FARMS wants you to beef of its apologetics...

[_Trevor]

Joseph's alcohol drinking is well documented in the History of the Church. Some of his statements were edited out by B.H.Roberts. In volume 7 the record of Joseph's last days states that he called for wine, and stipulated it was not for the Sacrament, but to lift their spirits. William Clayton's writings mention all of this too. Quinn didn't reveal anything startling in this regard. Anyone who read the HC would realise this.

Problem is, people don't read this stuff.

[_Ray A]

Joseph's alcohol drinking is well documented in the History of the Church. Some of his statements were edited out by B.H.Roberts. In volume 7 the record of Joseph's last days states that he called for wine, and stipulated it was not for the Sacrament, but to lift their spirits. William Clayton's writings mention all of this too. Quinn didn't reveal anything startling in this regard. Anyone who read the HC would realise this.

Problem is, people don't read this stuff.

Scratch certainly doesn't, and I've said time and again this is one of his problems. He never quotes primary sources, and gets all of his information from secondary sources, then expresses surprise.

[_Mister Scratch]

Where are you getting this? The passage of mine you quoted was in response to your silly and unsupportable claim that the LDS Church and its various factions don't engage in "destructive" behavior. Clearly, that's not the case, as FARMS Review amply demonstrates. Part of the raison d'etre of FARMS is to smear, tarnish, and damage the reputation and credibility of Church critics.

Wrong again. Anyone who publishes anything, pro or anti-Mormon should expect their work to be reviewed.

Yes, and...? What are you getting at, Charity? Are you trying to justify the many smears and ad hominem attacks that grace every issue of FARMS Review?

Any person who publishes crticisms of anything can expect their bias to be explored. If they can't stand the heat, they don't belong on the kitchen.

In that case, the Mopologists ought to throw in the towel, since they are too embarrassed/afraid to submit there most controversial Book of Mormon theories to proper scrutiny.

You can't claim a king's X in the academic world. Isn't that what you do? Someone from FARMS puiblished something and you screech "BIAS." If you think it is justified in your case, why not when the person being questioned is on your side?

This barely makes any sense. I have commented/argued elsewhere that the peer review process at FARMS is tainted, it's true... But what are you getting at here? Are you asking why I don't cry "BIAS" at all of the publications that employ a normative, fair peer review process? Because if so, then I have just answered your question for you: I don't cry "BIAS" at pubs. that don't use a biased peer review. Sadly, FROB doesn't fit the bill in that regard, and thus its scholarship is tainted.

And there is no "scholarship" in anti-Mormon attacks on the Church. Show me an anti-Mormon attack in a scholarly, peer reviewed journal and I will eat crow.

This seems (not surprisingly) like a red herring/detour, but wouldn't you have to say that something along the lines of Michael Coe's work counts as "scholarly"? Or anything which publishes Meso American history which contradicts the Book of Mormon?

[_Mister Scratch]

Joseph's alcohol drinking is well documented in the History of the Church. Some of his statements were edited out by B.H.Roberts. In volume 7 the record of Joseph's last days states that he called for wine, and stipulated it was not for the Sacrament, but to lift their spirits. William Clayton's writings mention all of this too. Quinn didn't reveal anything startling in this regard. Anyone who read the HC would realise this.

Problem is, people don't read this stuff.

Scratch certainly doesn't, and I've said time and again this is one of his problems. He never quotes primary sources, and gets all of his information from secondary sources, then expresses surprise.

Nowhere did I say that I was "surprised". I merely said that it was one of my favorite entries in the Chronology. by the way: did you use "primary sources" when I issued my CFR to you on the other thread? No. You linked to a thread right here at MDB. Is your hypocrisy yet another bit of evidence that you engage in "flip-floppery"? Yes, I do believe it is.

[_Ray A]

by the way: did you use "primary sources" when I issued my CFR to you on the other thread? No. You linked to a thread right here at MDB. Is your hypocrisy yet another bit of evidence that you engage in "flip-floppery"? Yes, I do believe it is.

All of the sources quoted by Vogel are primary sources, and I read all of them in hardcopy long before that thread. I suppose I could use my scanner to copy the original sources, then upload it, and post it here. But you should have those sources at hand, in your library. I contend that you are almost illiterate about Mormon history in this regard. It is the same with LDS scripture. I think you have a very poor knowledge, and understanding, of LDS scripture, and seldom if ever use original sources, but prefer to quote commentaries by others.

