Is FARMS Making Money Off of the General Authorities?

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

LOL! Wow, what a dodge. When it seemed for sure that Elder Packer had an issue with FARMS as a "money making" operation, *BOOM* the verbatim quotations magically appeared at your fingertips! Now, though, when asked for the context leading up to BKP's remarks, you suddenly can't remember. How convenient.

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.

Oh, come on. We both know that the Maxwell Institute would never have come into being without the Brethren.

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.

Yes, and wasn't Merrill Bateman engaged in talks with the Brethren?

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

That's correct. Nothing.

Elder Maxwell, after whom the Maxwell Institute is named---the same Elder Maxwell who had a long interest in apologetics, and who (at least once) ordered a cadre of BYU profs to produce apologia---had nothing to do with the coming-into-being of the Maxwell Institute?

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.

You are backpedaling in a real hurry here, Prof. P. You're forgetting that the GAs played a role in establishing that "protocol." Remember? And you said that Elder Maxwell "liked" the stuff you guys did. It seems to me that "liking" is, at the very least, a kind of tacit encouragement: "Yes, Prof. Hamblin. I really liked your treatment of Early Mormonism and the Magical World View. Keep up the good work."

Once again, let me reiterate that I'm not trying to nitpick here, or split hairs, or anything like that. As I said, my main objection is with the apparent equivocation concerning the General Authorities' involvement with Mopologetics. Based on the evidence, they are more involved than apologists have often admitted. Sorenson seems to have once conveniently "forgotten" that he was ordered to produce Book of Mormon apologia. So, Prof. P., while what you've said here is valuable and interesting, I think it's important to underscore the basic fact that we do not have the full story yet. If you don't want to admit the obvious---which is that the General Authorities have helped to shape the direction of apologetics---then that is your problem.

[_Daniel Peterson]

LOL! Wow, what a dodge. When it seemed for sure that Elder Packer had an issue with FARMS as a "money making" operation, *BOOM* the verbatim quotations magically appeared at your fingertips! Now, though, when asked for the context leading up to BKP's remarks, you suddenly can't remember. How convenient.

Since you believe me to be a habitual liar, why do you bother asking me questions?

Elder Packer had nothing else to say during the meeting. I gave you all of it. Nothing else was said that is relevant to this thread.

You have no actual right to demand the minutes of all of the meetings I attend. I have no obligation to furnish them to you.

Oh, come on. We both know that the Maxwell Institute would never have come into being without the Brethren.

We received their permission to name it after Elder Maxwell. That's it.

If you think I'm lying, why do you really care what I say?

Elder Maxwell, after whom the Maxwell Institute is named---the same Elder Maxwell who had a long interest in apologetics, and who (at least once) ordered a cadre of BYU profs to produce apologia---had nothing to do with the coming-into-being of the Maxwell Institute?

That's correct.

Among other things, he was dead.

You are backpedaling in a real hurry here, Prof. P. You're forgetting that the GAs played a role in establishing that "protocol." Remember?

They did? That's news to me.

The board of trustees of the University had to approve our affiliation agreement with the University. They didn't write it.

And you said that Elder Maxwell "liked" the stuff you guys did. It seems to me that "liking" is, at the very least, a kind of tacit encouragement:

That's very tacit.

"Yes, Prof. Hamblin. I really liked your treatment of Early Mormonism and the Magical World View. Keep up the good work."

To the best of my knowledge, Professor Hamblin has never been told anything of the sort by any General Authority. And I think I would know.

As I said, my main objection is with the apparent equivocation concerning the General Authorities' involvement with Mopologetics.

There is no equivocation. You're simply determined to disbelieve what I say.

That's your problem, not mine.

Based on the evidence, they are more involved than apologists have often admitted.

What "evidence"?

If you don't want to admit the obvious---which is that the General Authorities have helped to shape the direction of apologetics

I won't admit to falsehoods. No matter how insistent you are. No matter how desperately you crave validation for your theories.

