What is your opinion of FARMS?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Solon

True enough, but none of these people studies the ancient world - the realm FARMS claims to be investigating.

My understanding was that SU was asking for "a single example--just one--of a scholar at a reputable university that has even thought the question of whether the Book of Mormon was actually an English translation of an ancient record was even worth asking." I have given a list of scholars from reputable universities that accept the Book of Mormon as being true. If he's molded his question into something else, as is typical of him, he may ask another question.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

True enough, but none of these people studies the ancient world - the realm FARMS claims to be investigating.



True and true.

This board's personality conflicts aside, (IMO) FARMS really is a lame attempt to "prove" academically what cannot be proven. The BoM is an issue of faith - take it or leave it. As an ancient historian, it bothers me that scholars at a large university can engage in such quasi-research. It's incestuous (they seem to only cite one another), and a disservice to the notions of faith that most Christian religions are founded upon.

That aside, these scholars are free to write and publish what they will. I don't have to read them. What really gets me is Mr. Joe Member at church who pulls out the FARMS for a talk/lesson/comment and uses it to "prove" something to me. Yet, they refuse to accept any contradictory conclusions based on the same model of research and inquiry.

FARMS is a start. If given the chance, it will mature.

Some of the guys are learning. There is no money in it.

Paulsen has published in the Harvard Theological Review and I would encourage the others to do the same. Stop publishing at BYU and start outside.

The best thing for the Church is Quinn. I've been critical of him and still will, but as I read more of his stuff, his work is better than I thought. He is also free to push the envelope.

I wish he could get a job, because we need that level of professionalism to challenge people. Most of the FARMS guys are lazy and unchallenged.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I understand but once one lays the intellectual card down, it seems you need some credentials.

I am not an intellectual because I have no mastery of those fields, and probably never will. Yet I intend to continue my discovery of philosophy, theology, archaeology, linguistics and language to aid in my understanding of the ancient world, its workings and impact upon us today.

I just see a lot of pseudo-intellectualism, guys who claim to atomicists or empiricists without credentials or work.

At what point, then, is a person qualified to rely on his own intellect? The wisest will admit they don't know enough to definitively answer any question, yet they try anyway. Should any intellectual or academic refrain from looking for answers because he knows he may not find them? or that once they are found, they will likely be wrong, or dramatically changed in the years to come?

He's doing the best he can with what he's got, just as any MA, PhD, or high school graduate would. I would encourage him, just as I would any, to keep seeking for answers, but to be true to the answers they have received.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There are about three or four, but thanks for reminding me. Seattle wouldn't consider the Harvard Theological Review legitimate because it involves religion.

That sounds awfully circular criteria. He's demanding evidence of a religious book from work outside the realm of religious studies?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

That sounds awfully circular criteria. He's demanding evidence of a religious book from work outside the realm of religious studies?

He's looking for credible scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is true-- but if they believe the Book of Mormon is true, by definition, they cannot be credible scholars. It's not circular-- it's self-evidently true.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

At what point, then, is a person qualified to rely on his own intellect? The wisest will admit they don't know enough to definitively answer any question, yet they try anyway. Should any intellectual or academic refrain from looking for answers because he knows he may not find them? or that once they are found, they will likely be wrong, or dramatically changed in the years to come?

He's doing the best he can with what he's got, just as any MA, PhD, or high school graduate would. I would encourage him, just as I would any, to keep seeking for answers, but to be true to the answers they have received.

Seek answers always, keep them in suspension, because you shall become aware that your tentative vision of the cosmos are fleeting and incomplete.

Scholarship takes lots and lots of time. The true intellectuals I've known, only a few, are never satisfied even with their own answers. They are driven. Disquieted and comforted.

The more I discover, the more I discover how ignorant I always was, am and will be. Form tentative conclusions but keep them tentative. After a while we become comfortable and they are no longer tentative.

Nietsche is more right than postmodernists, it is closer to believe, "Nothing is true and we can know nothing."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Solon

This board's personality conflicts aside, (IMO) FARMS really is a lame attempt to "prove" academically what cannot be proven. The BoM is an issue of faith - take it or leave it. As an ancient historian, it bothers me that scholars at a large university can engage in such quasi-research. It's incestuous (they seem to only cite one another), and a disservice to the notions of faith that most Christian religions are founded upon.

You can relax. It is a very tiny part of the overall research effort at BYU. And FARMS- or BYU Studies-type publications are not counted as peer-reviewed publications in most departments when considering advancement in rank.

Originally Posted by Solon

That aside, these scholars are free to write and publish what they will. I don't have to read them. What really gets me is Mr. Joe Member at church who pulls out the FARMS for a talk/lesson/comment and uses it to "prove" something to me. Yet, they refuse to accept any contradictory conclusions based on the same model of research and inquiry.

I have never seen this happen. Not once.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

That sounds awfully circular criteria. He's demanding evidence of a religious book from work outside the realm of religious studies?

You assume he's seeking, not just employing a rhetorical device.

He sets up a strawman. It's a classic case in the law.

"Legitimate scholars would have studied Mormonism and found it to have been of ancient origin. Show me just one."

Why the hell is that assumption even true?

Scholarship costs money and money exists for things that are largely predominant

Mormons are so unimportant outside our sphere, nobody gives a hoot and holler about us. There is no money in it, so nobody will fund it, to debunk it or to prove it. So the only ones interested are Mormons and exMos.

To compound the problem, Mormon religions comes from an anti-intellectual tradition. So we're not equipped to even attack it empirical. We haven't translated the language of the debate. Most Mormons don't even know the language of the debate.

People ridicule my usage of ontological, epistemological and axiological, but outside of the scholars here, how many have even considered those basic concepts in terms of our religion. Very, very few.

Our view of the Godhead did not even consider the debates of Arius and Athanasius. St. Augustine is just a historical figure.

So it is outright idiotic to suppose nonMormon sources to study us anything more than sociologically. Thus Seattle's "argument" is little more than a ruse. He knows this.

And we show him the few authors who have reviewed it, he'll redefine the terms.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You assume he's seeking, not just employing a rhetorical device.


Scholarship costs money and money exists for things that are largely predominant

Mormons are so unimportant outside our sphere, nobody gives a hoot and holler about us. There is no money in it, so nobody will fund it, to debunk it or to prove it.

That's a very good point. Evangelicals, though, have an incentive to disprove Mormon scholarship; they compete with Mormons for converts. The following may be hindsight, but it's not surprising that they have been the first in over a decade to notice FARMS scholarship, recognize its scholarly credentials (in terms of doctorates), and issue an intellectual call-to-arms rebuttal.

By the way, have you read New Mormon Challenge? About 1/3 of its chapters are philosophy.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Solon

True enough, but none of these people studies the ancient world - the realm FARMS claims to be investigating.



True and true.

This board's personality conflicts aside, (IMO) FARMS really is a lame attempt to "prove" academically what cannot be proven. The BoM is an issue of faith - take it or leave it. As an ancient historian, it bothers me that scholars at a large university can engage in such quasi-research. It's incestuous (they seem to only cite one another), and a disservice to the notions of faith that most Christian religions are founded upon.

Are you dismissing the whole idea of apologetics then?