FARMS wants you to beef of its apologetics...

[_The Dude]

The money all by itself is no big deal in my opinion.

If these guys were going to do original reasearch for several weeks then the money would seem fair. It's not corruption -- it's making a living. On the other hand, since all they are going to do is sit in comfy chairs and "reframe" difficult issues, maybe deciding which questions we ought to be asking instead of answering the difficult ones that cry out to be addressed, then I think the attendees will be overpaid. People should be able to do this in their free time. If they need six to eight weeks to come up with rhetorical salvation for their religion, then maybe something is wrong....

[_Trevor]

On the other hand, since all they are going to do is sit in comfy chairs and "reframe" difficult issues, maybe deciding which questions we ought to be asking instead of answering the difficult ones that cry out to be addressed, then I think the attendees will be overpaid. People should be able to do this in their free time. If they need six to eight weeks to come up with rhetorical salvation for their religion, then maybe something is wrong....

Oh, something is wrong alright. What they will be doing is sitting around for 6 weeks coming up with answers for the questions you should have asked a la Robert Millet. ;-)

[_Ray A]

Isn't that bribary? Geez how corrupt is this world? I am an active Mormon by the way and I am shocked and the stuff I am learning.

Check for more balanced criticisms. IE, not here. Bushman is a believer, and that's what many are forgetting. Motives make a world of difference.

Bushman:

Our aim is to persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith. In fact, negative information can sometimes illuminate his cultural situation and mission. (emphasis added)

The seminar will meet for six and a half weeks and require full-time participation. Participants will receive a $3000 stipend.

This appears to be a one-off, not a regular stipend, and it's in place to encourage more time to scholarship, not to buy a Rolls Royce.

[_charity]

I feel sick inside.

It brings up my many years of trying to make horrible things seem right. :-(

I like Bushman, I understand the approach, and I sense some desperation... still, it feels so unhealthy to think that the church hires its best scholars to try to figure out a way to make Joseph Smith's behavior, seem all fine and dandy... even holy.

It reminds me of abusive men trying to justify their sick abuse. Or a bunch of integrity-lacking lawyers trying to free a guilty criminal.

I totally get I do not understand the God of Mormonism, but it just seems to me that a prophet communing with Jesus Christ himself, creator of the whole earth, would be more help than a few LDS scholars. Or maybe the brethren who are prophets, seers, and revelators would have some sort of inspiration? Or maybe God would have created a plan where the restorer of the one and only true church upon the face of the earth was actually a great man (or woman... smile) who doesn't need LDS scholars to try to convince people that his horrific behavior was actually decent?

(sigh)

Personally, the only apologetic response that even remotely seems workable to believers, is to go with the facts, admit Joseph Smith's behavior was less that decent, and rationalize it away by reminding believers that the prophets of old were not very good men either.

God just doesn't usually pick good men as prophets... so be it.



~dancer~

dancer, you are too young to have become so cynical.

First of all--the prophet and the other leaders of the Church have been commanded by God to maintain the mission of God's organization on earth. It has a three fold misison--perfect the Saints, preach the Gospel, redeem the dead. Nothing in there is about apologetics. They can't be bothered with yapping dogs. So some brave individuals get down in the mud with this anti-Mormon activity.

We won't throw Joseph Smith to the wolves, as you suggest. You haven't a clue as to who he was. You think you know, but you don't. You beleive all kinds of lies and garbage about him. You haven't a clue as to what his relationship with God was or is. And you have no right to talk about what you don't know.

If you are Christian you know you are commanded not to judge.

Second, I know several good men who have been called to be prophet. Your assessment of prophets in general is not correct.

[_the road to hana]

You haven't a clue as to who he was. You think you know, but you don't. You beleive all kinds of lies and garbage about him. You haven't a clue as to what his relationship with God was or is. And you have no right to talk about what you don't know.

If you are Christian you know you are commanded not to judge.

This just begs to be somebody's signature line.

[_Trevor]

You haven't a clue as to who he was. You think you know, but you don't. You beleive all kinds of lies and garbage about him. You haven't a clue as to what his relationship with God was or is. And you have no right to talk about what you don't know.

