What is your opinion of FARMS?

[Taq Man]

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.

It is insulting to the extreme to say that my opinions are blind and that I have already made up my mind. I remember well sitting in the MTC and feeling like it was us against the world. I remember the hourly testimony meetings. I remember wanting very badly to have the burning bush experience. It never came. I suppose I am not wired that way. Things simply must make sense on a factual level for me to put any stock in them. Still, I remember believing that Joseph was a Prophet and the Book of Mormon was the word of God so on and so forth. I believed it whole heartedly. I was very shocked and surprised to read about the unsanitized version of History. Particularly as it relates to the early practices of polygamy. The lies that were told bothered me a great deal. I have since done a lot of reading and I am convinced that the church is not what it claims to be. The effort it makes in trying to cover up the warts and the outright deception it practices in its Gospel Doctrine programs is enough to tell any reasonable person that something stinks.

My mind is more open than it has ever been. I don't need the church to be true. I also don't need it to be false. Truth be told I would love nothing more than to have complete faith in the LDS church, it would make life much simpler. But I will have reason and order. Not feelings and herd mentality.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by All-American

The Dean of the Harvard Business school, Kim Clark, now President of BYU-I.

Richard Bushman, professor at Columbia, certainly a rising star in academia.

Henry Eyring, father of the current member of the twelve. Biography here:
http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/heyring.html

David Bednar, current member of the twelve, comes from a teaching background-- was recognized as the outstanding teacher at the University of Arkansas and received the Burlington Northern Foundation Award for Excellence in Teaching. He has twice been the recipient of the Outstanding Teacher Award in the College of Business Administration.

Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond.

Let me know if you want me to find more.

Don't forget Michael Young the President of Seattle's alma mater. He come with some very strong academic credentials.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

....Truth be told I would love nothing more than to have complete faith in the LDS church, it would make life much simpler. But I will have reason and order. Not feelings and herd mentality.

It would seem that you rely more on the temporal, rather than the spiritual aspects of the Church. Faith is something one can have if one wants it.

It's not easy having faith when one is a thinking person, but it's all about what one wants. I believe that if you really wanted to have the faith necessary, you would.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I will look up some of the FARMS articles on a few issues that have been published in reputable biblical journals.

You categorically rejecting it means nothing.

You are capable, more than capable lawyer. You are a capable Roman historian and a gifted author, but your understanding of LDS principles and its history as well as scholarship surrounding LDS issues is embarrassing naive and simpleton.

I can anticipate your retort when I cite the articles which have been published.

David Paulsen has published in Harvard Theological Review.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

It would seem that you rely more on the temporal, rather than the spiritual aspects of the Church. Faith is something one can have if one wants it.

It's not easy having faith when one is a thinking person, but it's all about what one wants. I believe that if you really wanted to have the faith necessary, you would.

I admit I am an intellectual. By intellectual I do not mean to say that I think I am smart. I simply mean that I am the kind of person who demands evidence and I am shocked when I find logical inconsistencies and fallacies. A great thinker once said "Instinct is supreme and from instict comes faith"

I must be honest with myself and others, and the simple truth is that I believe the church is a good place with great people but it has no more right to claim "One and Only" status than any other Christian religious tradition.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

It is insulting to the extreme to say that my opinions are blind and that I have already made up my mind. I remember well sitting in the MTC and feeling like it was us against the world. I remember the hourly testimony meetings. I remember wanting very badly to have the burning bush experience. It never came. I suppose I am not wired that way. Things simply must make sense on a factual level for me to put any stock in them. Still, I remember believing that Joseph was a Prophet and the Book of Mormon was the word of God so on and so forth. I believed it whole heartedly. I was very shocked and surprised to read about the unsanitized version of History. Particularly as it relates to the early practices of polygamy. The lies that were told bothered me a great deal. I have since done a lot of reading and I am convinced that the church is not what it claims to be. The effort it makes in trying to cover up the warts and the outright deception it practices in its Gospel Doctrine programs is enough to tell any reasonable person that something stinks.

