Kishkumen wrote:As Bill Handskin continues his rage-fueled vendetta against the Maxwell Institute, he serves up one of the most amazing whoppers to date:
Bill Tromblin wrote:I'd be perfectly willing to let MI do whatever they want if they hadn't usurped millions of dollars in donations, university funding, land, resources, personnel, etc. to fund Jerry's pet vision. The problem isn't that MI doesn't do good things. It does. The problem is that Bradford and his Junta systematically set out to dismantle classic FARMS and usurp the endowment raised for classic FARMS, and divert it to do their pet projects.
I'm not showboating. I'm perfectly serious.
Wow. Just.... WOW!
I'm not a lawyer, but this statement "usurped millions of dollars in donations" by BH seems to be slanderous and perhaps actionable...
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Kishkumen wrote:One Mike Parker feels betrayed by the new institute. He confused his donation to Maxwell with his offerings to the Lord it seems:
I've been a FARMS subscriber for at least 20 years. I've never been wealthy and hence have never been able to donate any amount of substance to FARMS/NAMI. I wished I could have (at least until recently).
But I did contribute the minimum annual amount, plus enough to pay for a suscription to the Review. I did so largely because that journal filled a critical need. It has been the ideological successor to the writings of Parley Pratt, B.H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and other Latter-day Saint scholars who chose to defend our faith against its critics. There is nothing sordid in that endeavor; it has a long and respectful history.
So my annual contribution — which started, I believe, around $25 a year and was $65 or so when I renewed last spring — was dedicated to supporting an organization that did certain things of which I approved enough to open my wallet. I have been unemployed for over a year now, and that last contribution was particularly difficult for me, but I did it anyway. Consider it my widow's mite.
How convenient for this poster to just happen to register and show up now. This is his first post. Kinda strange....
He adds this in his 2nd post on MAD:
My larger point was one of direction of the Institute. I agree with the assertion others have made that it was A1, and now it's A2, but A2 is being funded by money that was raised from people who supported, believed in, and expected A1. I'm one of them, albeit in a small way.
"Betrayal" is a strong word, but that's, in essence, what's happened here. Lots of people ponied up for a vigorous defense of the Church, and instead they'll get something else (we know not what yet).
How convenient for this poster to just happen to register and show up now. This is his first post. Kinda strange....
Strange indeed.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
Is it me or does this seem like a grubby grab for tithes for "Interpreter"?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Mike Parker wrote: "Betrayal" is a strong word, but that's, in essence, what's happened here. Lots of people ponied up for a vigorous defense of the Church, and instead they'll get something else (we know not what yet).
Once you have paid your tithing the Church can do with it as it wishes.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
I noticed a comment that Hamblin made yesterday regarding the motives behind the BYU-FARMS merger in the 1990s.
Last June, Hamblin discussed the FARMS-BYU merger on his blog as follows:
[with]hy am I so vehemently opposed to Bradford’s dismissal of Dan and proposed change of direction for the Mormon Studies Review? Here we come to the crux of the problem. If the University does not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University?
I should explain that when the University first approached FARMS requesting that they join the University it was in the form of a hostile takeover. I was on the Board of FARMS at the time, and the Board initially voted unanimously to reject the proposal. Most of the Board members at the time were BYU faculty, and subsequently all sorts of pressure was exerted by the University to force the members of Board to accept the proposal. When, after months of negotiations the Board of FARMS finally agreed to the proposed takeover, I still voted against the merger and resigned from the Board in protest. I believed at the time–and it is clear that subsequent events have proved me correct–that such a merger would be bad for both FARMS and the University. I love BYU, and love teaching here. But if FARMS became part of the University it would begin to be perceived as part of the Church, and what it said would then be viewed as somehow “official.” This would've course lead to correlation. No one in the original FARMS group wanted to speak for the Church. We wanted to engage in standard academic discourse, writing books, articles and reviews. If we were right in our interpretations, great. If we were wrong in our interpretations, that would be our personal problem. It would have nothing to do with anything “official” for the Church.
The University at the time gave all sorts of assurances that they wanted FARMS to continue doing exactly what it was doing. And it was perfectly clear to the University what they were getting by absorbing FARMS: we were publishing scholarly books and articles on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures, and we were publishing responses to anti-Mormon claims–that is, apologetics. Dan had been publishing the Review for years when the University absorbed FARMS. It was perfectly obvious what the Review was all about. So I ask again: If the University did not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University? (I believe I actually know why they did it, and their motives had absolutely nothing to do with FARMS or its scholarship; but that is another story.)
Yesterday, in responding to a question about why FARMS was "invited to join the BYU umbrella," Hamblin replied: "Frankly, it was about a land grab and control of donations."
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
Hamblin wrote:So I ask again: If the University did not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University? (I believe I actually know why they did it, and their motives had absolutely nothing to do with FARMS or its scholarship; but that is another story.)
Yesterday, in responding to a question about why FARMS was "invited to join the BYU umbrella," Hamblin replied: "Frankly, it was about a land grab and control of donations."
That sounds plausible. FARMS was located right on the edge of campus, so it is completely understandable how bringing FARMS in might have benefited university expansion plans.
We must also consider the possibility, however, that the Church was concerned about where FARMS was headed. Would it exercise too much influence in the Church outside of priesthood control?
I can't help but think that President Hinckley's invitation to FARMS to join BYU involved a number of considerations.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist