What Has The New Farms Produced?

[The Grimace]

Why do you think that my voice should be silenced?

I am not saying your voice should have been silenced. Perhaps my take on internet discussion forums is different than yours in that I would never have responded to any speculation about my career had it come up. Rather, I'd have made a statement that I have left the MI, wish it well, and then made no further statements.

Wouldn't that have been disarming? I think it would have. But, it seems to me that you and Bill are easily baited into this squabble, time after time. It's your career, you don't have to take any advice. On the whole, I'm just surprised that a couple of BYU profs would put so much on the line for what amounts to so little.

[Scott Lloyd]

If this was not right (the change), the church leaders and BYU would not have allowed it or supported it.

This sort of ignorant conjecture is as harmful as anything else.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Excellent point. Here are ten illustrative examples:

St. Francis of Assisi

Albert Schweitzer

William Wilberforce

Ashoka of India

Martin Luther King

Father Damien

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Maximillian Kolbe

Roger Williams

Dorothy Day

Fortunately, we have you, with your perfectly clear sight and complete lack of biases!

ah Yes, why thank ya, thank ya very much! I just report the facts as the evidence piles in.......

[Daniel Peterson]

ah Yes, why thank ya, thank ya very much! I just report the facts as the evidence piles in.......

You did, I hope, get the joke . . .

[Kerry A. Shirts]

You did, I hope, get the joke . . .

Yes, you quoting all those people as if it refutes the facts was rather amusing. Surely, within the context of what I wrote, not a single one of those people actually caused a religious unification to exist that we live in now did they?

[Daniel Peterson]

I would never have responded to any speculation about my career had it come up. Rather, I'd have made a statement that I have left the MI, wish it well, and then made no further statements.

Wouldn't that have been disarming? I think it would have.

So do I. It would have disarmed me.

It would have given carte blanche to people out there who've been assiduously cultivating the false myth that the Brethren stepped in to discipline me for my offenses against basic human decency, that the University had to rescue the reputation of Elder Neal A. Maxwell from me, and so on and so forth.

On the whole, I'm just surprised that a couple of BYU profs would put so much on the line for what amounts to so little.

I would infinitely prefer to have, as you have, no dog in the fight. Unfortunately, I'm not so lucky.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,

Is the immediate jewel of their souls.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;

'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him,

And makes me poor indeed.

(Shakespeare,

Othello

, III.iii.155-161)

[Bob Oliverio]

I noted that I have never heard any of those four, despite years of working for FARMs, ever affirm belief in the historicity of the BOM.  I sincerely hope I can be proven wrong and that they have done so.  And if they haven't, it is a simple enough problem to fix.

In a related question:

Will New FARMS/MI continue to source Carla Ogden for "official" Church positions on historicity and settings for the BOM?

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes, you quoting all those people as if it refutes the facts was rather amusing.

Those people represent facts, Kerry.

Surely, within the context of what I wrote, not a single one of those people actually caused a religious unification to exist that we live in now did they?

Not a one of them caused the horrors that, you say, religion always causes. Yet they were motivated by religion.

Conflicts are often couched in religious terms, because religions offer such exceptionally powerful symbol systems. But it's not at all obvious that religion actually causes all conflicts -- there are plenty of conflicts without religious causes; humans can always find reasons, it seems, to hate and covet and kill -- and it's certainly not obvious that religious belief never mitigates natural human urges to cruelty and lust.

You're not speaking for unalloyed facts, Kerry. You're declaring an ideology.

[Daniel Peterson]

Will New FARMS/MI continue to source Carla Ogden for "official" Church positions on historicity and settings for the BOM?

Careful, Bob. Your feigned persona is beginning to slip.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

In a related question:

Will New FARMS/MI continue to source Carla Ogden for "official" Church positions on historicity and settings for the BOM?

Does one *have* to have a testimony of the history of the Book of Mormon before we can read scholarship on it? I'm just askin. Why is historicity the main point of contention? This obsession with history, in light of Nibley's view that all history is simply invented, and at best interpreted faultily by virtually *everyone* INCLUDING the original writers(!) is rather interesting is it not? Since when is a testimony only valid if its based on history? Isn't this rather narrow? And in fact, isn't it rather parochial? Not much of the Bible as we have it handed down can honestly be said to be "historical," after all. Is it necessary in order to hold a temple recommend to think that Job had to be a historical person in reality? Does that mar the message of the book if he never existed? Does history make things more real? Is history the line of demarcation to faithful believing Mormon and New Order Mormon (whatever that is)? If so why?

[Louis Midgley]

Yes, you quoting all those people as if it refutes the facts was rather amusing. Surely, within the context of what I wrote, not a single one of those people actually caused a religious unification to exist that we live in now did they?

Professor Peterson was not quoting anyone. He listed a series of names to show that your bald assertion was clearly false.

[The Grimace]

So do I. It would have disarmed me.

It would have given carte blanche to people out there who've been assiduously cultivating the false myth that the Brethren stepped in to discipline me for my offenses against basic human decency, that the University had to rescue the reputation of Elder Neal A. Maxwell from me, and so on and so forth.

Has anyone of consequence made these allegations? I mean, I have seen a bunch of anonymous posters and bit players make comments, but no one important enough to command any amount of prolonged and reputable attention.

Mr. Bradford has made no effort to respond to anyone who has speculated about his part, and that seems to have worked well.

This eats at your soul, I'm sure, so I won't belabour the point any further; I just wish you well.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

name='Daniel Peterson' timestamp='1360726913' post='1209223430']

Those people represent facts, Kerry.

