What is your opinion of FARMS?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Solon

This quote is bush-league. What are you, 7 years old?

I haven't been around CG long enough to know the intricacies of the relationships between SU and Others but, to my untrained eye, the belligerence has reached a point where either side's valid, logical, well-reasoned points are overlooked in a fit of name-calling.

Nevertheless, the quote above is the type of belligerent polemic that is so distasteful from either side of the debate(s) - especially those concerning FARMS (as this thread started out). To be so aggressive in purporting a supernatural occurrence, using "you're wrong but I don't condemn you for being stupid or recalcitrant" argumentation in lieu of hard, empirical (yes, worldly) evidence is antithetical to the approach FARMS is so desperately trying to take.

All you (or FARMSy types) have to do is say, "I have my convictions. They are not rational, but the result of personal experience, beyond the realm of physical, natural, measurable occurrence." It is difficult to argue with personal preference/opinion/experience. Yet, FARMers, and this post I quote above, seek to enter the worldly realm of empirical, tangible evidence. If you want to "prove" something in accordance with earthly norms of evidence, you'd better have your shit together - not just give a "I know I'm right" argument.

Leave faith and the supernatural out of the secular, scholarly, academic realm. To tell SU, he is "wrong" - whether this is "true" or not - without any evidence other than your personal experience is not admissible in a forum of debate based on rational, logical discussion (as this forum, IMO, is intended to be). It just makes it easier to rip religion when it plays the "we know because we're right" card in the secular arena.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he doing just the opposite of saying "you're wrong"? Isn't he criticizing that kind of definitive declaration of knowledge?

[Archaea]

The mudslinging is funny but illogical.

As noted earlier, I'd be happy to critisize the weakness of apologetics per se, and specifically of FARMS.

However, LDS members should be interested in, academic honesty reviewing their history, the place of their theology in terms of world dynamics and quality apologetics that should improve.

FARMS should NOT have teamed up with BYU. But what were they to do. Who else would fund them? It was a dilemma which has bad consequences no matter what.

Accurate Mormon History is evolving, and will continue to evolve. The theology when viewed in light of academia will evolve. Yet we will remain noncreedal.

In one way, it appears both camps argue while each knows the answer, so they construe the evidence in light of the known evidence.

The Believer Camp will endeavor to construe the "evidence" in a light most favorable to Belief.

The Disbeliever Camp knows just as fervently that none of the allegations are true according to modern observations.

The reality is, much of the matters upon which Believer rely is void of any empirical proof.

Disbelievers assume that there is nothing that exists which can't be proven empirically. In academic setting, that is perhaps the only reasonable position to take, but in terms of episteme, is it categorically true? Philosophy has debated this concept for millenia without complete resolution.

In terms of the informed believer and disbeliever, neither side is a bunch of fools. One side may be more cautious, i.e., the empiricists, and the other side less cautious in believing what cannot be seen scientifically, but that doesn't make the groups full of ninnies incapable of reason.

And although I largely agree with much of Solon's propositions, I disagree if he concludes LDS should not enter the academic arena and should not examine their articles of faith under the scholarly microscope. We might not like what we see, but that does not mean we shouldn't look. It may just be the way God desires us to refine our faith. Faith coupled with reason is an important endeavor that can enrich our lives. If others find no enrichment, they will find it elsewhere, in the arts, science, outdoors or athletics.

We LDS should be willing to acknowledge when our stuff isn't very good, and work on improving it. In some respects our faith is at a disadvantage, because in large part, our faith is the "anti" intellectual faith.

Unlike historic Christianity, Judaism and Islam, our faith did not grow up as a result of priestly debates on finer points of principles of faith. (I argue some of those points were charades for political purposes but not always). We intentionally kept it simple, so that faith would be easy.

Did we engage in the homoiousias and homoousias debate in arriving at the nature of God? No. We claimed a nonverifiable by empirical means a vision.

However, because we grew up outside the traditional religious circles, does that mean we should forever ignore the debates?

If you come from Seattle's perspective, you are likely to miss anything which ultimately proves to be legitimate. He may say otherwise, but he has already concluded no Biblical God exists, so he will necessarily construe evidence in that light. We necessarily construe evidence in a light favorable to our views. Very few, if any, actually look at evidence and ask, what does it mean. We aren't tabula rasas.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you come from Seattle's perspective, you are likely to miss anything which ultimately proves to be legitimate. He may say otherwise, but he has already concluded no Biblical God exists, so he will necessarily construe evidence in that light. We necessarily construe evidence in a light favorable to our views. Very few, if any, actually look at evidence and ask, what does it mean. We aren't tabula rasas.

This is the problem with his perspective: he chooses not to believe in a 'biblical' God, and yet does believe in SOMETHING, thought it is ill-defined and described. So his belief is legitimate but ours isn't. In my mind, unless he chooses to rest with the position that no belief is possible, then he needs to allow for other beleifs and personal experience is a legitimate basis for such belief (and probably moves it beyond mere belief, even in an empiricist's view).

Again, I have not really waded through this thread so if this is off-base, someone tell me so and I will be quiet again.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is the problem with his perspective: he chooses not to believe in a 'biblical' God, and yet does believe in SOMETHING, thought it is ill-defined and described. So his belief is legitimate but ours isn't. In my mind, unless he chooses to rest with the position that no belief is possible, then he needs to allow for other beleifs and personal experience is a legitimate basis for such belief (and probably moves it beyond mere belief, even in an empiricist's view).

Again, I have not really waded through this thread so if this is off-base, someone tell me so and I will be quiet again.

Seattle is of the posted opinion, whether he believes it or trolls is uncertain, that FARMS has no legitimate authors, persons or work associated with it. He believes they are all stupid, dunces or dishonest charlatans because they engage in apologetics. He throws a blanket over the entire lot.

Unfortunately, he cannot support his position because there are some careful people, i.e., David Paulsen, associated with FARMS. He has some legitimate criticism, if FARMS is intended to be solely academic, but it's not. He has a legitimate gripe in that FARMS sometimes tries to pass itself for something it is NOT. It is not a bastion of world reknowned scholars in antiquity, the ancient world and languages. It has some who are not ignoramsuses, and some who are trying to elevate the level of discourse.

What is apologeia? It depends. In one respect, it is nothing more than an arguable, rhetorical defense for the faithful, not for the disbelievers, defending the principles and faith of the believers.

In my mind, FARMS tries to be too many things for too many people. It tries apologia, tackling archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, ancient texts, some philosophy, and other disciplines on top of the rhetorical defense. It doesn't have enough resources, enough expertise or the funds to tackle all of those angles from a cautious, academic perspective. Few organizations would. It is just scraping the surface of possibilities.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Adam

Well, you are wrong. Dead people can and do visit the living. It happened to JS with Moroni. And it has happened to me.

So you can think JS was a liar and I am a liar, or you can just admit that it hasn't happened to you and you would rather think so many of the rest of us are liars rather then believe us. That is you choice.

You are like the man who has never been to the moon, who decides that because he hasn't experienced it, certainly no one else has either. Sure that Armstrong guy claimed to have been there, but he could have lied. You spend your time trying to understand all the various motivations behind the elaborate ruse to make people think man has visited the moon.

I don't hate or condemn you for not believing--I only call you out for the certainty of your unbelief. If I had not experienced what I have experienced, I might doubt too. But your position should intelligently be--I don't know rather then I don't believe. Especially in light of those telling you they do know.

Originally Posted by Adam

Yea, you are reading too much FARMS into me. I think FARMS being taken over by BYU was a very sad day. I love the concept of FARMS and Jack Welch and Dan Peterson are truly great men, but FARMS is slipping IMHO. I'm no blind FARMS lover. Their review of "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship" by Buerger was a bunch of crap. If they keep putting out stuff like that, they will lose all credibility quick.

