Building the FARMS Ziggurat

[_Trevor]

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.

How does praising a couple of LDS scholars show that you are not looking for any opportunity to discredit apologists? I tend to think that our relative species of curiosity differ some. I am sorry that you do not appreciate my comments. I wasn't aware that you were so sensitive about what I thought of your activities. Isn't all of this just good fun? I mean, I know I don't take it all that seriously.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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?

You've been seeking a copy of it. Do you already have it? Were you just playing a game? Are you suppressing it, because it doesn't support your conspiracy fantasies?

This is deeply troubling, a watershed moment in the history of your crusade.

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."

If you have the document, reveal it! We'll then be able to see what it contains. If you don't have it, you're just making things up. (Big surprise.)

Perhaps you're right, though, and the document contains random things that weren't part of any discussion anywhere. Maybe it contains a wonderful brownie recipe. Who knows?

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

Is that not a "financial issue"?

Of course. But that doesn't mean that it was discussed. (It wasn't.)

Scratchite: This is a biology book. It discusses the Indian paintbrush plant.

Sane Person: Yes, it's a biology book. But it doesn't so much as mention Indian paintbrush.

Scratchite: Is Indian paintbrush not a plant? Are plants not biological?

Sane Person: (Sigh.)

And I'm sure you're right: it was no doubt a foregone conclusion that (some) of the apologists would be paid.

Behold the miracle of Scratchlogic.

You speak nonsense. The truth has been pointed out to you more times than I can count. But you don't want the truth.

[_rcrocket]

As one who was on the ground floor at FARMS (I became a Welch research assistant the first year he was hired by BYU), and as one who preceded Dr. Peterson in the organization (but, just as a grunt student), I find this thread both fascinating and repelling. Fascinating in the sense that speculation has risen to the level of evidence; repelling in the sense that it is just another hit piece on living individuals.

I just don't see the big deal of FARMS being subsumed in the BYU organization. Before that, there was NWAF. There were many professors who wrote scholarly pieces on Mormon history and upon the Book of Mormon -- some of my favorites included Milt Backman (I was a research assistant for him as well), Monte Nyman (Isaiah and the Book of Mormon), Eldon Ricks, Lou Midgley (kicked out of BYU for being a communist and then reinstated with the intervention of my grandfather, VP Earl Crockett) and many others. Many of their writings would be characterized today, I suppose, as apologetic literature. FARMS is just one more iteration of pro-Church work affiliated with BYU. After FARMS it will be somebody or something else.

I get a lot of value out of some what is published.

[_Mister Scratch]

Bob---

The "big deal" lies in the fact that this marked a clear instance were the Brethren basically admitted that the Church needs a well-organized and well-financed apologetic arm. Either that, or they felt threatened by FARMS's ambitions and rapid growth, and decided to put the leash on.

[_Dr. Shades]

Reasonable questions, so I'll answer them. [SNIP!]

Thank you for taking the time; I appreciate it.

. . . some of my favorites included Milt Backman (I was a research assistant for him as well), Monte Nyman (Isaiah and the Book of Mormon), Eldon Ricks, Lou Midgley (kicked out of BYU for being a communist and then reinstated with the intervention of my grandfather, VP Earl Crockett) and many others.

WTF???

Louis Midgley is, or was, a communist??

[_rcrocket]

Bob---

The "big deal" lies in the fact that this marked a clear instance were the Brethren basically admitted that the Church needs a well-organized and well-financed apologetic arm. Either that, or they felt threatened by FARMS's ambitions and rapid growth, and decided to put the leash on.

I am really not all that connected any more, having practiced law now for 27 years away from the Wasatch Front, but I do have many clients in Utah -- some pretty well connected to the Church.

Sure, FARMS is big, sort of. But, the Church is big. Thirty years ago, before FARMS existed, the apologetic mantle was shared by a loose consortium of BYU professors, UofU professors and amateur enthusiasts who would hold symposia and conventions, and finance ventures, with the tacit approval of the Brethren. The Sydney B. Sperry Symposium was an example, as was and as is the NWAF

Today, FARMS, in terms of enthusiasts and contributors, is much larger. What FARMS has done, much to its credit, has involved rank amateurs (such as myself) as contributors to materials published under its banners. That has done much to broaden interest in the stakes about what is the latest and greatest in scholarship and thinking. As I have said many times before, some of it is truly great stuff; some of it is not. But, FARMS (or the Maxwell Institute) in recent years has become an academic force with which to be reckoned, as it has developed impressive expertise in Islamic and Near Eastern studies and the preservation of texts. And, as much as you don't like it, I think that some of what FARMS has to say about the Book of Mormon is very interesting and enlightening to one who believes. I just don't see the big deal that money is being spent on this venture, that buildings are being raised, and funds solicited. People aren't contributing with a gun to their heads.

I don't see how this is much different than the ventures pursued by sectarian colleges around the world. I suspect you don't think the Bible is the Word of God much less valuable literature, yet much money has been spent in the last 200 years bringing to light academic thinking upon it.

[_rcrocket]

Louis Midgley is, or was, a communist??

This subject has been previously covered on your board. I marvel at your naïvété.

[_Dr. Shades]

This subject has been previously covered on your board. I marvel at your naïveté.

My apologies. Unlike you, I simply do not have the time to read every word of every sentence posted to this message board.

For those of us, like myself, who can't afford to follow this board as closely as you do, will you please elaborate on the Midgley/communist story?

[_rcrocket]

This subject has been previously covered on your board. I marvel at your naïveté.

My apologies. Unlike you, I simply do not have the time to read every word of every sentence posted to this message board.

For those of us, like myself, who can't afford to follow this board as closely as you do, will you please elaborate on the Midgley/communist story?

As closely as I do? I am away for months at a time.

I've told you privately that unless you restore my signature abilities, I will be away for good.

[_Dr. Shades]

As closely as I do? I am away for months at a time.

Are you, or are you not, the one who called me naïve for not seeing the post(s) about Louis Midgley being a communist? Try to stay focused, counsel.

Now, please answer the original question and elaborate on Louis Midgley being a communist.

I've told you privately that unless you restore my signature abilities, I will be away for good.

I **DID** restore your signature abilities. Click on "User CP," click on "Profile," click on "Signature," then add one.