I had no particular reason to fear erosion of editorial independence. It was enough to know that we had been wholly independent but would now be part of a larger organization. Being part of a larger organization would inevitably mean the surrender of at least some autonomy. I was not yet certain how that would look in fact, as opposed to how it looked in theory.

There's nothing sinister here.

Any bachelor or bachelorette getting married, any small business owner taking his small business into a larger company, any solo singer joining a band, any independent playwright joining up with a producer to get his play on stage, has to wonder, occasionally, what degree of freedom will be retained under the new arrangement and what degree of freedom will be yielded up.




.

I hope I didn't imply there was. I wouldn't say sinister. I don't subscribe to any big conspiracy theory at all. My change in outlook is more about how much the top leaders want to control the message or do so. I have readily acknowledged that I know absolutely nothing about BYU or FARMS in particular and especially the way they were set up or how they operate. I think there are abundant examples of how the message is controlled, although perhaps FARMS and FAIR are off the mainstream there. I have no way of knowing though how much they are subject to outside control, if any (if it isn't inaccurate to refer to the big top leaders as "outside"). But I'm saying I accept more now than I did before that the leaders do decide what the message is and seek to control it. I don't think that is always successful but that's another story.

And that's not even that unusual. Of course every body has a certain need and wish to control its image and message.



Absolutely agree. In fact, I believe I said so up above. I said it makes sense to me that a formerly autonomous body would stand a good chance of losing some of its previous independence when joining ranks with another body and so the principals would think long and hard about the ramifications of a merger before leaping in, only to regret the results, especially if the circumstances could have been foreseen with a little analysis.

Or something like that.

Hey, we agree about the autonomy. That's as good as it's likely to get.

It was interesting to read about all the elements that needed to be considered in making the merger happen. So thanks for that. (I'm not sure that merger is the correct word? I just mean that FARMS moved to the BYU area. But then came under some BYU or other input, unlike previously. So merger? Or ???)

There is so much we don't know, I don't know what the right word is.

But there are some grave implications about how apologists see the church here. I mean, to compare the embodiment of the restored gospel to "large companies"or "record producers" -- both which are synonymous with corruption and greed -- is pretty telling. It makes me wonder if the apologists were "pressured" into it.

This is so lame, this discussion is is degenerated to nothing, it might as well be a Coca Cola story creating Coke 0 product and stupid commercials that classic is complaining to parent company.

The fact is so simple; Brass has absolutely no intention touching convoluted LDS history, let alone discussing them with public or media. They create this FARMS Apologist front to deal with the mess and conveniently insert a disclaimer "this opinion is absolutely is not connected to Official Church".
It's amazing Brass stayed blind to how much damage Nibley created, instead they enlarged the process of dissemination of false information.
It isn't working, it makes matters worse, if this was my company I'd get rid of or scale down FARMS next to nothing.

I was reviewing some of the old posts on this thread, and I felt that it would be useful to summarize some of the unanswered questions:

1) What motivated the Brethren to "invite" FARMS to join fully and officially with BYU? We know that it had something to do with FARMS's "fundraising" and PR, as per Reynolds, but what, specifically, was it? The Ziggurat?

2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

3) What did the Chair of Ancient Studies think of DCP's characterization of his actions, and, further, why did DCP feel the need to characterize his actions as "assert[ing] suzerainty"?

4) What were the details---financial and otherwise---underlying both the 1995 Protocol, and the subsequent "discussions"?

5) Why, during this very tumultuous time, was the FARMS accountant terminated?

Has it?

There's no possible way of knowing, since the FARMS Review has been carefully hidden, so that harmony can't read it, at

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/


I've never heard of any "'quip' which clued [me] into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down."

Nor have I said any such thing. And I'm the only person on this board in a position to serve as a source about the quip.

I can never quite make up my mind: Does Scratch make this stuff up deliberately, or is he just a poor reader?


How it must gall Scratch that BYU doesn't simply turn all of its financial records and recordings of all of its administrative deliberations over to him!

I urge the University to issue a sincere public apology to Scratch as soon as possible.


As I've pointed out to Scratch, that's absolutely none of his business. He'll just have to get one of his creepy network of anonymous informants to hack into the confidential personnel files at BYU. But I suspect that's illegal.

And who said anything about a "tumultuous time"?

Does he make this stuff up deliberately, or is he just a poor reader? I can't quite decide.

What was the quip?



What was the quip? You've been asked multiple times about it, and yet you dodge each time. Should we assume that it's a source of embarrassment for you?



You also pointed out that it was supposedly "confidential," which, if true, doesn't reflect very well on the fact that you were blabbing about it here on this messageboard.



I think it's well implied by the articles I linked to, and it's certainly implicit in the fact that you nearly resigned over the stress of it all.



Do you launch smear campaigns and treat people badly because you are a moral degenerate, or because you think it's funny?

I would say that it has toned down a bit.

It began something like "Mister Scratch, Gadianton Scratch, Rollo Tomasi Scratch, and Kishkumen Scratch walked into a bar." I can't remember the punch line, though.


Why not?