I stand behind the position that those who say they don't believe are fools in the literal sense of that word--someone who lacks judgment. In dealing with things you don't know about, the furtherest you should go is to say you don't know. To say you don't believe involves a value judgment upon other's experiences. When you say you don't believe you are calling all those who claim to know on point liars. This is uncalled for and unwise.

I am not claiming that my experience alone, or the experience of Joseph Smith alone, constitute empirical testable evidence. If FARMS or any other group do this, they are also foolish.

But the fact that you can't confirm my experience does not make it invalid to cite as the proof I have of the question.

And if enough people all cite to personal experience to answer a question like whether angels are real, you have to either resort to some sort of mass delusion psychosis theory or believe some force like social pressure causes many people to lie about the topic. Or accept that there might be something to the personal experiences--have faith.

Originally Posted by All-American

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he doing just the opposite of saying "you're wrong"? Isn't he criticizing that kind of definitive declaration of knowledge?

I have neither the time nor the intelligence to argue epistemology. I have no idea where belief/unbelief meet knowledge/ignorance/uncertainty. It is perfectly valid for Adam to offer his personal experiences as his reasons for believing as he does, but I object to his personal experiences as a basis for some universal truth. Just because someone claims to have had an experience that some find unbelievable does not (necessarily) make that person a liar, as the post seems to assert. There's a lot of wiggle room in the personal-experience department. I have no doubt that Adam believes he saw the dead, but as for the factuality or "truth" of this experience, although I have an opinion, I have no way of knowing either way. Without further, tangible evidence, the absolute "truth" of this experience must remain in the realm of the unknown.

AA, you're right that Adam's post calls out SU for being certain in his unbelief, but Adam's rhetorical choice was to be correspondingly certain in his belief. Thus, the discussion devolves into a he-said/he-said third-grade argument. Nevertheless, modern convention seems to be to disbelieve until persuaded otherwise. I don't want to speak for him, but IMO SU seems to be working from this accepted default.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

AA, you're right that Adam's post calls out SU for being certain in his unbelief, but Adam's rhetorical choice was to be correspondingly certain in his belief. Thus, the discussion devolves into a he-said/he-said third-grade argument. Nevertheless, modern convention seems to be to disbelieve until persuaded otherwise. I don't want to speak for him, but IMO SU seems to be working from this accepted default.

He appears to be working from a stance more advanced than the pure default. He appears adamant that our belief systems cannot in any possible way have any smidgeon of truth in them. He is almost categorical in his rejection of the fundamentals of all Christian belief systems, apart from their use as conventional myths.

So I believe you're being cautious in describing his active, not passive, disbelief.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And although I largely agree with much of Solon's propositions, I disagree if he concludes LDS should not enter the academic arena and should not examine their articles of faith under the scholarly microscope. We might not like what we see, but that does not mean we shouldn't look.

Well stated above. I think it is worthwhile to examine LDS teachings in an academic setting (e.g. my dissertation topic deals with the quest for immortality in ancient Greece - not that I'm trying to tie in any LDS connection, but dealing with a topic that is prevalent in LDS theology as well). My only objection is when would-be scholars approach their topics with the understanding that they already know the "truth" and are just trying to fill in the backstory. LDS scholars do not have a monopoly on this - see Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason for Christian apologetic that would make the most egregious FARMer blush. As Archaea indicates, it's best to avoid blanket evaluations and evaluate works on a case-by-case basis.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

My only objection is when would-be scholars approach their topics with the understanding that they already know the "truth" and are just trying to fill in the backstory. LDS scholars do not have a monopoly on this - see Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason for Christian apologetic that would make the most egregious FARMer blush. As Archaea indicates, it's best to avoid blanket evaluations and evaluate works on a case-by-case basis.

