Being a scholar yourself, what is your opinion of FARMS? Do you believe it to be scholarly credible? How would you respond to accusations of circular reasoning, arguments ad hominem, and a strong confirmation bias?
2 Responses to “Being a scholar yourself, what is your opinion of FARMS? Do …”
Francisco Rios
2009-05-29 07:52:31
Hi Matt My Brother. It was good to hear from you. I especially like answering your questions because I kind of know you personally. :) Feel free to keep them coming!
According to John A. Tvedtnes, a then resident scholar with the Neal A. Maxwell for Religious Scholarship, FARMS is not the "monolithic organization that critics seem to think it is. Most of the books and articles published by FARMS are written by people who are employed elsewhere. To be sure, many of these individuals are BYU professors, but others have academic appointments in non-LDS universities, both in the United States and abroad. Still others are in private business, and several are lawyers. Even before I came to work at FARMS, the foundation published twenty-five of my articles and circulated two of my preliminary papers during a time when I was employed by a healthcare software company."
Because those who contribute to FARMS come from many different backgrounds, the quality of FARMS articles varies. Many articles written by prominent scholars are excellent. Several FARMS authors have presented papers at meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and have published in academic journals like the Journal of Near Eastern Studies and with the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Many books written by FARMS authors have been published by non-LDS academic presses. It is true, though, that occasionally FARMS (like every academic institute) publishes articles that are less than stellar.
FARMS, like most institutes for religious scholarship across the world, obviously comes from a certain perspective. They readily acknowledge this foundational perspective on their web site: " we believe, nevertheless, that careful academic research on the scriptures, done from a faithful perspective, can nurture an environment in which interest in and acceptance of the scriptures can flourish. A better understanding of the various religious, historical, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds out of which these sacred records come to us enables us to more easily make these 'voices from the dust' relevant to our present situations."
Are the anti-Mormons right to dismiss FARMS?
Many amateur anti-Mormons like to pretend that FARMS produces nothing of scholarly value. John A. Tvedtnes has addressed some of their criticisms in an interesting article entitled "Shades of Darkness." These kinds of anti-Mormons are not scholars themselves, and so have no right to critique the scholarship of others, in my opinion.
Theologians with academic degrees do recognize that Mormon research is in fact formidable, even though some of them oppose the Church's goals. For example, about ten years ago two Evangelical scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, wrote an article in Trinity Journal entitled, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" The article is fascinating; I recommend you read it. Mosser and Owen describe the advances being made by scholars like those at FARMS. They argue that Mormon scholars are systematically conducting excellent academic research that supports Mormon beliefs. Because Evangelicals consistently pretend that Mormon scholarship has no value, Mosser and Owen argue, Evangelicals are loosing the theological battle without knowing it. The purpose of their article is to warn their fellow Evangelicals that they need to start taking Mormon scholarship seriously.
Other academically minded theologians who oppose Mormon beliefs likewise acknowledge that Mormon research is nevertheless excellent. For example, in the anti-Mormon book "The New Mormon Challenge," Richard Mouw, the Evangelical president of Fuller Theological Seminary, said the following:
"The phenomenon that is most relevant to the present discussion, however, is the emergence over the past several decades of a community of gifted Mormon intellectuals who have earned the right to be taken seriously in the larger academic community. Not only has Brigham Young University proved itself to be an important center of intellectual activity, but LDS scholars can be found throughout the ranks of the North American academy. This fact by itself should dictate that evangelicals treat Mormonism differently than the other groups that we have typically-and misleadingly-lumped together as 'the cults.' Christian Science has had almost no influence in the academy. And we are not being flippant in saying that the term 'Jehovah's Witness scholar' has the feel of an oxymoron. But the existence of a highly intellectual Mormon subculture-where LDS scholars engage in serious exploration of other perspectives and debate these matters openly among themselves-suggests that we would do well to treat the Mormon worldview as a serious intellectual perspective."
(Just for the record, Richard Mouw is one of my favorite evangelicals.)
