FARMS wants you to beef of its apologetics...

[_cksalmon]

What struck me was not really the money issue at all (although it would be interesting to know if the $3000 is over and above provided housing and a per diem for meals). I was more interested by the frank admission that the negative evidence needs to be better dealt with.

CKS

[_beastie]

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

So members who do not know that Joseph Smith used a peep stone in a hat to find buried treasures and then used that same stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, or do not know that Joseph Smith took other men's wives as his polygamous brides (and often the wives didn't leave their other husband), for two examples, are the equivalent of people too lazy or stupid to read the instructions on a shampoo bottle?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

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.

Wow how did you know. How is it that you people think I am stupid?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

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

So members who do not know that Joseph Smith used a peep stone in a hat to find buried treasures and then used that same stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, or do not know that Joseph Smith took other men's wives as his polygamous brides (and often the wives didn't leave their other husband), for two examples, are the equivalent of people too lazy or stupid to read the instructions on a shampoo bottle?

Do you think I do not know Joseph Smith was polygamous and that he was a glass looker? Do you not think that I know Joseph Smith looked for treasure and was into parchements and talismans?

Why would anyone need to read the instructions on a shampoo bottle? It is pretty obvious what you do.

[_beastie]

Do you think I do not know Joseph Smith was polygamous and that he was a glass looker? Do you not think that I know Joseph Smith looked for treasure and was into parchements and talismans?

Why would anyone need to read the instructions on a shampoo bottle? It is pretty obvious what you do.

I don't know what, in specific, you were referring to when you said you were shocked by what you were learning. I just picked two examples that most members don't know and are shocked to learn. I was defending you - and all other members who go to a place like MAD and are shocked and dismayed by what they are learning and then are told by people like gaze that they're stupid and lazy.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I was refering to students being paid as shocking. I don't find very much about Joseph Smith shocking. He was a dirty B******* for marrying all those woman and young girls by making them think they will only go to heaven by marrying him. No wonder people wanted to kill him. I would if I were a man and he defiled my wife or daughter like that.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

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

:-) Or maybe I am just getting less naïve as the years go by! (smile)

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.

You don't think, how the world and members view Joseph Smith might have something to do with preaching the gospel and perfecting the Saints? Not even a little? :-)

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.

I wrote earlier....

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.

Charity... I'm going with an apologetic idea here. It is apologists who have come up with this justification for the behavior of Joseph Smith, not me.

I personally do not care one way or the other. I'm not a believer.

I'm suggesting that the better apologetic argument is, rather than justify Joseph Smith's behavior, to just go with the idea that he was not that great of a man but neither were other Biblical prophets.

Again, this isn't MY belief, it is what I have heard from some apologists.

They are the ones making a judgment about Joseph Smith and other prophets... not me. ;-)

~dancer~

[_Mercury]

In fact, negative information can sometimes illuminate his cultural situation and mission.

It is this form of altruism I find disquieting.

[_Gadianton]

On a similar thread in a parallel universe, Bill Hamblin wrote:

I'm applying for an NEH academic seminar at Oxford for next summer. The stipend there is also around $3000 for five weeks. In other words the BYU stipend is precisely in line with standard academic policy. Any implications to the contrary simply demonstrate a fundamental unfamiliarity with academic seminars

It might be in line with standard academic policy, but not apologetic policy for which, as we are to understand, apologists aren't paid.

[_Trevor]

It might be in line with standard academic policy, but not apologetic policy for which, as we are to understand, apologists aren't paid.

Now that FARMS has been integrated into the university system, this is exactly the kind of shift one would expect. And, of course, the Church does pay apologists. Technically they are not paid to defend the LDS Church, but now that FARMS is part of the university, and a number of its defenders are professors, I would say that they (the professors who are also apologists) are indirectly paid to defend the LDS Church. What should we, for example, call John Gee, whose initial appointment was as a FARMS research professor? I would say that this is about as close as one can get to being a paid apologist without having the title of "staff apologist" or the like.