The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,337 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"FARMS / NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
FARMS / NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE
Total Articles:
26
Recently renamed to "The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship", but well known as FARMS, or "Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies". FARMS / Maxwell Institute are funded by the LDS Church with an estimated budget of over $20 million dollars a year. The sole purpose of FARMS / Maxwell Institute is to contradict, counteract, suppress, withhold and dismiss any claims made by persons outside the LDS Church (read: Anti-Mormon). This is done by discrediting authors, creating answers to Mormon questions (such as horses in the Book of Mormon were really tapirs) and dismissing any Anti-Mormon claims in any way possible.
|
|
FARMS. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies FARMS is funded by the LDS Church with an estimated budget of over $20 million dollars a year.
FARMS is an apologetic organization secretly funded by the LDS Church. The LDS Corporation is careful to hide the cash flow into FARMS. If anything posted on FARMS suddenly becomes bad in the media spotlight, the LDS Corporation can simply deny it and no ties to FARMS will be found. BYU Professors who write for FARMS are not directly paid by the LDS Church, the LDS Church makes no attempt to stop them from working. It has been noted that some BYU Professors spend the entire day writing apologetic works (See Daniel C. Peterson).
FARMS exist to contradict, counteract, suppress, withhold and dismiss any claims made by persons outside the LDS Church (read: Anti-Mormon). FARMS does this by discrediting authors, creating answers to Mormon questions (such as horses in the Book of Mormon were really tapirs) and dismissing any Anti-Mormon claims in any way they can.
Mormons who are beginning to question the validity of the Mormon Church are often directed to FARMS. There they read material created by Mormon professors and scholars who write material in defense of Mormonism. Often the item in question by the member is not well known to the professors at FARMS or no real answer exists, therefore FARMS creates answers to satisfy the member, even if those answers are obviously bogus (see Daniel C. Peterson stating Book of Mormon horses were actually tapirs).
Material created by FARMS is only reviewed and accepted inside Mormonism. Outside of Mormonism the real academic world pays no attention to FARMS material. No material from inside of FARMS is ever peer reviewed outside of those who support Mormonism. Let me repeat that: Only Mormons inside FARMS network of believing members review FARMS material. FARMS always starts their material with the belief that Mormonism is true - therefore - the real academic world pays no attention to articles created by persons such as Daniel C. Peterson and the organization is ignored.
Recently a shift has been noted at FARMS. Due to the high amount of discussion concerning items such as the Book of Abraham or the actual location of the Hill Cumorah, FARMS has actually begun the process of changing LDS Church History and Doctrine to conform to the ideas created at FARMS. Because the LDS Corporation makes no effort to enforce dogma or cannonization, the members of the LDS Church begin to believe FARMS as a source of Mormon Dogma as compared to the messages of obedience that come out of the Prophet and his Apostles. A quick indication of this is the two and three Hill Cumorah theories.
April of 2008, Daniel C. Peterson - the highest paid member of FARMS published material stating that Joseph Smith used a "Seer Stone" in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon. This goes against 130 years of Mormon Church doctrine.
To sum it up fully, FARMS exists solely to convince Mormons that Mormonism is true.
| Egypt got the name "Egypt" from the Greeks who conquered Egypt. The capital of Egypt was Memphis which was the home of the Egyptian God Ptah. Memphis was called the "home of Ptah" by the Egyptians which in Egyptian came out something like "het k Ptah" which became, to the Greeks, "E gyp tos" or "Egyptus."
Now the name "Egyptus" was coined by the Greeks well after Egypt was established.
Now in the BOA it mentions that Egypt was founded by "Egyptus" who was the wife of Ham and the father of "Pharoah."
Obviously whoever wrote the BOA didn't know their stuff correctly.
The BOA, in facsimile #2, also mentions that one of the hieroglyphs was "called by the Egyptians Oliblish."
Nothing was called by the Egyptians "Oliblish" because the Egyptian language didn't have the "L" sound. For foreign names like "Cleopatra" (who was a Greek, one of the Ptolemys that ruled Egypt after Alexander the Great conquered it) they used a combination of "R" and "U" to get a gliding "R" sound.
It's as if Joseph Smith had written "called by the Japanese Oliblish." :)
From Bob McCue:
Important Dates:
1952: The Metropolitan Museum is telling people on a confidential basis that they have the Joseph Smith papyri (JSP). This is widely known.
1959-60: Hugh studies Egyptian language under Klaus Baer, Egyptologist, at UC Berkeley. He commenced his Egyptian studies some time earlier because of his interest in the JSP.
1962: Hugh is corresponding with Baer about the JSP and the fact that the Met has them.
Nov. 1962: Martha is born.
1965: Hugh has a "good" photograph of the JSP and is studying it.
1966: Hugh shows his photograph of the JSP to Baer.
1966: A U of Utah professor "discovers" the JSP at the Met and this is publicly announced as if no one had been aware of their location until then. The Met has been aware of the JSP existence since 1918 (at least) and bought them in 1947 knowing what they were.
Nov. 1967: The Mormon Church acquires the JSP.
1967 - 68: Alleged sexual abuse commences.
1968 - 1981: Hugh publishes and speaks extensively about the JSP, Abraham in Egypt, etc.
Late 1970: Alleged sexual abuse stops, just before Martha is baptized.
Notes:
Hugh's biography says that Phyllis (his wife) knew before Zina (their last child - Martha was second last) was born that she was to be their last.
Hugh told Martha just before she married that sex is only for procreation and counselled her to live in this fashion.
Did Hugh and his wife Phyllis stop having sex after Zina? If so, by the time the alleged abuse started Hugh and his wife had not had sex for over a year. The only other person I have ever personally heard state a strong belief that sex is only for procreation was my Institute instructor in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He was later convicted of sexually molesting some of the foster children for whom he and his wife cared. And we know about the track record of "celibate" catholic priests when it comes to living a life of sexual abstinence. This life style seems to be dysfunctional in the sense that it makes deviant sexual behaviour more likely.
Martha, at least two of her cousins, and apparently her mother, allege that Hugh was sexually abused as a child by his mother. This is known to cause post traumatic stress disorder, and to make it more likely that the abused child will become an abuser himself.
Hugh suffered more than the usual atrocities of war, certainly sufficient to cause post traumatic stress disorder. Those who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder are known to be more likely to experience dissociative episodes during which they do things that they cannot subsequently remember and sometimes engage in uncharacteristic, anti-social behaviours.
