the efficacy of FARMS/MI's apologetic work

[_Daniel Peterson]

As long as MI adheres to its mission statement, it does indeed start every study with the only acceptable conclusion. There is no room for debate, error, or tap dancing around that. The conclusion of every study must support the mission statement (#1 especially) or it doesn't get published... it quite likely doesn't even get started.

Not everyone is so stupid that we don't know smoke and mirrors when we see it, Daniel.

You're simply clueless, harmony, and don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

[_harmony]

As long as MI adheres to its mission statement, it does indeed start every study with the only acceptable conclusion. There is no room for debate, error, or tap dancing around that. The conclusion of every study must support the mission statement (#1 especially) or it doesn't get published... it quite likely doesn't even get started.

Not everyone is so stupid that we don't know smoke and mirrors when we see it, Daniel.

You're simply clueless, harmony, and don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Stop trying to get me to follow your red herring, Daniel. My cluelessness or the opposite has nothing to do with MI's mission statement.

What studies, related to #1 or #4, has MI published (or authorized) that didn]t ultimately support the mission statement?

[_Chap]

As long as MI adheres to its mission statement, it does indeed start every study with the only acceptable conclusion. There is no room for debate, error, or tap dancing around that. The conclusion of every study must support the mission statement (#1 especially) or it doesn't get published... it quite likely doesn't even get started.

Not everyone is so stupid that we don't know smoke and mirrors when we see it, Daniel.

You're simply clueless, harmony, and don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

You mean that despite the bit of its mission statement that says:

Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship

the MI would publish a piece of work of high quality scholarship that attacked the "Restoration"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What studies, related to #1 or #4, has MI published (or authorized) that didn]t ultimately support the mission statement?

That the studies published by the Maxwell Institute have, with few exceptions -- there have been a few; can you identify even one of them? -- proceeded from the assumption that Mormon claims are true doesn't demonstrate the reasoning of those studies to be circular.

Why?

The reason is pretty simple and straightforward, and I explained it in my introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 in 2006:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

Did you not find my explanation persuasive? If not, why not?

[_harmony]

What studies, related to #1 or #4, has MI published (or authorized) that didn]t ultimately support the mission statement?

That the studies published by the Maxwell Institute have, with few exceptions -- there have been a few; can you identify even one of them? -- proceeded from the assumption that Mormon claims are true doesn't demonstrate the reasoning of those studies to be circular.

Why?

The reason is pretty simple and straightforward, and I explained it in my introduction to FARMS Review 18/2 in 2006:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

Did you not find my explanation persuasive? If not, why not?

Good grief, Daniel. I thought you were wordy here, but that essay goes on and on and on for thousands of words when it could simply have said: we follow our mission statement, so the rest of you... go to hell.

[_EAllusion]

Providing reasons to distrust the credibility of an authority when one must examine its cases based in part or in whole on trust in that credibility is not ad hominem. If it were, it wouldn't be appropriate to point out potentially compromising biases in academic writing when it not only is appropriate, but ethically obligated. To take one small example, when I open up a new copy of Nature and read the papers in most cases I have nor the time nor the expertise to chase down an elaborate chain of footnotes to make sure they were used properly in support of an assertion. But in many cases, I don't need to, as there is a measure of reliability in what I'm reading. There are very few things I've seen out of FARMS where I wouldn't caution the reader to chase down sources if they could and ignore it entirely if they could not due to, among other things, highly suspect biases. That's not ad hominem either.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Cautioning against biases is entirely different from discounting something that one hasn't read, and implicitly suggesting that others not read it, because of, say, the employment or beliefs of its author, while nevertheless making dogmatic pronouncements on the quality of the item or on a subject substantively treated by the item.

That you find FARMS too biased to be worth taking seriously is not surprising. And it's only fair, I suppose, because that's rather my view of you, too.

Good grief, Daniel. I thought you were wordy here, but that essay goes on and on and on for thousands of words when it could simply have said: we follow our mission statement, so the rest of you... go to hell.

It deals with several issues, not just yours.

So don't read it. I don't care. That's your MO.

Goodbye.

[_harmony]

Good grief, Daniel. I thought you were wordy here, but that essay goes on and on and on for thousands of words when it could simply have said: we follow our mission statement, so the rest of you... go to hell.

It deals with several issues, not just yours.

So don't read it. I don't care. That's your MO.

Goodbye.

Actually, I read it. For the second or third time. I've read it a couple of times prior to today, too. Every time Scratch links it, I read it.

My opinion never changes. It goes on and on and on. You need an editor with a red pen, to slash all the unnecessary verbage. Being succinct is not your strong point.

And so long. Farewell. Good night. *waving*

[_Mister Scratch]

The FARMS/MI mission statement reads:

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship Mission Statement
The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to:
Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship
Provide critically edited, primary resources (ancient religious texts) to scholars and lay persons around the world
Build bridges of understanding and goodwill to Muslim scholars by providing superior editions of primary texts
Provide an anchor of faith in a sea of LDS Studies

link: http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/about/m ... tement.php

Point 1: Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship

By using scholarship, the MI (formerly known as FARMS) defends the restoration, which includes the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, etc.

Therefore it is accurate to say that any study undertaken by the MI will adhere to the mission statement, and by definition will support the Restoration. No study will be allowed to carry the MI name that does not support the Restoration. Therefore, a study that is in any aspect critical of the Book of Mormon, undermines the authorship of the Book of Mormon, or questions the method by which the Book of Mormon was created will not be undertaken or published by the MI.

And no, that's not poisoning the well, nor is it an attack on MI or any of MI's personnel. That is simply a fact, based on the mission statement.





.

You are absolutely right, Harmony, and I think that is one of the reasons why articles in the Review seem so often to be vitriolic and angry. Most of these authors are smart, well-educated people who know what they are doing is wrong. They know that they are, essentially, advocating a kind of very rigid ideological fascism, and that this runs contrary to everything they know about intellectual honesty and integrity. They know its wrong to start with a pre-determined conclusion, but they cannot stop themselves from doing it.

[_rcrocket]

ideological fascism,

That's right. Invoke Hitler.

I don't think you are qualified to comment upon debates in academia.