[_Doctor Scratch]

LOL! Wow, what a dodge. When it seemed for sure that Elder Packer had an issue with FARMS as a "money making" operation, *BOOM* the verbatim quotations magically appeared at your fingertips! Now, though, when asked for the context leading up to BKP's remarks, you suddenly can't remember. How convenient.

Since you believe me to be a habitual liar, why do you bother asking me questions?

First of all, I don't believe you to be a "habitual liar"? (Where did I ever say that?) Try your feigned outrage somewhere else. Second:

Elder Packer had nothing else to say during the meeting. I gave you all of it. Nothing else was said that is relevant to this thread.

As you describe things, Elder Packer's quip comes out of nowhere. Why would he make a joke about FARMS's "for-profit" motives totally out of the blue? That just doesn't make sense.

Third: I don't think I drove home enough the important point that Dan Ellsworth and his comrade were/are both staunch FARMS supporters. Thus, it seems pretty odd to try and discredit their accounts of Elder Packer's remarks.

You have no actual right to demand the minutes of all of the meetings I attend. I have no obligation to furnish them to you.

???? I'm not "demanding" any minutes. Stay silent all you want, Prof. P. I'm merely pointing out that you've rather conveniently forgotten the context of Elder Packer's odd quip.

Oh, come on. We both know that the Maxwell Institute would never have come into being without the Brethren.

We received their permission to name it after Elder Maxwell. That's it.

Would you say it's fair to assume there is a good reason why they'd approve of it being named after Elder Maxwell as opposed to, say, Elder Hugh Brown?

If you think I'm lying, why do you really care what I say?

I don't think you're lying---where did I say that? A verbatim citation would be nice. No; I just think that you're not giving us all the details.

Elder Maxwell, after whom the Maxwell Institute is named---the same Elder Maxwell who had a long interest in apologetics, and who (at least once) ordered a cadre of BYU profs to produce apologia---had nothing to do with the coming-into-being of the Maxwell Institute?

That's correct.

Among other things, he was dead.

Right. And he had nothing to do with apologetics, with METI, with the Dead Sea Scrolls project---or anything else that he "liked"---prior to his death.

You are backpedaling in a real hurry here, Prof. P. You're forgetting that the GAs played a role in establishing that "protocol." Remember?

They did? That's news to me.

The board of trustees of the University had to approve our affiliation agreement with the University. They didn't write it.

Did they read it? Did they discuss its terms with you? These sorts of things are the exact opposite of nothing. Again: I don't think you're "lying." But is it really accurate to say that the Brethren's involvement amounts to "nothing"? I don't think so. I know how much you care about accuracy, so I think you'll gladly agree that amending your remarks is in order here.

And you said that Elder Maxwell "liked" the stuff you guys did. It seems to me that "liking" is, at the very least, a kind of tacit encouragement:

That's very tacit.

It's more than enough. So is citing your work in GA talks.

"Yes, Prof. Hamblin. I really liked your treatment of Early Mormonism and the Magical World View. Keep up the good work."

To the best of my knowledge, Professor Hamblin has never been told anything of the sort by any General Authority. And I think I would know.

Oh, I was just using Hamblin as a representative example. If this sort of thing had been said to *any* apologist, it would make the same basic point.

Based on the evidence, they are more involved than apologists have often admitted.

What "evidence"?

Packer's remarks; the "protocol" meeting; Elder Maxwell's memo; the naming of the MI; Elder Maxwell's "liking" of "Mormon-related" stuff; Elder Oaks's remarks to Steve Benson; the FARMS Ziggurat fiasco. Etc., etc., etc. All of this, I think, adds up to a lot more than "nothing," which is what's usually claimed re: GA involvement.

If you don't want to admit the obvious---which is that the General Authorities have helped to shape the direction of apologetics

I won't admit to falsehoods. No matter how insistent you are. No matter how desperately you crave validation for your theories.

Lol. The Elder Maxwell memo alone is enough to show how off base you are here. Or do you think that's a "faslehood," too? Why not just admit that the Brethren are "minimally involved" in apologetics? (Frankly, I think they've played a significant albeit hidden role, but I'll save that for another discussion.) Either way, it doesn't matter. Revise your comments or not; the facts speak for themselves.

