What is your opinion of FARMS?

[SeattleUte]

Seriously, I want to know the consensus here.

[Archaea]

Don't be so polemical.

My options are not there.

I would say FARMS is a group of apologists, doing what apologists do, offering a defense of the Church's history and positions. The quality of work is disparate.

Some of the scholarship is acceptable, and some of it is just opinion based apologetics. I don't believe they intend to deceive, as they publish what they believe.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Seriously, I want to know the consensus here.

It's difficult to trust the scholarship of a group who already know the anwser to the question. They will trumpet anything positive and poo poo anything negative. Have they ever gone contrary to that M.O.? Oh yeah they can't.

It is a good place to see the might of the Mormon spin machine. Not a good place for objective scholarship.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

It's difficult to trust the scholarship of a group who already know the anwser to the question. They will trumpet anything positive and poo poo anything negative. Have they ever gone contrary to that M.O.? Oh yeah they can't.

It is a good place to see the might of the Mormon spin machine. Not a good place for objective scholarship.

Just like one can predict the opinions of those who've already made up their minds, namely those of the disaffected of SU and Taq Man. Neither of you are any better than they, you're just the opposite side of the coin, that is all.

Blindness in any variety is ugly.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Just like one can predict the opinions of those who've already made up their minds, namely those of the disaffected of SU and Taq Man. Neither of you are any better than they, you're just the opposite side of the coin, that is all.

Blindness in any variety is ugly.

Well said, Archaea.

Seattle, I didn't vote because you had too few choices. If you want honest opinions about FARMS, you need to have more options available such as "I don't really have an opinion of it, as I don't need FARMS to validate what I believe".

[FMCoug]

Are you ever going to post an answerable poll?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Just like one can predict the opinions of those who've already made up their minds, namely those of the disaffected of SU and Taq Man. Neither of you are any better than they, you're just the opposite side of the coin, that is all.

Blindness in any variety is ugly.

You're spouting a lot of cliches. Nobody but FARMS who takes an empirical approach to Mormonism's claims reaches the conclusions FARMS does. The academic world takes for granted what Taq Man and I believe. The other day I asked for a single example--just one--of a scholar at a reputable university that has even thought the question of whether the Book of Mormon was actually an English translation of an ancient record was even worth asking. Not one name was provided. I renew that challenge. Since you think our minds are closed, Archea, give us the kind of authority we regard as worth spending any time on to consider with an open mind. Come on. See if you can. If you think our minds are closed give us someone other than Nibley and FARMS to weigh.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You're spouting a lot of cliches. Nobody but FARMS who takes an empirical approach to Mormonism's claims reaches the conclusions FARMS does. The academic world takes for granted what Taq Man and I believe. The other day I asked for a single example--just one--of a scholar at a reputable university that has even thought the question of whether the Book of Mormon was actually an English translation of an ancient record was even worth asking. Not one name was provided. I renew that challenge. Since you think our minds are closed, Archea, give us the kind of authority we regard as worth spending any time on to consider with an open mind. Come on. See if you can. If you think our minds are closed give us someone other than Nibley and FARMS to weigh.

Has a single scholarly authority even examined the BoM, who wasn't LDS? The answer is no. So if no nonLDS look at it, you have your answer.

We aren't important enough and your retorts are lower than cliches, that's why cliches demolish subcliches. I use only the most modest of weapons against those unthinking retorts.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Has a single scholarly authority even examined the BoM, who wasn't LDS? The answer is no. So if no nonLDS look at it, you have your answer.

We aren't important enough and your retorts are lower than cliches, that's why cliches demolish subcliches. I use only the most modest of weapons against those unthinking retorts.

They haven't looked at it because it's not even a close call. There's nothing to examine. This is why it's not an important enough question. There are plenty of academics specializing in antiquity out there searching for a worthy subject in which to make their name or fame. A real ancient record written in an ancient Middle Eastern language discovered in America would be beyond important; it would be earth shattering. Even laying aside the absence of the original artifiact there's nothing here that would even put a legitimate, objective scholar on inquiry notice that he should be examining the B of M text for evidence that it's an ancient record. That no one has thought this worthwhile to do says it all.

I categorically reject your assertion that LDS who have considered the question are "scholarly authorities" in any sense.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Look a few of the articles have been published in reputable journals. A few have been cited. But you know that, but choose to use the dishonest form of argumentation by throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I know no such thing. Give me a citation, Archea. I bet you no FARMS work product has been published in any "reputable journal." Show me where FARMS work has been cited in "reputable journals." I don't believe it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They haven't looked at it because it's not even a close call. There's nothing to examine. This is why it's not an important enough question. There are plenty of academics specializing in antiquity out there searching for a worthy subject in which to make their name or fame. A real ancient record written in an ancient Middle Eastern language discovered in America would be beyond important; it would be earth shattering. Even laying aside the absence of the original artifiact there's nothing here that would even put a legitimate, objective scholar on inquiry notice that he should be examining the B of M text for evidence that it's an ancient record. That no one has thought this worthwhile to do says it all.

I categorically reject your assertion that LDS who have considered the question are "scholarly authorities" in any sense.



I know no such thing. Give me a citation, Archea. I bet you no FARMS work product has been published in any "reputable journal." Show me where FARMS work has been cited in "reputable journals." I don't believe it.

If there is nothing to examine, why do you make such a big deal of it?

The LDS Church isn't for you. We got it the first zillion times you've brought it up and we get it now. Time to move on.