MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[Guest]

.

Sooner or later you have to come to grips with the reality that their stamina for argument and single-minded capacity to "hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest" so far exceeds your own as to create a condition of inexorable futility.

And, given that realization, it should then be self-evident that there is no time like the present.

Ah. I was wondering when a little acolyte might come along with nothing to offer to subject of the thread. Kudos. Well played, Sir.

[_Chap]

And we are to believe that there is no evidence that "some people in BYU ... don't like it being associated with LDS apologetics" as I said above?

The work of the particular person I have in mind wasn't even apologetic.

But believe what you choose.

Yup. And we shall base it on the evidence of what DCP (who has now finally e-imploded?) has told us on this thread:

Yet the University has never asked me to write anything apologetic, and I've been faulted on several occasions for having done so. And there is no reason to believe that, had any and all Mormon-related writing disappeared entirely from my resumé, my rank and salary would be any less than they are now. In fact, my salary might, very possibly, have been somewhat higher.

The University as such has told me nothing, one way or the other. I was advised by well-meaning colleagues at the time of my hiring to stay away from Mormon topics, have been told similar things by well-meaning colleagues since, and have been criticized by one department administrator for having written on Mormon topics. For two or three years, in fact, his views on the matter probably had a negative impact on my annual salary increase -- which will affect my salary for the remainder of my career. I disagreed with him, and I declined to comply with his preferences. This is largely a matter of administrator autonomy. I have one close colleague and friend (in another BYU college) whose salary and rank advancement have been much more negatively affected than mine because of his writing on Mormon topics, even though his non-Mormon publication record is extremely, unusually, good. Writing on Mormonism not only didn't help him; it hurt him. He was penalized for it, and was explicitly told that he was being penalized, and has for a number of years now avoided further Mormon-related writing. That is, from what I can tell, par for the course in that particular college; fortunately, my college hasn't been so draconian about the matter. Still, while I can't guarantee that my own writing on Mormonism has ever helped me, salary-wise, I'm reasonably sure that it has hurt me. Fortunately, though, the damage hasn't been catastrophic.

It seems that some people in BYU don't like any writing about Mormonism, let alone apologetics .... can't blame them, really.

[_Mister Scratch]

I write what I want to write when I want to write it. Once in a while, a friend (LDS or non-LDS) has asked me to contribute something to a book or journal, but I have never written anything that I can think of at the request of the University or at the request of a General Authority.

This shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Have you done anything pertaining to apologetics at the prompting of a GA? I know, for example, that you acted as an "agent" for the SCMC at one time, which virtually qualifies, in my opinion (provided that one views the SCMC as engaging in "apologetics," which I do believe is the case).

I think you're being careful with your responses, which I find curious.

You prefer lack of care?

That's not what Hana is saying, and you know it. You are being *SO* careful that you are practically distorting the truth. It is like with your "not one dime of my salary comes from Mopologetics!", which you've now had to revise to say, "I've never received a single penny from writing about Mopologetics!" Why not just tell the straightforward truth from the get-go?

If you were to stipulate that there is such as thing as Mormon apologetics, I wonder who you'd say are the ten leading LDS apologists currently living (feel free to include yourself in that list if you feel that is appropriate).

I don't like to make such lists, and won't. Sorry.

Again, we have to confront the critical question: Why is there such a powerful desire to distance Mopologetics from the Church? Anyways, despite DCP's denials that he ever did anything apologetic for the Church, I wonder if this holds true for other apologists, such as Richard Turley. Did he write Victims at the urging of the Brethren, I wonder? Was Hugh Nibley ever given marching orders from the Church? It's an interesting question.

[_Mister Scratch]

It seems that some people in BYU don't like any writing about Mormonism, let alone apologetics .... can't blame them, really.

Chap---

I think you're quite right. However, it's important to note that "some people" at BYU (and perhaps higher up in the Church) evidently do like and approve of apologetics, and, in fact, this is what DCP doesn't want us to know. Think about it: if there were really a good deal of anti-apologetic sentiment at BYU, or amongst the Brethren, how long do you think it would be allowed to continue? The LDS Church is an institution that boots out anything problematic or unsavory at the drop of a hat. There really can be no question, in my opinion, that both the Church and BYU approve of Mopologetics on some level. DCP would like us to believe that Mopologetics is 100% run by volunteers, and by well-meaning, independent members of the Church. But, this clearly isn't true. LDS apologetics is housed at BYU, and it receives implicit support from both BYU and the Brethren. Further, the fact that the FP secretary was willing to overturn doctrine in order to support a FARMS theory pretty much seals the deal. Mopologetics is "officially sanctioned." There is no "separation between Church and FARMS."

[_Mister Scratch]

OK...this thing is getting run into the ground.

Dr. Peterson has stated repeatedly that he is not salaried to write or speak on Mormon apologetics.

Being salaried is much different that stating that he didn't receive compensation.

