The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2008

[_Mister Scratch]

the repeated denials concerning money and apologetics have been, well, silly.

If the truth is silly, I'll still go with the truth.

Claiming that you receive no money ("not one dime") for apologetics, is not the truth. This is why you always surface here when the topic arises: you have been caught trying to pander a rather spectacular and embarrassing equivocation. This is why you and others have tried very desperately to make light of all of this; this is why the issue ranks #1 on my Top Ten list.

NMI is a part of BYU, which is under the control of the LDS Church. Dr. Peterson is an employee of BYU and a defender of the Church. He is a member of the executive council of NMI, and participates in the apologetic effort (an apologetic article by DCP is currently featured on the NMI homepage). I may not be able to connect his work on apologetics to his contract except in the most indirect way (like citizenship), but I do not believe that apologetics has never been viewed as part of his career--the one for which he is paid--in any way by his superiors.

Whether you believe it or not, my salary is set in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, which cares that I teach courses about Arabic and the Near East and that I edit the Islamic Translation Series, the Medical Works of Moses Maimonides, the Eastern Christian Texts series, and the Library of the Christian East, but has no interest in whether or not I speak at FAIR or edit the FARMS Review.

No one cares about any of that. "Apples and oranges," as you say. The truth---to reference your post once again---is that you have received money for apologetics (sometimes as much as a symbolic $20,000), and that you have tried very hard to obscure and down play this fact.

You can speculate and opine all you like about the conditions of my employment, but, unless you're really my department chairman, you've never been present for my annual interview with him nor read my annual stewardship report. But I have.

Again: completely irrelevant since your apologetic income is separate from your "professional" income. (Or is it?)

There is sometimes a difference between the truth and a legalistic point of fact. If the issue boils down to a legalistic point of fact (and in the case of DCP's denials concerning money and apologetics I most certainly think it does), then why so persistent in the denials? It all seems rather pointless, and only provides further fodder for Scratch.

He doesn't need fodder. He feeds on fantasy and distortion.

Pleading guilty to his false accusations wouldn't sate his appetite. Quite the contrary.

My statements are neither "false" nor are they "accusations." And you wouldn't know whether admission would "sate [my] appetite" since you have never, as long as I have known you, admitted to any wrongdoing or misstep whatsoever. Even when the evidence of your malfeasance is completely overwhelming and irrefutable (your Quinn gossip, or your l-skinny behavior, or your "outing" of GoodK, for example), you still stubbornly insist that your are perfectly Christ-like in your actions.

I don't care about him. I don't really care about most of the regulars here. They'll think what they want to think, and, in most cases, they'll be wrong. But it's possible that some non-pod-people look in here from time to time, and, for their sake and for the record, I'll occasionally surface here to contradict flatly false claims.

You do care, as Ray so adequately pointed out. There is nothing inaccurate about what I've said, hence Trevor's thoughtful and very honest post.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Claiming that you receive no money ("not one dime") for apologetics, is not the truth.

Claiming that I claim that I receive no money ("not one dime") for apologetics is not the truth.

The truth---to reference your post once again---is that you have received money for apologetics (sometimes as much as a symbolic $20,000), and that you have tried very hard to obscure and down play this fact.

The truth is that the $20,000.00 figure is not a fact and isn't true and isn't even near the truth.

We've been over this, at length. Others here have understood the situation properly. They've even tried to explain it to you. Those who've followed the matter and haven't understood it by now almost certainly never will.

your apologetic income is separate from your "professional" income. (Or is it?)

It is. And, even in an especially lucrative apologetic year -- i.e., in a year when I have an apologetic income -- it has never risen to anything approaching even 0.005 of my professional income.

Even when the evidence of your malfeasance is completely overwhelming and irrefutable (your Quinn gossip, or your l-skinny behavior, or your "outing" of GoodK, for example), you still stubbornly insist that your are perfectly Christ-like in your actions.

No, I simply decline to roll over and play dead for your false accusations.

You do care, as Ray so adequately pointed out.

I care that your false accusations not go uncontradicted.

I congratulate Ray, though, on your judgment of him as adequate. I'm sure he'll be very pleased.

[_Ray A]

I care that your false accusations not go uncontradicted.

I congratulate Ray, though, on your judgment of him as adequate. I'm sure he'll be very pleased.

Dan, your're trying to escape this issue is like the politician who says he only earns so much per year. Perks not included. Don't tell me BYU doesn't have a "dual mission" in regard to you.

I only have two legs to pull, by the way.

[_Mister Scratch]

Claiming that you receive no money ("not one dime") for apologetics, is not the truth.