[_rocket]

As I said, my main objection is with the apparent equivocation concerning the General Authorities' involvement with Mopologetics.

That's a naïve, sweeping statement.

No doubt some General Authorities read FARMS stuff; a smaller subset like what's put out. No doubt a small subset don't like what's put out. Also no doubt many don't read FARMS stuff.

I read FARMS. Some of the articles, including Michael S. Heiser's published criticism of Church writers' use of Psalm 82 and the FARMS response, is really an outstanding watershed in LDS exegesis.

Some of it is junk.

I am pretty sure the Brethren feel the same way. But to say they are "involved?" I mean, what does that mean? That some read it? That they tolerate FARMS? What does "involved" mean in the context of websites published by Jeff Lindsay? By Shields?

Again, your statement is just one-off naïvété.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As I said, my main objection is with the apparent equivocation concerning the General Authorities' involvement with Mopologetics.

That's a naïve, sweeping statement.

No doubt some General Authorities read FARMS stuff; a smaller subset like what's put out. No doubt a small subset don't like what's put out. Also no doubt many don't read FARMS stuff.

I read FARMS. Some of the articles, including Michael S. Heiser's published criticism of Church writers' use of Psalm 82 and the FARMS response, is really an outstanding watershed in LDS exegesis.

Some of it is junk.

I am pretty sure the Brethren feel the same way. But to say they are "involved?" I mean, what does that mean?

It means involved. That they influence, however subtly, the way that Mopologetics gets done.

That some read it?

No, that wouldn't cut it.

That they tolerate FARMS?

Obviously, they do "tolerate FARMS." But the involvement is clearly deeper than that.

What does "involved" mean in the context of websites published by Jeff Lindsay? By Shields?

Probably nothing. I doubt the Brethren have anything to do with them. I think that the Brethren are only concerned with FARMS apologetics. Perhaps they have people lower on the totem pole monitoring MAD and the like, but I think that the Twelve stick to FARMS, as per the evidence above.

[_rocket]

but I think that the Twelve stick to FARMS, as per the evidence above.

That wasn't your assertion.

Nonetheless I just don't see your final assertion as all that capable of being controverted. I've heard at least one of the Twelve say he appreciates FARMS's contribution.

[_harmony]

I'm trying to figure out why they wouldn't be involved in apologetics. Unless you think it's because they are supposed to be the leaders... in defending the church, as in everything else?

I'm surprised they don't make being an apologist a calling. I mean, they make nursery leader a calling; why not apologist?

[_Daniel Peterson]

As you describe things, Elder Packer's quip comes out of nowhere.

No it doesn't. President Hinckley was conducting the meeting. We went through the protocol agreement. President Hinckley then asked his counselors if they had any questions or comments. Thereafter, he asked the president of the Twelve, Elder Packer, whether he had any questions or comments.

I'm not sure why you seem to imagine that Elder Packer's question should have flowed organically from whatever President Faust had just said. In watching portions of the Sotomayor hearings today, I didn't notice any great continuity from Senator X to Senator Y.

I don't really see Elder Packer's question as a "quip" or a "joke." It was rather playfully phrased, but I think it was completely serious at its core. (Having been around him a bit in such settings, I've seen him make humorous comments on several occasions. But he's a deeply serious man.) He wanted to know whether we had any commercial intentions.

Why would he make a joke about FARMS's "for-profit" motives totally out of the blue? That just doesn't make sense.

It wasn't "totally out of the blue," and it makes perfectly good sense.

I've been told on reliable authority -- and my experience with him confirms it -- that President Packer is deeply offended by any attempt to commercialize the Gospel. That's where his question came from.

Third: I don't think I drove home enough the important point that Dan Ellsworth and his comrade were/are both staunch FARMS supporters. Thus, it seems pretty odd to try and discredit their accounts of Elder Packer's remarks.

