Birch and Mason on Mopologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Birch and Mason on Mopologetics

Post by _Kishkumen »

I thought it would be helpful to transcribe a portion of the MoSto/MoMat podcast to show you how FARMS/Maxwell Institute "Mopologetics" was characterized by the participants:

Birch: One of the more important publications for the purposes of apologetics was the Farms Review of Books, which became the most well recognized apologetic source within Mormon scholarship for several years. And the Farms Review began under the leadership of Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley, where it was not only a review of publications and books but really contained a variety of material a lot of which consisted of review essays, lengthy review essays that attempted to challenge criticisms of Mormonism or were taking on broader issues that could indirectly have implications for the truth of Christianity or the rationality of religious belief in general. So you have this long tradition of publications that were apologetics really in the robust sense of the term, that were taking on critics of the faith. But, and this is an important point, I think, in the history of this whole enterprise, what we didn't see in that publication and in the Maxwell Institute more generally was this kind of reciprocal dialogical scholarship, where the Farms Review was really, right, was an effort to broadcast and with an audience primarily of the Mormon faithful in mind, in a way, kind of playing to the home crowd in order to defend the church against what they perceived latter-day saints could come across as they were reading the scholarship of the day.

Dehlin: Can you speak to the tactics that the Farms, Peterson, Midgley, even Greg Smith and others are sort of, at least in some circles known for, just so, you know, whether or not it's fair even, but just to describe some of those tactics that we will soon be referring to as "old style Mormon apologetics."

Birch: Well, it's a mixed bag, I think. The work that gets the most attention are the ones that were the most provocative and controversial. But there definitely was, I mean, going back to Hugh Nibley, there definitely was an adoption of that kind of acerbic, uh, style, where it was a combination of kind of playfulness and mean spiritedness that we would see from time to time in dealing with critics of Mormonism and at times it could be uncharitable and did not do justice to the other side of the argument and that's one thing I think....

Mason: Would you say that sometimes there was, uh, they engaged in ad hominem attacks?

Birch: Yeah, I think that's part of it too, right?

Wotherspoon: John, do you have any experience with that? John?

Dehin: (chuckles) Well, I'm just one of many. You know, um, but go ahead, Brian, what were you going to say?

Birch: Well, I think that's definitely true. I think the ad hominem is another important part of it. That, it, it, it was a scholarly publication or has been a scholarly publication in some respects and in other respects it really falls outside the scope of a serious scholarly publication because some of the methodologies and tactics that were used.

Dehlin: Yeah, sort of like, "Fawn Brodie was a lesbian," or "Simon Southern is an adulterer," or you know there have been some really mean spirited, I would say even potentially unethical things that seem to be associated with that era. And then just in addition there's a lot of information I've received that many of these people saw themselves as sort of auxiliaries or arms of the Strengthening the Members Committee, where these same people would be gathering evidence against people to try and have their status with the church kind of, you know, put on trial and so it went, it went even a little far deeper than that actually, being sort of a CIA/FBI arm of the church to try and take people out with disciplinary councils. Is that something you've heard or is that just rumor that I've heard?

Birch: Well, I think... I think in some cases, uh, there's evidence of that. In terms of the published work, you know, the public face of it all, I think that you see that the, that the publication was attempting to, to anticipate how the institutional church would view one or another scholar and attempted to be a kind of reconnaissance team in terms of engaging them outside of an explicit institutional ecclesiastical context. But the fact that the organization was affiliated with BYU made the issue more complicated than it would have been if it had remained an independent foundation.

Mason: And I think it is important to note that, as Brian said earlier, the Farms Review was a mixed bag and it's not like every essay was doing the kinds of things that we're talking about now. Uh, and much of it did participate in the long and venerated tradition of rational defense of the faith, that didn't engage in ad hominem attack and that was, you know, reasonable and fair, and things like that. So, so it was a mixed bag, but I just think that we can't deny that there were some of these other tactics employed that many of us, certainly myself, see as somewhat less desirable and falls outside the bounds of what one would expect at a university setting, even a religiously affiliated university, where the mission is to, um, promote the interests of the church.

Birch: Amen.


Amen, indeed.

For the video, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qq8aBRKqdw&t=2s

Go to minute 38, where the conversation turns to the quoted portion above.

As an addendum to all of this, I just want to say that one would almost think these good brethren had been reading MDB, so accurately did they depict the problems with "classic-FARMS" Mopologetics. I am sure they did not, however. I have to chalk these similarities up to "great minds think alike" and, in this case, Drs. Birch and Mason are certainly worthy scholarly peers whose academic company is desirable.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_deacon blues
_Emeritus
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:51 am

Re: Birch and Mason on Mopologetics

Post by _deacon blues »

Thanks so much for the transcription. I have started transcribing the same podcast but I'm only up to the 14 minute mark. It helps me a lot to read as well as listen to the discussions.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Birch and Mason on Mopologetics

Post by _Kishkumen »

deacon blues wrote:Thanks so much for the transcription. I have started transcribing the same podcast but I'm only up to the 14 minute mark. It helps me a lot to read as well as listen to the discussions.


My hat's off to you, deacon. There is no way I could transcribe the whole thing.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_deacon blues
_Emeritus
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:51 am

Re: Birch and Mason on Mopologetics

Post by _deacon blues »

I do it to practice typing when I find a podcast I like. I have better comprehension with the written word than the spoken word. And I often just do the highlights. I'm just 25 minutes into it but I really like it. John Dehlin interacting with scholars is cool.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Birch and Mason on Mopologetics

Post by _Kishkumen »

deacon blues wrote:I do it to practice typing when I find a podcast I like. I have better comprehension with the written word than the spoken word. And I often just do the highlights. I'm just 25 minutes into it but I really like it. John Dehlin interacting with scholars is cool.


Mormon Stories has some real gems among its podcasts. When he gets good scholars on there it can be a special treat.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply