Dr. Shades wrote:Mister Scratch (and/or anyone else):
By way of "gee whiz" trivia, John Tvedtnes is the same apologist who reviewed a portion of my website for the Review of Books.
You can read what he says about me, and my site, here.
Yes, I read that some time ago, and am very glad that you linked to it, Shades. A couple of things in the article caught my attention.
At this writing, the FARMS research department employs only five full-time people. Our function is to oversee research projects funded or sponsored by FARMS but conducted by people not employed by FARMS. Thus if a researcher needs a photocopy of an article, we obtain a copy of it. If he or she needs a book, we purchase it. On occasion, one or another of us actually writes an article that is published by FARMS, but we do it on our own time, outside of work hours. Thus, contrary to the assumption of many critics, we are not paid to do research to provide evidence for the Book of Mormon or to write reviews of books.
This is quite revealing. Tvedtnes's piece was written in 2000, and we know that FARMS has increased its scope and finances a great deal then, even being granted use of a professional "fundraiser." More interesting it his description of this peculiar "research department." Basically, this sounds like the "brain" that is controlling the various heads of the Mopologetic hydra. They assign projects, scour lists for books, track down and photocopy articles, and locate individuals sympathetic to the cause. I wonder: would it be fair to label this a kind of anti-Mormon intelligence-gathering operation? I.e., the "research department" exists to keep a tab on criticism of the Church, and then commissions people to write FARMS articles?
Also very odd is Tvedtne's insistence that the "research department" staff does not write articles during "work hours." What the? So, what are they getting paid to do, then? It seems to me like they have gone to great pains in order to avoid anyone being able to say that they are paid to "write" apologetics. Tvedtnes and other paid apologists can do everything *but* write. That way, they can continue to make the hypocritical argument that anti-Mormons are somehow "profiting" from criticism of the LDS Church.
Elsewhere in the article, Tvedtnes foolishly discloses more details about the inner workings of FARMS:
(emphasis added)Reading the Shades article, one gets the distinct impression of a concerted effort on the part of the FARMS Review of Books to obfuscate when reviewing anti-Mormon works. This again ignores the fact that the Review is not a thinking entity any more than FARMS itself is. Rather, it publishes reviews written by various individuals whose employment and geographical locations vary considerably. There is no official policy or edict from the editor (Daniel C. Peterson) that requires reviewers to take a particular view with regard to anti-Mormon writings. A disclaimer published at the beginning of each copy of the Review states that "the opinions expressed in these reviews are those of the reviewers. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Foun dation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, its editors, Brigham Young University, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the reviewers' employers." Having written several reviews, mostly of anti-Mormon publications, I can categorically state that the editor has never told me what I should write or what tone I should use. In most cases, he requested that I write the review, but in other instances I chose to do so.
It seems to me that DCP is, to a certain extent, "pulling the strings." He picks certain individuals who can be counted on to tow the party line. Tvedtnes tells us (humorously) that FARMS is "not a thinking entity," and yet it is clear that a certain degree of calculated selection is going on.