My mind is more open than it has ever been. I don't need the church to be true. I also don't need it to be false. Truth be told I would love nothing more than to have complete faith in the LDS church, it would make life much simpler. But I will have reason and order. Not feelings and herd mentality.

You have not demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the historical underpinnnings of the Old and New Testaments, facility with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Coptic. You have not demonstrated the inner workings of the Documentary Hypothesis, a knowledge of archaeology, a thorough understanding of Greek philosophy and the outgrowths through the Catholic Church, a working knowledge of the textual criticism, William James, Gadamer, linguistic analysis, professional historian standards, or anything to indicate you are necessarily classically trained in empiricism.

I don't qualify under all those requirement, though I'm trying. Unless you can do that, it is a misrepresentation that you are devoted to logic and order. Your study is as haphazard as the next person, not a logical and thorough canvassing of the field. So spare us with your logical declarations. Other than reciting the rote words of disaffection, demonstrate your eruditiion in academic fields that matter.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

David Paulsen has published in Harvard Theological Review.

There are about three or four, but thanks for reminding me. Seattle wouldn't consider the Harvard Theological Review legitimate because it involves religion.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have not demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the historical underpinnnings of the Old and New Testaments, facility with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Coptic. You have not demonstrated the inner workings of the Documentary Hypothesis, a knowledge of archaeology, a thorough understanding of Greek philosophy and the outgrowths through the Catholic Church, a working knowledge of the textual criticism, William James, Gadamer, linguistic analysis, professional historian standards, or anything to indicate you are necessarily classically trained in empiricism.

I don't qualify under all those requirement, though I'm trying. Unless you can do that, it is a misrepresentation that you are devoted to logic and order. Your study is as haphazard as the next person, not a logical and thorough canvassing of the field. So spare us with your logical declarations. Other than reciting the rote words of disaffection, demonstrate your eruditiion in academic fields that matter.

I wouldn't ask Taq to know everything before he decided what course was best for him. He made a decision based on what information he had and the knowledge he had acquired-- what more can we ask of any man, but to do what they feel is right?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

The Dean of the Harvard Business school, Kim Clark, now President of BYU-I.

Richard Bushman, professor at Columbia, certainly a rising star in academia.

Henry Eyring, father of the current member of the twelve. Biography here:
http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/heyring.html

David Bednar, current member of the twelve, comes from a teaching background-- was recognized as the outstanding teacher at the University of Arkansas and received the Burlington Northern Foundation Award for Excellence in Teaching. He has twice been the recipient of the Outstanding Teacher Award in the College of Business Administration.

Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond.

Let me know if you want me to find more.

True enough, but none of these people studies the ancient world - the realm FARMS claims to be investigating.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Has FARMS ever claimed that they are engaged in objective scholarship?

This whole topic is such a dead horse.

True and true.

This board's personality conflicts aside, (IMO) FARMS really is a lame attempt to "prove" academically what cannot be proven. The BoM is an issue of faith - take it or leave it. As an ancient historian, it bothers me that scholars at a large university can engage in such quasi-research. It's incestuous (they seem to only cite one another), and a disservice to the notions of faith that most Christian religions are founded upon.

That aside, these scholars are free to write and publish what they will. I don't have to read them. What really gets me is Mr. Joe Member at church who pulls out the FARMS for a talk/lesson/comment and uses it to "prove" something to me. Yet, they refuse to accept any contradictory conclusions based on the same model of research and inquiry.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I wouldn't ask Taq to know everything before he decided what course was best for him. He made a decision based on what information he had and the knowledge he had acquired-- what more can we ask of any man, but to do what they feel is right?

I understand but once one lays the intellectual card down, it seems you need some credentials.

I am not an intellectual because I have no mastery of those fields, and probably never will. Yet I intend to continue my discovery of philosophy, theology, archaeology, linguistics and language to aid in my understanding of the ancient world, its workings and impact upon us today.

I just see a lot of pseudo-intellectualism, guys who claim to atomicists or empiricists without credentials or work.