Francisco Rios
2009-05-29 09:41:18
While not directly related to FARMS, I thought I'd mention some of the research non-BYU Mormon scholars have undertaken in recent years. Many have published books with the prestigious Oxford University Press, a press with the most rigorous of academic standards. For example, Richard Bushman, the Gouverneur Morris Professor of History emeritus at Columbia University, has published with Oxford. His recent biography of Joseph Smith, "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling," is fascinating. Terryl Givens, the James A. Bostwick Chair in English at the University of Richmond, published "People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture" with Oxford. Even more recently, Ronald W. Walker, a former BYU history professor, Richard E. Turley, the Assistant Church Historian and Recorder of the LDS Church, and Glen A. Leonard, the director of the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City, published a book entitled "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" about a seminal event in early Utah history with Oxford.
For those who don't know, FARMS stands for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. FARMS is now part of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University.
Are FARMS authors respected academians?
According to John A. Tvedtnes, a then resident scholar with the Neal A. Maxwell for Religious Scholarship, FARMS is not the "monolithic organization that critics seem to think it is. Most of the books and articles published by FARMS are written by people who are employed elsewhere. To be sure, many of these individuals are BYU professors, but others have academic appointments in non-LDS universities, both in the United States and abroad. Still others are in private business, and several are lawyers. Even before I came to work at FARMS, the foundation published twenty-five of my articles and circulated two of my preliminary papers during a time when I was employed by a healthcare software company."
Because those who contribute to FARMS come from many different backgrounds, the quality of FARMS articles varies. Many articles written by prominent scholars are excellent. Several FARMS authors have presented papers at meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and have published in academic journals like the Journal of Near Eastern Studies and with the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Many books written by FARMS authors have been published by non-LDS academic presses. It is true, though, that occasionally FARMS (like every academic institute) publishes articles that are less than stellar.
FARMS, like most institutes for religious scholarship across the world, obviously comes from a certain perspective. They readily acknowledge this foundational perspective on their web site: " we believe, nevertheless, that careful academic research on the scriptures, done from a faithful perspective, can nurture an environment in which interest in and acceptance of the scriptures can flourish. A better understanding of the various religious, historical, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds out of which these sacred records come to us enables us to more easily make these 'voices from the dust' relevant to our present situations."
Are the anti-Mormons right to dismiss FARMS?
Many amateur anti-Mormons like to pretend that FARMS produces nothing of scholarly value. John A. Tvedtnes has addressed some of their criticisms in an interesting article entitled "Shades of Darkness." These kinds of anti-Mormons are not scholars themselves, and so have no right to critique the scholarship of others, in my opinion.
Theologians with academic degrees do recognize that Mormon research is in fact formidable, even though some of them oppose the Church's goals. For example, about ten years ago two Evangelical scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, wrote an article in Trinity Journal entitled, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" The article is fascinating; I recommend you read it. Mosser and Owen describe the advances being made by scholars like those at FARMS. They argue that Mormon scholars are systematically conducting excellent academic research that supports Mormon beliefs. Because Evangelicals consistently pretend that Mormon scholarship has no value, Mosser and Owen argue, Evangelicals are loosing the theological battle without knowing it. The purpose of their article is to warn their fellow Evangelicals that they need to start taking Mormon scholarship seriously.
Other academically minded theologians who oppose Mormon beliefs likewise acknowledge that Mormon research is nevertheless excellent. For example, in the anti-Mormon book "The New Mormon Challenge," Richard Mouw, the Evangelical president of Fuller Theological Seminary, said the following:
"The phenomenon that is most relevant to the present discussion, however, is the emergence over the past several decades of a community of gifted Mormon intellectuals who have earned the right to be taken seriously in the larger academic community. Not only has Brigham Young University proved itself to be an important center of intellectual activity, but LDS scholars can be found throughout the ranks of the North American academy. This fact by itself should dictate that evangelicals treat Mormonism differently than the other groups that we have typically-and misleadingly-lumped together as 'the cults.' Christian Science has had almost no influence in the academy. And we are not being flippant in saying that the term 'Jehovah's Witness scholar' has the feel of an oxymoron. But the existence of a highly intellectual Mormon subculture-where LDS scholars engage in serious exploration of other perspectives and debate these matters openly among themselves-suggests that we would do well to treat the Mormon worldview as a serious intellectual perspective."
(Just for the record, Richard Mouw is one of my favorite evangelicals.)