DiscussMormonism.com

harmony wrote:

Arnold Friend wrote:just for what it's worth, i've seen the 1995 protocol. or at least I've seen parts of it.

Where were you, when you saw it?

What is the 1995 protocol?

TAK wrote:
What is the 1995 protocol?

Read the thread. The 1st page refers to it.

My memory's a little fuzzy but I do remember that it covered how people would get paid, division of labor, and things like that. What stands out in my mind is a prime directive and I remember it because it was specifically bolded and underlined. It was about making sure that there was always a clear division between farms and byu and the churhc in terms of money, bureaucracy and power and whatnot. i understood it to mean that the church didn't want there to be any connection back to what the apologists were doing. There was mention of antimormon ministries and how the Church didn't want farms to seem like a Mormon version of one of those. It also said that the brethren would have final say over everything that happened.

Some Schmo wrote:

Calculus Crusader wrote:
In other words, he would be another Some Schmo.

ROTFLMAO

Do you go out of your way to accuse others of the things you're most guilty? If you don't like the phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?" then you should quit screaming out for it. This description fits you more than anyone on this board (including Will).

OMG, that was funny.

People who laugh overly much (as you do) either are nervous or stupid. You meet both criteria.

Calculus Crusader wrote: People who laugh overly much (as you do) either are nervous or stupid. You meet both criteria.

LOL

Is that your clinical opinion?

LOL

Do you ever tire of making moronic crap up?

LOL

Yes, I'm sure you think there's such a thing as "laughing too much."

LOL

That attitude (in your case) likely comes from not being loved much in your life.

LOL

Perhaps if you were more loveable, people's laughter wouldn't offend you.

LOL

.d

Calculus Crusader wrote:People who laugh overly much (as you do) either are nervous or stupid. You meet both criteria.

People who dole out unsolicited, insulting psychological observations are pricks. Oops.

Arnold Friend wrote:My memory's a little fuzzy but I do remember that it covered how people would get paid, division of labor, and things like that. What stands out in my mind is a prime directive and I remember it because it was specifically bolded and underlined. It was about making sure that there was always a clear division between farms and byu and the churhc in terms of money, bureaucracy and power and whatnot. i understood it to mean that the church didn't want there to be any connection back to what the apologists were doing. There was mention of antimormon ministries and how the Church didn't want farms to seem like a Mormon version of one of those. It also said that the brethren would have final say over everything that happened.

So you know it exists. You saw it. And the Brethren wanted plausible deniability, which it appears they still have.

But the Brethren didn't want FARMS to seem like a Mormon version of an anti-Mormon ministry? Seems like someone wasn't/isn't paying attention to them.

harmony wrote:But the Brethren didn't want FARMS to seem like a Mormon version of an anti-Mormon ministry? Seems like someone wasn't/isn't paying attention to them.

Uh, I don't think their goal is specifically to discredit other faiths.

Trevor wrote:

harmony wrote:But the Brethren didn't want FARMS to seem like a Mormon version of an anti-Mormon ministry? Seems like someone wasn't/isn't paying attention to them.

Uh, I don't think their goal is specifically to discredit other faiths.

Perhaps not, although I was referring to tone rather than subject matter.