Hugh had at least one incident of extreme dissociative behaviour while Martha was a child in which he went into a daze, did not know who he was, and took a long time to return to "normal". Martha was told this was a stroke. She spoke with Hugh's doctors who said there was no evidence of the kind of brain damage that strokes cause. Martha's mother attributes this to God's healing power. Martha attributes it to an episode of post traumatic stress dissociation.
Hugh was physically violent with Martha. She says that her brothers and sisters told her that she falsely remembers Hugh's sexual abuse because he hit her so often. She cannot remember Hugh ever striking her.
Hugh had regular "5 o'clocks" (his families code term for this behaviour) during which we would awaken early (5 am roughly) and have a kind of panic attack, and would take days to return to normal.
When did Hugh get into the sexual aspect of the Joseph Smith papyri? He published "Abraham in Egypt" in 1981. Given how basic the identity of Min (fertility god who committed incest with mother and other family members) is to Egyptian mythology, I would think he had that worked out well before he received a photograph of the real papyri no later than 1965. And there is, of course, the same image (more or less) in the BofA version of the JSP. There are other sexual overtones in Facsimile No. 1 as well.
In Facsimile No. 7, JS interpreted Min to be God the Father, the same god who required of Abraham his sacrifice. Could Hugh have from that derived the form of sacrifice to which he is alleged to have subjected Martha? If Hugh was abused by his mother, as Martha and others allege, we should expect the incestuous "Bull of his mother" Min to be a particularly compelling and disburbing figure for him.
Martha described her reaction (she ran panicked from the room for reasons she did not understand at the time) to a Hugh lecture she attended in which he equated sex with death. If to Hugh sex was a form of death, then sexual intercourse would be a candidate for the kind of sacrifice Martha alleges he committed her to. Many aspects of Martha's behaviour during childhood and later in life are consistent with that of a person who was abused in a ritualistic context that involved sex and Egypt.
Hugh revered Abraham. I am not sure if the word "obsessed" is fair here, but it must be close. Not surprisingly for a person fixated on Abraham, the idea of sacrifice was central to Hugh's mindset. He was trying to live the United Order, to the extent possible. He turned down jobs that sacrificed both academic prestige and money for what he perceived to be the best interest of the Mormon Church. He spoke and wrote about the concept of sacrifice in many contexts.
Hugh was in a literalist phase of his belief at the time of the alleged abuse (see 1967 letter to McMurrin, intended for publication and so presumably prepared with care), and so believed that God would ask for extreme sacrifices to be made, such as that related to Abraham and Isaac, and that this request was more likely to be made of his special servants (as Hugh perceived himself to be) than of average people.
Hugh was immersed in Egyptology at the time of the alleged abuse. This was during what was likely one of the most intense phases of his apologetic effort re the Book of Abraham. The Church has just acquired the JSP, and the Mormon world was awaiting Hugh's response to the criticism that had been levelled against the BofA which the Church had deflected up to that point by saying that the documents did not exist so there was nothing to analyze.
It is fair to presume that the intellectual and psychological stress Hugh was under was at the high end of the scale during the period of alleged abuse. The convoluted nature of his response as it came out over the years regarding the BofA speaks eloquently of this. Non-Mormon academics who admire Hugh's abilities speak of his defence of the BofA as a black mark on an otherwise remarkable academic record.
Hugh believed that he was one of God's special, chosen servants who was singled our for special attention from Satan as well as from God. These two go hand in hand.
Hugh was intimately familiar with JS's God-mandated rule breaking in terms of widely accepted social and moral values. Therefore, he believed that moral laws were not absolutes, but for God to make and reshape as suited His purposes. The classic example of this was God's commandment to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. JS's sexual activities and lying about same are another.
As noted above, Hugh was also a literalist. If he believed God commanded it, it did not matter what it was, he would do it. Interestingly, this is precisely the mentality that led to the fundamentalist Mormon murders in the Lafferty case. A woman was not sufficiently faithful to the FLDS cause, and God "revealed" to her FLDS brothers-in-law that she should be killed. Interestingly, one of Hugh's daughters dated Alan Lafferty, the man to whom the murdered woman was married at the time she was killed. This same literalist mentality is responsible for 9/11, much of the horror in the Middle East and countless other atrocities. Hugh's letter to McMurrin, which was intended for publication, clearly puts him in this camp at the relevant time.
As Hugh got into the study of Egyptian mythology, he would have been working with the idea that JS (who he revered as God's prophet) equated literally or metaphorically Egyptian fertility Gods (such as Min) and what they did and stood for with Mormon authority sources such as God the Father and Abraham. If this were combined with the biological pressure of not having sex and his literalist bent, it would be easy to imagine Hugh having a dream or other strong impression in which he felt that God commanded him to sacrifice his child, Martha, in a manner that evoked the traditional Abrahamic sacrifice with the Egyptian lore he had absorbed, and integrated them in the manner that JS's "translation" of the JSP indicated had occurred in JS' mind. That does not mean JS knew who Min was. It means that God (who knew who Min was) used Min to inspire JS.
Remember Hugh's best defence of JS re. the BofA - that the images in the JSP had triggered the flow of inspiration regarding Abraham, even though the BofA is in no way a "translation" of the JSP. This suggests a deep connection between the Egyptian symbolism and the Abrahamic story. A literalist mind with the power of Hugh's should be expected to have wrestled mightily with something like this.
Given the nature of Hugh's likely post traumatic stress disorder, it would not be surprising that if an idea of the bizarre type just described (commit incest with his daughter Martha a God's command) took root in his mind, that he would go into a dissociative state.
Hugh, whether in a dissociative state or not, may have gone to Martha with the very kind of trepidation he believed Abraham had in similar circumstances. Except in Abraham's case, the metaphor included a ram in thicket. In Hugh's reality, no such out was existed because he was in a real room with a real, terrified little girl instead of in a story or dream where things are malleable. And so Martha may well have been literally sacrificed to Hugh's perception of God, which arose from a combination of his harsh prior experiences (maybe sexual abuse at his mother's hand, and certainly the terror of war) and his feverish attempt to defend what cannot be credibly defended - that JS was acting on inspiration from God when he used the JSP to concoct the BofA.
| Perhaps this is just me but I think FARMS likes to interchange their logic depending upon their need. I believe the technical term for this is being "wishy-washy." Have they heard anything about getting their stories straight? Perhaps some Correlation is in order.
I recently read two separate arguments at FARMS. I would guess they were written by different people. One was about the lack of evidence of Elephants in the new world even though they are mentioned in the BOM. This is answered by saying there is evidence of mammoths and mastodons but Joseph used the word "elephant" because he wasn't familiar with the words "mammoth" and "mastodon."
The second argument was about Jaredite barge windows being "dashed in pieces" which would be anachronistic since glass was not invented until the Middle Ages. This argument is answered saying the origin of the word window means an opening through which wind could enter. So apparently Joseph wouldn't have used the word window as he was familiar in this case. I hope the Smith farm homes didn't have too many openings through which wind could enter during any cold times of the year. By the way, the argument goes on to say Ether 2:23 means the barges would be dashed in pieces if there were openings. DUH! The same chapter describes how there are openings at the top and the bottom of the boat for air and to see. I re-read that whole chapter today and came to the conclusion that the Lord is a horrible marine architect. The brother of Jared came back with many issues that the Lord should have included in his original design plan to the brother of Jared.
Okay. I'm ready for the lightning to strike me now.
Credits: Argar Largar
| From FARMS:
"Of course none of the Kolob stuff can be made much sense of, since it's completely out of whack vis-a-vis modern cosmology. Nevertheless, there is an apologetic solution, which is roughly as follows: Abraham was about to go into Egypt, and since the Egyptians all worshipped the sun (i.e., the sun was the highest principle, highest god, whatever) Abraham needed to be able to teach them the true gospel. So, as the apologetic story goes, God revealed to Abraham this "Kolobian" astronomy so that Abraham could teach it to the Egyptians who, for their part, would come to understand that there is indeed a higher principle (god) than the sun and would, as result of this new understanding, be open to hearing the real and true gospel of Jesus. -- I regard this as a somewhat ingenious solution to the nasty Book of Abraham problem, but only to part of it. And of course it raises all kinds of interesting questions. But it is ingenious is some way, no?--not to say convincing. It's main problem is that, like all such arguments, it supposes that the real truth of the "restoration" was not understood by the founder himself. That is, just like JS didn't really understand that the BOM wasn't about North American Indians, he also didn't understand that the Kolobian cosmology was one among a number of cosmological paradigms; right alongside Kepler, Copernicus and Newton stands none other than the patriarch Abraham."
Thank you Daniel Petersen of Farms.
| I spent a lot of time reading over FARMS writings in the past few weeks. Something obvious came to me and I can't believe I didn't realize it before.
The purpose of FARMS is not to provide scholarly research or information. Their purpose is to drawn attention away from the real scholarly research.
It usually begins with some ad hominem against the author and planting biased doubts either directly or by association. This begins the implication that they don't have to address everything because they have discredited the source. This is ususally follows with a statement to that effect and why they are only going to address a few points against the author. Then comes the easy rhetoric about failed assumptions, faulty logic(in the eyes of believers), and a few apologetic arguments. Then comes the conclusion again with the character implications, perceived weaknesses, and generalizing that the rest of the arguements would be dismissed as easily.
This works well enough to keep the typical TBM confident that there are answers to the issues.
Let's compare F.A.R.M.S. arguments with the arguments of a Lawyer stuck defending a guilty client.
(1) Attack the credibility and character of witnesses against the client. Try to give the jury reason to find the prosecution witnesses unlikable. Try to play up any possible bias against the defendent on the part of the witnesses.
(2) Try to create a theoretically-possible, though highly improbable, scenario to explain away the evidence. This goes to creating "reasonable doubt." Where there is no room even for "reasonable doubt" try to elevate "unreasonable doubt" to the status of "reasonable" in the minds of the jurors.
(3) Avoid spending time actually dealing with the solid evidence against your client but find some weak piece of evidence that has been presented and pound against with the hidden implication that this is representative of the prosecution's case.
There's an old saying among lawyers: "When the law is against you pound the facts; when the facts are against you pound the law; when both the law and the facts are against you pound the table."
FARMS pounds the table.
| Many of us on here went through a period where we struggled to make sense of what appeared to be barely sensible, or fantastically nonsensical, or even disingenuous, defense arguments drawn up by FARMS and others. This has left many of us with strong feelings of disdain toward apologetic writers (I know all about this firsthand!).
I'm wondering, though, if the wisest approach is to relinquish disdain for the writers themselves, and view them and their motives as charitably as possible, merely being content to recognize how apologetic arguments (in nearly every case of which I am aware) simply fail.
It seems that to fail to make a distinction between recognizing an argument to be defective or even unwittingly corroborative of the very point it is trying to argue against, and concluding that the writer is innately stupid or consciously dishonest, is to place ourselves in much the same kind of mental state that apologetic writers themselves seem to exist in. If there is any doubt about this, I suggest that readers go on to an apologetic bulletin board and begin raising questions about certain apologetic arguments. S/he will then be exposed to all sorts of insinuations about personal misdeeds, wicked motives, or accusations that pointing out defects in an argument is tantamount to judging its writer to be a "liar" or an imbecile, etc.
What I mean is, in the world of rational discourse, which has as its goal the apprehension of truth, we operate under this rule: "'we' are not necessarily our 'arguments'". If we think we see that an argument contains a logical misstep, we don't respond by calling the arguer an idiot or evil. We merely point out the misstep, fully conscious that we are all fallible, that we make mistakes sometimes, and that a mental error is not necessarily an indication of moral depravity, imbecility, or insanity. This is one reason why irrelevant ad hominem responses are considered unconvincing: they don't actually address the argument itself.
This is a pitfall in our search for truth, because as even Brigham Young acknowledged, truth may be found in the oddest of places, and be advanced by even the most disgusting of sources. To reject Heidegger's existentialism merely because he joined the Nazi party would be a mistake (though it wouldn't be a mistake to try to recognize how his thought allowed or even led to that affiliation).
But ideological fervour makes us blind to all this. We can no longer distinguish between an argument which raises questions about what we believe, and AN ENEMY, a MORTAL FOE which must be neutralized personally, motives impugned, silenced, etc. We become incapable of rational discourse. This means that we have largely insulated ourselves from gaining more truth than we currently have. We may not be innately unintelligent, but we are putting ourselves in a position in which the faculties of our intelligence cannot work as they might.
An example of this blindness to the distinction between the worth of an argument and the worth of the person making it was displayed on this board a couple of months ago. I wrote a little note noting the apologetic instinct to attack messengers because they don't like their messages. Someone, Wade Englund I think, then posted what to him no doubt was an unanswerable slam-dunk of a retort: "can you explain how your criticism of apologetic ad hominem attacks isn't itself an ad hominem attack?" This really was the perfect example of the blindness I was trying to pin down and explain: a man who sees the statements
"Apolgetic writers make ad hominem attacks; ad hominem attacks strike me as ineffective counter-arguments; therefore, I find the apologists in this respect ineffective defenders of the church"
and
"John Doe Apologist is evil and stupid"
as pretty much the same statement. I in effect made the first statement - but what Wade, or not Wade, heard was the second. But I didn't mean the second. I meant the first. These statements in reality are not the same. But the lens through which we view reality while in the throes of ideological obsession (me up to last year, at least) prohibits us from seeing this.
I've shot my mouth off a lot on here about how defective apologetic arguments tend to be, but I'm not sure that that means those making them are overall as human beings, irrational. Certain things in defense arguments tend to be left out that demand to be included, but I'm not sure that that means the writers are "liars", i.e., consciously deceptive, or "bad". (While I ended up feeling forced to think that Hugh Nibley had in some cases been consciously deceptive, I am not certain that he was...).
Arthur Conan Doyle believed devoutly in fairies - was he innately stupid? Sartre was an apologist for communism - was he stupid? We all used to believe the same ideas defended by apologists - were we innately stupid? I always knew more of the "controversial" stuff than most other members did, but didn't include that in lessons I taught. Was I a liar?
My own experience suggests to me that the human mind possesses a high degree of plasticity. It suggests to me that our unconscious minds take their cues for what to include in the conceptual model of reality we are conscious of, from our previous emotional commitments, or on how much pain a particular inclusion might cause us, etc.
I sometimes would apprehend something that seemed disturbing, and then just as quickly chase it back across the dividing line into the realms of forgetfulness. I could just vaguely know a little something, and then manage to sort of put it in my mental delete file, and then (for all practical purposes) kind of forget I'd "known" it (for a while I could, anyway). I could take the most absurd of possible solutions to a "problem", and then, if I thought about it long enough, make it seem almost plausible, then probable, then a slam-dunk answer to all the church's "enemies". And yet, in reality, it was just as absurd as when I had begun.
There are even greater levels of mental chicanery, or to be more charitable, creativity, we can experience, in order to keep ourselves going.
Imagine that we are employed by the church as defenders. We are 45 or 50. We have solid academic credentials, but we have spent the last 20 years publishing articles in church-run mags which others in the academic community find "problematic", "laughable", or even worse, beneath even the dignity of either criticism or notice. We haven't published actively in scholarly journals for ages. It seems, in other words, doubtful that we could ever be hired at another university at this point. Defending the church is not only our job, but maybe, the best job we could ever hope for now.
All our friends are members. Our wives and children look up to us. Eager young men idolize us. We belong to an elite group, one which enjoys a privileged view of all important things. We have answers to questions that perplex others. We have status, almost a kind of fame. Living inside of the very antithesis of an "open society" (since there is by definition no room for debate on the ultimate conclusion of our research: "the church is true!") we are spared having to deal with the hurt or embarrassment of seeing a theory which we have nursed to fruition dismantled by logic or facts.
Some criticize us, but smart non-Mormons have cast doubt even on the whole prospect of ascertaining reality. And when push comes to shove (we might think), don't we have as much right to OUR "paradigm", as anyone else does to theirs?
Whether converts or BIC, we at this point in our lives might have no ability to conceive ourselves - our own existence - without reference to "the church". We have no ability to conceive even of reality without reference to it. It's impossible. This isn't because we are evil or mental defectives - it is simply that we, like so many others, have become so used to our conceptual models of reality being generated by and through "the ideology" that the two things have become fused: there no longer IS any difference between our consciousness and the ideology. We once observed the church; but now, it is the means by which we observe everything else. We sense at some level that it is indispensable for our cognitive functioning.
We have literally lost the ability to imagine that things could ever be anything other than how we perceive them to be (the historicist fallacy). We could very sincerely say, "without the church, NOTHING would make sense". (And the reality is - that would be absolutely the truth. Nothing would make sense for us right then, if in one fell swoop the ideology were ripped from us). Reality would be nothing but a terrifying, bewildering void.
Our defense of the church, then, is a defense of our lives, all our thoughts and feelings and the validity of our spiritual experiences (the validity really of ourselves), our families, our feelings, our self-image, our status, our friendships, our answers...even if we are not conscious of it as such in the slightest. But to "lose our testimony" would be, literally, beyond cataclysmic. The safest psychological state to be in, we know intuitively, is one in which doubt no longer is capable of entering.
Now, imagine this...despite all that, in quiet moments, sometimes when all are asleep, and we're lying in bed, we wonder...even though we can't really imagine any way we could perceive reality without "the church", we perhaps wonder to ourselves if somehow, somewhere, we might have missed something...we wonder how our lives might have turned out if we didn't have the church...we imagine that we might be drunks, or divorced, miserable, without a family that has loads of fun together...who knows? But maybe, for a split second or two, we think this:
"All around me I see creation, and so I infer a creator - a God. And from what I can tell, the church I have devoted my life to is his only true church. But...in the crazy chance it isn't, I think I would still have to believe in God, and believe that he is just. And if he is just, after my death he can only reward me for fighting as hard as I could for my whole life to defend what I thought was his one, true way - supposing the nearly unfathomable chance that it isn't. So, I have no reason to relent. Indeed, I never will have such reason. I have made my decision - and it is irrevocable. I could find a signed confession from Joseph, and I would still defend him with all my might..."
"Besides, no one can PROVE that Joseph didn't see God. Not even a signed confession, which might have been forced, can prove that. Until someone proves he didn't see God, which is impossible, there is no reason not to stick with the church. And look at all the good things I have in my life because of it. How could it be a fraud anyway?"
"If nothing else, from what I can tell I am as happy as I could be, as is my family, so this is a great way to live...what really is the downside to being a Mormon, even if there were no plates?"
"No....in the end, there is really no way to show that the church is not what it claims; therefore, anything which seems to, I already know, doesn't. It obviously is 'irrelevant' to what is really the 'core of the gospel', which is: the church is true. The real burden of proof is on the critics - and they thus are losing this battle. I will continue to fight and endure to the end".
It might be easy for us to see all sorts of problems with this distorted version of Pascal's wager; but at the same time, it should be pretty easy to see it making a kind of sense to us at certain moments of our lives. I don't see these thoughts as the thoughts of a "liar" or someone wholly irrational.
All I mean to suggest is that it seems to be going too far to say that apologetic writers should be definitively judged "liars", or constitutionally incapable of reason (even if their church defense arguments fall down even on their own terms). Who knows how conscious they are of certain things? Who knows what (unconscious) pressures affect what they see? And if we were once as muddled or unaware, why shouldn't they be still? And who is to say that we are not missing important things even now, with regards to our families, or politics, or religion, or anything else?
