of scoring points at her expense, or his eagerness to ridicule her has clouded his ability to recognize what she is actually saying.

28. Example: In response to Douglas F. Salmon’s critique of Hugh Nibley’s “parallelomania,” Hamblin accuses Salmon of misreading Nibley: “Salmon first insists that Nibley claims that the seventh-century Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan contains ‘perhaps the oldest Adam traditions.’” To show that this is a misreading, Hamblin then quotes Nibley, who wrote: “Perhaps the oldest Adam traditions are those collected from all over the ancient East at a very early time, which have reached us in later Ethiopian and Arabic manuscripts under the title of ‘The Combat of Adam and Eve against Satan.’” Hamblin continues: “From Nibley’s entire statement in context, it is quite clear that Nibley recognizes that the Ethiopian and Arabic Combat is not itself the oldest tradition but is in part a collection of earlier Adam material, a fact on which all scholars agree.” But Salmon didn’t say that Nibley claimed Combat “is . . . the oldest tradition” (my emphasis). Salmon said, in Hamblin’s words, that Nibley claimed Combat “contains ‘perhaps the oldest Adam traditions’” (my emphasis)—a perfectly accurate paraphrase of Nibley as quoted by Hamblin. I have to conclude either that Hamblin is misrepresenting Salmon (and perhaps also Nibley) for the sake of appearing to have made a sound rebuttal, or that Hamblin’s zeal to defend Nibley has led him to make what he sincerely, but mistakenly, believes is a sound rebuttal. William J. Hamblin, “Joseph or Jung? AResponse to Douglas Salmon,” FARMS Review 13, no. 2 (2001): 95–96.

29. See note 23 (above), where Peterson “admit[s]” that Howsepian’s article made him angry. Similarly, Robert Millet reports that his first reaction to the revisionist scholarship of the Jesus Seminar “was a form of quiet rage: How dare they? Who do they think they are? What audacity to suppose that they know enough about our Lord and Savior to set us straight, to tell the world what Jesus said and what He did not say!” In Millet’s case, rage gives way to condescending pity: “How unfortunate it is that basically good men and women, people who have at least an affection or an admiration for holy writ, should wander so far afield.” “The Historical Jesus: A Latter-day Saint Perspective,” Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 173.

30. To a countercultist who accused him of being “an angry and intemperate character,” Peterson writes: “Actually, as anyone who knows me could tell you, I am a relaxed, good humored fellow who very rarely gets upset and certainly is not angered by incompetent scoundrels such as you have revealed yourself to be. I am not even angry about this most recent insult. Sorry if that disappoints you. I have already shared it with a rather large number of friends, who will very likely chuckle and shake their heads, as I have, at the pathetic quality of your message.” Email to Mike Thomas, 14 August 1998, http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/rot_DCP.htm. Similarly, Louis Midgley and John Tvedtnes deny feeling hostile or angry toward the Tanners. Louis Midgley, to Sandra Tanner, 2 July 1997, electronic copy at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/TannerIn.htm; John A. Tvedtnes, “Great and Specious Arguments: Jerald and Sandra Tanner on FARMS,” http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews ... review.htm. (All webpages accessed 1 April 2004.)

33. Persecution is a prominent theme of LDS apologetic discourse. Louis Midgley appears to regard apologetics as a fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s charge to document the persecution of the Saints found in D&C 123. “On Caliban Mischief,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): xxxv. Contributors to the FARMS Review compare Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics to “the dishonest and lurid ‘exposés’ of the past” and therefore conclude that the book is “a form of persecution.” George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, “A Response to D. Michael Quinn’s Homosexual Distortion of Latter-day Saint History,” FARMS Review 10, no. 1 (1998): 261. Another FARMS Review contributor suggests that trying to pass out literature to Latter-day Saints on their way to general conference infringes on the Saints’ freedom of religion. Pahoran, “Letters to an Anti-Mormon,” FARMS Review 11, no. 1 (1999): 257. The SHIELDS website dedicates a whole page to what are meant to be inspiring quotes about persecution from nineteenth-century Church leaders. “Quotables: Persecution,” http://www.shieldsresearch.org/General/ ... cution.htm (accessed 1 April 2004). Inevitably, perhaps, in a post-9/11 world, one apologist has taken persecution rhetoric to another level, equating anti-Mormonism with spiritual terrorism: see http://www.geocities.com/ldsbeliefs/ant ... twork.html (accessed 1 April 2004).

