And Neal A. Maxwell needed to get some decent information.
Indeed, Maxwell told me directly in a private meeting that one of the purposes of FARMS was to keep the Church from being "outflanked" by its critics.
He shared that little gem with me in September 1993, in his personal office, located in the Church Administration Building, downtown Salt Lake City, Utah, with Dallin H. Oaks present, where we talked about matters of Mormon Church history, doctrine, policy and practice. (He also sent out for fax help directly from FARMS to assist him in not being "outflanked" when we discussed how the Book of Abraham was supposedly "translated").
For the benefit of this "SkepticChristian" dude (who can't counter Maxwell's encounter with the plausibly unanswerable with anything meaningful), here's the actual lay of the land.
By way of background, in another thread, RfM poster "angsty," asserted:
"I mean, the [Mormon] church has an official PR department and representatives who perform this role already. The MDL/FAIR guys aren't authorized by the [Mormon] church to speak on its behalf, and nothing they say should be considered authoritative.
"Maybe that's part of the strategy? Address the media through unofficial channels and then when the church makes changes that contradict what those unofficial channels proliferate, they have plausible deniability and can shift blame to the little people who have been operating without 'proper authority'?"
("Why doesn't this effort fall under the 'ark steadying' category?," posted by "angsty," on "Recovery from Mormonism" board, 5 August 2011, 4:41 p.m.)
_____
Ha! In reality, the FAIR, FARMS, MDL crowd does the Mormon Church's bidding with tacit approval from the highest levels of LDS, Inc.
Let me give you a specific and glaring example of that dependency.
In our September 1993 meeting, I directly asked Maxwell about Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham papyri "translation," Maxwell said he would get back to me with an answer.
When I met with him and fellow apostle/apologist Oaks in a follow-up meeting the same month, Maxwell produced his "evidence"--which led directly back to FARMS. (FARMS--the acronym for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies--was the predecessor to the current Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, located at BYU).
Tellingly, as I mentioned earlier, Maxwell provided his FARMS back-up material to me after first informing me that one of the purposes of FARMS was to prevent the General Authorities from being "outflanked" by the Mormon Church's critics.
Using FARMS-provided "research," Maxwell preceded to acknowledge that even though Joseph Smith's former scribe, Warren Parrish, and Mormon hymn composer, W. W. Phelps (of "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" fame), were at one point about ready to leave the Church, he nonetheless said, "[D]on't pounce on Joseph Smith."
(Now, here's where Maxwell's direct and confirmable reliance on FARMS comes in).
Maxwell told me that the work of Parrish and Phelps on the Book of Abraham manuscript helped bolster the argument that the Egyptian funerary texts were not the actual parchments used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham--or that Joseph Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.
In support of that position, 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, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).
On closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes review was photocopied, I determined the review originated with FARMS. Why? Because it was 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." It appears that Maxwell had solicited the assistance of FARMS in preparing for his discussions. (That fax sheet, by the way, is still in my possession).
Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following excerpt from Rhodes' article:
"First of all, none of these manuscripts of the [B]ook of Abraham is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. They are mostly in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parrish. Nowhere in the documents is Joseph Smith designated as the author. Moreover, the Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin were clearly written in after the English text had been written. These cannot be the working papers of a translation process. Instead, Phelps and Parrish seemed to have copied down the text of the [B]ook of Abraham and were then attempting to correlate that translation with some of the scrolls in the Church's possession. These documents are most likely that preliminary stage of investigation and exploration the Lord prescribed in D&C 9:8 to 'study it out in your mind.' The Lord expects us to first do all we can to understand something (and in the process discover our own limitations) before we seek for direct revelation from him. This is what Phelps and Parrish were apparently doing, although their efforts were short-lived and unsuccessful. In fact these same men shortly after this began to turn away from the Prophet Joseph and fell into apostasy. If they had been parties to some fraudulent process of producing the [B]ook of Abraham, they would surely have denounced Joseph Smith for this, but they never did."
In the end, Maxwell--responding to criticism of the Book of Abraham's authenticity--declared, "We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."
_____
And then there's Dallin Oaks--Maxwell's partner in Mormon meanderings--who says one thing in public about FARMS and another in private--and whose personal view of the outfit as been, well, somewhat less glowing than Maxwell's.
FARMS Boy Oaks: The Private vs. the Public "Devoted Dallin" on the Book of Mormon (and on FARMS Itself)
What has been the role of the pseudo-independent propaganda FARMS arm in peddling patently dishonest versions of Mormon doctrine and history to the great unwashed? (We also refer here to not only FARMS, of course, but to its successor FAIR, as well as oto the newly-concocted Mormon Defense League).
_____
RfM poster "dagny" astutely observes in another thread:
"My take:
"These organizations play an important role for the church. They test the waters.