Claiming that I claim that I receive no money ("not one dime") for apologetics is not the truth.

Tell that to yourself. The conversations in which you rather sneakily did just that are all online. Again I ask you (for the third, fourth, or fifth time): why would very intelligent posters such as Trevor and Dr. Shades be so mystified about your denials? If you've been so up-front about your Mopologetic income, wouldn't it be easy enough for you to provide a link to some post in which you mentioned it? It is easy enough for me to link to something such as your plea for TBMs to purchase your Mopologetic DVDs or CDs, or whatever. What are we supposed to think about all of that?

The truth---to reference your post once again---is that you have received money for apologetics (sometimes as much as a symbolic $20,000), and that you have tried very hard to obscure and down play this fact.

The truth is that the $20,000.00 figure is not a fact and isn't true and isn't even near the truth.

It is listed on the form. You can claim that you never "received" it, but, as I stated in my post (you do know how to read, right?), the figure is, at the very least, "symbolic."

We've been over this, at length. Others here have understood the situation properly. They've even tried to explain it to you. Those who've followed the matter and haven't understood it by now almost certainly never will.

The figure is, at the very least, "symbolic." It represents, in the eyes of the IRS and others, the "symbolic" value of your Mopologetic efforts.

your apologetic income is separate from your "professional" income. (Or is it?)

It is. And, even in an especially lucrative apologetic year -- i.e., in a year when I have an apologetic income -- it has never risen to anything approaching even 0.005 of my professional income.

Given that your FARMS Chair fee was $20,000, this would mean that your BYU salary was somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000,000 per year. Is that the truth?

Even when the evidence of your malfeasance is completely overwhelming and irrefutable (your Quinn gossip, or your l-skinny behavior, or your "outing" of GoodK, for example), you still stubbornly insist that your are perfectly Christ-like in your actions.

No, I simply decline to roll over and play dead for your false accusations.

None of my "accusations" (a stereotypical Mopologetic distortion, I might add) have been "false." The evidence, in fact, is overwhelming.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, your trying to escape this issue is like the politician who says he only earns so much per year. Perks not included.

Ray, I'm genuinely sorry that you've joined my malevolent stalker on this issue.

But the fact remains that I've been completely forthright on the matter. I'm paid as a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies. Within the Maxwell Institute, I'm the director and editor-in-chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initative. Neither of those roles is even remotedly apologetic in character. (Try reading Ibn Sina's Metaphysics or Ibn Rushd's Middle Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima and then telling me, with a straight face, that my editing of it was an apologetic enterprise. Find the apologetic angle for me in a chart of irregular Arabic verbs, or in the Qur’an seminar that I'll soon be launching.)

Don't tell me BYU doesn't have a "dual mission" in regard to you.

I'm not going to lie to you in an attempt to regain your good opinion of me.

[_Mister Scratch]

Dan, your trying to escape this issue is like the politician who says he only earns so much per year. Perks not included.

Ray, I'm genuinely sorry that you've joined my malevolent stalker on this issue.

But the fact remains that I've been completely forthright on the matter. I'm paid as a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies. Within the Maxwell Institute, I'm the director and editor-in-chief of the Middle Eastern Texts Initative. Neither of those roles is even remotedly apologetic in character. (Try reading Ibn Sina's Metaphysics or Ibn Rushd's Middle Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima and then telling me, with a straight face, that my editing of it was an apologetic enterprise. Find the apologetic angle for me in a chart of irregular Arabic verbs, or in the Qur’an seminar that I'll soon be launching.)

You are also editor-in-chief of FARMS Review, and, come to think of it, your mention of the Arabic portions of FARMS seem like mere cover for your apologetic activities. It is almost as if you bring this stuff up in an effort to conceal the fact that, at heart, you are getting paid to indulge in your "hobby"---i.e., apologetics. If you have documentation proving that you receive no remuneration to do apologetics, then I think we could take you at your word. But, instead, you continue to flail about in ugly desperation. You've lost Ray. You've lost Trevor. How many others will follow them along the path? You ought to just cough up the truth, Prof. P.

Don't tell me BYU doesn't have a "dual mission" in regard to you.

I'm not going to lie to you in an attempt to regain your good opinion of me.

Whether the "dual mission" is in writing, or implicit: Ray has a very good point. You've said that your colleagues have been opposed to your Mopologetics, which suggests that the "powers that be," whomever they my be, have been able to exert enough power to enable you to continue in your Mopologetic pursuits.

I don't know who you think you're kidding with your endless, silly denials.

