''The Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism''

[_Daniel Peterson]

A simple, honest answer would have sufficed. Instead, you refuse to provide it.

I've already explained, simply and honestly, how METI (and CPART) came to be part of FARMS.

That you dislike the answer, seek something conspiratorial, and fault me for not providing you with the sinister details you crave is simply par for the course. You always react this way.

But I'm certainly impressed that Gadianton Scratch swoops in to endorse Mister Scratch. What a novelty. A little less reverential and lachrymose than usual, but pretty much SOP.

One more interesting detail about the affiliation of FARMS with BYU: Among our reasons for forming CPART was the thought that, since BYU had been expressing interest in assimilating us, maybe the University would just take the portion of our organization that dealt with databases and digital imaging of ancient manuscripts and be satisfied with that. But BYU insisted that it still wanted the whole thing.


Now. Be silent and behold the wondrous workings of the mind of Scratch: The item immediately above will raise troubling questions. It will arouse suspicions and demand answers. It will be a stunning revelation, a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics or some such nonsense. It will be merely the latest repetition of the same tired joke.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Nothing whatsoever.

Are you sure? Nibley was really the pioneer of the Old World approach to Book of Mormon apologetics. His research into Egyptian, Arabian, and other Middle Eastern parallels promised a way beyond the frustrating impasse at which the Mesoamerican approach had arrived. This, surely, was a springboard to the more mainline studies in which FARMS is involved, just as Bill Hamblin's apologetic research into Book of Mormon warfare and Hebraic temple rites led to his mainline studies on those subjects.

Note: I am not agreeing with Scratch that FARMS' mainline work is designed strictly to legitimize apologetic work, though I think that may be a motive in one or to cases. Rather, I'm arguing that FARMS' mainline scholarship has grown out of its apologetic work.

[_Mister Scratch]

One more interesting detail about the affiliation of FARMS with BYU: Among our reasons for forming CPART was the thought that, since BYU had been expressing interest in assimilating us, maybe the University would just take the portion of our organization that dealt with databases and digital imaging of ancient manuscripts and be satisfied with that. But BYU insisted that it still wanted the whole thing.

There you go. See? How hard was that? That is what I was asking. I *do* have a follow-up question, though: What, specifically, did BYU administrators say about the apologetic arm of FARMS? I.e., why did it "insist....that it still wanted the whole thing"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

They didn't say much. You'll have to ask them.

Are you sure?

Of course I'm sure.

The idea was entirely mine, from start to finish. Hugh had nothing whatever to do with it, and we never ever discussed it. The Islamic Translation Series, the oldest and best established part of the overall Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, has focused heavily to this point on Islamic philosophy. Hugh had little interest or expertise in philosophy.

Nibley was really the pioneer of the Old World approach to Book of Mormon apologetics. His research into Egyptian, Arabian, and other Middle Eastern parallels promised a way beyond the frustrating impasse at which the Mesoamerican approach had arrived. This, surely, was a springboard to the more mainline studies in which FARMS is involved, just as Bill Hamblin's apologetic research into Book of Mormon warfare and Hebraic temple rites led to his mainline studies on those subjects.

There is no substantive connection at all between Ibn Sina's Metaphysics or Ibn Rushd's Decisive Treatise and Book of Mormon apologetics.

Note: I am not agreeing with Scratch that FARMS' mainline work is designed strictly to legitimize apologetic work, though I think that may be a motive in one or to cases. Rather, I'm arguing that FARMS' mainline scholarship has grown out of its apologetic work.

FARMS's mainline scholarship grew out of the mainline scholarly graduate training, dissertations, and research interests of the scholars affiliated with FARMS (e.g., Donald Parry [Ph.D., Utah], David Seely [Ph.D., Michigan], Dana Pike [Ph.D., Pennsylvania], and Andrew Skinner [Ph.D., Iliff/Denver]) who do that scholarship.

[_moksha]

Ancient America Foundation (AAF)
Book of Mormon Archaeological Foundation
Book of Mormon Archaeology Forum (BMAF)
Book of Mormon Foundation
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)
Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)
Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism (FIRM Foundation)
Nephi Project
Research Applications in Mormon Archeology & History (RAMAH)
Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-Day Saints (SHIELDS)
Zarahemla Research Foundation

These may exist now, but in the end there can be only one. I suspect in the end it will be FARMS swinging away with Laban's sword (in a very limited way, of course).

[_antishock8]

I always thought highly of the Mormon Indigenous Leadership Foundation.

[_ludwigm]

... Rather, I'm arguing that FARMS' mainline scholarship has grown out of its apologetic work.

I think You are right.
People usually want to work on something real.

For example, builders of the Potemkin villages may have liked more to build any other houses than decors.

[_Daniel Peterson]

... Rather, I'm arguing that FARMS' mainline scholarship has grown out of its apologetic work.

I think You are right.

I guess it's just coincidence, then, that Professors Pike and Parry and Seely and Skinner have degrees in Hebrew biblical studies and Semitics, that I have a degree in Islamic philosophy, that Kristian Heal's doctorate is in Syriac patristics, and etc. Curiously, even though we earned doctorates in those fields, we weren't really interested in them until our postdoctoral sojourns in apologetics taught us to be interested in them.

[_harmony]

I guess it's just coincidence, then, that Professors Pike and Parry and Seely and Skinner have degrees in Hebrew biblical studies and Semitics, that I have a degree in Islamic philosophy, that Kristian Heal's doctorate is in Syriac patristics, and etc. Curiously, even though we earned doctorates in those fields, we weren't really interested in them until our postdoctoral sojourns in apologetics taught us to be interested in them.

Maybe y'all are just late bloomers.

[_Mercury]

Curiously, even though we earned doctorates in those fields, we weren't really interested in them until our postdoctoral sojourns in apologetics taught us to be interested in them.

Confirmation bias