Master Timeline of Mopologetics

[_Gadianton]

FAIR’s Mormon Defense League

ROFL! A League! It must be a huge organization! Isn't this the same as Wade Englund and his C-SAD "center"? LOL!

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... &view=next

[_Lemmie]

How did FARMS ensure the quality of its publications? How is this done today?

Welch: I was lucky to have served on the law review while I was at Duke law school. There I learned to source check every footnote and to require solid support for every claim. Moreover, publishing a law review is a highly collaborative effort. At FARMS we followed the same procedures: every footnote checked, every article reviewed by many people.

Wow. I recently read something from Quinn that puts this statement from Welch into an interesting perspective. The entire thing is fascinating and lays out Quinn’s proof exquisitely, but here’s an excerpt that makes Welch’s claim about “source check[ing]” and “solid support” quite unbelievable.

The following is footnote 108 from Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, 1998, pgs 499-504.

“As a graduate student at Brigham Young University in the late-1960s John W. Welch made the extraordinarily important discovery that there are many exam- ples in the Book of Mormon text of a complex pattern of poetic parallelism which also occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Known as chiasmus to modem scholars....

Despite all evidence to the contrary, in 1969 John W. Welch claimed that none of this information was available to Joseph Smith or even to other Americans during Smith s lifetime....

In support of his claim that this information about biblical parallelism was not available to Joseph Smith’s generation, Welch’s 1969 citation to Lowth was deceptive in two ways: (1) by not acknowledging that English-language editions were available since 1787, and (2) by citing Lowth’s 1829 Latin edition as if this were the first time the Anglican bishop published about the matter.

Welch knew differently because his master’s thesis (submitted early enough in 1970 to be read and approved by his graduate committee in April) cited Lowth’s 1815 Ameri- can edition in the English language...

As I told John W. Welch in a 1995 letter, I have always admired and praised his discovery of the ancient poetic technique of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

However, I believe that he has done a disservice to all Mormon believers by his decades of misrepresenting America’s pre-1830 knowledge of this biblical parallelism.

As stated in my text discussion, Hugh Nibley’s misstatements in 1975 occurred because of his lack of access to information that was not yet published or not easily available to him.

That was not the case with John W. Welch, whose publications for the LDS audience since 1969, in my opinion, have manifested an escalating, intentional concealment of pre-1830 American publications about chiasmus.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... -chiasmus/

[bolding added]

[_Tom]

FAIR’s Mormon Defense League was launched in August 2011 and quickly renamed MormonVoices:

https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/20 ... e-launched

https://www.deseret.com/2011/11/22/2023 ... bsite-name

In March 2018, MormonVoices became a fundraising federation made up of the Interpreter Foundation, FairMormon, and BOMC: https://mormonvoices.org/

It hasn’t been successful.

Tom:

I assume you're defining "success" in financial terms. How much, exactly, has this "federation" managed to drum up? You list Interpreter's fiscal expenditures each quarter, but are you really saying here that those figures *also* include the other two organizations?

Yes, it’s failed financially. I assume that Interpreter’s numbers are separate, but who knows.

Dr. Peterson, on Mormon Voices: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... rabia.html

[_Philo Sofee]

How did FARMS ensure the quality of its publications? How is this done today?

Welch: I was lucky to have served on the law review while I was at Duke law school. There I learned to source check every footnote and to require solid support for every claim. Moreover, publishing a law review is a highly collaborative effort. At FARMS we followed the same procedures: every footnote checked, every article reviewed by many people.

Wow. I recently read something from Quinn that puts this statement from Welch into an interesting perspective. The entire thing is fascinating and lays out Quinn’s proof exquisitely, but here’s an excerpt that makes Welch’s claim about “source check[ing]” and “solid support” quite unbelievable.

The following is footnote 108 from Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, 1998, pgs 499-504.

“As a graduate student at Brigham Young University in the late-1960s John W. Welch made the extraordinarily important discovery that there are many exam- ples in the Book of Mormon text of a complex pattern of poetic parallelism which also occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Known as chiasmus to modem scholars....

Despite all evidence to the contrary, in 1969 John W. Welch claimed that none of this information was available to Joseph Smith or even to other Americans during Smith s lifetime....

In support of his claim that this information about biblical parallelism was not available to Joseph Smith’s generation, Welch’s 1969 citation to Lowth was deceptive in two ways: (1) by not acknowledging that English-language editions were available since 1787, and (2) by citing Lowth’s 1829 Latin edition as if this were the first time the Anglican bishop published about the matter.

Welch knew differently because his master’s thesis (submitted early enough in 1970 to be read and approved by his graduate committee in April) cited Lowth’s 1815 Ameri- can edition in the English language...

As I told John W. Welch in a 1995 letter, I have always admired and praised his discovery of the ancient poetic technique of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

However, I believe that he has done a disservice to all Mormon believers by his decades of misrepresenting America’s pre-1830 knowledge of this biblical parallelism.

As stated in my text discussion, Hugh Nibley’s misstatements in 1975 occurred because of his lack of access to information that was not yet published or not easily available to him.

That was not the case with John W. Welch, whose publications for the LDS audience since 1969, in my opinion, have manifested an escalating, intentional concealment of pre-1830 American publications about chiasmus.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... -chiasmus/

[bolding added]

This is important enough I will repost my own post (self plagarizing - GRIN!) In 1981 Jack Welch, Founder of FARMS published his seminal research on chiasmus, Chiasmus in Antiquity, including scholarly works from Akkadian, biblical, Ugaritic, Aramaic contracts and letters, Talmudic-Aggadic narrative, ancient Greek and Latin literatures, and Old and New Testaments, from numerous worldly scholarship, not just Mormons, demonstrating with fundamental evidence that chiasmus was not only and specifically Hebrew, and was used by pagan and other peoples worldwide, for the most mundane purposes, who did not have prophet claims at their beck and call, nor particularly spiritual insights in their use. It was and has continued to be conveniently ignored by apologists (ironic isn't it?!) since it does literally nothing to bolster chiasmus as a supposed "evidence" of authenticity in the Book of Mormon. Everyone in myriads of nations anciently used the literary device. There is nothing particularly inspired from God about it.

New edit: The reason this is important is because it was a validating point to make it specifically and almost exclusively HEBREW which would support the Book of Mormon. Welch inadvertantly (?) undermined that in his text. And Mormon scholars KNEW thus but didn't say much about it until they were embarrassed into it when it was found even Dr Seuss used chiasmus!

[_MsJack]

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?t=18091

May 1st, 2011

[_Kishkumen]

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic.php?t=18091

May 1st, 2011

Thank you, MsJack!

[_Morley]

Are you including catalysts for the movement? If you are, I'd suggest that Reed Durham's 1974 speech "Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?" be included.

[_Kishkumen]

Are you including catalysts for the movement? If you are, I'd suggest that Reed Durham's 1974 speech "Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?" be included.

I am still weighing the possibility, Morley. For example, John Welch first published about chiasmus in BYU Studies in 1969. That is definitely an important part of the story of FARMS. Last year the 50th anniversary of chiasmus was celebrated. I kid you not. If that doesn't point to the importance of Welch's work on chiasmus to 20th and 21st century LDS apologetics, I don't know what does.

[_I have a question]

Will John Gee's various exploits (2 Inks etc) be featuring?

[_Kishkumen]

Will John Gee's various exploits (2 Inks etc) be featuring?

Yes! I welcome the help of volunteers in tracking down dates, links, etc.