Building the FARMS Ziggurat

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I think I see what you are getting at, Dr. Robbers. There was probably a (perhaps subconscious) understanding on the part of the parties involved of the massive stakes involved: i.e., who would get to control doctrine--and the interpretation thereof--in the Church.

[_Nightingale]

Scratch said:
"...it would also be a kind of "winking" support for the belligerent attitudes and methods of many apologists."

NG responded:
..."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."


Scratch asked:
"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 think I did answer this and we ended up agreeing, no? I don't think that the amalgamation of FARMS into BYU at the invitation of GBH, apparently, automatically equates to the church leaders "winking" at the apologetic behaviour you describe. I think it is possible that they are not aware of it or at least not all of it or that they don't see it in the same light as you do or certainly as non-members do (especially those who consider apologists to be defending any and all questionable and even objectionable (to them) past and present actions and words.

I think this is a case where perception is everything. What some may see as "attack pieces" apologists and other TBMs may see as really good (and winning) debate. If they don't see it as "attack" then they aren't winking at it or allowing it, they're just thinking it's all good stuff.

Scratch:
"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."

"...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."

OK, I get you now. You accept apologetics, you just don't like how these particular guys do it.

Do you think the B. read FARMS stuff?

And I was right the first time - I felt confused when solo started talking about FAIR. Then I thought maybe I had missed the plot. But no, this is FARMS. FAIR is not part of BYU is it?

[_Nightingale]

Whew, I think I just did a 180 on this.

OK, I see how the Big-3 do want to control the message, for sure.

I see that it is possible that DCP, certainly having closer ties to how things work in the inner circle than I do, could have experience enough to think it a distinct possibility that FARMS could lose editorial control, at least, on being subsumed by BYU (especially as it came in the form of a direct "invitation" from GBH). I think that is an invite you heed. (Reminds me of a mishie who told me off for my desire to stay single, quoting "be fruitful and multiply" to me and opining that it is a commandment and who was I to disobey a commandment. I replied that it was not a commandment but maybe a suggestion. Red in the face he stressed to me that a "suggestion" from The Lord holds the weight of a commandment and then we got back to so who am I to disobey...). I'm guessing that a GBH invitation may be seen in somewhat the same way.

So maybe Scratch is not that far out in left field as some may think?

I guess the main thing I object to at this point is stating a surmise as if it is a fact. There is factual evidence. There is circumstantial evidence (which can often be seen as very weighty, contrary to popular understanding). There is surmise, conjecture, opinion, guess and so on, in decreasing order of trustworthiness (when you are attempting to ascertain fact). I often see surmise stated as fact and it doesn't hold much water with me if I am interested in knowing something for sure, as far as that is possible.

But I am prepared to accept that in this case, circumstantial evidence and even some surmise based on past experience could well come close to describing what went on.

Don't mind me. I'm just thinking things through...(more ready now to accept that all is not always sweetness and light) :/

[_Daniel Peterson]

Whew, I think I just did a 180 on this.

OK, I see how the Big-3 do want to control the message, for sure.

I see that it is possible that DCP, certainly having closer ties to how things work in the inner circle than I do, could have experience enough to think it a distinct possibility that FARMS could lose editorial control, at least, on being subsumed by BYU

I had no particular reason to fear erosion of editorial independence. It was enough to know that we had been wholly independent but would now be part of a larger organization. Being part of a larger organization would inevitably mean the surrender of at least some autonomy. I was not yet certain how that would look in fact, as opposed to how it looked in theory.

There's nothing sinister here.

Any bachelor or bachelorette getting married, any small business owner taking his small business into a larger company, any solo singer joining a band, any independent playwright joining up with a producer to get his play on stage, has to wonder, occasionally, what degree of freedom will be retained under the new arrangement and what degree of freedom will be yielded up.




.

[_Nightingale]

I had no particular reason to fear erosion of editorial independence. It was enough to know that we had been wholly independent but would now be part of a larger organization. Being part of a larger organization would inevitably mean the surrender of at least some autonomy. I was not yet certain how that would look in fact, as opposed to how it looked in theory.

There's nothing sinister here.

I hope I didn't imply there was. I wouldn't say sinister. I don't subscribe to any big conspiracy theory at all. My change in outlook is more about how much the top leaders want to control the message or do so. I have readily acknowledged that I know absolutely nothing about BYU or FARMS in particular and especially the way they were set up or how they operate. I think there are abundant examples of how the message is controlled, although perhaps FARMS and FAIR are off the mainstream there. I have no way of knowing though how much they are subject to outside control, if any (if it isn't inaccurate to refer to the big top leaders as "outside"). But I'm saying I accept more now than I did before that the leaders do decide what the message is and seek to control it. I don't think that is always successful but that's another story.

