Building the FARMS Ziggurat

[_Tom]

I've emailed the then-chairman of the Department of Ancient Scripture to determine what he had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty.

He's still alive? And you know him? Hmmm... *contemplating all the exercise I could get leaping to conclusions this morning*

Yes, he's still alive. I know of him, but he's not a friend or an acquaintance of mine.

[_Nightingale]

...
For those who hate long posts, the bottom line is:
...
4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.
...
etc...

I feel that this statement went over the top. Unnecessary comparison. No one has stated or implied this to the best of my knowledge.

Fair enough. I didn't take the time to come up with a reasonable or accurate comparison, which I regret. My apologies.

What can I change it to?

"Being an apologist does not, by definition, equate with being uneducated, untrustworthy, a liar or a person who does not even believe what s/he is saying about the Mormon Church and its history and doctrine."

There. I think that statement better reflects what some people do say about apologists in general. My point was that using the term apologist as an epithet is somewhat skewed. Especially I do not believe that most apologists are consciously lying about what they say they believe. I have no reason to disbelieve their testimonies about what they say they believe. In fact, it makes sense to me that the only reason they would do what they do is that they believe in what they say. I can understand that many people with questions, doubts or even frank disbelief in Mormonism would, nevertheless, still fill a pew for various reasons, such as family. I can't see how someone would spend extra time on apologetics or even make it their life's work or at least major hobby if they were not convinced of their belief and purpose. What would be the point of that?

I know that some of the apologetic explanations strain credulity, in the minds of some ex- and never-members, but that does not automatically mean that members and apologists see it or know it in the same way as we do but choose to lie about it. When I see them verify their belief in Mormonism I just accept that at face value and I understand why they would "defend" it.

From my point of view as a Christian, well used to the call to "preach the word" and "spread the Gospel" and "make known the reason for your faith", I understand where they are coming from. I do realize that from some non-believers' points of view none of any of it makes sense at all.

In any case, thank you for picking me up on my sloppy comment. That's what I get for not focusing and also rushing while posting. Hopefully, I won't do it again for a while. I'm usually more careful about being as precise as possible.

[_Nightingale]

...
For those who hate long posts, the bottom line is:
...
4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.
...
etc...

The paragraph 4. accepted.

Then:
a.) It is the same
b.) It is better
c.) They can not be compared
d.) They could be compared but the church has no official definition
e.) Don't criticize apologists even the criticism is established

I'm not sure I grasp your exact point but if it's the same as the one Pokatator made, please see my response below. I can see in the light of day that my comment was OTT and not helpful in making my point.

As for your (e) point, I am not saying don't criticize apologists. Quite the opposite actually. They open themselves up to criticism - but hopefully of their material and not off-target criticism of themselves and especially not reading their minds (a particularly non-useful enterprise as who can do that with any reasonable accuracy).

I'm just saying that merely being engaged in apologetics for your beliefs does not automatically make one evil, underhanded, or a liar. If you are evil, underhanded or lying, though, or definitely if your reasoning or facts are demonstrably incorrect, then sure, the more criticism the better.

[_silentkid]

Great post, Mr. Scratch. I also appreciate Dr. Peterson's responses. I find the FARMS/BYU issue compelling. When I started at BYU in 1993, FARMS was operating out of a little building on the south end of campus. They had a few pamphlets for sale at the bookstore and some compilations of Nibley's work. I used to browse through them at lunch. It has grown much since then. I remember discussing the idea that it would become officially connected with BYU with a few biology professors. They didn't endorse it (not that that matters) and they still don't like it. But, that's BYU. It seems from Dr. Peterson's remarks that President Hinckley wanted it to happen, so it happened.

[_Mister Scratch]

How long did it take you to construct the opening post? It seems like that took quite a while to amass all that information and interpretation.

Oh, not all that long. I owe a lot of credit to people who provided me with links and information via PM. The main thing I did was cobble all the information together.

[_solomarineris]

How much much more pathetic this demagoguery can get?
4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.
How would you equate apologetic job to mass murder?
You are basically brown-nosing these apologetic guys, legitimizing their work. FAIR is nothing but a legitimate
front/puppet company established legitimately by Brethren and BYU.
Do you know why? Or you don't?
There is almost no single sound doctrine & historical truth about the LDS past; starting from Gold Plates, First Vision, Book of Mormon, Temples, step by step every claim is almost soundly refuted and documented.
Do you think Brass is stupid enough to engage in such polemics? Did you watch the Grosskreutz? Do they ever teach the doctrine to the masses like BY & Chronies used to?
They have peons like FAIR to do footwork. This is a damn good network for the sheep who swallow most of the stuff.
Why do you think FAIR inserts that stupid sounding ridiculous disclaimer in every article/publication?
I'm just saying that merely being engaged in apologetics for your beliefs does not automatically make one evil,
Why should I think any of these guys are evil, they are just doing their job, they take the risk of ridicule, marginalizing, made fun of. Do they deserve the treatment they get from outsiders? Damn right, they do, if you claim snake oil cures cancer prepare to handle consequences.
Frankly I wouldn't touch any of their jobs even if they offered me seven figure salary.

