Is FARMS Making Money Off of the General Authorities?

[_Doctor Scratch]

That’s a great story. I had a good experience at FARMS for the most part, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he said that; he wasn’t the only one who felt that way, I’m sure.

I went back to the blog and read the article and comments. This quote needs to be addressed. Wouldn't surprise him if who said what? That BKP said FARMS was trying to make money off the GAs? What else could Dan be talking about? Why wouldn't Packer have been the "only one to feel that way?" If that's what's being addressed here. Was it a natural thing to feel, that FARMS was trying to make money off of the GAs? Would anyone who knows anything about FARMS suspect such a thing? What is it that we don't know?

I'm wondering much the same thing. DCP has told us that there is something of a division among the Brethren regarding apologetics. Some appear to like it---e.g., Dallin Oaks---where as others, such as BKP, seem to have a few problems with FARMS. Elder Packer probably dislikes FARMS's encroachment on issues of doctrine, such as the 2nd Hill Cumorah issue.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Topping for DCP.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've said all that needs to be said about this topic on the Martha Beck thread.

I'm not aware of any problems that President Packer has with the Maxwell Institute. Quite the contrary, in fact. He has had very positive things to say. And I know this directly, not from inferences -- let alone from rumors.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So your source is somebody reporting a comment allegedly somehow made by two anonymous FARMS "personnel" reporting a comment allegedly made by Elder Packer.

No, one of the people was Dan Ellsworth. But, yes: the other was anonymous. Is there anything about the account that is wrong? You said elsewhere that Elder Packer had indeed worried that FARMS was in it "for profit." This confirms the suspicions I had when I wrote up the FARMS Ziggurat thread: i.e., one of the main reasons you guys got swallowed up by BYU was so that the Brethren could keep a tighter leash on your finances and profits.

Because I would find your source's recollection of a comment about a comment somewhat less plausible, as it's phrased in your citation, if it refers to a period after, say, around the mid-1990s, when Elder Packer made the remark, in my hearing, to which I referred above.

As I said: I had wondered if this occurred when FARMS was being absorbed into BYU.

But, here, it sounds like you were at a meeting not only with BKP, but with GBH, reporting on apologetics and its finances and motives.

No, I was at a meeting with not only Elder Packer and President Hinckley but the entire First Presidency, about half of the Twelve, and etc. -- the BYU board of trustees -- about FARMS becoming affiliated with BYU. We were discussing the initial affiliation protocol, which needed board approval.

Why would Elder Packer have asked about FARMS' allegedly "for-profit" motives in a meeting about protocol?

I represented FARMS; then-BYU-president Rex Lee represented the University. The meeting was emphatically not about "apologetics and its finances and motives." If such a meeting has ever occurred on that level, I was not privy to it and have never heard of it.

If Elder Packer's remark was not about "apologetics and its finances and motives," then what was he talking about?

See: there is clearly something very vital here that pertains to the history of Mopologetics. Obviously, (some of) the Brethren felt threatened by FARMS in some way. Perhaps this was limited only to Elder Packer, who worried that you guys were just out to turn a profit.... Clearly, though, this shows us some of the divisions and rivalries that were in place during FARMS's absorption into BYU.

Just out of curiosity, what did you tell Pres. Packer to allay his fears?

[_Doctor Scratch]

By the way---re: the issue of the Brethren "directing" apologetics, you may want to have a look at this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9703

Early on, it seems, Elder Maxwell was ordering BYU profs to produce apologia. Were you among those who received this memo?

[_Dr. Shades]

Could the "making money off the GAs" comment refer to the funding that FARMS receives, not the books it publishes?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Could the "making money off the GAs" comment refer to the funding that FARMS receives, not the books it publishes?

I don't know. Given what DCP has said above, it sounds like Elder Packer (and perhaps other General Authorities) had begun to view FARMS as a "for-profit" business. My sense is that there was concern that FARMS had begun to encroach upon the GAs' territory, and that that's what Pres. Packer was referring to---i.e., that FARMS was doing the doctrinal-interpretation and defense work of the Brethren, and were turning a profit by doing so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Could the "making money off the GAs" comment refer to the funding that FARMS receives, not the books it publishes?

Not very likely, if it occurred at all.

No, one of the people was Dan Ellsworth. But, yes: the other was anonymous. Is there anything about the account that is wrong?

I have no idea. I wasn't there, don't know any of the people involved, haven't ever heard Elder Packer say anything of the kind, know for a fact that he's fine with the Maxwell Institute, etc.

You said elsewhere that Elder Packer had indeed worried that FARMS was in it "for profit."

No I didn't.

