MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[_cksalmon]

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.

I've consulted with every anti-Mormon bone in my body attempting to rouse and whip them into righteous indignation about DCP's apologetic-derived remunerations. I. Just. Can't. Do. It.

To quote Dylan: "I'm not even sure why I should even care...."

The question remains: Does DCP generally avoid MDB because of threads like this one, or does DCP only appear on MDB because of threads like this one?

I, for one, would rather have him post here as a non-badgered participant. Even assuming that unlikely state of affairs, I really don't think he's interested.

Pity.

Chris

[_LifeOnaPlate]

.

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.

I reached this conclusion over an argument on Kerry Shirts and plagiarism. It was a sad affair.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I've consulted with every anti-Mormon bone in my body attempting to rouse and whip them into righteous indignation about DCP's apologetic-derived remunerations. I. Just. Can't. Do. It.

To quote Dylan: "I'm not even sure why I should even care...."

The question remains: Does DCP generally avoid MDB because of threads like this one, or does DCP only appear on MDB because of threads like this one?

I, for one, would rather have him post here as a non-badgered participant. Even assuming that unlikely state of affairs, I really don't think he's interested.

Pity.

Chris

This board has more antishock[numbers] than Dan Vogels.

[_antishock8]

This board has more antishock[numbers] than Dan Vogels.

Oh my god. Blair is passing quality control judgement on this board.

That being said, the reason why we won't let this issue go is because Mr. Peterson is playing games. If he'd just be forthright with his answers instead of endlessly bloviating passive-aggressivisms this issue would wrap itself up in short order.

Does he get paid to do apologetics? Yes.

Does the Mormon church officially sanction his apologetic work? Yes. It's right there at BYU.edu for all to see.

Does the Mormon church pay him, in addition to his academic duties as a ME professor to conduct apologetics? Yes. It's right there at BYU.edu for all to see.

Would he still be employed by the Mormon church if he stopped Mopologeticizin'? Yes. We have to take his word for it, and there's no reason to not believe him.

---------

On a personal note:

Do I think he should be compensated separately and well for his apologia? Absolutely. He does exactly what he's supposed to do, which is protect the Mormon church from critics. This is a good thing for the Mormon church, and if they aren't paying him, it's criminal. At some point, he may spend his time going after dhimmi money, and they're going to lose a valuable asset in Mr. Peterson.

---------

My conclusion:

Critics are tired of Mormons lying. Whether it's backtracking and not owning up to a mistake, or a minor error we're tired of it. When someone like Mr. Peterson claims he doesn't make a dime from his apologetics, when it's absolutely clear that he does make money doing it, to whatever degree you want to believe, it smacks of dishonesty, yet again, from a Mormon. I don't know why Mormons have to be such assholes when it comes to lying, but they are. It's so culturally ingrained in them it's like they don't even know they're actually lying. It doesn't even register with them.

Anyway. I understand the dilemma they face. If they admit to anything that might, in their perception, undermine their position or faith then where does it stop? Apostasy? It doesn't have to come to that. I just wish they could see that for themselves. It's sad, really sad, when a professor from an institution like BYU acts the fool, or plays games when the truth of the matter could be so appropriate for the occasion. What a shame.

[_Joey]

The arrogance of people like Plate and Peterson never ceases to amaze me. Probably because I am from the world of actually working for a living and being compensated/rewarded for putting my own capital at risk and being paid (or not) for the results of the at risk investment.

Peterson seems to be the classic example of the old addage: "Those who can do, those who can't teach". Plate seems to be the classic example of a new addage: "I have no real responsibilities at my job so I post on the internet all day".


But either way they both are getting paid for the time they spend on apologetics. Peterson with the support of the LDS Church and Plate with the thanks of the LDS church that his employer is doing it without his (the employer's) knowledge. Between the two of them they would well exceed 20,000 posts at MADB had Peterson not requested to have thousands of posts removed from his history.

For Peterson to come here and claim otherwise demonstrates his arrogance and naïveté and the sheltered and protected world of tenure. You don't have to be productive, you just need to hang around a while.

For Plate, well I guess what's good for the master is fine for the lap-dog!

These two are priceless. I guess that's why outside of Provo - they are never heard of. Isolate, then insulate - the LDS culture of academics!!!!!

[_Yoda]

My conclusion:

Critics are tired of Mormons lying. Whether it's backtracking and not owning up to a mistake, or a minor error we're tired of it. When someone like Mr. Peterson claims he doesn't make a dime from his apologetics, when it's absolutely clear that he does make money doing it, to whatever degree you want to believe, it smacks of dishonesty, yet again, from a Mormon. I don't know why Mormons have to be such assholes when it comes to lying, but they are. It's so culturally ingrained in them it's like they don't even know they're actually lying. It doesn't even register with them.

