First, I'm not paid "directly by the Mormon Church" at all. I'm paid by Brigham Young University, as are all other professors and staff at the University (including those who are not Latter-day Saints). Thus, at best, I'm indirectly paid by the Mormon Church. This is less dramatic than your formulation, but it’s more accurate.
Meaningless distinction without a difference.
Second, no part of my salary -- absolutely none, not a dime -- comes from my apologetic undertakings.
ROFL! Which we now know is a lie.
I am a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, situated in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages:
And former editor of the "Review" which paid you enough money for doing apologetics.
I earn absolutely none of my salary for writing on Mormon topics. Zilch. Zero. I make my living teaching academic subjects like Arabic and Near Eastern studies, and for directing international research projects.
And using your celebrity status for giving guided tours for wealth Mormons.
The fact that DCP lied through his teeth on a number of occasions about a number of issues should be disturbing to his rabid fans and loyal supporters, as well as to the LDS Church hierarchy in general.
In addition to his patently false denial with regard to being a paid apologist, he has been responsible for few other whoppers as well.
As I recall, for example, DCP also denied, in writing and in no uncertain terms, that a hit piece on John Dehlin even existed, let alone a 100 page hit piece. Yet that very piece seems to have been a factor in bringing his take-no-prisoners tenure to well deserved end with the long overdue decision to sack him as editor of the Review.
(I still have a hard time comprehending a 100 page hit piece - but hey, apologists who really have nothing substantive to say, often try to mask the fact with mere verbiage.)
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
To clarify: Dan did originally admit that he got paid to edit the Review, though he said that this was a pittance, and that it barely rose to the level of "minimum wage," though I suppose he could have been lying about that. What strikes me as being most problematic is that, in the exchange archived in this old thread, he insists that his editorial work is "not apologetic." Clearly, in his email, he indicates that this just isn't the case at all. They had believed all along that the main purpose of the Review and the MI was to launch aggressive attacks on critics.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:To clarify: Dan did originally admit that he got paid to edit the Review, though he said that this was a pittance, and that it barely rose to the level of "minimum wage," though I suppose he could have been lying about that. What strikes me as being most problematic is that, in the exchange archived in this old thread, he insists that his editorial work is "not apologetic." Clearly, in his email, he indicates that this just isn't the case at all. They had believed all along that the main purpose of the Review and the MI was to launch aggressive attacks on critics.
Like I said, DCP falsely denied being a paid apologist. Thank you for the clarification as to how this came about.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Doctor Scratch wrote:To clarify: Dan did originally admit that he got paid to edit the Review, though he said that this was a pittance, and that it barely rose to the level of "minimum wage," though I suppose he could have been lying about that.
He was lying about that. We saw the way he was adamant in his email to Bradford about getting paid for editing an issue that was never published. It seems unlikely that someone of his six figure income would make such a big deal about what he has always described as a "small token" payment that amounted to nearly nothing. I suspect he is like a lobbyist, where his income rises with his success at suckering in wealthy donors.
What strikes me as being most problematic is that, in the exchange archived in this old thread, he insists that his editorial work is "not apologetic." Clearly, in his email, he indicates that this just isn't the case at all. They had believed all along that the main purpose of the Review and the MI was to launch aggressive attacks on critics.
I know, right? This email was revealing in so many ways. It just shows two sides of Peterson. Like Schryver, he is willing to lie about even the most irrelevant things, so long as he thinks he can get away with it.