This confirms the suspicions I had when I wrote up the FARMS Ziggurat thread: i.e., one of the main reasons you guys got swallowed up by BYU was so that the Brethren could keep a tighter leash on your finances and profits.

LOL! No it doesn't.

You've raised the non-sequitur-based-on-a-misreading to an art form, Scratch.

Why would Elder Packer have asked about FARMS' allegedly "for-profit" motives in a meeting about protocol?

Sigh. The meeting wasn't about "protocol." It was about an affiliation document called a "protocol."

And it was a legitimate question. BYU is a non-profit organization. It's only fair to try to be sure that an organization affiliating with it is of a comparable type.

Obviously, (some of) the Brethren felt threatened by FARMS in some way.

"Obviously"???

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you actually believe it?

Just out of curiosity, what did you tell Pres. Packer to allay his fears?

I used the word No.

As I recall, that's the only word I used.

He understood it.

My sense is that there was concern that FARMS had begun to encroach upon the GAs' territory, and that that's what Pres. Packer was referring to---i.e., that FARMS was doing the doctrinal-interpretation and defense work of the Brethren, and were turning a profit by doing so.

?????????

Where's the evidence for this?

[_Doctor Scratch]

No, one of the people was Dan Ellsworth. But, yes: the other was anonymous. Is there anything about the account that is wrong?

I have no idea. I wasn't there, don't know any of the people involved, haven't ever heard Elder Packer say anything of the kind, know for a fact that he's fine with the Maxwell Institute, etc.

Well, you did admit that he questioned the "for-profit" motive during your meeting with the Brethren. This, coupled with the Ellsworth and the "anonymite"'s comment would seem to provide enough evidence that there was some concern about FARMS's motives and profits. While it may be true that Elder Packer is a-okay with FARMS now, it does seem that he was once worried about your intentions.

You said elsewhere that Elder Packer had indeed worried that FARMS was in it "for profit."

No I didn't.

How else are we supposed to read this?:

He briefly raised the issue (of a profit motive for FARMS, not quite your issue of our supposedly trying to profit off of General Authorities) with me several years ago and, when I responded, he turned to President Hinckley and said that he had absolutely no worries on that score regarding us. Nor has he ever mentioned the subject since. Quite the contrary. So far as I can tell, he has no concerns about us at the moment.

Now, this is weird. Why would he "turn to President Hinckley"? Was Pres. Hinckley actually the one "asking the question," even though he'd been silent?

Why would Elder Packer have asked about FARMS' allegedly "for-profit" motives in a meeting about protocol?

Sigh. The meeting wasn't about "protocol." It was about an affiliation document called a "protocol."

No need to split hairs. A document "called" a protocol would still outline actual "protocol," would it not?

And it was a legitimate question. BYU is a non-profit organization. It's only fair to try to be sure that an organization affiliating with it is of a comparable type.

Absolutely. And yet it seems odd that the Brethren would even ask. Why would they have any doubts about FARMS's "not-for-profit" motives, especially given the fact that certain General Authorities had been doling out apologetic writing assignments for years?

Just out of curiosity, what did you tell Pres. Packer to allay his fears?

I used the word No.

As I recall, that's the only word I used.

He understood it.

Right.... And then he turned to President Hinckley, as if to clarify. Do you think this action by BKP suggests that GBH didn't understand?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, you did admit that he questioned the "for-profit" motive during your meeting with the Brethren.

Here's how it went down:

President Hinckley (pretty much in these words): "Elder Packer, do you have any questions?"

Elder Packer (in precisely these words), smiling: "You're not going to be selling FARMS keychains, are you?"

DCP (in precisely this word), laughing: "No."

President Faust (pretty much in these words): "They're a non-profit organization."

Elder Packer (pretty much in these words): "Well, I don't have any problem with them."

This, coupled with the Ellsworth and the "anonymite"'s comment would seem to provide enough evidence that there was some concern about FARMS's motives and profits. While it may be true that Elder Packer is a-okay with FARMS now, it does seem that he was once worried about your intentions.

I saw nothing, really, to indicate that. Of course, I was only there, and you weren't, so you probably have more insight into the conversation than I do. My understanding is that President Packer really doesn't like commercialism within the Church. His question, to my naïve point of view, was related to that dislike more than to any specific worry about FARMS.

And yet it seems odd that the Brethren would even ask. Why would they have any doubts about FARMS's "not-for-profit" motives,

How did Elder Packer become "they" and "the Brethren"?

especially given the fact that certain General Authorities had been doling out apologetic writing assignments for years?

I've never heard of that.

Again, I bow to your superior understanding of the organizations with which I work (as I must to your superior understanding of my life, my finances, and etc.).