This is probably where many of our would-be apologists fall down; often they are not knowledgeable enough of the entire landscape of the discipline in which they seek to operate, they simply "know" the right answer and use a few catchy phrases to sound intellectual, without examining our principles under the broader scope.

It can be done effectively.

For example after the Documentary Hypothesis became vogue and virtually accepted as commonplace, a very erudite and studious Italian Jew, Umberto Cassuto, took it on, and forced scholars to reevaluate what they had accepted as "true."

We LDS are often so anxious to prove ourselves to be correct, we can tend to jump the gun and not even understand the academic questions asked.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

This is the problem with his perspective: he chooses not to believe in a 'biblical' God, and yet does believe in SOMETHING, thought it is ill-defined and described. So his belief is legitimate but ours isn't. In my mind, unless he chooses to rest with the position that no belief is possible, then he needs to allow for other beleifs and personal experience is a legitimate basis for such belief (and probably moves it beyond mere belief, even in an empiricist's view).

Again, I have not really waded through this thread so if this is off-base, someone tell me so and I will be quiet again.

I think you're both overestimating and underestinating my belief in God. For starters, my concept of God is no more ill-defined than Einstein's. Here are some things he said about God:

"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."


"I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar."


"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."


"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe."


"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."


"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of the priests."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."


"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."


I think these statements are fair characterizations of how I see the possibility of a God. Was Eistein inconsistent in denying belief in the traditional biblical god (what he calls a "personal god") yet professing belief in "God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists?"

So I have made a value judgment. Big deal. I don't shrink from that. I reject the Mormon God, partly, as described in my last paragraph below, because of its fruits. I have made the judgment based on my senses and reasoning that the traditional Judeo-Christian God of dogma, ordinances, revelation, angels, blind obedience, hostility to liberty and history and science, and (for much of its history) racism and genocide, is not believable to me. Least of all is Joseph Smith's story credible to me for reasons as numerous as stars in the sky and as instinctive as breathing.

But to compare my disbelief in angels with diselieving something for which there is tangible evidence, including photographs and rocks, and that I lived with in real time, such as that men walked on the moon, is what is pure rhetoric. A last refuge of those who have nothing to say.

Now, Spinoza is widely regarded as an atheist, possibly the first known atheist since Classical antiquity. Yet Einstein considered him a believer of sorts. Traditional Judeo-Christianity would consider Einstein, Spinoza and myself atheists because we do not believe in a "biblical God," even though we are happy to consign God to the realm of mystery, and focus on living as virtuously as possible in the here and now. So the belief that I ascribe to is in fact qualitatively different than the belief in a biblical god rejected by most scientists and I submit many of America's founding fathers.

Still as you can see from my posts I spend as much time as any lay person who goes to church reading and thinking about religious subjects. Religion is a facinating subject. But LDS culture is not, and that is probably my primary problem with the LDS Church. You might notice me absent from the chatter about sacrament meeting and home teaching. And FARMS represents the part of LDS culture least attractive to me--anti-historical, disingenuous, chauvenistic, insensitive to mystery, aestheticcally shoddy, and worse than ant-intellelctual and anti-science, i.e., carrying on a pretense of being intellectual and scientific.

I have to judge a religion largely based on the quality of its art and literature, the coherence of its founding story and cosmology, the vibrancy and beauty of its culture. Mormonism doesn't work for me on these grounds. In the final analysis, Mormonism fails my aesthetic sensibility. I prefer the ancient Greeks. Yes, it's a value judgment.

Someone said earlier their faith has to be reasonable, make sense. I agree. Mormonism also fails me on that basis. Einstein's God does not, in my judgment.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

Modern convention seems to be to disbelieve until persuaded otherwise. I don't want to speak for him, but IMO SU seems to be working from this accepted default.

Well stated. That is exactly my approach. I'm asking questions, like Socrates. Testing assumptions and conclusions. That's all. It is a neverending process, tooblue.

By the way, has anyone come up with that list of scholars who have reviewed the Book of Mormon as literature yet?