I don't think that Dr. Peterson has ever made the claim that he received NO type of compensation for his apologetic work. He has admitted on several occasions in this very thread, that he, in fact, HAS received monetary compensation for some of his work.

However, he has not been assigned by the university to specifically write apologetic work.

Does this clarify things...and if it does, what in the hell is everyone arguing about?

Hi there, Liz. You've got most of it correct, as far as I can tell. For me, the argument has evolved into a discussion on how closely the Church, BYU, and apologetics are tied together. DCP (apparently) wants to argue that Mopologetics is a purely independent, volunteer operation, though that's clearly not the case. Apologists get financial and organizational support from BYU, and they get implicit moral support from the Church itself.

[_Sethbag]

For what it's worth (not much), I don't see much evidence here for apologists like DCP actually getting rich off it, and I fail to appreciate how arguing this particular cause accomplishes anything worth accomplishing. That's just my own opinion.

[_Chap]

It seems that some people in BYU don't like any writing about Mormonism, let alone apologetics .... can't blame them, really.

Chap---

I think you're quite right. However, it's important to note that "some people" at BYU (and perhaps higher up in the Church) evidently do like and approve of apologetics, and, in fact, this is what DCP doesn't want us to know. Think about it: if there were really a good deal of anti-apologetic sentiment at BYU, or amongst the Brethren, how long do you think it would be allowed to continue? The LDS Church is an institution that boots out anything problematic or unsavory at the drop of a hat. There really can be no question, in my opinion, that both the Church and BYU approve of Mopologetics on some level. DCP would like us to believe that Mopologetics is 100% run by volunteers, and by well-meaning, independent members of the Church. But, this clearly isn't true. LDS apologetics is housed at BYU, and it receives implicit support from both BYU and the Brethren. Further, the fact that the FP secretary was willing to overturn doctrine in order to support a FARMS theory pretty much seals the deal. Mopologetics is "officially sanctioned." There is no "separation between Church and FARMS."

I think all this points to the need to see BYU as a place that is not monolithically unanimous in being delighted by the ultimate control of the CoCJoLDS over its activities. If by "BYU" we mean the President and the hand picked top brass, no doubt they think the way the Brethren think. But further down it is evidently a different story, as DCP has indicated to us.

And are we all that surprised?

[_the road to hana]

Who requested it, or suggested it, or invited you to do so?

It was my idea. I requested it. So I suggested it to myself. And then I invited myself to do it.

I should clarify the question. Who has invited you to participate in BYU Education Week? Who has invited you to participate in FARMS, or Ancient Texts work? Who has invited you to speak at BYU-Hawaii, or other CES settings?

You have to remember, of course, that Scratch is eagerly compiling information for his dossier on me, and that he is especially interested in sniffing out statements that he can portray as contradictory, incriminating, dishonest, hateful, bigoted, etc. I favor exactness in any case, but, given the fact that my Malevolent Stalker is implacably, obsessively, combing everything I post for anything that he can use to discredit or malign me, I have an added incentive.

Honestly, I don't know why you care. Anyone engaged in serious apologetics in the religious community should have better things to do than engaging in serving as target practice on online discussion boards.

I think you participate for your own amusement. I don't think it enhances your image as a scholar, an author, an educator, or a well known member of the LDS Church.

By the way, whatever happened to that First Things column you used to write with Bill Hamblin? Did you archive those?

[_Yoda]

.

Sooner or later you have to come to grips with the reality that their stamina for argument and single-minded capacity to "hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest" so far exceeds your own as to create a condition of inexorable futility.

And, given that realization, it should then be self-evident that there is no time like the present.

Will! Are you taking escape artist lessons from Nehor? I thought I had fixed those handcuffs properly last time I locked you in the Goddess Suite basement. *sigh* Back to the drawing board. A dominatrix Goddess' work is never done.

;)

[_Yoda]

Hi there, Liz. You've got most of it correct, as far as I can tell. For me, the argument has evolved into a discussion on how closely the Church, BYU, and apologetics are tied together. DCP (apparently) wants to argue that Mopologetics is a purely independent, volunteer operation, though that's clearly not the case. Apologists get financial and organizational support from BYU, and they get implicit moral support from the Church itself.

It just seems like everyone is really spinning the same side of the argument. I think everyone is, essentially correct here. Apologetics is certainly morally supported by the Church (and, since the Church owns BYU, BYU as well). The question is whether the Church, itself, is organizing apologetic groups and paying people for their participation.

I think that Dr. Peterson has a point that most apologists write and speak about Mormon apologetics for their own enjoyment. The fact that they may receive some small form of monetary compensation is a bonus. However, I think to say that apologists don't receive any type of compensation for their work is also misleading. Indeed, they do. It may not be much, in terms of monetary compensation, but they receive SOMETHING, nonetheless. Again, though, I don't see anywhere here that Dr. Peterson has denied this.