What the crap, FARMS??

[_why me]

A good reading comprehension course would have taught Ck how to gleam the meat from the text quickly and effectively.

What can I say? Farms is thorough in its research of anti-mormon books and rebuttals.

[_Inconceivable]

After reading the review for "In Sacred Loneliness", I almost figured they my not have read it. It was as if the man writing the review never opened the book but discussed various excerpts assigned and read by his colleges.

How can I explain this in a better way?

I recall a hilarious diddy Monty Python did about the funniest joke in the world. In order to take advantage of it's affects, the English carefully translated the joke into German and trudged through the forest reading it as the Nazi's died laughing. Translating the text into German was so deadly that only one word was given to a single linguist to keep them from going looney.

The review of "In Sacred Loneliness" gave me the impression that no-one at FARMS had a clue of the main idea.

Shoot my analogy full of holes, but it's like they just don't get it.

[_Sethbag]

I read the review of "In Sacred Loneliness" a couple of years ago. I too thought it was funny that they considered it so important in reviewing a book to actually reresearch it and come up with new, lower figures. It's like they thought they were accomplishing something in defense of Joseph Smith to start at, say, twelve married women being married again by Joseph Smith, and whittling it down to only eight. Or going from the 40s to the 30s, or 30s to the 20s, or whatever it was for overall marriages (starting to forget all the numbers, it's been a while). And the sex thing. They went to the greatest pains to eliminate whatever evidence they could for Joseph having actually had sex with these women, until in the end, if I recall, they would only admit to one of Joseph's already-married wives and him having sex. Oh, only one? What were thinking? Praise to the Man! As if Joseph having sex with just one married woman wasn't bad enough.

[_Inconceivable]

As if Joseph having sex with just one married woman wasn't bad enough.

Exactly!

Does it really take superpowers, a cape and a sidekick to figure this out??

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Apparently FARMS doesn't believe the old saying "brevity is the soul of wit." The best writers say a lot with few words. FARMS has mastered the art of using lots and lots of big words to say very little. But they're not alone. Politicians do it too.

[_harmony]

A good reading comprehension course would have taught Ck how to gleam the meat from the text quickly and effectively.

What can I say? Farms is thorough in its research of anti-mormon books and rebuttals.

Why would they publish anything but meat? Why would anyone have to glean the meat... why isn't it readily apparent?

[_Dr. Shades]

It's sort of funny how, thanks to the "raising the bar" program, Joseph Smith himself wouldn't be worthy enough to serve a mission.

[_harmony]

It's sort of funny how, thanks to the "raising the bar" program, Joseph Smith himself wouldn't be worthy enough to serve a mission.

Joseph would fail a simple TRI.

[_Inconceivable]

It's sort of funny how, thanks to the "raising the bar" program, Joseph Smith himself wouldn't be worthy enough to serve a mission.

Joseph would fail a simple TRI (temple recommend interview)

According to new church policies set in place these past few years, he would be prohibited to hold any leadership position connected with the youth programs of the Church for life. The legal term is either "Sexual misconduct" or "Attempted sexual misconduct with a minor" or in the broader sense, "crimes against children".

Can you imagine him as first counselor in the bishopric over the youth programs?? Scoutmaster? Bishop? 14-15 year old Sunday School teacher? Safe to say my teenage daughter would be much safer from him now than in the 1840's.

But of course, he would have to somehow qualify for baptism first. After hearing his confession, the bishop would be required by law to contact local law enforcement of his sexual activities with minors and even testify against him in court. No doubt he would be convicted and sentenced to hard time in the special prison annex that protects child molestors/preditors from the less wicked prisoners. The courts would classify him as incurable due to his testimony that he must practice or suffer death from an angel's flaming sword. If he were somehow a member, he would be immediately excommunicated following his sentencing as a convicted criminal. Upon release (at a very old age) he would be prohibited from carrying a firearm, required by law to register as a "Sex offender" for the rest of his life and be disqualified the opportunity to run for the office of the Presidency of the United States.

And yet the the YM/YW/primary lesson manuals revere him as someone wholesome enough to be emulated.

Did I leave anything out?

God, please make it stop.

[_Trevor]

A good reading comprehension course would have taught Ck how to gleam the meat from the text quickly and effectively.

What can I say? Farms is thorough in its research of anti-mormon books and rebuttals.

Why me, that is one of the worst posts I have seen you write. Do you identify so personally with comments about FARMS that you need to insult people when anyone offers a criticism of it?

I know what I can say. Not a few FARMS reviews are little more than overly-elaborate, arrogant, juvenile put-downs of the authors who wrote them. They are part of the tradition of polemical writing on religion, and offer little more than a schoolboy tit-for-tat dressed up in the doctoral robes of the professor. Then, there are some reviews that are well done.

Whenever the subject of FARMS reviews comes up I recommend that people read Dan Peterson's review of Brooke's Refiner's Fire and compare it to Jan Shipps' review of the same book. Both reviews are critical of the work, but Shipps does what an academic review should ideally do--pinpoint the real problems in the argument and educate the reader about the issue at hand, all the while showing no malice toward the book or its author.