I said we let him go. That's easily and publicly available. I've said nothing about the reason for it.

If you really think it's a violation of confidentiality for me to say that we let him go, why are you demanding that the reason(s) for that action be made public? Because you don't care about confidentiality?


It's something of a mix of the two. That's pretty much why I also push old widows down the stairs, steal wheelchairs, and torture kittens.

Gee, I wonder why you're trying so hard to avoid answering a very simple, very direct question? What might this say about you and your relationship with the Brethren?



Of course you'd give this advice. You are the king of mind-reading and presumptuousness, after all.



Dan---you were the one who brought this up in the first place. We were discussing FARMS's huge, impressive budget, and the documented fact that you were paid $20,000 as FARMS Chair, and in the midst of this, you threw the accountant under the bus, saying that he had been fired for being "incompetent," or something like that---all in an apparent effort to make it seem as if the $20K entry was a mistake of some kind. (Why you would do this if there was a good, rational explanation for the figure of 20 grand is anybody's guess.) So don't try to claim that I am somehow doing something wrong here. I'm not the one who blabbed about the firing of the accountant in a rather desperate effort to hide the fact that I was paid to do apologetics.



I thought so. You've been spewing evidence of it over the course of your multi-decade career to defame and blacken the character of Church critics.

Scratch, your day has passed.

Get used to it.

Find a new reason for existence that doesn't depend upon attention from me.

Wow, what a zinger. You sure got me there, Prof. P. (By the way: you have avoided telling us about the quip yet again!) I don't care whether you pay attention to what I say or not. Your avoidance of the issue says just as much about you as your earlier, more substantive posts on this thread. I'm sure the lurkers you've long been worried about are noticing this.

??????

I take it they're not the same ones who've written to me from time to time about what a nutjob they think you are?

This very troubling.

It galls me.

I think I need an apology from somebody.

It's a watershed moment in the history of lurkers.

Oh? So you've conveniently got your own set of "anonymous informants"? (BTW: you still haven't told us about the quip.)

Anyways, I think it's time to call your bluff. You are perpetually attacking me, claiming I've "obsessively hostile," or "insane," or whatever else. And yet, on MAD not all that long ago, you admitted that you actually did not think that I'm crazy. If this is true, then it means that all your endless whining has just been a ruse---that, in effect, you've been lying about how supposedly "upset" you are at my criticism of you.

I'll tell you what: I've said before that I'd retire if you'd simply apologize or demonstrate some accountability for your less-than-admirable behavior. This time, I'll make a different offer: if you do genuinely think I'm a bad person, that I'm insane, or "hostile," or whatever else, then say so, in direct terms, and I'll depart for good.

I genuinely think that you're either a truly bad person or insane in some sense (I'm not a specialist). In either case, for reasons that I honestly cannot fathom, you're irrationally, unfairly, unceasingly, and absurdly hostile to me, personally.

I just can't make up my mind why you treat me the way you do.

And I haven't demanded that you leave, nor will I demand it even though I've apparently now fulfilled your conditions. I simply ask that you not approach me and everything I do with such all-consuming unfairness and hostility. You're far from stupid. You could probably make substantive contributions here.

Psst... It's because you're so hot.

You're probably right. I really hadn't thought of that. (I'm almost as humble as I am hot.)

I've told you why I've been critical of you: it's because I think that apologetics, as led by you, is really, truly an evil enterprise. It needs to be shut down. Also, I object to the way you treat others on the various messageboards.



And what are we to make of the ways you treat Mike Quinn, Robert Ritner, James White, Tal Bachman, Harmony, and countless other people? In the end, you'll just say, in some way, shape, or form: "They deserved it!" Well, so did you. You get what you give, Professor P.



Yes, you have. And I'm a man of my word. I'll simply end by informing the rest of the posters here about your little "taunting" game some time back.

Back during my days posting on FAIR, I used to log in using a University of Southern California computer. (And no---I won't say whether it was as faculty, staff, student, or via one of the public-access terminals.) Apparently, this fact was looked at or "spied upon" by the moderating team at FAIR/MAD. Also apparently, the USC IP addresses terminate at the USC Gould School of Law (I'm guessing, anyhow). Well, it seems that this information was passed along to DCP, who thought that he would use it in an effort to taunt me and/or shut me up. You can search through his old posts for words like "trojan," or "gould," and so on. You'll see that DCP would drop these terms into various exchanges that we had. I later learned, thanks to Liz, that DCP believed that I had been a student at the USC law school (I never was), and he was using this information to try and attack me. Probably nobody noticed, but that's what he was up to. And, as people here know, I certainly never said anything publicly about myself. So: he was using ill-begotten information to try and shut me up, or to exact revenge against me. This ought to answer the question of whether or not he peddles people's IRL information in an unethical fashion. Again: this was totally private information that I'd never revealed to anybody.

Did I deserve this kind of treatment? Maybe so. But, it doesn't matter. In any case, thus ends Mister Scratch.

I'm just pissed that I'll never see a FARMS Ziggurat. That would have been AWESOME!

So you will be revealing your true identity? Ending your crusade against Mopologetics? Or what?