FARMS wants you to beef of its apologetics...

[_charity]

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

The workable belief is the Joseph was a prophet of God. He wasn't perfect. He said that himself on numerous occasions. We don't have a full record of all God told him to do, and when. And those gaps have been filled in by anti-Mormons to paint him as a fraud and charlatan. But who do you believe? Someone who looks at an imperfect historic record or the people who knew him best? Brigham Young said Joseph was the most honest and moral man he knew. If you believe the anti-Mormon take on Brigham you would have to wonder why he didn't take an opportunity to tear Joseph down if he had one. That would elevate him above Joseph. And he never did that.

God has told us to preach the Gospel. We do that with the truth. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, he tried to do the Lord's will as he understood it. Maybe he wasn't perfect, but he lived his life according to a standard most people will never be required to live. He suffered above what most people will have to endure. And he gave his life for his beliefs. He died approved by God as his prophet.

The role of the apologist is to defend the prophet with the truth when faced with the lies and half truths of those opposed to him. Apologists don't have to "justify" his behavior.

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. ;-)

I haven't heard any apologists offering your argument.

[_Gadianton]

Absolutely. The funny thing is, the cat is out of the bag, clearly, yet the apologists just can't admit it. And honestly, what's there to admit? We'll see in a minute. But first, everyone should read the current FARMS introduction.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/about/introduction.php

FARMS was initially understaffed and underfunded, even undervalued....shoestring operation

In the 1990s, FARMS enjoyed rapid growth, fueled by donations that considerably increased its yearly operating budget.

On 10 September 1997, President Hinckley proposed that FARMS be invited into the university.

In extending the invitation, President Hinckley said: "FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university."

Can anyone interpret the bolded print as other than christening FARMS as an officially funded, professional, apologetics organization?

And Bushman himself says,

and the materials supplied by our apologetic institutions have not always met their needs.

If he's not refering to FARMS and Maxwell I., what is he refering to?

Anyhow, the reason why apologists don't want to admit it is for the same reason Mormons don't want to admit that the GA's are paid. They think they're the only "idealists" on the planet. How many money-making institutions began as a startup in someone's garage as a dream? A dream that had more invested in the product than the money. Oh, and how many successful organizations when recounting the "shoestring days" will admit that money had anything at all whatsoever to do with it?

As church members point fingers at ministers, apologists point their fingers at anti-Momons as money makers. Anti-Mormonism is a money-making industry, devoid of any principle. But it is unlikely to have began that way. And further, as Dr. Peterson should know, having spent a summer in Scotland with Milton Friedman, even within a money-making institution, the money paid must be evaluated in terms of opportunity-cost and the guiding hand of greed. We must assume, given the principles outlined in Friedman's book, "Capitalism and Freedom", that the salaries of anti-Mormons are fair, that if they were overpaid, if it were "easy money" then more anti-Mormons would step in and take their cut of the pie, lowering wages. Therefore, given anti-Mormonism is a competitive industry like any other industry, those who are successful within it are foregoing other industry opportunities they would also have been likely successful in.

To sum it up, FARMS as a shoestring operation was no more noble than anti-Mormon ministries which also began as shoestring operations, and FARMS is money-making in the same way established anti-Mormon ministries are.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

I hold to my view that if ANY other man did some of the things Joseph Smith did, no one in the church would be defending him.

I know several apologists who believe Joseph Smith, like other prophets, was not a great man but God chose him anyway. I observe a bit of a shift here actually. I think this is a more recent approach in managing the criticism of Joseph Smith.

If I were an apologists I think this approach is better than trying to justify some of Joseph Smith's less than decent behavior.

As I said, I do not care either way... I do not think Joseph Smith or anyone else was a prophet! :-)

~dancer~

[_Trevor]

Anyhow, the reason why apologists don't want to admit it is for the same reason Mormons don't want to admit that the GA's are paid. They think they're the only "idealists" on the planet. How many money-making institutions began as a startup in someone's garage as a dream? A dream that had more invested in the product than the money. Oh, and how many successful organizations when recounting the "shoestring days" will admit that money had anything at all whatsoever to do with it?

