What the crap, FARMS??

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:59 am

Okay. First of all, I have a life. When I read a book review, I don't want it to be 80 pages. Writing an 80-page book review is like saying, "I don't actually want anybody to read this, but I want to put it out there so people think I'm smart." Secondly, please point me to any publication run by rational people where an 80-page ad hominem argument couched in philosophical language passes for a book review, and I'll point you to the Alan Goff-Louis Midgley fan club. There are legitimate critiques to be made of Vogel's book, and by all means Alan Goff is welcome to make them. But I don't want to read more apologetic drivel about positivism. Keep that kind of bullcrap to yourself.

Post by **_msnobody** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:28 am

Very good point, CK. It would be great if there were condensed versions as well. Of couse, one would have to cut down on the use of fifty-dollar words in a condensed version and risk appearing less intelligent.

Post by **_karl61** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:49 am

I recently heard about Ethan Smith's book view of the hebrews and was doing some web surfing and came upon a farms article. I read previously where B.H. Roberts had asked the Church Presidency to look into the issues in the book and pray about it. I read where their answer was "the church is true". I then went to another site and BOOM: It said that Oliver Cowdrey's family was in Ethan Smith's congregation. No where did I even see the word Oliver Cowdrey in the farms review even though the author wrote about people claiming it was a source for the Book of Mormon.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?id=247&table=review

control F and put in the word oliver

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:52 am

I don't think there's solid evidence for the Cowderys having been in Smith's congregation while he served as minister. Their last recorded association with the church was three years before he took office. That's not to say they didn't know him and/or hadn't read his book. Just that there's no really hard evidence.

More problematic is having Oliver Cowdery get Ethan Smith's book into the hands of Joseph Smith prior to the latter's work on the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith didn't know Oliver until the Book of Mormon was already underway.

I think the parallels b/w the Book of Mormon are very significant, but I don't think Joseph Smith directly plagiarized the book. I think the ideas that are shared between the two were fairly hot topics and that Joseph Smith probably would have encountered them in oral discourse. In other words, they show 19th c. influence but not direct plagiarism.

EDIT: For a response to the Cowdery-Smith connection see Larry E. Morris, "Oliver Cowdery's Vermont Years and the Origins of Mormonism" in BYU Studies. Unlike the FARMS pedagogues, Morris actually writes coherently. That would be because BYU Studies has standards. The FROB people apparently do not.

Post by **_karl61** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:59 am

thanks Chris for the thoughts and the reference: I seek the truth as I am sure you do to.

Post by **_Runtu** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:17 pm

An 80-page book review? Good heavens. Alan Goff was my Gospel Doctrine teacher many years ago, and, though I think he's a nice guy and very bright, I could see him doing that. But what were they thinking publishing something like that? I thought Daniel Peterson was supposed to be the editor. I'm a writer/editor, and I wouldn't let something like that get out, based on its sheer size. Ad hominem, though, is pretty much SOP over there.

Post by **_Mercury** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:22 pm

80 pages? WTF?

The longer the review the more specious it is.

If it takes that much to get the "truth" out this guy does not have a valid argument.

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:15 pm

Mercury wrote:80 pages? WTF?

The longer the review the more specious it is.

Indeed. 50-70 page reviews are not unusual over at the FROB, especially when DCP or Midgley respond to Ed Decker or to evangelical anti-Mormon P.hD dissertations that nobody's ever heard of. That's bad enough. 80 pages is just too far, even when reviewing a book as big and important as Dan Vogel's. It's especially too far when you're making a conscious effort to talk over the heads of every reader.

Post by **_KimberlyAnn** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:37 pm

CaliforniaKid wrote:
Mercury wrote:80 pages? WTF?

The longer the review the more specious it is.

Indeed. 50-70 page reviews are not unusual over at the FROB, especially when DCP or Midgley respond to Ed Decker or to evangelical anti-Mormon P.hD dissertations that nobody's ever heard of. That's bad enough. 80 pages is just too far, even when reviewing a book as big and important as Dan Vogel's. It's especially too far when you're making a conscious effort to talk over the heads of every reader.

What was that thirteenth Article of Faith?

We believe in being verbose, dull, pretentious...

KA

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:54 pm

Mercury wrote:80 pages? WTF?

The longer the review the more specious it is.

If it takes that much to get the "truth" out this guy does not have a valid argument.

A couple of years ago, I came across FARMS for the first time. I glanced at the size of the reviews of various "anti Mormon" books. My first impression was, "wow, these guys are really smart, they're leaving no stone unturned and must be incredibly thorough in their research." wow wow wow.

And then I called their bluff and read an entire review.

After reading the review for "In Sacred Loneliness", I almost figured they my not have read it. It was as if the man writing the review never opened the book but discussed various excerpts assigned and read by his colleges.

It was more of a cup game. Most of their banter was spent on such things as arguing over how many wives Joseph Smith may not have had, the mean or average age of his mistresses, whether one of them was 14 or 15 and so on. Their opinion of the author was made painfully clear throughout as well.

The reason I read the review was that I was looking for a reason to justify Joseph Smith's deplorable behavior of taking on even one mistress. I was seeking validation that he was not the man of Compton's assesment. Farms did not address this because Joseph Smith behavior is indefenceable. Instead, they homoginized his behavior and made it appear benign. I was deeply offended by this conscious effort to shift attention from the deplorable actions of a pirate.

The main theme they left abandoned, much like the women felt in real life.