Is FARMS Making Money Off of the General Authorities?

[_Doctor Scratch]

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."

Well, then, given the Ellsworth comments, my understanding of this is that there were at one time some serious concerns about FARMS's "for-profit" motives, but they were addressed and dissolved, and by the time of this meeting, Elder Packer was feeling light-hearted about all his old worries, hence his joke.

I saw nothing, really, to indicate that.

Given the numerous accounts of BKP's personality, I think it's safe to say that his joke here was self-deprecating in nature. Thus, the joke was meant to dissolve old tensions relating to his suspicions.

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

I've never heard of that.

Time to educate yourself:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9703

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, then, given the Ellsworth comments, my understanding of this is that there were at one time some serious concerns about FARMS's "for-profit" motives, but they were addressed and dissolved, and by the time of this meeting, Elder Packer was feeling light-hearted about all his old worries, hence his joke.

LOL. All this based on a bit of mind-reading based on a comment made by Elder Packer in a meeting from which you were absent, coupled with your interpretation of somebody else's reminiscence about a comment made by an anonymous person about a comment once possibly made by Elder Packer that is, otherwise, documented nowhere?

I saw nothing, really, to indicate that.

Given the numerous accounts of BKP's personality, I think it's safe to say that his joke here was self-deprecating in nature. Thus, the joke was meant to dissolve old tensions relating to his suspicions.

There is simply nothing more rigorous on this planet than amateur pop-psychology -- unless, perhaps, it's the amateur pop-psychological analysis of people you don't know based upon comments that you didn't hear in situations where you weren't present.

I've never heard of that.

Time to educate yourself:

Wow. Stunning. So the fact that, in 1984, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve proposed something for the Church's official magazine that actually materialized demonstrates that "certain General Authorities had been doling out apologetic writing assignments for years"?

It's dat ol' Scratch non sequitur again.


.

[_Doctor Scratch]

LOL. All this based on a bit of mind-reading based on a comment made by Elder Packer in a meeting from which you were absent, coupled with your interpretation of somebody else's reminiscence about a comment made by an anonymous person about a comment once possibly made by Elder Packer that is, otherwise, documented nowhere?

Are you saying that there was no GA concern whatsoever regarding FARMS's potential "for-profit" status?

Time to educate yourself:

Wow. Stunning. So the fact that, in 1984, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve proposed something for the Church's official magazine that actually materialized demonstrates that "certain General Authorities had been doling out apologetic writing assignments for years"?

Well, the project *was* apologetic in nature. Also: where in the memo did it state that Elder Maxwell wanted the article to appear in the Ensign? Did you read the memo?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I must say that I've always been dazzled by your capacity -- part of it's sheer diligence, of course, but there is also a certain undeniable if perverse talent involved -- to spin an entire demonology, along with a mythical pseudo-history, out of a very slight supply of largely misinterpreted facts and half-truths.

Are you saying that there was no GA concern whatsoever regarding FARMS's potential "for-profit" status?

If there was, I've seen no evidence for it.

Beyond, of course, your interpretation of somebody's reminiscence of an anonymous comment about an alleged remark from Elder Packer. Which is, I confess, pretty conclusive.

Well, the project *was* apologetic in nature.

Yes, that's true.

So this project, proposed by Elder Maxwell in 1984, demonstrates that "certain General Authorities had been doling out apologetic writing assignments for years"?

How, exactly, does it demonstrate that?

All Indians walk in single-file lines. At least, the one I saw did.

Also: where in the memo did it state that Elder Maxwell wanted the article to appear in the Ensign? Did you read the memo?

Your source mentions the Ensign, and cites the memo as mentioning the Ensign. Did you read your source?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Are you saying that there was no GA concern whatsoever regarding FARMS's potential "for-profit" status?

If there was, I've seen no evidence for it.

Beyond, of course, your interpretation of somebody's reminiscence of an anonymous comment about an alleged remark from Elder Packer. Which is, I confess, pretty conclusive.

Don't forget Elder Packer's seemingly self-deprecating remark in front of GBH. So, did BPK just ask that out of the blue?

Well, the project *was* apologetic in nature.