And that's not even that unusual. Of course every body has a certain need and wish to control its image and message.

Any bachelor or bachelorette getting married, any small business owner taking his small business into a larger company, any solo singer joining a band, any independent playwright joining up with a producer to get his play on stage, has to wonder, occasionally, what degree of freedom will be retained under the new arrangement and what degree of freedom will be yielded up.

Absolutely agree. In fact, I believe I said so up above. I said it makes sense to me that a formerly autonomous body would stand a good chance of losing some of its previous independence when joining ranks with another body and so the principals would think long and hard about the ramifications of a merger before leaping in, only to regret the results, especially if the circumstances could have been foreseen with a little analysis.

Or something like that.

Hey, we agree about the autonomy. That's as good as it's likely to get.

It was interesting to read about all the elements that needed to be considered in making the merger happen. So thanks for that. (I'm not sure that merger is the correct word? I just mean that FARMS moved to the BYU area. But then came under some BYU or other input, unlike previously. So merger? Or ???)

[_Gadianton]

I'm not sure that merger is the correct word?

There is so much we don't know, I don't know what the right word is.

But there are some grave implications about how apologists see the church here. I mean, to compare the embodiment of the restored gospel to "large companies"or "record producers" -- both which are synonymous with corruption and greed -- is pretty telling. It makes me wonder if the apologists were "pressured" into it.

[_solomarineris]

I'm not sure that merger is the correct word?

There is so much we don't know, I don't know what the right word is.

But there are some grave implications about how apologists see the church here. I mean, to compare the embodiment of the restored gospel to "large companies"or "record producers" -- both which are synonymous with corruption and greed -- is pretty telling. It makes me wonder if the apologists were "pressured" into it.

This is so lame, this discussion is is degenerated to nothing, it might as well be a Coca Cola story creating Coke 0 product and stupid commercials that classic is complaining to parent company.

The fact is so simple; Brass has absolutely no intention touching convoluted LDS history, let alone discussing them with public or media. They create this FARMS Apologist front to deal with the mess and conveniently insert a disclaimer "this opinion is absolutely is not connected to Official Church".
It's amazing Brass stayed blind to how much damage Nibley created, instead they enlarged the process of dissemination of false information.
It isn't working, it makes matters worse, if this was my company I'd get rid of or scale down FARMS next to nothing.

[_Mister Scratch]

I was reviewing some of the old posts on this thread, and I felt that it would be useful to summarize some of the unanswered questions:

1) What motivated the Brethren to "invite" FARMS to join fully and officially with BYU? We know that it had something to do with FARMS's "fundraising" and PR, as per Reynolds, but what, specifically, was it? The Ziggurat?

2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

3) What did the Chair of Ancient Studies think of DCP's characterization of his actions, and, further, why did DCP feel the need to characterize his actions as "assert[ing] suzerainty"?

4) What were the details---financial and otherwise---underlying both the 1995 Protocol, and the subsequent "discussions"?

5) Why, during this very tumultuous time, was the FARMS accountant terminated?

[_harmony]

2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

Has it?

[_Daniel Peterson]

2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

Has it?

There's no possible way of knowing, since the FARMS Review has been carefully hidden, so that harmony can't read it, at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

I was reviewing some of the old posts on this thread, and I felt that it would be useful to summarize some of the unanswered questions:

1) What motivated the Brethren to "invite" FARMS to join fully and officially with BYU? We know that it had something to do with FARMS's "fundraising" and PR, as per Reynolds, but what, specifically, was it? The Ziggurat?

2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

I've never heard of any "'quip' which clued [me] into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down."

Nor have I said any such thing. And I'm the only person on this board in a position to serve as a source about the quip.

I can never quite make up my mind: Does Scratch make this stuff up deliberately, or is he just a poor reader?

3) What did the Chair of Ancient Studies think of DCP's characterization of his actions, and, further, why did DCP feel the need to characterize his actions as "assert[ing] suzerainty"?

4) What were the details---financial and otherwise---underlying both the 1995 Protocol, and the subsequent "discussions"?

How it must gall Scratch that BYU doesn't simply turn all of its financial records and recordings of all of its administrative deliberations over to him!

I urge the University to issue a sincere public apology to Scratch as soon as possible.

5) Why, during this very tumultuous time, was the FARMS accountant terminated?

As I've pointed out to Scratch, that's absolutely none of his business. He'll just have to get one of his creepy network of anonymous informants to hack into the confidential personnel files at BYU. But I suspect that's illegal.

And who said anything about a "tumultuous time"?

Does he make this stuff up deliberately, or is he just a poor reader? I can't quite decide.