Building the FARMS Ziggurat

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_TAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _TAK »

harmony wrote:
Arnold Friend wrote:just for what it's worth, i've seen the 1995 protocol. or at least I've seen parts of it.


Where were you, when you saw it?


What is the 1995 protocol?
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _harmony »

TAK wrote:
What is the 1995 protocol?


Read the thread. The 1st page refers to it.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Arnold Friend
_Emeritus
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:22 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Arnold Friend »

My memory's a little fuzzy but I do remember that it covered how people would get paid, division of labor, and things like that. What stands out in my mind is a prime directive and I remember it because it was specifically bolded and underlined. It was about making sure that there was always a clear division between farms and BYU and the churhc in terms of money, bureaucracy and power and whatnot. i understood it to mean that the church didn't want there to be any connection back to what the apologists were doing. There was mention of antimormon ministries and how the Church didn't want farms to seem like a Mormon version of one of those. It also said that the brethren would have final say over everything that happened.
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

Some Schmo wrote:
Calculus Crusader wrote:
In other words, he would be another Some Schmo.

ROTFLMAO

Do you go out of your way to accuse others of the things you're most guilty? If you don't like the phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?" then you should quit screaming out for it. This description fits you more than anyone on this board (including Will).

OMG, that was funny.


People who laugh overly much (as you do) either are nervous or stupid. You meet both criteria.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Some Schmo »

Calculus Crusader wrote: People who laugh overly much (as you do) either are nervous or stupid. You meet both criteria.

:lol:

LOL

Is that your clinical opinion?

LOL

Do you ever tire of making moronic crap up?

LOL

Yes, I'm sure you think there's such a thing as "laughing too much."

LOL

That attitude (in your case) likely comes from not being loved much in your life.

LOL

Perhaps if you were more loveable, people's laughter wouldn't offend you.

LOL

:lol:
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Gadianton »

.d
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Trevor »

Calculus Crusader wrote:People who laugh overly much (as you do) either are nervous or stupid. You meet both criteria.


People who dole out unsolicited, insulting psychological observations are pricks. Oops.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _harmony »

Arnold Friend wrote:My memory's a little fuzzy but I do remember that it covered how people would get paid, division of labor, and things like that. What stands out in my mind is a prime directive and I remember it because it was specifically bolded and underlined. It was about making sure that there was always a clear division between farms and BYU and the churhc in terms of money, bureaucracy and power and whatnot. i understood it to mean that the church didn't want there to be any connection back to what the apologists were doing. There was mention of antimormon ministries and how the Church didn't want farms to seem like a Mormon version of one of those. It also said that the brethren would have final say over everything that happened.


So you know it exists. You saw it. And the Brethren wanted plausible deniability, which it appears they still have.

But the Brethren didn't want FARMS to seem like a Mormon version of an anti-Mormon ministry? Seems like someone wasn't/isn't paying attention to them.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _Trevor »

harmony wrote:But the Brethren didn't want FARMS to seem like a Mormon version of an anti-Mormon ministry? Seems like someone wasn't/isn't paying attention to them.


Uh, I don't think their goal is specifically to discredit other faiths.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Post by _harmony »

Trevor wrote:
harmony wrote:But the Brethren didn't want FARMS to seem like a Mormon version of an anti-Mormon ministry? Seems like someone wasn't/isn't paying attention to them.


Uh, I don't think their goal is specifically to discredit other faiths.


Perhaps not, although I was referring to tone rather than subject matter.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Post Reply