No man can be judge in his own case; all the more reason it seems to me for us to try to maintain some ability to converse, by maintaining charity towards church apologetic writers personally (as difficult as that might be in light of their own often uncharitable pronouncements about others' motives), and to not allow the bleak history of defective apologetic arguments to lead us to mentally eliminate the possibility that some day, someone over there might really have some great insights which we could all benefit from.
As far as I know, the boys over at BYU/FARMS (or out in cyberspace) are great dads, great husbands, funny guys, even smart guys in many ways; the aspersions they cast on others personally I think strike them as fair play. I think they judge what to others seem like insults, to be very much justified, like Christ's designation of certain folks as "vipers". When Jesus - supposedly the first Mormon (no comment) - uses this kind of language, why shouldn't the defenders of his only true church? Jesus is the one who sat down and methodically fashioned a whip, and then (I suppose) beat the hell out of the money changers and smashed all their stuff up. And if someone who raises a question about a church claim can be seen now as as much a "profaner of the sacred" as a money changer, why wouldn't you go nuts, if you were a defender? In war - holy war (even merely verbal) - we would find sanctification, wouldn't we?
But more probably, they view the ad hominemn remarks as solid, very relevant arguments. That means their motives aren't consciously "bad". It also means that many will find their "arguments" ineffective. And somehow, at this point in my life, I feel content to just leave it at that - they might all be great guys doing what they think is right, but their arguments fail even on their own terms; and the church, however much we might wish it to be, cannot possibly be what it claims - the end. Fortunately, there is much more to be excited about and inspired by outside than in, and for me, I feel a kind of peace about the whole thing that I never could feel while I was a devout TBM. Who knew?
I know this sounds like I'm preaching, but let's call it an exmo editorial! ;-)
If I'm wrong about this, please post.
Credits: Tal Bachman Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| FARMS is an apologetic arm of the Church Of Jesus-Christ Of Latter Day Saints. FARMS is on the Church payroll. It's sole purpose is to keep LDS members who question their faith in the Church. They do this by answering all of the questions the LDS members may have even if the answers are not correct or fabricated.
For instance, a member may ask why there is no archeological evidence of horses in northern or southern America, or Meso-America even though horses are mentioned fully in the Book of Mormon. FARMS returned and pacified the member by stating that horses were not "horses" as we would think, that Nephi stated "Horses" although the meaning to Nephi may have been something completely different and that the horses were actually something like a large breed of deer or even as Daniel Peterson (on the board of directors for FARMS) has stated, that horses were actually "tapirs". FARMS states that Joseph Smith did not know an appropriate word to translate the reformed egyptian into therefore he used "Horses". At the same time, FARMS does not have a conclusion to apply to why Joseph used the words "Cumon" and "Curelom" to describe animals used by Book of Mormon peoples.
Can you imagine the armies of the Lamanites riding on the backs of tapirs? Do you know what a tapir is and what it looks like? Search the Internet for tapirs and see for yourself.
FARMS sole purpose is to answer questions in this manner. To pacify the Member to keep them from loosing their faith and ultimately stop paying their tithing - which is very important to the LDS Corporation.
FARMS is an organization that has no outside peer review in the scientific, academic or religious arenas or organizations. The members who are on the FARMS board are people whose salaries are paid directly by the LDS Church. They are paid to pacify the member and not to tell the truth.
FARMS members write articles intended not to be scholarly, but to reassure the believers. It does not use any kind of peer review process. This is the overwhelmingly accepted academic practice of having anonymous peer academics review your articles and reviews of books before they are accepted for publication. This ensures that scholarship is adequate with painstaking and repeatable research, sound sources, and logical conclusions.
Second, with some exceptions, the scholarship of FARMS articles is substandard and not acceptable by other non-LDS academics. Most FARMS articles and reviews employ extensive personal attacks (ad hominem, one of the most pernicious logical fallacies); out-of-context quotations; illogical, unsupportable, and circular conclusions; and judge scholarly conclusions on the basis of conformity to LDS doctrine rather than as supported by the evidence and logic.
Also, with regard to support of the BoM, FARMS articles jump to egregiously unwarranted conclusions. For example, the BoM says Lehi's group passed through a valley with a river and trees on its way through the middle-eastern deserts to the ocean. Researchers have found several valleys with rivers and trees in the Arabian Peninsula so, concludes FARMS, this proves the BoM beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Some of the FARMS scholars have published scholarly works in peer-reviewed publications, but not one of them as been in defense of the LDS faith.
Those who write to FARMS with questions concerning problems and issues with the Gospel of Jesus-Christ as written by the LDS Church are often left more confused than when they started out.
Here is an example of someone who subscribed to FARMS and asked several questions:
When I had questions about Book of Mormon archaeology, I settled my questions by going to Barnes and Noble bookstore. I went to the section that had information on South American archeology and stuff and started opening books to find out what sorts of things existed during the supposed Book of Mormon times. I realized that it wasn't the same picture I got in the Book of Mormon. I deliberately chose books that had NOTHING to do with Mormonism, so I could be sure it wasn't "anti-Mormon" or pro-Mormon stuff. It was just scholarly stuff.
I don't think it's a matter of who to trust. That puts you under a lot of pressure to guess who's honest. Go with the evidence. If the majority of unbiased evidence is against the Book of Mormon, then your best bet is that it's fiction (yeah, I know I'm biased now . . . so don't trust me either).
I subscribed to FARMS for at least a year, hoping that they would come up with some convincing evidence. Actually, they brought up more questions, and they just kind of danced around the issues, said a few things that showed they knew a few things about ancient languages and customs, and then they'd come to some vague conclusion like "it seems likely that . . . [mormon beliefs] fit nicely into this historical setting". Many times it was more like, "so, you see that blah blah blah isn't really as ridiculous as it sounds".
I think it might be useful for you, because when you see it in print, it's easier to go back, reread, and see how they dance around the issues and never prove anything. It's all conjecture, and they expect the reader to stretch their imagination to believe that there is strong evidence to back up the church.
I remember one issue, when they were trying to prove that the word "synagogue" in the Book of Mormon was NOT an anachronism (as the term wasn't in general use when Nephi supposedly left Jerusalem). So they started talking about very old pottery fragments that were found in old sites in Judea that refer to a place of prayer or something, and you see, a synagogue is a place of worship, too, so THERE YOU HAVE IT. (Yeah, but I thought the whole argument was about the specific word "synagogue).
I finally got so disgusted that I just stopped subscribing.
The FARMS team has mastered the ability to write academic-sounding nonsense. Most people don't understand the nonsense therefore think that FARMS must know what they are writing about, however, when you boil it all down, there is very little substance there.