I don't know, and don't much care, who they were and are. You're still putting much too much weight on your interpretation of somebody's comment about somebody else's reminiscence about something Elder Packer allegedly said. How confident, at so many removes, can anybody be of his precise wording? Yet the force of your point depends on the exact wording, as you present it.

Would you say it's fair to assume there is a good reason why they'd approve of it being named after Elder Maxwell as opposed to, say, Elder Hugh Brown?

I have no reason to believe that they would have opposed naming the Institute after Elder Brown, had we requested that name.

Right. And he had nothing to do with apologetics, with METI, with the Dead Sea Scrolls project---or anything else that he "liked"---prior to his death.

I've never said that he had nothing to do with apologetics, with METI, with the Dead Sea Scrolls project prior to his death. That's your straw man.

He was very interested in the METI project, and spoke at several METI events (in New York City and Washington DC, for example). His last public speech, I believe, was at the annual meeting of the President's Leadership Council at BYU, and focused to a large extent on his enthusiasm for METI.

He spoke at a FARMS annual banquet once, and at one or two symposia, and permitted us to publish a few things he'd written:

http://mi.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=163

He was always very interested in our work on the Dead Sea Scrolls and at the Vatican.

It was because of his long-demonstrated interest in our work -- and because several of us knew and, frankly, revered him -- that we thought his name appropriate for our Institute. We were delighted and more than a little surprised when the BYU board of trustees authorized us to make the name change.

The board of trustees of the University had to approve our affiliation agreement with the University. They didn't write it.

Did they read it? Did they discuss its terms with you?

Of course they did. They were the board of trustees of the University, which was about to acquire a multimillion dollar operation. They would have been remiss in their duties if they had failed to read the agreement and to discuss its terms with me and President Lee.

These sorts of things are the exact opposite of nothing.

This is simply ridiculous. The question has been whether the Brethren manage our apologetic work. The simple, straightforward answer -- which you find problematic only because you so badly crave it to be other than it is -- is No, they don't.

Why not just admit that the Brethren are "minimally involved" in apologetics?

Because it wouldn't be true. They weren't doing apologetics when they approved the affiliation of FARMS with BYU any more than they were playing baseball when they approved the construction of the new baseball diamonds at BYU, or any more than they were doing astronomy when they authorized the construction of BYU's West Mountain Observatory.

The Relief Society general president and the president of the Young Women were also on the board of trustees at the time, and present at that meeting. Do you want to claim that the Relief Society manages FARMS? That the Young Women organization of the Church is substantially involved in apologetics? Consistency seems to require that you do so.

It means involved. That they influence, however subtly, the way that Mopologetics gets done.

That's so vague a claim -- while sounding so portentous -- that it's essentially worthless.

Of course they influence Mormon apologetics in some way, just as, according to chaos theory, a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo may well cause tornadoes in California.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As you describe things, Elder Packer's quip comes out of nowhere.

No it doesn't. President Hinckley was conducting the meeting. We went through the protocol agreement. President Hinckley then asked his counselors if they had any questions or comments. Thereafter, he asked the president of the Twelve, Elder Packer, whether he had any questions or comments.

Yes, and see---what you are omitting here is whatever was said about the protocol agreement. I noted earlier that it seemed odd that you were able to recall, practically at the snap of your fingers, Elder Packer's remarks, but for whatever reason, you have thus far been unable to supply context for the remark.

I don't really see Elder Packer's question as a "quip" or a "joke." It was rather playfully phrased, but I think it was completely serious at its core. (Having been around him a bit in such settings, I've seen him make humorous comments on several occasions. But he's a deeply serious man.) He wanted to know whether we had any commercial intentions.

Yes, I agree. This is corroborated by the Ellsworth comment. There was something about FARMS that had raised Elder Packer's "using the Gospel for profit" antenna.

I've been told on reliable authority -- and my experience with him confirms it -- that President Packer is deeply offended by any attempt to commercialize the Gospel. That's where his question came from.

Yes. And all things considered, there was something about FARMS that worried Elder Packer in this regard.

