|Subject:||FARMS Update (June 1985): Moses, Moroni, and the Salamander|
|Date:||May 05 14:37|
|The document referred to below, "Martin
Harris Letter of 23 Oct. 1830...", was claimed to be a genuine
document found by Mark Hofmann. The church accepted it as genuine
and FARMS went to work on it. FARMS, in their form of apologetics,
defended the document as further proof of the claims of Mormonism.
Well, the truth was something else. Hofmann was a forger and
the document a fake. This is a great resource to show how FARMS
spins damaging information to keep Mormons under the illusion that all
is well in Mormonism. This is true too of their defenses of the
Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.
Exmormon.org May 2003
|Subject:||LOL! Sounds just like FARMS. Defending the indefensible, and in this case, defending a lie. nt|
|Subject:||Isn't that article great?|
|Date:||May 05 15:37|
|"Classic" FARMS reads like the National
Enquirer. I have all their FARMS Updates from 1984-89. They're all a
page each and are written anonymously, or at least no author is named in
them. They could almost be narrated by Leonard Nimoy from "In
Yep, this is Mormonism's finest in scholarship.
|Subject:||Some quotes from an anti-FARMS website|
|Date:||May 05 16:39|
|I found a few quotes on an anti-FARMS website that
totally contradict the FARMS way of publishing articles without an
http://scriptures.lds.org/rom/1/16 - I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/5/16 - Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/1/3 - Their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.
This scriptures.lds.org website sure is anti-FARMS.
|Subject:||LOL!! Pro-dogma vs pro-truth|
|Date:||May 05 18:39|
|While the FARMS-bots were bending over backwards trying to make a salamander into Moroni, the anti-Mormon Tanners were dismissing Hofman's letter as a probable forgery.|
|Subject:||Their apologetics are more harmful to their cause than the|
|Date:||May 06 06:02|
|original embarrassment they seek to hide with their
verbal equivalent of a Rube Goldberg contraption.
For example, they may have revealed more than they wanted about the culpable mental state of FARMS apologists when they wrote this gem:
Still, it was predictable that people would not understand this. The Lord apparently knew this would happen. In 1829, God commanded Harris not to try to describe things which he had not personally witnessed: "And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these are the words which he shall say." D&C 5:26. Harris seems to have overstepped his commission here when he wrote to Phelps in 1830. [Underlining added for emphasis]
Take a minute and think carefully about what is being said here. This is either a stupid non-sequitur or they are saying that Joe Smith got a revelation instructing Martin Harris to lie about things he had not witnessed. This paragraph is clearly constructed so that "these things" in the quoted scripture refers to "things which he had not personally witnessed" in the FARMS author's introduction to the quoted scripture.
Accordingly, the FARMS author is asserting that "God" (i.e., Joe Smith pretending to be God) is telling Martin Harris that when he speaks about the things which he has not personally witnessed, he should not say anything except "I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God."
This is what's called "coaching a witness to lie". When a corrupt lawyer coaches a witness to lie, one of the most important things is to ensure that the witness refrains from embellishing the story or inadvertently revealing truths that undermine the story. In the case of a "witness" like Martin Harris, you can be sure that Joe Smith didn't want Martin to tell people that he witnessed the golden plates with "spiritual eyes". No, Joe wanted him to stick to the script and keep it simple. Let the suckers fill in the blanks. Any common drunk can see things with spiritual eyes and you don't want potential suckers, er, converts, discounting the witness on that basis.
However, I really don't believe it was the FARMS author's intent to state that Martin Harris was being coached by "God" to lie about thing he had not witnessed. I just think that this is a good example of the nonsensical nature of FARMS apologetics in general. This one passage from the FARMS piece reveals that the verbal fog spewed out by FARMS is not intended to be thought about carefully. It is intended as a pacifier to the deluded--an illusion to deceive Mormons who want to be deceived in the false comfort that the Mormon "intellectuals" have successfully refuted the critics.