Yes, that's true.

So this project, proposed by Elder Maxwell in 1984, demonstrates that "certain General Authorities had been doling out apologetic writing assignments for years"?[/quote]

I'm not saying that this is the only piece of evidence. Simply that it's a very significant one.

Also: where in the memo did it state that Elder Maxwell wanted the article to appear in the Ensign? Did you read the memo?

Your source mentions the Ensign, and cites the memo as mentioning the Ensign. Did you read your source?

Gee, and you accuse me of non sequiturs? I see nothing that shows that Elder Maxwell wanted the work of the BYU profs to appear specifically in the Ensign. Do you? Or are you just assuming? The article mentions three distinct projects. I'm not sure why you would jump to the conclusion that Elder Maxwell had planned for all three of these projects to appear in the Ensign. The Joseph Smith articles, yes, but not necessarily the other two. Then again, the FROB wasn't up and running at this time, so he couldn't have ordered you guys to publish this stuff. Or could he? I mean, the anti-"cult" "monograph" could have been published under separate cover.... And, in fact, Offenders for a Word seems to fit the bill almost exactly. What a coincidence! Were you among those who got a copy of the memo, or was this before your time, I wonder?

In any event, the point remains that this General Authority was directing apologetic efforts. His oversight obviously continued into subsequent decades, hence the name, "Maxwell Institute."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Don't forget Elder Packer's seemingly self-deprecating remark in front of GBH. So, did BPK just ask that out of the blue?

I've already told you why he asked it, above.

And it didn't seem "self-deprecating" at all, to me. Of course, you weren't there, and I was, so I guess I'll have to take your word on that.

I see nothing that shows that Elder Maxwell wanted the work of the BYU profs to appear specifically in the Ensign. Do you? Or are you just assuming?

It's an extremely reasonable assumption to make. He wanted the one thing to appear in the Ensign, and the other thing that he mentioned in the same memo (which, since we don't have the memo, he may also have wanted to appear in the Ensign) appeared in the Ensign. Not a very big leap.

Then again, the FROB wasn't up and running at this time, so he couldn't have ordered you guys to publish this stuff.

The FARMS Review had been up and running for fully fifteen years by the time he died.

He never "ordered" us ( or even asked us) to publish anything.

Or could he? I mean, the anti-"cult" "monograph" could have been published under separate cover.... And, in fact, Offenders for a Word seems to fit the bill almost exactly. What a coincidence! Were you among those who got a copy of the memo, or was this before your time, I wonder?

Gosh, am I present at the creation of an entirely new conspiracy fantasy?

What a privilege!

I never received a copy of the memo. I was still in graduate school at the time.

But Offenders for a Word was written entirely on my own initiative, with no orders, requests, or feedback from any Church leader.

In any event, the point remains that this General Authority was directing apologetic efforts. His oversight obviously continued into subsequent decades, hence the name, "Maxwell Institute."

There was absolutely no such "oversight," from Elder Maxwell or any other General Authority.

He liked what we did -- including, very specifically, the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and our Mormon-related work, as well as our digitizing projects and our Dead Sea Scrolls database -- but he didn't "oversee" our work at all.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Don't forget Elder Packer's seemingly self-deprecating remark in front of GBH. So, did BPK just ask that out of the blue?

I've already told you why he asked it, above.

You said that GBH asked Packer if he had anything to say. That doesn't explain why BKP chose to ask that particular question.

And it didn't seem "self-deprecating" at all, to me. Of course, you weren't there, and I was, so I guess I'll have to take your word on that.

No need to get bent out of shape. I'm just curious about this. That's all.

I see nothing that shows that Elder Maxwell wanted the work of the BYU profs to appear specifically in the Ensign. Do you? Or are you just assuming?

It's an extremely reasonable assumption to make. He wanted the one thing to appear in the Ensign, and the other thing that he mentioned in the same memo (which, since we don't have the memo, he may also have wanted to appear in the Ensign) appeared in the Ensign.[/quote]

Okay. Fair enough. But this doesn't change the fact that he was ordering up apologia. Nor have you given any real reason why he would have stopped ordering up apologia. If anything, it seems far more likely that this is something he would have pursued, especially given the fact that the "Maxwell Institute"---which features apologetics as one of it primary reasons for being---came into existence some years later.