[_Nightingale]

How much much more pathetic this demagoguery can get?

Demagoguery? What the ???

Wiki Definition:
"...a political strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes."

I was discussing the definition of apologetics. How on earth is that anything to do with demagoguery?

(Quoting NG): 4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.

How would you equate apologetic job to mass murder?

Someone else made that point and I edited it above. Excuuuuuuuse me for posting while otherwise occupied or In other words it's hard to multi-task after a very long day's work. I slipped for a moment and made an exaggerated statement, rushing to finish up my post.

You are basically brown-nosing these apologetic guys, legitimizing their work. FAIR is nothing but a legitimate
front/puppet company established legitimately by Brethren and BYU.
Do you know why? Or you don't?

{{Sigh}} All too often with exmos discussing Mormonism, especially LDS apologetics or 'gists, any hint of trying to bring some degree of rational thought into the discussion is met with the extreme (and extremely bizarre) accusation of brown-nosing, etc. How on earth does pointing out a common usage and understanding of a certain term turn into me supporting apologists or "legitimizing" Mormon apologetics? (As if they need or want me to do such a thing, if it were even possible).

I don't know about the origins of FAIR or FARMS. I am not too knowledgeable about the various bodies and affiliates of the Mormon Church or its or their inner workings. Does your question have anything to do with Scratch's original post? I can't see how it relates to anything I said.

There is almost no single sound doctrine & historical truth about the LDS past; starting from Gold Plates, First Vision, Book of Mormon, Temples, step by step every claim is almost soundly refuted and documented.

Yeah, well, that's what they say about Christianity in general re the resurrection, the scriptures, the history, etc. There are still billions of Christians worldwide and apologists among them who are widely respected, learned, accomplished people of faith. That was pretty much my point. As long as people find a reason to believe they will defend their beliefs and a non-believer merely stating that it is not true will not be seen as heavy persuasion to the contrary.

Even so, your statement doesn't relate to my point, which is that the field of apologetics itself is respected and has value in many circles. Because we don't happen to be Mormons and may even greatly dislike Mormonism (or the church) does not automatically mean that those who believe it or especially defend it possess all these negative characteristics that many insist they do. In short, our feelings or beliefs about something definitely colour our perceptions but do not necessarily make our stand true and the other guy wrong.

Do you think Brass is stupid enough to engage in such polemics? Did you watch the Grosskreutz? Do they ever teach the doctrine to the masses like BY & Chronies used to?
They have peons like FAIR to do footwork. This is a damn good network for the sheep who swallow most of the stuff.
Why do you think FAIR inserts that stupid sounding ridiculous disclaimer in every article/publication?

I don't know. I don't have an opinion about it from that direction. I am more interested in other aspects. I don't know what Grosskreutz is. Maybe General Conference? If so, no I did not watch it. It is not actually broadcast on TV up here. If you want to see it you have to personally attend a Stake Centre, If I recall correctly.

(Quoting NG) I'm just saying that merely being engaged in apologetics for your beliefs does not automatically make one evil,

Why should I think any of these guys are evil, they are just doing their job, they take the risk of ridicule, marginalizing, made fun of. Do they deserve the treatment they get from outsiders? Damn right, they do, if you claim snake oil cures cancer prepare to handle consequences.
Frankly I wouldn't touch any of their jobs even if they offered me seven figure salary.

I am saying that I have read the opinions of some who do think they are evil, and that is the word that is used. I'm not saying they are evil or that you think they are or said they are.

If you think that reasonable discussion includes ridicule, marginalization and making fun of others that's fine. I'm not telling you what to do. I just don't happen to think that is a reasonable approach, no matter how much you disagree with another person's point of view. It depends what you want to get out of the interaction I guess.

I wouldn't touch the job either, for many reasons. But if I believed in the doctrine and enjoyed explaining, teaching, discussing, debating it with others, hey, who knows. For seven figures I'd definitely be tempted.

[_Nightingale]

Hi there, Nightingale. I agree with you: there is nothing wrong--in an of itself--with being an apologist. Nor does having church apologists mean that there are "weaknesses" per se in said church.

Hi Scratch. Whew. OK. So somebody got what I was trying to say. That's pretty much all I wanted to clarify. Some of my best friends are apologists.

But, we are talking about the LDS Church here. Various officials have noted repeatedly that a key function of FARMS is to rescue those Saints with wavering testimonies, and this is done in part by concocting various theories about the most problematic facets of Mormonism: the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon historicity, Lamanite DNA, and so forth. I think we need to bear in mind that the LDS Church has a long history of being very uncomfortable about its past, and the attempts on the part of Church leadership to hide or "squirrel away" uncomfortable tidbits has been pretty thoroughly documents.

