Devastating Assessment of FARMS Legacy

[_Cicero]

At BYU they don't let the history department teach church history. The Religion department does. How Orwellian is that?

As the Mopologists have been saying of late, it's all about controlling the narrative. They would know!

Right, because they're more interested in truthiness than truth.

[_Philo Sofee]

Many religions think that working with possibility is all they need. What they are missing out dealing with is probability. That makes all the difference. If one uses only possibility, why then...... thinking that one all the way through, anything is possible, of course! But is it probable puts the brakes hard on that little unit of thought. What is the possibility is not nearly as strong as asking what is the probability. That is the game changer. Especially when one goes to the Bible with it. It has completely changed my entire outlook on an entire generation of thinking going on and it is stunning to now read things with probability in mind rather than possibility.

[_Uncle Dale]

...they're more interested in truthiness than truth.

A low-ranking RLDS leader once explained it to me this way:

"Dale -- suppose you are in a leaky boat with a dozen other
people, after an unexpected shipwreck -- lost at sea.

All aboard the little boat look to the first mate, who just
happened to have survived along with you few others.

He has no map, no radio, no gps system, little water, less food,
and can barely figure out the direction to the nearest land.

But he doesn't tell any of this to you survivors. He truly
believes that if he tells you falsehoods and demands that
you trust him, the whole bunch of you will have a
better chance at reaching salvation, than if you are told
the truth.

So he compels you to man the oars, and propel the boat
in the direction of the hoped-for distant shore..."


I found no comfort in that churchly justification.

UD

[_Philo Sofee]

IN-deed! I entirely understand that Uncle Dale. That is because it is obvious to any thinker that there is no comfort available in that.

[_moksha]

The name Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies does not suggest apologetics. Sounds like it got co-opted by those into polemical apologetics somewhere along the way. Perhaps this piracy was the first chapter in ending that phase of the FARMS legacy and beginning another. A new phase can be created and maybe all that's needed is attaching bolts to the neck of the 2nd FARMS and firing up the lightning bolts till it reanimates.

[_Spektical]

Re Chiasmus...

The "examples" of it in the Book of Mormon always struck me as odd because there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how they would divide up each line. Some would be really long, others just two or three words. They aren't neat like "the last shall be first and the first shall be last." It just seems like stretching to me.

[_ludwigm]

...they're more interested in truthiness than truth.

A low-ranking RLDS leader once explained it to me this way:

"Dale -- suppose you are in a leaky boat with a dozen other
people, after an unexpected shipwreck -- lost at sea.

All aboard the little boat look to the first mate, who just
happened to have survived along with you few others.

He has no map, no radio, no gps system, little water, less food,
and can barely figure out the direction to the nearest land.

But he doesn't tell any of this to you survivors. He truly
believes that if he tells you falsehoods and demands that
you trust him, the whole bunch of you will have a
better chance at reaching salvation, than if you are told
the truth.

So he compels you to man the oars, and propel the boat
in the direction of the hoped-for distant shore..."


I found no comfort in that churchly justification.

UD

...you trust him, the whole bunch of you will have a better chance at reaching salvation...

And he has a hint:



Wulff and Morgenthaler could have been more graphical... if they had been taught celestial marriage.

[_Hermes]

TT accurately captures my personal experience with FARMS. I arrived young at BYU as an acolyte. I worked with some of the people there. I left disillusioned, first with FARMS, then with LDS Mormonism. While I think it right that FARMS be held accountable for its shenanigans (by somebody), the irony of the COB sitting in silent judgment over it is not lost on me. FARMS is a convenient scapegoat: its apologists make mistakes, speak "as men" (i.e. as morons), and take some uncomfortable burdens of prophecy off the shoulders of those who wear the mantle of authority. Even though part of me feels vindicated in the collapse of the old FARMS, I am sad to see that the Brethren are still hiding their prophetic gifts under the bushel of a new battalion of human shields (FAIR, SHIELDS, etc.).

The "problem" of LDS apologetics will not be solved effectively until the Brethren either speak plainly for themselves (telling us precisely what they know about stuff like the age of the earth, the historicity of the scriptures, the personal appearance of Jesus, and so on) or grant us all (even rude nutters like some of the old guard at FARMS) the liberty to speculate without fear of an inquisition. Till then, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

[_Kishkumen]

TT accurately captures my personal experience with FARMS. I arrived young at BYU as an acolyte. I worked with some of the people there. I left disillusioned, first with FARMS, then with LDS Mormonism. While I think it right that FARMS be held accountable for its shenanigans (by somebody), the irony of the COB sitting in silent judgment over it is not lost on me. FARMS is a convenient scapegoat: its apologists make mistakes, speak "as men" (i.e. as morons), and take some uncomfortable burdens of prophecy off the shoulders of those who wear the mantle of authority. Even though part of me feels vindicated in the collapse of the old FARMS, I am sad to see that the Brethren are still hiding their prophetic gifts under the bushel of a new battalion of human shields (FAIR, SHIELDS, etc.).

The "problem" of LDS apologetics will not be solved effectively until the Brethren either speak plainly for themselves (telling us precisely what they know about stuff like the age of the earth, the historicity of the scriptures, the personal appearance of Jesus, and so on) or grant us all (even rude nutters like some of the old guard at FARMS) the liberty to speculate without fear of an inquisition. Till then, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

Welcome to MDB, Hermes-

I like your handle and the fact that you are one of those folks here qui latine scribere possunt.

Did you perhaps study Classics at BYU? A couple of other posters here did too. I and MsJack did. Welcome.

[_Chap]

.... timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

Welcome to MDB, Hermes-

I like your handle and the fact that you are one of those folks here qui latine scribere possunt.

Did you perhaps study Classics at BYU? A couple of other posters here did too. I and MsJack did. Welcome.

No chance that you could get together, go Hellenic, and rough out a few plain and precious fragments (recovered from the sands of Egypt) of Aristophanes' lost comedy 'The Apologists'?

Imagine the possibilities for the chorus ... And if you could get Schryver into it, how he would enjoy running round the stage whacking his opponents with his long floppy ... well, conventional comedic appendage.