Not a very big leap.

Nor is it much of a leap to conclude that the Brethren were concerned with FARMS's money-making. The whole "Ziggurat" issue (which was discussed by the Tanners); the material from Ellsworth and his anonymous comrade; and your anecdote about Elder Packer.

Then again, the FROB wasn't up and running at this time, so he couldn't have ordered you guys to publish this stuff.

The FARMS Review had been up and running for fully fifteen years by the time he died.

I meant back during 1984.

He never "ordered" us ( or even asked us) to publish anything.

Well, let's bear in mind that his wording in the memo was rather vague and subtle, and that Sorenson pulled a Ronald Reagan and claimed "not to recall" the memo. Could something similar be occurring here? Mightn't you "not recall" some order from Elder Maxwell, or Elder Oaks, or any other of the Brethren?

But Offenders for a Word was written entirely on my own initiative, with no orders, requests, or feedback from any Church leader.

Maybe it was Stephen Ricks who was taking orders from the Brethren?

In any event, the point remains that this General Authority was directing apologetic efforts. His oversight obviously continued into subsequent decades, hence the name, "Maxwell Institute."

There was absolutely no such "oversight," from Elder Maxwell or any other General Authority.

The text of the memo very strongly suggests otherwise. Would you prefer that I say, "prompting"? I.e., Elder Maxwell "prompted" apologetic efforts? Would that be more accurate, in your view?

He liked what we did -- including, very specifically, the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and our Mormon-related work, as well as our digitizing projects and our Dead Sea Scrolls database -- but he didn't "oversee" our work at all.

Oh, I'm sure he did like your "Mormon-related work." In fact, it would surprise me if he helped to "prompt" some of the projects.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You said that GBH asked Packer if he had anything to say. That doesn't explain why BKP chose to ask that particular question.

I explained that, too.

But this doesn't change the fact that he was ordering up apologia.

In a memo in 1984. You've provided no evidence to indicate that this was his continual practice.

Nor have you given any real reason why he would have stopped ordering up apologia. If anything, it seems far more likely that this is something he would have pursued,

Except that, from my vantage point as an officer in FARMS -- by far the foremost apologetic organization in Mormondom -- from 1988 until his death in 2004, so far as I'm aware he never did.

especially given the fact that the "Maxwell Institute"---which features apologetics as one of it primary reasons for being---came into existence some years later.

After his death.

At our initiative, not that of the University or the Church.

the material from Ellsworth and his anonymous comrade; and your anecdote about Elder Packer.

Exceedingly slight stuff, as noted above.

Well, let's bear in mind that his wording in the memo was rather vague and subtle, and that Sorenson pulled a Ronald Reagan and claimed "not to recall" the memo. Could something similar be occurring here? Mightn't you "not recall" some order from Elder Maxwell, or Elder Oaks, or any other of the Brethren?

When your theory collides with the facts, the facts must be wrong. When witnesses don't corroborate crucial elements of your idea, the witnesses must be dissembling.

What a method.

But Offenders for a Word was written entirely on my own initiative, with no orders, requests, or feedback from any Church leader.

Maybe it was Stephen Ricks who was taking orders from the Brethren?

LOL. Nope. Offenders for a Word was written entirely on my own initiative.

The text of the memo very strongly suggests otherwise.

One memo, in 1984. Not a whole lot to deduce a long-term continuing effort from.

But if anybody's up to the task, you are.

Would you prefer that I say, "prompting"? I.e., Elder Maxwell "prompted" apologetic efforts? Would that be more accurate, in your view?

No. To the best of my knowledge, there was no such prompting.

Nor do I need such a hypothetical in order to explain the decisions that we made and the projects we undertook. I was involved in all of them. Ockham's Razor comes to mind here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You said that GBH asked Packer if he had anything to say. That doesn't explain why BKP chose to ask that particular question.

I explained that, too.

