Michael Quinn on Dan's apologetic approach

 D. Michael Quinn's revised and enlarged edition of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Signature Books, 1998) discussed apologetics as practiced by FARMS and its Chairman at the time, Dan Peterson. Quinn's observations seem as relevant in 2021 as they were in 1998.

Not every believer is an apologist, but apologists take special efforts to defend their cherished point of view—whether in religion, science, history, or some other belief/endeavor. It is not an insult to call someone an “apologist” (which I often do), nor is “apologist" an unconditional badge of honor. Like drivers on a highway, some apologists are careful, some are careless, some unintentionally injure the innocent, some are Good Samaritans, and a few are sociopaths. Like drivers, even good apologists make errors in judgment and occasionally violate the rules. The same is true for those who don't think they're apologists. 

In a tradition as old as debate, polemics is an extreme version of apologetics. Defending a point of view becomes less important than attacking one's opponents. Aside from their verbal viciousness, polemicists often resort to any man promote their argument. Polemics intentionally destroys the give-and-take of sincerely respectful disagreement. In the resulting polarization, "all are punish’d.” Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They mince words—they mince the truth.

Unofficially connected for years, Brigham Young University in October 1997 announced that FARMS is an official unit of BYU. Daniel C. Peterson, current chairman of FARMS, expressed his first concern about official BYU affiliation: "FARMS has often had a polemical edge and we are curious to see how or whether that will be accommodated," he said. "The minute I write something offensive, we'll see if I get a call."

Polemical tactics have been fundamental to the self-definition of FARMS. After six years as book review editor for FARMS, Peterson acknowledged that LDS church members “on our side” have asked “on a number of occasions” why “ do you have to be so polemical, so argumentative?” He responded: "We did not pick this fight with the Church's critics, but we will not withdraw from it. I can only regret that some may think less of us for that fact.” Then as a religious echo of political McCarthyism's innuendos about its critics, Peterson indicated that Mormons “on our side" should be careful about criticizing FARMS: “Certain of our critics have emphasized our alleged 'nastiness,' I am convinced, as a way of distracting attention from our evidence and arguments.” In the previous issue, Peterson had also written a thirty-eight-page defense of the periodical's use of "insults” and “ad hominem (i.e., ‘against the man')” statements about authors whose books were being reviewed by FARMS. Peterson even boasted that some FARMS writers were born with the nastiness gene."

I realize that by criticizing LDS polemicists, I will be accused of engaging in polemics. This circular trap is inevitable because polemicists alternate between attacking their opponents and claiming victimization by their opponents. I have three responses to the above criticism. First, I have allowed my polemical critics to have their decade, not just their day. Second, I believe this eleventh-anniversary edition responds to these LDS polemicists with greater honesty and civility than they have given me. Third, I avoid what FARMS reviewer William J. Hamblin recently described as "whining about" the polemical “tone” of FARMS reviews. He said the real question was "whose arguments are superior?”—a self-description of polemics as personal competition. While I have tried to avoid engaging in polemics, this study does note instances where polemical writings and arguments have been misleading, distorted, or dishonest. “Polemicist” is a dishonorable vocation, and I use the term only where I believe it applies.

On the other hand, many LDS apologists and defenders avoid polemics, and simply limit research/inquiry within the boundaries of officially approved history. As a consequence, church leaders and well-intentioned apologists often avoid acknowledging the existence of evidence that moves even one step beyond the approved boundary. Because of these various cross-currents, most Mormons now find it easier to suppress their curiosity about the unapproved past.

As a historian of the Mormon past, I have never accepted those limits on inquiry or expression. I also decline to conceal uncomfortable evidence directly relevant to topics being discussed. Nor do I feel obligated to accommodate the rational limits of secular humanists. I go wherever the evidence seems to lead and present it in the best way I can. I've tried to be faithful to evidence and faithful to faith. Within those ground rules, I've always seen myself as a Mormon apologist."