Building the FARMS Ziggurat

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Trevor »

Daniel Peterson wrote:He just won't give it up, folks.

How can I not find this oddly fascinating?


Yeah, it is intriguing. Scratch is looking for any opportunity he can find to call the activities of Mormon apologists into question and discredit their work. It is a quest that has truly taken on a life of its own. As you know, I have sometimes thought it must be a gag of some kind, but I admit defeat. Who would keep a gag going this long? That's religious dedication for you.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Is it as you suggested above--i.e., that you desired to maintain the "polemical" tone of the review, and you worried that BYU and/or the Brethren would put a stop to it?

I was worried about micromanagerial interference with our editorial decisions.


Why, though? Given other things you've said about BYU and the Brethren, it seems kind of odd that this sort of concern would arise in the first place. What was it, specifically, that led to to worry that such "micromanagerial interference" might happen?


Mister Scratch wrote:Well, I assume it was Prof. Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead" gaffe? Did the Brethren tell you that that sort of thing was unacceptable?

You misunderstand. I referred to a quip made in the course of the affiliation negotiations. It was the only mention of the Review during those discussions, so far as I remember.


What was the quip?

You've been seeking to portray the Review as a major reason for the affiliation, and as a principal source of my mythical anxiety an stress over the affiliation. But, though you're as determined as ever in your bizarre theorizing, you're completely wrong. As you typically are.


No, that's not really correct. Particularly in light of this new information, I believe that the Review didn't really have that much to do with the affiliation. In fact, I said as much in my earlier posts on this thread. That said, I do think that the Review represents the heart-and-soul of LDS apologetics. Would you disagree with that?

Mister Scratch wrote:Why don't you track it down? You'd have a far easier time locating it than I would.

Because I don't know what you're talking about, don't care, don't intend to devote additional energy to your Scratchoscopies, and see no important issue here.


You said repeatedly that you'd be interested in seeing it. I guess you've changed your mind?

Mister Scratch wrote:You said that you considered resigning completely from BYU. That seems to extend well beyond garden-variety "frustration."

It was just a passing mood. And I've already explained, several times, what it involved: The affiliation process was so time-consuming and so terribly complex that it brought my research and writing essentially to a halt for a period of two to three years.

If you're not going to believe anything I say, why do you continually pester me with your interrogations?


I believe plenty that you say, Professor P. There's no need to get upset, or to assume that I have ill-intent. I just get the feeling that there was more to your anxiety than you're letting on. Based on what you've said about yourself over the years, it just seems odd that something like this would rattle you to the point that you'd consider resigning---which, it's worth pointing out, probably would have had an even more deleterious effect on your writing and research.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Trevor »

Who doesn't think of resigning from their job on occasion?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Trevor wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:He just won't give it up, folks.

How can I not find this oddly fascinating?


Yeah, it is intriguing. Scratch is looking for any opportunity he can find to call the activities of Mormon apologists into question and discredit their work. It is a quest that has truly taken on a life of its own. As you know, I have sometimes thought it must be a gag of some kind, but I admit defeat. Who would keep a gag going this long? That's religious dedication for you.


Come on now, Trevor. That's not fair. I have praised Richard Bushman and Teryl Givens, so obviously I am not "looking for any opportunity" to "discredit" the apologists. Like you, I'm just curious about the nooks and crannies of this somewhat mysterious institution, and thus, I don't appreciate your comments here.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:There's no need to. . . assume that I have ill-intent.

I don't merely assume that.

I have three years of experience as your perpetual target.

You've used up your daily quota of questions. Think carefully about your next interrogation session, because you'll get at most one per day.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _cinepro »

Thanks for an interesting article Mister Scratch. I suspect that with a few fewer references to "behind closed doors" and secret protocols, it would stand as an interesting overview of an interesting chapter in FARMS history. And thanks to DCP for clarifying what needed to be clarified. I suspect this thread will be a landmark addition to the burgeoning field of apologetics research. Not research of an apologetic nature, mind you, but research into apologists (and their methods) themselves.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Gadianton »

Mister Scratch,

Any leads on specifics regarding The Protocol of 1995 in addition to the stuff about blessings? I suppose I differ a little here from Cinepro, because I think these protocols were significant. Well, clearly, the apologists must have at that time.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:Mister Scratch,

Any leads on specifics regarding The Protocol of 1995 in addition to the stuff about blessings?


Part of it had to do with funding, and whether apologists would be paid.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:Part of it had to do with funding, and whether apologists would be paid.

You haven't seen that sinister and mysterious document. You're just making this up.

The discussions during the affiliation process dealt, to a relatively minor extent, with financial issues.

They never, ever, involved any question about "whether apologists would be paid."

You're just making that up.

Why do you continually make these things up?
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Part of it had to do with funding, and whether apologists would be paid.

You haven't seen that sinister and mysterious document.


You don't know that. For all you know, the document has now appeared, in .pdf format, in my InBox. *You* are the one who claimed never to have seen it. Remember?


The discussions during the affiliation process dealt, to a relatively minor extent, with financial issues.


Well, we're talking about the 1995 Protocol. Not the "discussions."

They never, ever, involved any question about "whether apologists would be paid."


Is that not a "financial issue"? And I'm sure you're right: it was no doubt a foregone conclusion that (some) of the apologists would be paid.
Post Reply