You said something to the effect that it was a "reasonable" thing to bring up. Well, I agree that it's "reasonable," but in the scenario you outlined, it seemed to come out of the blue. What was the conversation leading up to GBH's prompting of Packer?

But this doesn't change the fact that he was ordering up apologia.

In a memo in 1984. You've provided no evidence to indicate that this was his continual practice.

The fact that the Institute bears the name "Maxwell" is pretty solid evidence, if you ask me. What better way to "order up" apologia then to create an entire institute devoted to it?

Nor have you given any real reason why he would have stopped ordering up apologia. If anything, it seems far more likely that this is something he would have pursued,

Except that, from my vantage point as an officer in FARMS -- by far the foremost apologetic organization in Mormondom -- from 1988 until his death in 2004, so far as I'm aware he never did.

What role did he---or any other of the General Authorities---play in bringing FARMS under the aegis of BYU? Did he help persuade GBH to do it? Or do you not know?

especially given the fact that the "Maxwell Institute"---which features apologetics as one of it primary reasons for being---came into existence some years later.

After his death.

You're saying he had nothing to do with it?

Well, let's bear in mind that his wording in the memo was rather vague and subtle, and that Sorenson pulled a Ronald Reagan and claimed "not to recall" the memo. Could something similar be occurring here? Mightn't you "not recall" some order from Elder Maxwell, or Elder Oaks, or any other of the Brethren?

When your theory collides with the facts, the facts must be wrong. When witnesses don't corroborate crucial elements of your idea, the witnesses must be dissembling.

What are you talking about? The "facts" are that Soreonson said he didn't "recall" the memo....

LOL. Nope. Offenders for a Word was written entirely on my own initiative.

Well, then, I suppose it's just a happy coincidence that it happened to coincided exactly with Elder Maxwell's request for a "monograph." Such things have been known to happen.

The text of the memo very strongly suggests otherwise.

One memo, in 1984. Not a whole lot to deduce a long-term continuing effort from.

The memo suggests an ongoing effort, with multiple BYU professors recruited for the task. There is plenty of other evidence for this, too: the blessing of Richard Bushman prior to the writing of RSR (as well as the blessing Tom mentioned on that old "Are the Apologists Set Apart" thread); the comments made by Dallin Oaks to Steve Benson; the merging of FARMS and BYU, and then the rise of the Maxwell Institute.

I'm not going to sit here and claim that the Brethren were micromanaging FARMS or any other aspect of apologetics. I just take issue with the assertion that the Brethren played no role whatsoever in Mopologetics. Clearly, there was some concern among the General Authorities, and it seems that they wanted an effective "cadre" of apologists at the ready.

Nor do I need such a hypothetical in order to explain the decisions that we made and the projects we undertook. I was involved in all of them. Ockham's Razor comes to mind here.

So your primary motivation was....what?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What was the conversation leading up to GBH's prompting of Packer?

I don't have the minutes of the meeting at my fingertips, Scratch, and it's really none of your concern, anyway.

I've given you the relevant part of the meeting, which is more than you actually deserve.

The fact that the Institute bears the name "Maxwell" is pretty solid evidence, if you ask me. What better way to "order up" apologia then to create an entire institute devoted to it?

Neither Elder Maxwell in particular nor the Brethren in general created FARMS.

Neither Elder Maxwell in particular nor the Brethren in general created the Maxwell Institute. He was dead by then, anyway.

What role did he---or any other of the General Authorities---play in bringing FARMS under the aegis of BYU? Did he help persuade GBH to do it? Or do you not know?

So far as I'm aware, he played no role in that at all. Except, ultimately, to approve it. The impetus came from Merrill Bateman, who was president of BYU at the time.

You're saying he had nothing to do with it?

That's correct. Nothing.

Nor do I need such a hypothetical in order to explain the decisions that we made and the projects we undertook. I was involved in all of them. Ockham's Razor comes to mind here.

So your primary motivation was....what?

We made scores and scores of decisions and launched scores and scores of projects. I don't remember, and I'm certainly not going to provide you with, the details of the discussions that went into those matters over the years. But I can remember no case in which an "order" or a "prompting" or a "directive" or a "request" from one or more of the General Authorities was ever a factor.