What do the Brethren think of FAIR?

[_Mister Scratch]

So, if this bothers you so much, why don't you just write a letter to any one of the Brethren and tell them about FAIR? I don't understand why all the bluster and hemhawing about it all. It is very childish and boooooring. He said/she said to the NTH degree, if you ask me.

Carry on, if you must.

The Brethren have repeatedly said that they do not wish to be bothered by the rank-and-file.

[_Runtu]

So, if this bothers you so much, why don't you just write a letter to any one of the Brethren and tell them about FAIR? I don't understand why all the bluster and hemhawing about it all. It is very childish and boooooring. He said/she said to the NTH degree, if you ask me.

Carry on, if you must.

The Brethren have repeatedly said that they do not wish to be bothered by the rank-and-file.

True. That's why I'm convinced that they would only know about FAIR and boards like this if some underling were to bring it to their attention. Given their disdain for the masses, I don't see that happening.

And is it just me, but isn't it ironic that they renamed FARMS after a man who had to get some stuff faxed to him from FARMS to "outflank" Steve Benson?

[_Dr. Shades]

And is it just me, but isn't it ironic that they renamed FARMS after a man who had to get some stuff faxed to him from FARMS to "outflank" Steve Benson?

Say what? I've never heard of any such thing.

What is FARMS's new name--or what was the old name, if FARMS is the new one--and why would any such name change be necessary over one little fax?

Plus, why would anyone need to "outflank" Steve Benson, and who was it who had such a need? And did the fax fulfill its intended purpose?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[_Runtu]

It's the The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. I misspoke; Maxwell said that it helped the church not to be outflanked by its critics:

In September 1993, my wife Mary Ann and I met in private with LDS "apostle-ologists" Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks in Maxwell’s downtown Salt Lake City Church office. During the ensuing discussion, we directed to them several questions concerning LDS origins, history, doctrine, policy and practice.

At one point in our meeting, attention turned to the service role as bucket brigade played by FARMS for Mormonism’s tongue-tied, in-over-their-heads Special Witnesses for Christ.

Maxwell, in particular, was very appreciative of the work FARMS offered in bailing him out of tight places.
Indeed, Maxwell declared to us that, as far as the Mormon Apostles were concerned, "We're grateful for FARMS . . . because they protect us on the flank."

Maxwell told us that FARMS, in fact, had been given the express mission of not letting the Church become outflanked.

In expressing this sincere gratitude, it was obvious that what Maxwell meant by his observation that FARMS served to prevent the Mormon Church from defeated by end-arounds, was that FARMS kept the Apostles themselves from becoming outflanked.

Despite Maxwell's appreciation for the work FARMS did in covering his posterior, Oaks griped that FARMS sometimes gets "hyperactive" in trying to prove that the Book of Mormon is true. Oaks told us that he becomes concerned when FARMS "stops making shields and starts turning out swords" because, he said, "you cannot prove the Book of Mormon out of the realm of faith." Accepting the Book of Mormon, Oaks said, was ultimately a matter of faith.

Still, Maxwell was obviously thankful to have FARMS there as his go-to guy during times of scientific stess.
As they say, when the going gets tough, the Apostles get going to FARMS.

In fact, in defense of the junk translation of the Book of Abraham, Maxwell handed me a FARMS review, written by Michael D. Rhodes, of Charles M. Larson's book, . . . By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).

On later, closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes review was photocopied, I was able to determine that the review had originated from the FARMS offices at BYU. It had been printed on fax paper bearing the acronym “F.A.R.M.S,” along with the “FAX” date of “09/09/93.” It also bore a dispatch time of "1:55" and a B.Y.U.-area phone number of "378 3724."
In short, Holy Ghost-impaired Apostle Maxwell had solicited the assistance of FARMS in preparing for our examination of Mormon scripture.

Well, if Neal A. Maxwell--Apostle of the Most High God--employs FARMS to defend the revealed truth of the Kingdom, then, hell, it must be good. :)

[_Pahoran]

If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this forum, then see this:

But, I do know that on January 18, 2005, the day I went through the temple and obtained a copy of the brand spankin' new Initiatory ordinances that went into effect that day and posted the contents of the new script on my website that afternoon, I had over 150 hits to my site from the IP address that is owned by the Cult and solely operated from the Church office building in SLC.

The problem is not that Mr. Norton, by his own admission, has

No morals,
No principles,
No scruples, and
Absolutely no integrity, but merely insane hatred to guide him.

That is not the problem.

It is indeed his problem, but not the forum's problem.

No, the forum's problem is that nobody else had any of those characteristics either; certain not enough to at least say "tsk tsk" or "tut tut" or "are you sure you should have done that?"

And that's why this place is a sty.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Who Knows]

And that's why this place is a sty.

Well, you're just adding to it.

Why don't you do something about it? How about we talk about some real issues like Adam-God, Nahom, the Book of Abraham, etc.?

[_asbestosman]

And that's why this place is a sty.

Well, you're just adding to it.

Why don't you do something about it? How about we talk about some real issues like Adam-God, Nahom, the Book of Abraham, etc.?

How is Pahoran adding to it? Pahoran called Nortinski on his reprehensible behavior.

For what it's worth, I generally don't read what Nortinski writes (for that reason and it's a shame because Nortinski is very creative and would have an enjoyable sense of humor otherwise).

[_Who Knows]

How is Pahoran adding to it? Pahoran called Nortinski on his reprehensible behavior.

I was speaking in general terms, not just referring to that post.

[_Yoda]

If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this forum, then see this:

But, I do know that on January 18, 2005, the day I went through the temple and obtained a copy of the brand spankin' new Initiatory ordinances that went into effect that day and posted the contents of the new script on my website that afternoon, I had over 150 hits to my site from the IP address that is owned by the Cult and solely operated from the Church office building in SLC.

The problem is not that Mr. Norton, by his own admission, has

No morals,
No principles,
No scruples, and
Absolutely no integrity, but merely insane hatred to guide him.

That is not the problem.

It is indeed his problem, but not the forum's problem.

No, the forum's problem is that nobody else had any of those characteristics either; certain not enough to at least say "tsk tsk" or "tut tut" or "are you sure you should have done that?"

And that's why this place is a sty.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, what thread did you pull this from? This is the first time I'm reading this. I don't agree with this, and I would have said something.

[_Pahoran]

If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this forum, then see this:

But, I do know that on January 18, 2005, the day I went through the temple and obtained a copy of the brand spankin' new Initiatory ordinances that went into effect that day and posted the contents of the new script on my website that afternoon, I had over 150 hits to my site from the IP address that is owned by the Cult and solely operated from the Church office building in SLC.

The problem is not that Mr. Norton, by his own admission, has

No morals,
No principles,
No scruples, and
Absolutely no integrity, but merely insane hatred to guide him.

That is not the problem.

It is indeed his problem, but not the forum's problem.

No, the forum's problem is that nobody else had any of those characteristics either; certain not enough to at least say "tsk tsk" or "tut tut" or "are you sure you should have done that?"

And that's why this place is a sty.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, what thread did you pull this from? This is the first time I'm reading this. I don't agree with this, and I would have said something.

It's from the fifth post on the first page of this thread.

Regards,
Pahoran