Stop It!

[Senator]

Ben McGuire asserted in another thread that FARMS will be back (barring a GA intervention). I'm paraphrasing of course.

Given this recent clarion admonition from a prominent Apostle, I would be very suprised to see FARMS reappear, business as usual, under the umbrella of a church institution.

Lets face it folks, the arena of LDS apologetics is a contentious one.

I cannot fathom how Elder Uchtdorf can look upon the apologetic scene ( given the very clear message he gave in the last GC), and say, "Carry on!"

[tyler90az]

That is interesting... I don't think it will be eliminated completely. It appears FARMS does more good then bad.

[Sevenbak]

[CASteinman]

You seem confused. No Apostle issued any clarion call against apologetics or against reorganizing FARMS.

[robuchan]

Contentious is only part of the problem. I suspect the larger problem is the problem with the appearance of working hard at apologetics and not having anything so show for it. All this money and effort and what we have to show for it is an LGT theory that attempts to make the BOM disappear into the background, obscure BOM stuff like Asherah and King Benjamin's temple ritual, Book of Abraham arguments that don't convince anyone, and now a theory about a 17th century BOM translation. No archaeological findings. It's probably better to just not even attempt. Then you don't have critics saying "see you're spending all this money and research and you find nothing".

[Senator]

[Senator]

You seem confused. No Apostle issued any clarion call against apologetics or against reorganizing FARMS.

No confusion.

I did not state that the Apostle was directing his remarks towards any particular entity, but against the human foibles that cause contention and rancor.

[Senator]

Contentious is only part of the problem.

No. I'm asserting that is the problem.

[CASteinman]

I did not state that the Apostle was directing his remarks towards any particular entity, but against the human foibles that cause contention and rancor.

So then no clarion call against apologetics in General nor FARMS nor Scholarly reviews nor any thing like it.

[wenglund]

No confusion.

I did not state that the Apostle was directing his remarks towards any particular entity, but against the human foibles that cause contention and rancor.

So, your comments were self-reflective regarding your participation on this board?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[robuchan]

So, your comments were self-reflective regarding your participation on this board?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Surely you mean this as investigatory, right?

[wenglund]

Contentious is only part of the problem. I suspect the larger problem is the problem with the appearance of working hard at apologetics and not having anything so show for it. All this money and effort and what we have to show for it is an LGT theory that attempts to make the BOM disappear into the background, obscure BOM stuff like Asherah and King Benjamin's temple ritual, Book of Abraham arguments that don't convince anyone, and now a theory about a 17th century BOM translation. No archaeological findings. It's probably better to just not even attempt. Then you don't have critics saying "see you're spending all this money and research and you find nothing".

Along with ark-steadying and putting words into the mouths of GA's, you have a remarkable nack for stereotyping and myth-building and hypocrisy. Have you considered a career as a propaganda minister?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Surely you mean this as investigatory, right?

I guess you can get something right after all. There is hope for you yet. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 15, 2012 by wenglund

[robuchan]

Along with ark-steadying and putting words into the mouths of GA's, you have a remarkable nack for stereotyping and myth-building and hypocrisy. Have you considered a career as a propaganda minister?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Once the prophet speaks, the debate is over. Peterson is out.

[CASteinman]

Peterson is out.

But you are not the Prophet and thus the debate is not over.

[robuchan]

Do you know who is on the Board of Trustees of BYU?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You seem confused. No Apostle issued any clarion call against apologetics or against reorganizing FARMS.

As would not be his role. telling us not to be contentious...certainly his calling.

[CASteinman]

As would not be his role. telling us not to be contentious...certainly his calling.

Especially this: "When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges or wanting to cause harm — please apply the following: Stop it!"

Which, despite some accusations to the contrary that I have read about myself, I try very hard to make a rule in my life -- and have done so for many years.

Where the problem comes in -- I think -- is that standing up boldly against those who would destroy faith and who undermine the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- is seen by some folk as being "mean" and they read the above quote as somehow opposing that sort of "meanness".

I don't see that at all.

I don't even see "contentiousness" as being exactly condemned -- certainly not when all statements are put together on the matter. After all, how can one "contend" for the faith without "contending"?

On the other hand, I suspect quarrelsomeness is not the same thing, but is an easy trap to fall into. I think that would always be a good thing (for me at any rate) to keep in mind.

Edited July 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[Deborah]

Once the prophet speaks, the debate is over. Peterson is out.

You continue to spout something as fact that has not been shown to be the case. If you think the Prophet looks in on every decision made by those to whom a stewardship has been given you are either very naive or do not understand the structure at all.

[robuchan]

You continue to spout something as fact that has not been shown to be the case. If you think the Prophet looks in on every decision made by those to whom a stewardship has been given you are either very naive or do not understand the structure at all.

Those that think a decision this far reaching at BYU was not made under the direction of the BOT are the naive ones.

[CASteinman]

Those that think a decision this far reaching at BYU was not made under the direction of the BOT are the naive ones.

I tend to believe that they were at least aware. HOWEVER, having said that, I am not certain that they had anything to do with it. I have seen such things occur before without board involvement.

[Deborah]

It is amazing to me how many people "know" what is going on when the involved parties don't.

[Deborah]

Those that think a decision this far reaching at BYU was not made under the direction of the BOT are the naive ones.

Far reaching. Seriously? It may change FARMS but there is still FAIR and many other avenues where serious discussion takes place. In fact I never to go FARMS for info, only to FAIR. and guess who the closing speaker is at the FAIR conference?

Edited July 15, 2012 by Deborah

[why me]

There will be an apologetic journal coming are way in the future. That will be a fact. No church can survive the internet war without an apologetic arm. Of course, we have FAIR but there will also be an academic journal to defend the faith. The apostates and antimormon are out in full force declaring war on the lds church. Now it is time to see clearly just how the exmormons are using the internet to their advantage and counter their attack. I can see an apologetic internet journal being formed that can be accessed by all people and read.

[Senator]

So then no clarion call against apologetics in General nor FARMS nor Scholarly reviews nor any thing like it.

Only if it becomes a venue for contention.