Ah. I did not realize that FARMS objective. Do people with wavering testimonies tend to consult FARMS material? I only just barely heard of FARMS as a member because I frequented the LDS bookshop (in another town or even sometimes across the border) in search of more information than I could get at church. (The library there was most often curiously unavailable). I have always been keenly interested in getting at least a comprehensive outline of the major doctrines.

And please note that I was careful to describe the Brethren's actions as a "tacit admission." Of course they would never come out and just admit the truth about this stuff.

OK, so we have to make assumptions. Not an exact science.

(Quoting NG)

This is the biggest reason for my disagreement with Scratch on this point. In short, I don't feel that engaging in apologetics is by definition a negative, scurrilous pursuit,

We don't disagree on this, Nightingale. A small portion of FARMS apologetics is well-meaning and done in a positive, Christian spirit. Far too much of it, though, is very negative. It is designed to destroy and attack rather than build up.

Great. Another point of agreement. I love it. I'm interested to see your opinion on this because I've never read that from you before. I may be just beginning to understand you. Your quarrel then is with those LDS apologists that you consider to be outside the group you describe above?

(Quoting NG)

Re #2 emphasis above (Scratch quote): I don't see how your conclusion follows. The reasoning seems cloudy there. It's more like a wild surmise than a studied conclusion based on fact or even just common sense.

Why do you say that? Presumably the Brethren were familiar enough with FARMS work to have seen the attack pieces written by DCP, John Tvedtnes, Bill Hamblin, Louis Midgley, and others, right? Or, are you suggesting that the GAs were "spoon fed" only those pieces which would paint the apologists in the best-possible light?

I've lost track - I'll have to go back and look at that part again. I'll get back to you on it.

(Quoting NG)

3. Having an apologetic body within the church fold does not necessarily indicate that Mormon leaders "wink" at belligerence or other non-desirable apologetic approaches.

Actually, maybe you're right about this. DCP said that there was some "quip" made about the FARMS Review, so maybe they did express disapproval regarding the "non-desireable apologetic approaches"?

I don't know. My point was just that having FARMS at BYU doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do and say and how they perform their functions is endorsed by the leaders. In fact, I think they say the opposite,no? It's hard to imagine that the Big-3 would "wink" at very questionable goings-on but I wouldn't be shocked to death to find out that they may.

Gotta rush off but will get back re that one last question of yours that I did not answer.

[_Gadianton]

I've emailed the then-chairman of the Department of Ancient Scripture to determine what he had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty.

Hi Tom,

I'm glad you did this and I think it will be very interesting if he responds. If you happen to get into an extended conversation, be sure to ask him what his views were on the location of the Hill Cumorah at that time. I'm 85% sure that this will be our answer, though, I hope not. I look forward to the issue being a layer or too deeper than this.

[_Mister Scratch]

But, we are talking about the LDS Church here. Various officials have noted repeatedly that a key function of FARMS is to rescue those Saints with wavering testimonies, and this is done in part by concocting various theories about the most problematic facets of Mormonism: the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon historicity, Lamanite DNA, and so forth. I think we need to bear in mind that the LDS Church has a long history of being very uncomfortable about its past, and the attempts on the part of Church leadership to hide or "squirrel away" uncomfortable tidbits has been pretty thoroughly documents.

Ah. I did not realize that FARMS objective. Do people with wavering testimonies tend to consult FARMS material?

I think it's generally agreed that a certain type of wavering member will consult FARMS material. Other times, hardcore TBMs will use it to try and defend aspects of Church history and doctrine in light of a wavering friend or family member, or in the face of criticism.

We don't disagree on this, Nightingale. A small portion of FARMS apologetics is well-meaning and done in a positive, Christian spirit. Far too much of it, though, is very negative. It is designed to destroy and attack rather than build up.

Great. Another point of agreement. I love it. I'm interested to see your opinion on this because I've never read that from you before. I may be just beginning to understand you. Your quarrel then is with those LDS apologists that you consider to be outside the group you describe above?

Yes: my beef is with apologists like Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, Louis Midgley, and Gary Novak: people who have published and written far too much material which is negative both in tone and purpose. I believe that these apologists need to be taken to task.

I don't know. My point was just that having FARMS at BYU doesn't necessarily mean that everything they do and say and how they perform their functions is endorsed by the leaders.

Perhaps. But then again, the LDS Church is a very hierarchical, authoritarian organization that insists on "keeping tabs" on the membership. Basically, I assume that on some level, the Brethren decided that they were willing to put up with the hostility and personal nastiness that flows with regularity from the pens of Peterson, Hamblin, Midgley, & et al.