"The [Mormon] church has lots of 'problems' that stem from its history and past teachings.
"Organizations like FAIR put out 'trial balloons' to see what flies. If something they come up with flies and starts to be well received and accepted, the church can slowly embrace the teaching. The church can pretend they thought that way all along since their own statements are so slippery.
"If the 'trial balloon' teaching is not received well, is easily debunked, or unfavorable the church watches. Thanks to the organization not being officially part of the church, the church can distance themselves from anything that turns out to be not in their best interest. The church has no accountability and maintains plausible deniability.
"So, when someone tries out the idea that tapirs were BoM horses or that there were two Hill Cumorahs, the church can safely keep its distance and see what flies. The church knows they don't have to provide concrete answers because the members are willing to manufacture them and pass them around.
"It is the ultimate tool for deciding what to emphasize, what to adapt, and what to drop down the memory hole."
("My take: These organizations play an important role for the church. They test the waters," posted by "dagny," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 5 August 2011, 9:48 p.m.)
_____
And how do Mormonism's apologetic apostles themselves regard not only the Book of Mormon, but also the water-carrying puppet organizations for the LDS Church whose mission it is to the Mormon minions to promote the Book of Mormon so stenuously?
Specifically, let's look at Dallin H. Oaks--and his telling flip-flops. It is telling to see what high Mormon Church leaders such as Oaks believe and speak about their faith in private--as compared to what they proclaim in public.
For instance, former RfM poster "Randy J." noted the following about Oaks' public speechifying regarding the Book of Mormon, as found in an address entitled "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," which Oaks delivered at a banquet of the faithful hosted by FARMS:
". . . [A]lthough Oaks' address is titled 'The Historicity of the Book of Mormon,' he offers not one iota of evidence to support that title in his entire speech. . . .
"Church leaders are willing to let FARMS and FAIR apologists go out on fragile limbs and propose their silly theories and publish their silly papers; but the leaders are much more reserved in their pronouncements, because they don't want to make any statements about 'Book of Mormon evidences' which can be refuted later."
("Two LDS Apostles Discuss Scientific Evidence for the BOM," posted by "Randy J.," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 6 July [year not noted], at:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon534.htm)
As an informative historical sidenote to the FARMS banquet speech which "Randy J." mentions, I learned from a private meeting with Oaks just a few weeks prior to him delivering that speech that what he said in private about the Book of Mormon was not in complete synchronization with his later public observations. To be sure, what Oaks expressed behind closed doors compared to what he later said in public at that FARMS banquet makes for interesting reading.
On 9 September 1993, in a closed-door meeting with Oaks and fellow Apostle Neal A. Maxwell in Maxwell’s Salt Lake City Church office, Oaks offered his personal observations and assessments about the Book of Mormon.
Approximately six weeks after having met with Oaks and Maxwell--on 29 October 1993--Oaks then spoke publicly on the Book of Mormon, in the aforementioned sermon entitled, “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," which was delivered at the annual dinner for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) in Provo, Utah.
(The text of Oaks' banquet remarks is available here: Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON," Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Annual Dinner, Provo, Utah, October 29, 1993, at:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Oaks-on-BoM-critics; and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," at:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Oaks_Historicity.htm)
_____
What follows is a compare-and-contrast examination of what Oaks said in that earlier private meeting about the Book of Mormon in the Church Administration Building in Salt Lake City, as compared to what he publicly told the FARMS audience a few weeks later at their banquet in Provo.
This examination will also provide some inside information about what Oaks actually thinks of both the Book of Mormon and FARMS. Note the similarities and, more importantly, the differences between Oaks’ privately- and publicly-expressed views on these matters.
_____
HISTORICTY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AND EVIDENCE OF PLAGIARISM
--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:
In the privacy of Maxwell's office, Oaks was shown striking parallels between a cross-referenced, color-coded copy of the Book of Mormon and the text for the "Spalding Manuscript:" B.H. Roberts' study of parallels between Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews;" the King James text of the Book of Isaiah; and the King James text of the New Testament--with particular emphasis being placed on the Book of Mormon timeline from 600 BC to 1 BC, when the words of the New Testament had not yet been written.
Further, Oaks was shown 17 parallels between the lives of the Book of Mormon prophet Alma and the New Testament apostle Paul. Note was made of the wording in Alma's letters that is found in exactly the same language in Paul's New Testament story.
Oaks' reply:
"Well, you know, as you've thumbed through your book, it only appears to me that 5% of your book has been marked, so I would say don't throw out the 95% because of the 5%. Don't take the 5% that you have serious questions about and cast out the 95% that is unexplained or divinely inspired."
Oaks continued:
"It's like being married to our wives. I'm sure there's more than 5% of me that my wife finds disagreement with, but she puts up with it anyway. It's kind of like being married to the Book of Mormon. Don't let your doubts keep you out of the mainstream."