Third: I don't think I drove home enough the important point that Dan Ellsworth and his comrade were/are both staunch FARMS supporters. Thus, it seems pretty odd to try and discredit their accounts of Elder Packer's remarks.

I don't know, and don't much care, who they were and are. You're still putting much too much weight on your interpretation of somebody's comment about somebody else's reminiscence about something Elder Packer allegedly said. How confident, at so many removes, can anybody be of his precise wording? Yet the force of your point depends on the exact wording, as you present it.

I don't think so. I think the main point in all of this is that the Brethren were concerned about FARMS's possible status as a moneymaking operation.

Would you say it's fair to assume there is a good reason why they'd approve of it being named after Elder Maxwell as opposed to, say, Elder Hugh Brown?

I have no reason to believe that they would have opposed naming the Institute after Elder Brown, had we requested that name.

But, obviously, Elder Maxwell was selected due to his devotion to apologetics.

It was because of his long-demonstrated interest in our work -- and because several of us knew and, frankly, revered him -- that we thought his name appropriate for our Institute. We were delighted and more than a little surprised when the BYU board of trustees authorized us to make the name change.

Yes---as I've said, Elder Maxwell had a profound affect and influence on apologetics. Where's the straw man in that?

These sorts of things are the exact opposite of nothing.

This is simply ridiculous. The question has been whether the Brethren manage our apologetic work.

I believe I said that they "oversee" or "influence" or that they are "involved" with apologetics. "Manage" is your word. I said very explicitly that I *do not* believe that they micro-manage apologetics.

The simple, straightforward answer -- which you find problematic only because you so badly crave it to be other than it is -- is No, they don't.

I don't "crave" anything other than the unvarnished truth.

Why not just admit that the Brethren are "minimally involved" in apologetics?

Because it wouldn't be true. They weren't doing apologetics when they approved the affiliation of FARMS with BYU any more than they were playing baseball when they approved the construction of the new baseball diamonds at BYU, or any more than they were doing astronomy when they authorized the construction of BYU's West Mountain Observatory.

A typically Petersonian silly analogy that actually has little or nothing to do with the point. What you are really saying is more along the lines of claiming that the commissioner of Major League Baseball had nothing to do with baseball when he approved the new expansion teams. Apologetics is far, far more important to the mission of the Church than baseball or astronomy. That's why your analogy is silly.

The Relief Society general president and the president of the Young Women were also on the board of trustees at the time, and present at that meeting. Do you want to claim that the Relief Society manages FARMS? That the Young Women organization of the Church is substantially involved in apologetics? Consistency seems to require that you do so.

No, not really. I'm sure that your department at BYU sometimes has committees that include members who don't necessarily have a huge stake in whatever is under consideration. Think of a history department: perhaps there is some discussion about funding research on, say, mesoAmerican history. Would we need to therefore claim that the historians of Russia and Europe will "manage" the mesoAmerican research? No.

It means involved. That they influence, however subtly, the way that Mopologetics gets done.

That's so vague a claim -- while sounding so portentous -- that it's essentially worthless.

Well, I'm sure that folks can decide for themselves which is the more reasonable position:

(A) That the leaders of the LDS Church, a rather controversial and authoritarian institution with a great deal of doctrinal and historical issues, play some kind of a role in the defense of the Church, or:
(B) That the leaders of the LDS Church have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with defending against attacks on the faith.

Of course they influence Mormon apologetics in some way, just as, according to chaos theory, a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo may well cause tornadoes in California.

Do you really think this is an accurate summary of the Brethren's influence on apologetics? You yourself said above that many of you "revered" Elder Maxwell and his devotion to defending the Church.... Also, I don't think that a butterfly ever issued a memo ordering up tornadoes in California. It seems to me that you're embracing an extremist's position here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You insist that the Brethren oversee Mormon apologetics. I say they don't.

You're speculating. I speak from direct personal knowledge.

You can continue with your nonsense if you like.

I just saw Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. Tonight, it's Bizet's Carmen.

Have fun.