FARMS has NO authority to speak definitively on any church matter. They are just guessing on everything and the Brethren can always ignore/refute anything they say. In addition the academians don't do real peer reviews on their material. Ever seen FARMS or any apologist give much thought to real critical thinking reviews of their publications? That's why I think for anyone who gives it much thought that is not too deeply invested, FARMS is an academic joke.
However we must never ever underestimate the power that money/loyalty can buy. If the Morgbots keep popping out babies en masse and carefully raise them in the carefully correlated programs then many of them can be molded into lifelong fiercely loyal hardworking cash cows trapped in the mire of Mormonism. Many church sheep will continue to invest resources towards helping groups like FARMS do their research and they'll find plenty of information to muddy the waters for those seeking truth with the purpose of keeping the sheep loyal. A lot of money/resources/commitment can put together hundreds of thousands of pages of writings full of all sorts of trivia information and hypotheticals.
Such writings can certainly overwhelm almost any member going through a crisis of faith with deceiving thoughts of "hmmm I'm just not smart enough to understand all these things" when the truths are pretty simple. (1) Nobody has EVER found any trace of anyone or anything in the New World that is accepted as being part of the Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, Mulekite, Zoramite, etc. civilizations and nobody knows anything about the whereabouts of any of their descendants. (2) Explanations for the Book of Abraham facsimiles and papyri translation are bogus for anyone who takes the time to honestly look at the vignettes and all of JS's materials on this. (3) The PR spin on polygamy history is still bogus. (4) The plagiarism of Masonic ceremonies and ever-changing temple ordinances is still a big problem. (5) 19th century teachings about Adam/God, blood atonement, blacks/priesthood, Second coming & Jackson county, etc. Thinking of Zion & Jackson county - what does hundreds of millions of dollars investment in downtown SLC have to do with building the New Jerusalem?
When FARMS was emailed asking them to explain their peer-review process, the following email was returned:
From: Alison Coutts
To: (name removed)
Sent: 3/4/2004 11:49 AM
Subject: Peer Reviewers
Dear Leroy (name changed),
Thanks for your enquiry about peer reviewers. Obviously this depends on the
material being reviewed. If there is a strong LDS viewpoint, then we usually approach LDS scholars both in and outside BYU campuses. If there is a general bias, we go outside of LDS sources to scholars with whom the author/editors work in the field being treated. Since our peer reviews are almost always conducted blind, I would be reluctant to make any lists available . However, if you have a specific work you are considering, we could perhaps make some suggestions for you.
Thanks for writing.
Alison
For an example of how FARMS works, read the following.
The Smithsonian releases a statement rejecting the Book of Mormon as having any meaningful scientific value. (This letter has been provided over the decades by the Smithsonian, in response to various inquiries):
http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html
FARMS complains and--through its designated juggler, John Sorenson--attempts to discredit the Smithsonian's analysis:
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/smithsonian.htm
Mormon apologist Kerry Shirts likewise offers his own spin in support of FARMS' attempted, but failed, rescue:
http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/smithson.htm
The Smithsonian stands by its original statement:
http://www.answeringlds.org/index.html?artSmithsonian.html
FARMS claims that it peer-reviews and details this on their website:
Since it was established in 1979, the name FARMS has become synonymous with encouraging and supporting "faithful scholarship" on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Bible, other ancient scriptures and on related subjects. The reputation of these undertakings rests on supporting scholars whose work reflects a characteristic approach to the study of scriptures and on producing solid, reliable studies which not only support the Book of Mormon and other ancient LDS scriptures but upon which interested members of the church and others can rely in their individual study of the scriptures. . . .
Work done in the name of FARMS rests on the conviction that the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and other ancient scripture such as the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses are all the word of God, written by prophets of God, and that they are authentic, historical texts. Other than this, the Institute takes no official position on these ancient scriptures. It defines its task as supporting "faithful scholarship," meaning that in the research projects it undertakes and supports and in its publication and distribution efforts, the Institute deals, for the most part, with scholars who not only approach their study of the scriptures from an LDS perspective but, more importantly, insure that their work is informed by and is done in terms of adherence to and reliance upon the distinctive teachings of the Restoration.
The insights of studies such as those produced in the name of FARMS are of secondary importance when compared with the eternal truths that can be learned by a careful reading and study of these revealed texts, guided by the Spirit. Still, solid research and a faithful academic perspective on the scriptures can supply certain kinds of useful information and can answer questions, even if only tentatively, concerning many significant and interesting issues dealing with the ancient backgrounds, origins, composition, and meanings of scripture.
Our hope is that this material will be of help to interested members of the church, particularly to a growing number of new members and others, and that it will be an added means of better understanding and appreciating these ancient witnesses of the mission and teachings of the Savior, Jesus Christ.
Finally, reflecting its long established association with the academic community, first FARMS and now the Institute has built its reputation on supporting and publishing high quality, peer-reviewed work, according to established standards of scholarship. . . . (emphasis added)
Unfortunately, FARMS uses only LDS sources to review its publications. The way FARMS handles its "peer reviewing" is as follows:
- FARMS does not submit its papers and research to academic journals for peer review. The publications to which FARMS does submit its work are not highly regarded in mainstream academic and scientific circles.
- FARMS does not submit its papers and research to non-Mormon scholars for peer review. FARMS would not dare do so, out of fear of what the non-Mormon reviewers would conclude about its work.
- FARMS submits its papers and research to a so-called "in-group" for peer review.
- This "in-group" consists of people who FARMS trusts and who are chosen by FARMS to do its peer reviewing.
- FARMS submits its research and papers to only those it is confident will not challenge the basic assumptions that underlie FARMS papers and research.
- These "in-group" reviewers either belong to FARMS, are professionally related to FARMS or are sympathetic to FARMS.
- FARMS idea of a "peer" review is to submit its works for review to like-minded peers.
- While these reviewers can be academically critical in their own right, they do not review FARMS materials outside the FARMS framework of mission and belief. FARMS submits its papers and research to only those whose basic conclusions it knows beforehand will be in line with the goals and beliefs of FARMS.
- In the end, FARMS is a pseudo-academic outfit that is isolated from mainstream academia. It serves as a propaganda arm of the Mormon Church, with its mission and purpose being to produce faith-promoting material for Mormon believers. Outside Mormonism, neither FARMS--nor its peer-reviewing process--are taken seriously.
Here is a letter From: Mojo Jojo (Name obviously withheld)
Daniel Peterson claims that the FARMS review process is as rigorous as that of mainline academic journals.