It is the LDS membership that is most uncomfortable with people being paid to do this stuff.

[_charity]

The funny thing is. .

The funny thing, Gadianton, is that you can't see the difference between research and apologetics. Research does not "argue a position." It presents data, and interpretations of data. Then if someone takes that data and says "this supports my position that. . . ." this is aplogetics.

Suppose a researcher looks at Egyptian language influences in the Book of Mormon, that is a scholarly endeavor. He isn't saying, "This proves the Book of Mormon to be true." Egyptian language influence is what it is. But if someone else, then takes that study and says, "see, the Book of Mormon is true because there are Egyptian language influences" that is not the work of a scholar.

Can you see the difference now?

As church members point fingers at ministers, apologists point their fingers at anti-Momons as money makers. Anti-Mormonism is a money-making industry, devoid of any principle.

The true situation of the Church is that there is a very large, unpaid, part time, volunteer lay ministry. Individuals are not expected nor required to devote their full time to their callings, and can therefore work to support themselves and to serve at the same time. There are a few, very few in comparison to the part time lay ministry, who are expected to devote most of their time to a Church calling. These individuals are given a stipend for their expenses, since they do not have the time to work for their own support.

The work of the Church is to preach the gospel, redeem the dead, and perfect the Saints. There is not a dime of Church money that goes to tearing down any other church, destroying anyone's faith. The work of anti-Mormon ministries does not build. It destroys. That makes its paid ministers paid to destroy. Pitiful.

Therefore, given anti-Mormonism is a competitive industry like any other industry, those who are successful within it are foregoing other industry opportunities they would also have been likely successful in.

And that matters how? Hey, a woman who is a successful street prostitute could probably have been a successful call girl. Wow.

To sum it up, FARMS as a shoestring operation was no more noble than anti-Mormon ministries which also began as shoestring operations, and FARMS is money-making in the same way established anti-Mormon ministries are.

And FARMS makes money how? It is supported by private donations, and some university funds, I guess. And FARMS makes money by what? Please tell me how that works?

[_Gadianton]

The funny thing, Gadianton, is that you can't see the difference between research and apologetics.

Yes I can, and so can Richard Bushman, which is why he refered to FARMS and MI as "Apologetic organizations".

Suppose a researcher looks at Egyptian language influences in the Book of Mormon, that is a scholarly endeavor

No, it's the work of an apologist. An astronomer who uses the position of the stars to explain the phases of his life is an astrologist.

The true situation of the Church is that there is a very large, unpaid, part time, volunteer lay ministry

.

As is true of most churches. The few that are paid, local ministers, aren't raking in the cash typically. And unlike Mormon Bishops, they usually had to forego time that could have been spent making money, in school, and so on. Believe it or not, other faiths are filled with people who are in it for reasons other than the money.

These individuals are given a stipend for their expenses, since they do not have the time to work for their own support.

Paul found time to support himself while establishing himself as the most famous apostle in the history of the world.

The work of the Church is to preach the gospel, redeem the dead, and perfect the Saints. There is not a dime of Church money that goes to tearing down any other church, destroying anyone's faith.

The Church has one of the biggest "tear down" budgets in the world, the missionary program. The missionaries exist to destroy other churches. If the church succeeded as it wished, all other faiths would be destroyed and every person would be a Mormon.

And that matters how? Hey, a woman who is a successful street prostitute could probably have been a successful call girl. Wow.

Not sure that's true, or most of them would be. But a successful, money-making anti-Mormon minister could have very likely made just as good a living or better as a sales rep.

And FARMS makes money how? It is supported by private donations, and some university funds, I guess. And FARMS makes money by what? Please tell me how that works?

Only if you can tell me, specifically, from all sources Bob Betts's salary is derived. Somehow 36k just got caughed up to pay apologists. don't matter where it came from, exactly.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

Hmmm I have really seen little of this other then to complain they make a living as full time LDS Critics. Is that incorrect.