37. That each apologist seeks, in fact, to challenge his correspondent becomes clear as the correspondence unfolds. By the end of his email exchange with Ron Rhodes, Bickmore admits, “I AM questioning your character,” which earlier he had only hinted at. Email to Ron Rhodes, 28 July 1999, http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... more01.htm (accessed 1 April 2004). Midway through his correspondence with James White, Midgley acknowledges his effort to “demonstrate” that White has made an untrue claim. Nevertheless, Midgley wants to keep insisting that he seeks information, not a quarrel. When it becomes simply implausible for Midgley to deny that he is engaged in an argument, he accuses White of having “bait[ed]” him—to which White retorts that it was Midgley who initiated the correspondence. A sarcastic bent becomes clear when Midgley asks White, “How come you love to label Professor Peterson as ‘childish’ and so forth, and yet never accuse me of those kinds of behavior. Do I somehow fail to measure down?” The Midgley/White correspondence is archived at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_02.html (accessed 1 April 2004). Midgley seems invested in denying that he has contentious motives; note that he likes to end his correspondence, “Grace and peace.” Yet even among admirers, Midgley has a reputation for being “feisty”: see Ross Baron, “Feeding the Multitudes: Being Fishers of Men,” http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001BarR.html (accessed 1 April 2004). The dynamic we see in Midgley’s correspondence with White—denying contentious motives while providing contrary indications—can also be seen when we contrast two documents connected to a confrontation with Sandra Tanner that resulted in Midgley’s being thrown out of the Tanners’ store. In a letter to Tanner, Midgley professes to be “at a loss to figure out what I might have said to you that warranted our being tossed out of your bookstore.. . . I do not recall either feeling or expressing hostility towards you in any of our conversations.” Louis Midgley, to Sandra Tanner, 2 July 1997, electronic copy at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/TannerIn.htm (accessed 1 April 2004). Yet in an account of the confrontation written for SHIELDS, Midgley describes himself as having “teased Sandra Tanner” and boasts that he was able to lead her along until she was “caught in her own little trap.” “Standards of Proof,” http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/TannrIn2.htm (accessed 1 April 2004).

40. In his response to the Signature publication, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, Peterson suggests “that Korihor may have been a homosexual whose theology flowed directly from his and his followers’ need for self-justification” (“Text and Context,” 539 n. 48). In this same vein, Peterson provides five pages of historical examples of individuals whose liberal theology or irreligiosity coincided with sexual immorality, including, particularly, homosexuality (536–41). Peterson concludes, “It must be clearly understood that I am not charging any particular individual, at Signature or anywhere else, with sexual immorality” (541)—a protestation which sounds sly under the circumstances. What looks like another homosexual-related dig appears two years later when Peterson says that some FARMS reviewers “may have been born that way, with the nastiness gene” (“Editor’s Introduction: Triptych,” xxxvii). During this same period, Louis Midgley made what strike me as oblique accusations of homosexuality against David Knowlton and D. Michael Quinn: “Atheists and Cultural Mormons Promote a Naturalistic Humanism,” FARMS Review 7, no, 1 (1995): 254 n. 60, 259 n. 69. In subsequent years, Peterson has made direct, disdainful allusions to Quinn’s homosexuality and that of Signature Book’s Ron Priddis. To a countercultist who
predicted that Peterson would “eventually go the way of” Michael Quinn and other revisionists, Peterson writes, “ I am not sure why you think that I am going to become a practicing homosexual and be excommunicated like Mike Quinn. Have I ever given you any reason to expect something like that? Should I warn my wife?” Email to John L. Smith, n.d., http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/UMI-5.htm. On another occasion, Peterson informs a countercultist that Priddis “is involved in what we sometimes euphemistically call an Alternative Lifestyle.” Email to Mike Burns, 5 January 1999, http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/CC02.htm. (All webpages accessed 1 April 2004.)