FARMS, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, reviewed the internet. The FARMS review suffers from the same problems their other literature suffers from--use of the flawed methodologies common to apologetics.
Find out some of the problems with Fawn Brodie's biography on Joseph Smith. Also take a look at the glaring errors and misleading tactics used by the foremost apologist of Mormonism.
A former Mormon lists the various responses he heard from active Mormons who didn't like the questions he raised before leaving.
A reponse to Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?. See, also, the analysis of the various versions of this document (linked at the bottom of the page).
"That is a most telling statement, and seems to be the status quo for FARMS research in general. Start with the result you want, and keep researching and twisting the facts until the results you want can be shown, or at the very least, implied."
Apologist Sorenson takes aim at the Smithsonian when it is the faith-promoting stories floating around Mormon circles he should really be aiming at. Sorenson stands alone among anthropologists with his literalistic views on the Book of Mormon. The reason? He is starting with a conclusion which must be defended rather than looking at the "big picture" and finding or creating a theory which fits the facts.
Roberts defended the Book of Mormon in public. After all, he was a general authority. However, reading his private writings and recorded private conversations on the subject in full context provide a very different picture of his views. In this discussion, an apologist twists things around to make Roberts' doubts seemingly disappear.
Does the Book of Mormon show evidence of its Hebrew origins? Apologists think so. Skeptics think the King James Version of the Bible shows a better and more likely fit.
Read the fascinating story of Thomas Stuart Ferguson. He was an apologist who turned into a doubter.
Scholarship and apologetics tend to operate in different universes. Simple faith can get all messed up when apologetic literature is entered into the mix. Then the faith must be proven--something which isn't easy to do without dishonest or sloppy tactics.
Nearly any repetative writings or speeches can show forms of ancient Hebrew styles if you look hard enough.
Decades after Nibley introduced this piece of apologia, it continues to be used by Mormons dispite being filled with erroneous assumptions from beginning to end.
It is the spirit--not the facts, scholarship, or history--that counts. One of my questions is "which spirit?".