In his very sarcastic and condescending response to the original RfM thread on this topic, Peterson attempts to buttress his arguments by stating his bonifides. So in the same spirit, please allow me to state my bonifides, so that you might make appropriate comparisons between his observations and mine. I worked for several years in academics. I have published dozens of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I have reviewed dozens of articles on behalf of several peer-reviewed journals, and I was editor of a peer-reviewed journal for several years. (One might not ever guess I was an editor judging by the sloppy spelling and grammar in my posts; however, when I write posts, I write very fast, and I never proof read-I don't have the time. As an academic, I was an obsessive proofreader, typically taking my manuscripts through well over 15 drafts before submitting them for publication.)
So, with this in mind, here's my response to Peterson.
What Peterson describes is not "peer" review, it is "editor" review. The peer review process is anonymous. An editor sends out a manuscript to, typically, 1-3 "blind" reviewers. The reviewers do not know whose manuscript they are reviewing, and the author does not know the identity of the reviewers. This is done expressly for the purpose of ensuring objectivity in the review, reflecting the very reasonable concern that knowledge of the identity of the author might compromise the objectivity of the review, plus it protects the reviewer from retaliation by the author, again helping to ensure greater objectivity. The system is not perfect. Frequently reviewers can guess who the author is (particularly if it is a narrow field or subfield) and the author can guess the reviewers. There is also a good ol' boy system that ensures that established scholars get easier treatment than Assistant Professors who lack reputations. (This is similar to the NBA, in which, say, Greg Ostertag gets called for traveling while Shaquille O'Neal almost never does, regardless of how blatantly he actually travels.) But, all in all, the system works reasonably well.
The above is distinguished from "editor" review, in which the manuscript is reviewed by the editorial board. In an editor review, there is no pretence of anonymity, and the standards in editor reviewed journals tend to be significantly lower than peer reviewed journals. In a top tier research university, editor reviewed publications count almost zip, and in some cases less than zip, towards tenure and promotion, precisely because they are known to have lower standards, generally speaking, than peer reviewed publications. In my case, I might have had 20 editor reviewed publications when I came up for tenure, and I still would have been denied tenure. (As it was, I had several publications, many in top rated journals, so I earned tenure.) So, as rigorous as Peterson claims his review process is, if the same rigorous process were used by other editor reviewed journals, it still wouldn't matter worth shit to a top tier research university. Why? Because what matters is that manuscripts be OBJECTIVELY reviewed according to rigorous standards, but also rigorous standards applied by PEERS, who are presumed to be the foremost experts on the "state of the art" in the discipline.
Peterson also proudly points to the rigorous proofing of texts and checking of citations. What Peterson describes is "copy editing" and "source editing." These are editorial functions, not review functions. Few reviewers take the time to nitpick over spelling and grammar (unless really poor) but focus more on issues such as the soundness of theoretical constructs, methodology, interpretation, and conclusions. It is the editor's job to do the copy and source editing. Yet in my opinion these functions, while important, are subsidiary to the peer review, which focuses on substantive issues. Peterson can rightly be proud about the rigor of his copy and source editing, but this is a Red Herring, it has little to do with whether the conclusions, methodology, or theoretical framework, of the manuscript is any good.
In a post on the topic, Brian B. quoted something from an online source of the peer review process. If I remember correctly, the gist of the quote was the peer review is inherently conservative and stifles innovative thinking or challenges to orthodoxy. In my experience, this is a gross overstatement. True, there is at times a tendency for reviewers to be resistant to new arguments and evidence that challenge received wisdom, but this fails to explain the often-radical evolution in theory that one finds over time in virtually every academic field. Take economics for example. Decades ago, Keynesian economics dominated academics; today Keynesianism is an anachronism having been succeeded by monetarism and several other "isms" in their time. There has been significant change in organization and behavioral theory over time. In the social sciences and humanities, Post Modernism, Feminist Critique, and several other challenges to the orthodoxy have arisen, gained substantial credibility and followings, and are now being challenged by other theories. In international development it seems there is a new theory of underdeveloped that gains precedence every few years only to fade out after awhile to be replaced by another theory. In my case, I wrote an article that challenged a predominant theoretical framework in my own field-the framework made famous at the school where I earned my Ph.D.-and my article was published by the #1 journal in the field. In sum, I see little evidence that the peer review process has stymied innovation and new ideas in academics. The competitive marketplace of ideas is alive and well in academics.
What Peterson avoids mentioning, and this is in my opinion the central point, is how FARMS publications would be evaluated in a true peer review, that is anonymous, objective reviewers who are experts in their fields, and who do not have a vested interest in proving Mormonism to be true. He fails to answer the most fundamental criticism of FARMS research-that it is not truly peer reviewed. I think we all know the answer why it is not. Any article submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal that posited a civilization numbered in the millions that live in MesoAmerica, worshiped Jesus Christ, wrote in Reformed Egyptian, drove in Chariots, wielding steel swords, rode horses, domesticated oxen, etc. would be summarily rejected by any competent, knowledgeable peer. Any article arguing that an ordinary funerary text contains writings by an ancient prophet of God (whom scholars doubt existed anyway) would be summarily rejected by any competent, knowledgeable peer. Few FARMS publications would survive a true peer review process, regardless of how carefully and well argued, because they reside within a totally invalid theoretical or empirical framework. One can craft the most tightly reasoned defense of the Book of Mormon, with every single conclusion following logically from the underlying assumptions, impeccably copy and source edited, and it would still be rejected summarily by a true peer, because the foundational assumptions have no basis in known reality. FARMS, and those who write in its employ, would quickly become a laughing stock in the field. No wonder they do not risk the rigors of true peer review.
One final comment. The nature of the FARMS review process guarantees no real innovations in learning, because it holds as inviolable the foundational assumptions underlying the research-that the Mormon church is, ex ante and prima facie, and therefore so are the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc., etc. There can be innovations within this framework, (e.g., limited geography theory), but the framework itself cannot successfully be challenged, as happens all the time in academic research submitted through a true peer review process. FARMS engages in counterfeit scholarship; counterfeit in that the conclusions are predetermined. It is one massive exercise in circular reasoning, where every argument, every bit of evidence circles back around to support the foundational assumptions. If there were such thing as a truth in labeling law for research, FARMS, and by extension Peterson, would be guilty of breaking the law. They label their work as scholarly, and claim to use a peer review process, but their work is neither scholarly nor is it subject to true peer review in any legitimately understood sense of the word.