[_Ray A]

Don't tell me BYU doesn't have a "dual mission" in regard to you.

I'm not going to lie to you in an attempt to regain your good opinion of me.

I've been wanting to ask you this, Dan. Why do you seek to "moderate" religions like Islam, and see them as a threat in their fundamentalist versions, yet you don't apply that standard to Mormonism? You've said, for your own reasons, that the Qur'an doesn't match the Book of Mormon. You feel that the Book of Mormon is true, but you reject the Qur'an as being true.

That's what perplexes me - that you want to relativise truth in regard to Islam, and create more moderates, yet you don't see this need in Mormonism. Because it's "the truth"?

Please enlighten me, Dan.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Again I ask you (for the third, fourth, or fifth time): why would very intelligent posters such as Trevor and Dr. Shades be so mystified about your denials?

Ask them. I have no idea why they're mystified.

If you've been so up-front about your Mopologetic income, wouldn't it be easy enough for you to provide a link to some post in which you mentioned it? It is easy enough for me to link to something such as your plea for TBMs to purchase your Mopologetic DVDs or CDs, or whatever. What are we supposed to think about all of that?

You're supposed to think, first of all, that I have no "Mopologetic DVDs." Otherwise, you're hallucinating. I've appeared in a few, but I've never received so much as a penny for having appeared in any of them.

I have, I think, two CD sets that could be considered apologetic, and from which I've received royalties. The royalties have been so small that, frankly, I can't even remember what they came to. A hundred bucks each, maybe? Something like that. Over the course of three or four years. What are you supposed to think? You're supposed to have sufficient common sense to realize that authors often get royalties from books, that artists typically get royalties from works of art, that musicians typically receive royalties from recordings, and that speakers whose lectures are recorded by commercial firms and sold probably receive royalties, as well. That's pretty much standard stuff, isn't it? I mean, really.

You can claim that you never "received" it, but, as I stated in my post (you do know how to read, right?), the figure is, at the very least, "symbolic."

"Symbolic" of what?

It represents, in the eyes of the IRS and others, the "symbolic" value of your Mopologetic efforts.

As I've told you, it almost certainly represents the Maxwell Institute's compensation of my department for the time I spend editing the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, which is housed in the Maxwell Institute and which is absolutely not apologetic.

We've been over this numerous times. Several of the people here plainly understand the situation correctly, and they have tried (vainly, it's clear) to explain it to you.

your apologetic income is separate from your "professional" income. (Or is it?)

It is. And, even in an especially lucrative apologetic year -- i.e., in a year when I have an apologetic income -- it has never risen to anything approaching even 0.005 of my professional income. [/quote]
Given that your FARMS Chair fee was $20,000, this would mean that your BYU salary was somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000,000 per year. Is that the truth?[/QUOTE]
LOL.

Poor fellow.

[_Daniel Peterson]

come to think of it, your mention of the Arabic portions of FARMS seem like mere cover for your apologetic activities.

That's right. The fourteen complex bilingual books that we've produced thus far, and the five that are nearly ready to go to press, are mere cover. They simply appear. They've required neither work nor time on my part.

If you have documentation proving that you receive no remuneration to do apologetics, then I think we could take you at your word.

Documentation proving a negative? That's rich.

But, instead, you continue to flail about in ugly desperation. You've lost Ray. You've lost Trevor. How many others will follow them along the path? You ought to just cough up the truth, Prof. P.

It may well be that I'm going to lose all of the ten or fifteen active participants on this board.

I'll just have to live with it, if it happens.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've been wanting to ask you this, Dan. Why do you seek to "moderate" religions like Islam, and see them as a threat in their fundamentalist versions, yet you don't apply that standard to Mormonism?

I've been absolutely forthright and on the record in condemning all Mormon terrorist groups. Whenever militant Mormons have decapitated somebody, or hijacked an airliner, or blown up a building, I've spoken out.

You've said, for your own reasons, that the Qur'an doesn't match the Book of Mormon. You feel that the Book of Mormon is true, but you reject the Qur'an as being true.

Not altogether, no.

But I make no secret of the fact that I'm a Mormon and not a Muslim. I'm also not a Hindu, a Jain, or a Buddhist.

That's what perplexes me - that you want to relativise truth in regard to Islam, and create more moderates, yet you don't see this need in Mormonism. Because it's "the truth"?

Please enlighten me, Dan.

I actually have no idea what you're talking about. I've said nothing about "relativizing" any truth, with regard to Islam or to anything else. (I'm not even sure what it would mean.) And I have no clue what you intend to say by claiming that I favor moderation in Islam but not in Mormonism.