If you are Christian you know you are commanded not to judge.

Yeah, dancer! Take that! You think that Joseph Smith was some guy who used a magic rock to dig for Captain Kidd's buried treasure, slept with other men's wives, acquired supreme power over his followers in the city of Nauvoo, and then had himself anointed king!!! How dare you believe all of those damnable lies?!?!?!

Oh, wait a second... oops!

Anyway, don't judge, lest ye be judged for all of your treasure digging, sleeping around... and don't forget your mad grab for supreme power.

[_Pokatator]

Charity wrote:

If you are Christian you know you are commanded not to judge.

Excuse me, didn't you just ...... judge?

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... Holy smokes, this is huge, CK. I am just blown away by a number of things in this. In one swift stroke, Bushman has dispelled a number of Mopologetic myths. I'm especially intrigued by Prof. Bushman's frank dismissal of the long-held legend that apologists aren't paid to do apologetics. (That $3,000 stipend sounds pretty nice. Do they throw in a per diem, I wonder?) I also find it interesting that he is saying outrightly that the purpose of apologetics is to prevent (as Elder Maxwell reportedly said to Steve Benson) the "critics from outflanking the Brethren." It also seems that he is admitting the main function of apologetics is "spin doctoring." Very, very intriguing, CK.

If I may ask, where did you come across this notice?

1 You think $3000 for full time over 6.5 weeks is a lot? If so and you have any business talent I have a job for you at that rate.

It sounds like "a lot" compared to what DCP has long claimed that professional LDS apologists receive. Now we have credible confirmation that they are paid to engage in apologetics.

2: It seems the Bushman really understands there are issues and that members that run into them are not always getting good answer and he also seems to understand that this is valid. He does not blame it on the member.

Which is to his credit. Bushman has also slammed the Mopologists for being overly rigid in their rhetoric. That is also to his credit.

3 Not sure where you get the idea about out flanking the brethren.

Check out Steve Benson's account of his meeting with Oaks and Maxwell. It's available for viewing over at RfM.

4: Why is defending the faith always spin for you but your avid and prolific attacks here are not?

Huh? Bushman himself said that the purpose of the seminar would be, in essence, to spin information on Joseph Smith so as to prevent members from getting upset.

[_richardMdBorn]

Wow... Holy smokes, this is huge, CK. I am just blown away by a number of things in this. In one swift stroke, Bushman has dispelled a number of Mopologetic myths. I'm especially intrigued by Prof. Bushman's frank dismissal of the long-held legend that apologists aren't paid to do apologetics. (That $3,000 stipend sounds pretty nice. Do they throw in a per diem, I wonder?) I also find it interesting that he is saying outrightly that the purpose of apologetics is to prevent (as Elder Maxwell reportedly said to Steve Benson) the "critics from outflanking the Brethren." It also seems that he is admitting the main function of apologetics is "spin doctoring." Very, very intriguing, CK.

If I may ask, where did you come across this notice?

1 You think $3000 for full time over 6.5 weeks is a lot? If so and you have any business talent I have a job for you at that rate.
2: It seems the Bushman really understands there are issues and that members that run into them are not always getting good answer and he also seems to understand that this is valid. He does not blame it on the member.
3 Not sure where you get the idea about out flanking the brethren.
4: Why is defending the faith always spin for you but your avid and prolific attacks here are not?

That's fine, but LDS apologists have wasted a lot of ink attacking the Tanners for receiving pay for their work. Perhaps if they concentrated on the arguments, they would do better.

Another drive by slam from one of our Evangelicals. Do you ever offer any substantive comments here Richard?

I note that you didn't respond to my argument made in my post. Should LDS apologists have spent so much time bitching about the modest amount of money the Tanners earned from apologetics? Why not spend the time responding to their arguments if the LDS position is so strong.

i suggest that you read my posts responding to Spong's arguments. Or I could direct you to many posts at ZLMB.

[_Gazelam]

I am an active Mormon by the way and I am shocked and the stuff I am learning.

I get the impression you learn alot by reading the instructions on the side of shampoo bottles as well.