Why not spend the time responding to their arguments if the LDS position is so strong.

Straw man my friend. You suppose time is not spent in arguing the LDS position.

I suggest that you read my posts responding to Spong's arguments.

I am not sure what that has to do with LDS things here. Yes your and Roger like to talk about Sponge. And that related to LDS things how?

Or I could direct you to many posts at ZLMB.

Why can't you bring things up here? Why the need to reference some other board?

[_charity]

Suppose a researcher looks at Egyptian language influences in the Book of Mormon, that is a scholarly endeavor

No, it's the work of an apologist. An astronomer who uses the position of the stars to explain the phases of his life is an astrologist.

That's what I said. Sheessh. If the astronomer charts the position of the stars and publishes that, he is an astronomer. Then if he takes that research, and applies it to the phases of life, then he becomes an astrologer. The reseracher who publishes Egyptian language influences is only an apologist when he publishes a paper that say this proves the Book of Mormon to be true.

As is true of most churches. The few that are paid, local ministers, aren't raking in the cash typically. And unlike Mormon Bishops, they usually had to forego time that could have been spent making money, in school, and so on. Believe it or not, other faiths are filled with people who are in it for reasons other than the money.

And bishops had to spend time in school for their jobs, too. Only the degrees etc weren't typically in religion, which only gives you a job paid for by churches. I don't think a degree from a divinity school is going to get you a job as a lawyer or doctor or management consultent, etc.

The work of the Church is to preach the gospel, redeem the dead, and perfect the Saints. There is not a dime of Church money that goes to tearing down any other church, destroying anyone's faith.

The Church has one of the biggest "tear down" budgets in the world, the missionary program. The missionaries exist to destroy other churches. If the church succeeded as it wished, all other faiths would be destroyed and every person would be a Mormon.

So let the anti-Mormon ministries preach and teach their own faith, gather people to their churches, get everyone to be a whatever-ite and then there wouldn't be any Mormons. But it is a different thing to preach "Don't be a Mormon" than it is to preach "Be A Methodist." Can you see that?

But a successful, money-making anti-Mormon minister could have very likely made just as good a living or better as a sales rep.

And you point is what? We should give a medal to a guy who could have been a really good used car salesman, but he decided to be an anti-Mormon instead?

And FARMS makes money how? It is supported by private donations, and some university funds, I guess. And FARMS makes money by what? Please tell me how that works?

Only if you can tell me, specifically, from all sources Bob Betts's salary is derived. Somehow 36k just got caughed up to pay apologists. don't matter where it came from, exactly.

Again, somebody was willing to pay Bob Betts to destroy. Someone was willing to pay the expenses of 36 other people to protect and defend. I see that as a huge difference.

But you still have not answered exaclty how FARMS or the MI is a "money-making" organization. What product is produced for purchase? Where are the profits distributed to?

[_Maxrep]

The workable belief is the Joseph was a prophet of God. He wasn't perfect. He said that himself on numerous occasions. .

I believe that I, as Joseph claimed, engaged in "The folly of youth". That did not include bringing a bank to its knees, usurping other mens wives, and being responsible for the destruction of a printing press, for starters. My friends and I used super-glue to fix coins to the floors at the mall in order to amuse ourselves as folks tried to pick up the change. That is folly!

I doubt there are a good percentage of our population that have engaged in same types of activities as Joseph, or at least activities that carried the same level of severity. Its not that his behavior was flawed at times, it was the gravity of his actions that are shocking.

[_richardMdBorn]

[I am not sure what that has to do with LDS things here. Yes your and Roger like to talk about Sponge. And that related to LDS things how?

I'm responding to his posts. Complain to him if you don't think it's relevant to the MB.

I see that I irritate you. I suggest that you follow my approach about LDS who irritated me on ZLMB. Why don't you ignore me. It'll probably make us both feel better. But I may solve your problem since GPS history is taking much of my free time and I may soon leave the MB for a while.