Oaks' attention was also drawn to Moroni 10, which speaks of gifts of the spirit (to one is given one gift; to someone else is given another, etc). Verse by verse--comparing Moroni 10 to First Corinthians 12--the texts were shown to be almost exactly the same.
Oaks' reply:
"Well, it's not word-for-word and it's not the whole chapter."
Oaks was reminded that except for some minor variations--such as the oft-repeated phrase, "and again"--it was, for all intents and purposes, word-for-word.
When asked to explain how Moroni used the same language found in the King James version of the Bible, written hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon was recorded, Oaks replied that he himself had had the same question while preparing a talk on gifts of the spirit, as outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon and the New Testament.
Oaks said he concluded that all three authors were "impressed by the Holy Ghost" to record their thoughts "in this particular manner and in these particular words."
--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:
"In these remarks I will seek to use rational argument, but I will not rely on any proofs. I will approach the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon from the standpoint of faith and revelation. I maintain that the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is basically a difference between those who rely exclusively on scholarship and those who rely on a combination of scholarship, faith, and revelation.
"Those who rely exclusively on scholarship reject revelation and fulfill Nephi's prophecy that in the last days men 'shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance' (2 Ne. 28:4). The practitioners of that approach typically focus on a limited number of issues, like geography or 'horses' or angelic delivery or nineteenth century language patterns. They ignore or gloss over the incredible complexity of the Book of Mormon record. Those who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation are willing to look at the entire spectrum of issues, content as well as vocabulary, revelation as well as excavation."
_____
BOOK OF MORMON DOCTRINES THAT ARE NOT SUPPOSEDLY THE PRODUCT OF PLAGIARISM, BUT OF DIVINE REVELATION
--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:
In private, Oaks offered the following counsel:
"You ought to go through the Book of Mormon and color in all the differences and emphasize the unique and special teachings of the Book of Mormon that don't have any similarities to other sources." (The point, however, was not highlight differences between the Book of Mormon and other texts but, rather, to get answers regarding their similarities and/or identicalness in areas of story lines, wording, etc).
--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:
"Scholarship and physical proofs are worldly values. I understand their value, and I have had some experience in using them. Such techniques speak to many after the manner of their understanding. But there are other methods and values, too, and we must not be so committed to scholarship that we close our eyes and ears and hearts to what cannot be demonstrated by scholarship or defended according to physical proofs and intellectual reasoning. . . .
"I admire those scholars for whom scholarship does not exclude faith and revelation. It is part of my faith and experience that the Creator expects us to use the powers of reasoning he has placed within us, and that he also expects us to exercise our divine gift of faith and to cultivate our capacity to be taught by divine revelation. But these things do not come without seeking. Those who utilize scholarship and disparage faith and revelation should ponder the Savior's question: 'How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?' (John 5:44)."
_____
GOD HAS NOT YET PROVIDED FINAL PROOFS AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON
--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:
When asked how to deal with the above noted anomalies found in the Book of Mormon, Oaks replied that the jury was still out.
--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:
"Another way of explaining the strength of the positive position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to point out that we who are its proponents are content with a standoff on this question.
"Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination.
"In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum."
_____
THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE BOOK OF MORMON
--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:
In his ultimate assessment of evidentiary proof concerning the Book of Mormon, Oaks admitted that the arguments for and against the book were "equal," with neither side being able to prove whether the Book of Mormon was true or untrue. In the ultimate analysis, he said, the Book of Mormon had to be accepted on faith.
Oaks reiterated that there was no evidence proving or disproving the Book of Mormon.
He placed his hand over his heart and said, "I get this knot, this warm feeling right here, and that is what I go on." Oaks said that he had a conviction that the Book of Mormon was "true."
He said that feeling of truthfulness came from a "personal witness."
--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:
". . . [I]t is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Its authenticity depends, as it says, on a witness of the Holy Spirit. Our side will settle for a draw, but those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot settle for a draw. They must try to disprove its historicity--or they seem to feel a necessity to do this--and in this they are unsuccessful because even the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that. . . .
"Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You don't prove a negative by prevailing on one debater's point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments."
_____
FARMS' EFFORTS TO EMPIRICALLY PROVE THE BOOK OF MORMON
--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:
Oaks acknowledged that FARMS sometimes gets "hyperactive" in trying to prove that the Book of Mormon is true.
He said 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.
--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:
"Brothers and Sisters, how grateful we are--all of us who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation--for what you are doing. God bless the founders and the supporters and the workers of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The work that you do is important, it is well-known, and it is appreciated."
*****
--Oaks in Private and Oaks in Public on the Book of Mormon and FARMS:
Would the real Dallin Oaks please stand up?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 03:21PM by steve benson.