The FARMS peer review process goes like this:
- "each review is read carefully by the editor" (a FARMS member)
- "[each review is read by] my two associate editors (Louis Midgley and George Mitton), our production editor
(Shirley Ricks), and the FARMS/Institute director of publications (Alison V. P. Coutts). (all FARMS members)
- "we may decide to send it out for expert external advice (e.g., in the case of the recent DNA articles, to a statistician, a geneticist, a philosopher, and a biochemist) - undoubtedly all BYU TBM FARMS flunkies
- "Each piece is then worked over by at least one in-house editor, and source-checked by a member of our staff to make sure that quotations and citations are both accurate and taken in proper context. (all FARMS members)
- "Each piece is also made available to all members of the FARMS board and administration, should they wish to have input. (all FARMS members)
"It simply won't do, in the case of most FARMS publications, to hand a treatment of, say, archaeological data relevant to 1 Nephi to somebody who knows nothing about the Book of Mormon."
A potential peer-reviewer need not be an expert on the BOM to be able to adequately peer-review FARMS' publications concerning the BOM. The BOM claims to be an authentic record of people and events somewhere in ancient America. Thus, any scholar who is schooled in ancient American archaelogy or anthropology would be able to peer-review articles concerning the BOM, if those articles regard archaelogical or anthropological claims.
For instance, such non-Mormon scholars as the Smithsonian Institute and the late Michael Coe have examined the BOM and declared that it has no relation to any real places or events in ancient America. And even some LDS scholars have admitted as much, one example being LDS anthropologist Dee Green's statement "The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaelogy exists."
The Mopologists' position is damaged even more by the fact that so many of the items they once proclaimed to be "Book of Mormon evidence" over the years have been refuted, such as the "Lehi Stone," the Bat Creek Stone, etc.
I also chuckled at Peterson's statement:
"What Daniel Peterson knows about peer review can be summed up in one word ................... NOTHING." Which, if true, worries me a great deal, since I'm the editor-in-chief of four translation series distributed by the University of Chicago Press. If they find out, I'm toast.)"
When I read that, I thought of U. of Chicago chief Egyptologist Robert Ritner's recent scathing review of modern Mopologists' defenses of Joseph Smith's "translations" of his papyrus. In his paper, Ritner remarked:
"With the regard to the articles by my former student John Gee, I am constrained to note than unlike the interaction between Baer and Nibley, and the practice of all my other Egyptology students, Gee never chose to share drafts of his publications with me to elicit scholarly criticism, so that I have encountered these only recently. It must be understood that in these apologetic writings, Gee's opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the standards of Egyptological proof that I required at Yale or Chicago."---p. 167.
I find it amusingly ironic that while Peterson boasts of being an editor of U. of Chicago publications concerning "translations," the chief Egyptologist of the U. of Chicago relates how Peterson's fellow Mopologist John Gee circumvented the scholarly peer-review process by declining to submit his assertions regarding the papyrus to his own professor of Egyptology before publishing them in guess where---FARMS journals.
Ritner makes it clear that the efforts of such FARMites as Gee, Hugh Nibley, and Michael Rhodes to salvage Joseph Smith's "translations" were published only "in tracts circulated among the faithful", and reached "desperate levels" in trying to reconcile Smith's fanciful interpretations. I wonder if Ritner knows that Peterson and Gee are fellow travelers in their belief in the BOM and BOA.
Of course, Peterson and other LDS scholars are capable of publishing legitimate work in their fields; but it's obvious that some LDS scholars attempt to parlay their credentials in legitimate scholarship into giving credence to their assertions regarding exclusive Mormon claims. But that's not legitimate, especially when their assertions regarding the authenticity of exclusive Mormon claims are utterly refuted by the legitimate scientific data.
Contrary to their intentions, the Petersons, Nibleys, Gees, and Rhodes of Mormondumb actually damage their scholarly reputations when they use their credentials and positions to defend obviously bogus Mormon artifacts.
| Surely, the source of death as noted in granite for some poor soul must be FARMS. its 2.30 am. i am sleepless and considering the same shit that has consumed me for weeks. because someone put a zelph link on here i ended up on FARMS. i reread a review of grant palmers book by Davis Bitton - The Charge of a Man with a Broken Lance (But Look What He Doesn't Tell Us). What a hateful jackass. This guy should sign up for cirque du soleil for the mental gymnastics he displays. or perhaps, he is just acting as a pitchman for all the blown smoke books he mentions to show how wonderful the BOM really is.
A recurring charge in several chapters is that Joseph Smith made up stories in the 1830s, especially in 1835 and then again in 1838, to strengthen his hand during times of opposition and crisis. Explaining something more fully is apparently not allowed. If you don't write it down at the time it occurred-remember this when you are working on your personal history-it didn't happen. Palmer wants us to picture a nervous Joseph Smith desperately trying to come up with stories that will make his position secure. But Joseph did not live in isolation and had not abandoned his old friends and family. How many of these-his own parents and siblings, his strong-willed wife Emma, his friends, other devoted followers from earlier days-would have to "go along" with changes in his narrative? How many of these good people, whose sincerity I hope we are not required to reject, stood up and complained, pointing out what Palmer seems sure of? How large was this conspiracy? Palmer doesn't tell us.
here is an example of his great insight and logic. hey dude, yo bitton buddy, correct me if i'm wrong here, but didn't emma (aka wife #1) pursue plan B? along with a lot of "his friends, other devoted followers from earlier days"?
His biggest issue however, seems to be that the cover says "insider".
The present book is not just a view of Mormon origins but "an insider's view" of those origins. We are supposed to be really impressed. An "insider" must certainly know the facts. An "insider" surely wouldn't be so ill-bred as to write against his own religion. So thinks the general reader who comes across the advertising or examines the cover and opening pages of Palmer's book.
Am I in a position to give an "insider" perspective on America just because I live in America and am an American citizen? I shop at a certain store. Does that entitle me to claim "insider" status if I choose to write about that store? Perhaps if our author had been a secretary to the First Presidency, he could then write an insider's exposé of those things to which he was privy. Perhaps if he had served as church historian and thus had access to the full range of archival materials, he could claim to draw back the curtain. We see how inaccurate, how deliberately misleading, this word insider is in describing Palmer's point of view.
Since he brings it up, can we go over that one more time? Palmer was employed by CES. He was paid from tithing funds. He knew going in what he was supposed to teach and accomplish. No one forced him kicking and screaming to teach the church's young people. If someone agrees to do something, shouldn't he do it? If someone can no longer honestly do what he has obligated himself to do, shouldn't he, in the name of decency, simply resign and seek other employment?
he did seek other employment, he published a book. bitton, what have you done?
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| | | At The Request Of Daniel Peterson, Comments I Sent To Dr. Michael Whiting About Book Of Mormon DNA
| |
|