[_John D the First]

Richard Bushman has been running these seminars for some time. They were first started to assist Dr. Bushman in writing his book. Graduate students were invited to research the environment of Joseph Smith with Richard Bushman for six weeks during the summer. Now that his book is completed, he invited Terryl Givens to run the seminars with him and has since run them on different topics. The summer before last was called “Dealing with the Joseph Smith Legacy” which dealt with Mormon thought during the Pioneer Era. I read some of the papers, which were interesting. One dealt with concepts of the Spirit World during this time, another with Mormon Ortho-praxis. This last summer focused on Mormon thought from 1890-1930, the Assimilation period. The topics of the papers dealt with such topics as Mormonism and Modernity, the Influence of Herbert Spencer on Mormon Thought, Memories of Plural Marriage Post Manifesto, Mormon discourse on the Chinese etc. These were academic pieces, not apologetics.

Last Summer, I asked Dr. Bushman what the Seminars would be on next year, he told me it would be on the “Contemporary Critics of Joseph Smith.” It sounded to me like it would be an interesting seminar. I am surprised that so much would be inferred from it by ex-Mormondom.

This is Dr. Bushman’s project. Farms will provide logistical support (such as cutting the checks with money that is provided by independent donors- no money comes from the church, farms or BYU) as it has done with every non-apologetic seminar previously. Bushman personally does the fundraising (All participants from last year were asked to write a page about their experience to share with the donors), comes up with the topics, and writes the announcements. In other words, it is a one man show (now perhaps a two man show with Dr. Givens participating). Drawing global conclusions from this Seminar about the relationship between the LDS church and its apologists is just plain silly.

The topic for the Seminar the next summer will be Orson Pratt and it will also be sponsored by Farms. Why are they doing a Seminar on Orson Pratt? Terryl Givens is writing a biography on Orson Pratt to be published by Oxford and he is using these Seminars in a similar way Dr. Bushman previously used them for Rough Stone Rolling. I hope this is helpful.

Best,

Jd1

[_Gadianton]

Richard Bushman has been running these seminars for some time. They were first started to assist Dr. Bushman in writing his book. Graduate students were invited to research the environment of Joseph Smith with Richard Bushman for six weeks during the summer. Now that his book is completed, he invited Terryl Givens to run the seminars with him and has since run them on different topics. The summer before last was called “Dealing with the Joseph Smith Legacy” which dealt with Mormon thought during the Pioneer Era. I read some of the papers, which were interesting. One dealt with concepts of the Spirit World during this time, another with Mormon Ortho-praxis. This last summer focused on Mormon thought from 1890-1930, the Assimilation period. The topics of the papers dealt with such topics as Mormonism and Modernity, the Influence of Herbert Spencer on Mormon Thought, Memories of Plural Marriage Post Manifesto, Mormon discourse on the Chinese etc. These were academic pieces, not apologetics.

Last Summer, I asked Dr. Bushman what the Seminars would be on next year, he told me it would be on the “Contemporary Critics of Joseph Smith.” It sounded to me like it would be an interesting seminar. I am surprised that so much would be inferred from it by ex-Mormondom.

This is Dr. Bushman’s project. Farms will provide logistical support (such as cutting the checks with money that is provided by independent donors- no money comes from the church, farms or BYU) as it has done with every non-apologetic seminar previously. Bushman personally does the fundraising (All participants from last year were asked to write a page about their experience to share with the donors), comes up with the topics, and writes the announcements. In other words, it is a one man show (now perhaps a two man show with Dr. Givens participating). Drawing global conclusions from this Seminar about the relationship between the LDS church and its apologists is just plain silly.

The topic for the Seminar the next summer will be Orson Pratt and it will also be sponsored by Farms. Why are they doing a Seminar on Orson Pratt? Terryl Givens is writing a biography on Orson Pratt to be published by Oxford and he is using these Seminars in a similar way Dr. Bushman previously used them for Rough Stone Rolling. I hope this is helpful.

Best,

Jd1

Well, J.D., Bushman didn't leave us much to infer. He outright told us. Of importance:

1) That the current interest is spin, Smith's character can't be salvaged any other way.
2) And this is sort of a "bonus", that FARMS and MI are apologetic organizations that pay money.

Oh, something I found entertaining about your post which is standard operation for apologists. Bushman's seminar is a one-man show, and does not express the views and opinions of either FARMS or the MI. FARMS and MI are institutions within an institution and do not express the opinions and views of BYU. And BYU is a university under the umbrella of the Church and does not in any way express the opinions and views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And the CoJCoLDS is fallible and subject to continuing revelation and does not express the views and opinions of God the Father and Jesus Christ at any given time.

So one has to wonder, if the project finds the right way to frame Smith's actions such that he once again might look like a godly man to the wavering Saints, who the F*** cares, since that position doesn't represent anything other than the opinion of a lone-wolf intellectual backed by nobody with a tangible connection to the Church, let alone Joseph Smith or God himself?

[_moksha]

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

Not fair. Academics don't just do it for just the money, it is the money and publication credits