Not a one of them caused the horrors that, you say, religion always causes. Yet they were motivated by religion.

And they failed, as all religion does, to make God any more real for the world...

Conflicts are often couched in religious terms, because religions offer such exceptionally powerful symbol systems.

True, its all symbolic, never dealing with reality as we face in the world of reality here.

But it's not at all obvious that religion actually causes all conflicts

Based on its ideology religion should *never* cause conflict. But we know religion and conflict is the essence of Western Civilization since Jesus' day don't we?

You're not speaking for unalloyed facts, Kerry. You're declaring an ideology.

So, can you demonstrate with facts that any one or all of those people together caused a massive community of unity in the world? The FACT is, not one religious person has ever done so. Um, a suggested reading of history might be in order here eh? Religion, as I have said, has always failed to achieve its goal, of uniting people in love. It causes far more hate, division, death, and misery than the joy it has ever brought to earth. It even killed God. Heh.......what irony eh?

Edited February 13, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[The Grimace]

Side question: How come I can give reputation points to some people but not others? The little green arrow only appears on some users.

[Daniel Peterson]

Has anyone of consequence made these allegations?

My hope is that nobody of consequence will believe them.

That seems to me a reasonable thing for which to hope.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Professor Peterson was not quoting anyone. He listed a series of names to show that your bald assertion was clearly false.

Give it up Lou. The context of what I said was completely ignored by Dan and anyone reading this can SEE it. Dropping names does not a thing to refute my fact that religion has never achieved its goal(s) no matter what ideology a religion holds.

[Bill Hamblin]

Does one *have* to have a testimony of the history of the Book of Mormon before we can read scholarship on it?

No. But I suspect one should believe in the historicity of the BOM is one is going to lead a foundation whose fundamental purpose was to promote understanding of the BOM as a historical text. If one does not, one should not accept a position of leadership in such a foundation any more than one who is a young earth creationist should accept a job as the director of an institute that studies paleoevolution.

[Daniel Peterson]

Um, a suggested reading of history might be in order here eh?

LOL. You're right, Kerry. Maybe I ought to do a little reading about the history of religions.

Religion, as I have said, has always failed to achieve its goal, of uniting people in love.

Medicine has always failed in its goal of curing all disease and healing all injuries.

It causes far more hate, division, death, and misery than the joy it has ever brought to earth.

This strikes me as a completely preposterous statement. At a very minimum, it's one for which I can't imagine anything even remotely resembling "proof."

[William Schryver]

Does one *have* to have a testimony of the history of the Book of Mormon before we can read scholarship on it?

That's not my position.

As a general rule, I don't believe there should be religious test for any position.

I don't think there should be a religious test for President of the United States of America.

I certainly don't believe it is necessary for a biology professor at BYU to have a testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Nor a political science professor. Or English, humanities, etc.

However, I don't think it is unreasonable that a testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon be a prerequisite for some positions in the Church.

For example, I think it should be a prerequisite for a bishop or a stake president. I think it is also reasonable that a religion professor at BYU who teaches the Book of Mormon be required to possess a testimony of its historicity.

I'm sure there are other callings or positions in the Church for which it is reasonable to expect a testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

LOL. You're right, Kerry. Maybe I ought to do a little reading about the history of religions.

Kerry notes:

I did, it's a waste of time.

Medicine has always failed in its goal of curing all disease and healing all injuries.

Kerry notes:

As has God. True enough, nothing and no one holds up to the promises. Now what?

This strikes me as a completely preposterous statement. At a very minimum, it's one for which I can't imagine anything even remotely resembling "proof."

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[William Schryver]

... I won't belabour the point any further ...

Good.

I also believe Dan is acting perfectly within the bounds of propriety by both defending his good name as well as engaging in the larger argument as to the role of apologetics in the academy--particularly at Brigham Young University.

It has been suggested that apologetics, as practiced by Dan and his colleagues, is somehow cheapened on account of the fact that fundraising was employed to finance its production. I remain mystified by this argument, inasmuch as the publications produced by Kristian and his colleagues have been financed by the same fundraising. How is the one good and worthwhile scholarship, and the other not?

Edited February 13, 2013 by William Schryver

[blackstrap]

The Church tries very hard to avoid accepting any Federal type handouts ,because, I'm reasonably sure, it does not want the Feds to dictate policy. Perhaps ,in view of the recent past events, FARMs should have remained at arms length to BYU. Marched to its own drum so to speak.

[William Schryver]

Give it up Lou. The context of what I said was completely ignored by Dan and anyone reading this can SEE it. Dropping names does not a thing to refute my fact that religion has never achieved its goal(s) no matter what ideology a religion holds.

I can think of at least one notable exception to your asserted rule:

Moses 7:18-21

And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them. And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And ... he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion. ... and lo, Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven.

Edited February 13, 2013 by William Schryver

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I can think of at least one notable exception to your asserted rule:

And what justifiable evidence anywhere can you possibly find for this assertion? Because it's in print? Because someone said so? Its heresay.

You hijack every thread you enter with angry anti-religion sermons regardless of the topic. You have been removed. Open a thread for your topic.

[blackstrap]

religion has never achieved its goal(s) no matter what ideology a religion holds.

Well, let's take a look at how God is supposed to remedy this situation.Pre-flood He got a bunch of people together and formed a Zion society which was taken up. Then He wipes out everyone and starts over. Time passes and comes time for the Millenium,what is supposed to happen? About 2/3 s of the population will be destroyed and of the remainder, a lot will be caught up to heaven. So that is what has been missing from religions feeble attempts at reunion in Love. It was just thinking too small.