FARMS wants you to beef of its apologetics...

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Too bad that Professor Peterson disagrees with you. He has been arguing at length that *NO* study of the Book of Mormon can ever really be considered "scholarly," since it will always be "tainted," as it were, by questions of faith. Thus (I guess), following his logic, and yours, FARMS and such engages purely in "apologetics," and doesn't bother with "real" scholarship.

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.

The apologists---particularly those who publish in FARMS Review---are most definitely interested in destroying people's credibility and reputations. A very brief perusal of that journal will provide ample evidence for this.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I'd be interested to see where such a paper has ever been published---i.e., did it appear in a reputable scholarly journal? Or did it turn up in FARMS Reivew? Your qualification here, Charity, is pretty silly and extreme. If a researcher attempted to genuinely demonstrate that Egyptian influenced the Book of Mormon, and tried to publish his/her work in a reputable journal, he would became a laughingstock. Mopologists know this, which is why they are shy/embarrassed about presenting these sorts of things in an open forum. Instead, they hide behind the "stacked deck" peer review process at FARMS.

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.['/quote]

Is it worth pointing out that working-class men virtually never become GAs? Why, I think it is! Instead, Apostles are drawn from the LDS ranks of CEOs, surgeons, lawyers, and so forth. Certainly this belies the common TBM belief that money savvy is irrelevant to the Brethren---clearly that are at least partly "in it for the money".

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?

FARMS and the MI are "money-making" organizations insofar as the help soothe the doubts of the tithe-paying membership. If you cannot spin unpleasant facts about Mormonism and you continue to hemorrhage tithe-paying members, then you will lose money. So, perhaps it is better to view FARMS / MI as a kind of "financial bandaid," sort of like an emergency consultant who is called in to advise a company on money-saving tactics.

[_Jason Bourne]

[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.

I just, as noted elsewhere, have little tolerance for EV critics that throw stones at the LDS Church. I am convinced if you use the same techniques to look at your own faith you will reject it. I doubt many LDS Critics have given their own religion the same rigor and honesty. Perhaps you have. I have given my own faith a rigorous review. And while I have chosen not to reject it entirely I have modified my views in order not to do so. Others here have chosen different. I find it interesting that most LDS who leave because of criticisms and other issues DO NOT follow a conservative Christian path. They often reject religion entirely. Do you think that is maybe because, as I note above, that the same critical thinking that leads them to reject Mormonism also leads them to reject Christianity? Yep, and this is because, my friend, Christianity is rife with problems too.

Anyway, I do not want you to leave here but would hope you could add more substance rather then a few flippant remarks.

[_Pokatator]

Charity wrote:

I haven't heard any apologists offering your argument.

Perhaps FARMS, FAIR and Maxwell are not the "princiPAL" Mormon apologists
but are "among" the Mormon apologists.

[_Maxrep]

Charity wrote:

I haven't heard any apologists offering your argument.

Perhaps FARMS, FAIR and Maxwell are not the "princiPAL" Mormon apologists
but are "among" the Mormon apologists.

Thanks for a good laugh!

[_cksalmon]

I'm an LDS critic; I'll admit it.

And I'll also admit that I'm not being paid a single red coin to be such.

My net endowment for anti-Mormon activities is somewhere in the red, factoring in my book purchases and my ISP charges.

I don't make a bloody cent. And I don't expect to do so. I pay out for the privilege.

CKS

[_Mister Scratch]

Interestingly, DCP is over on MAD, attempting to distance himself and FARMS from this whole affair, perhaps due to the fact that Bushman "slipped up" and mentioned money:

Incidentally, I might note that the title for this thread is somewhat misleading. The topic of the seminars is of Richard Bushman's choosing. The Maxwell Institute (a.k.a., sort of, FARMS) is simply the institutional home in which the seminars are now housed (and in which they've been housed for a while now, since the dismantling of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and the move of most of its personnel up to the Church historical department in Salt Lake City; the Maxwell Institute handles some of the logistics and bookkeeping.

If there was a strategic Maxwell Institute discussion leading to the selection of Richard's topic, I wasn't privy to it. And I certainly would have been, had such a discussion occurred.

(emphasis added)

In other words, it is all Bushman's "fault." Here we see another sad instance of apologists willing to throw people under the bus. I wonder what title would be less "misleading"? "Richard Bushman Wants You to Beef up Apologetics"? Is apologetics, after all, not the principal activity of FARMS / MI?

[_Maxrep]

Is anyone else wondering why the prophet has not been in contact with the Lord in this matter? He's not just a "hood ornament" ya know.

[_Sethbag]

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.

I'm with CKS on this one. I don't really give a rat's tookus about the $3k the attendees will get for their attendance. What I find remarkable is that someone within the church finds a need to hire a dozen scholars to spend six weeks figuring out how to PR spin Joseph Smith's atrocious behaviors so that people can continue to believe in him as God's true Prophet on Earth.

They talk about reframing the issues. They talk about finding ways not to answer the specific questions, but rather to cast the whole discussion into a different and less damning light. They know that when people find out a lot of what Joseph Smith actually did, people have a really hard time justifying continued belief in him as a true prophet, so they're trying to change the nature of the discussion about Joseph Smith to short-circuit peoples' concerns and leave them continuing to believe. There's something unsavory about having to spin-doctor history and find ways of repackaging the facts around Mormonism's founder in order to avoid the destruction of so many peoples' belief in him as a prophet.

Whatever happened to "by their fruits shall ye know them?" Oh yeah, I know what happened. It turned into "You're problem is you require infallibility of God's prophets. They're just men, like everyone else, and make horrible, egregious mistakes and commit whoredoms, defraud people, invent scripture and call it the Revealed Word of God, have themselves annointed king of the world, and turn on and attack their friends if their friends disagree with them in anything, but they're still true Prophets! You just don't get it, like I do!"

[_Pokatator]

Is anyone else wondering why the prophet has not been in contact with the Lord in this matter? He's not just a "hood ornament" ya know.

Maxrep, You paid the laugh back!