Anyway. I understand the dilemma they face. If they admit to anything that might, in their perception, undermine their position or faith then where does it stop? Apostasy? It doesn't have to come to that. I just wish they could see that for themselves. It's sad, really sad, when a professor from an institution like BYU acts the fool, or plays games when the truth of the matter could be so appropriate for the occasion. What a shame.

We're not all horrible. You're kind of warming up to me. ;)

Where did Dr. Peterson claim that he didn't make money from his apologetics? He seemed fairly consistent about saying that he was not salaried to participate in apologetics, and that what he received in a monetary sense never amounted to a huge profit. I didn't read where he claimed that he was never paid. Did he say that in an earlier post that I missed?

Unfortunately, as far as business relationships are concerned regarding Church members, I tend to agree with you. I have encountered more problems regarding financial dishonesty among Church members than non-Church members. I don't know that if part of this has to do with the fact that when I deal with a Church member initially, I hold a greater expectation for that person to be honest, based on what he/she has been taught, and am disappointed when he/she doesn't live up to that expectation.

[_antishock8]

My conclusion:

Critics are tired of Mormons lying. Whether it's backtracking and not owning up to a mistake, or a minor error we're tired of it. When someone like Mr. Peterson claims he doesn't make a dime from his apologetics, when it's absolutely clear that he does make money doing it, to whatever degree you want to believe, it smacks of dishonesty, yet again, from a Mormon. I don't know why Mormons have to be such assholes when it comes to lying, but they are. It's so culturally ingrained in them it's like they don't even know they're actually lying. It doesn't even register with them.

Anyway. I understand the dilemma they face. If they admit to anything that might, in their perception, undermine their position or faith then where does it stop? Apostasy? It doesn't have to come to that. I just wish they could see that for themselves. It's sad, really sad, when a professor from an institution like BYU acts the fool, or plays games when the truth of the matter could be so appropriate for the occasion. What a shame.

We're not all horrible. You're kind of warming up to me. ;)

Where did Dr. Peterson claim that he didn't make money from his apologetics? He seemed fairly consistent about saying that he was not salaried to participate in apologetics, and that what he received in a monetary sense never amounted to a huge profit. I didn't read where he claimed that he was never paid. Did he say that in an earlier post that I missed?

Unfortunately, as far as business relationships are concerned regarding Church members, I tend to agree with you. I have encountered more problems regarding financial dishonesty among Church members than non-Church members. I don't know that if part of this has to do with the fact that when I deal with a Church member initially, I hold a greater expectation for that person to be honest, based on what he/she has been taught, and am disappointed when he/she doesn't live up to that expectation.

If I recall correctly, this is the first thread where Mr. Peterson has admitted to making money from apologetics (I'll just leave the BYU/MI/FARMS apologia alone). There were a few occasions where he has stated, very clearly, that he has never made a dime from his apologetics. This was patently false (again, I'll leave the BYU/MI/FARMS apologia alone).

He would have been better served just coming clean with the token payments he gets from whomever reference his apologia. He also would have been better served coming clean, without having to be asked a million questions from various parties, about his dossier and reveiw process. It makes him look like a weasel when you have squeeze him for information. He also would be better served not trying to convince us that FARMS/MI/BYU/The Mormon Church aren't connected somehow, and that somehow the amount of time he spends Intermopologizing, writing Mopologetics, and editing Mopologia while on the dime of the Mormon church vis a via BYU via FARMS via the Neal Maxwell Institute is simply a happy coincidence. The bottom line is he can afford to do it because he receives tacit permission from his employer, BYU, to aid the MI and FARMS... All of which are extensions of the Mormon church.

To say otherwise is ridiculous. Note: He won't stop Mopologizing. I suspect this has less to do with an Internet addiction, and more to do with how his bread is buttered. He could prove us wrong by simply refusing to Mopologeticize, but he won't. I suppose it's up to the observer to determine for himself why that is the case.

[_Mister Scratch]

Where did Dr. Peterson claim that he didn't make money from his apologetics? He seemed fairly consistent about saying that he was not salaried to participate in apologetics, and that what he received in a monetary sense never amounted to a huge profit. I didn't read where he claimed that he was never paid. Did he say that in an earlier post that I missed?

Dear Liz---

DCP has been very aggressive in trying to convince people that he's doing Mopologetics on a pro bono basis. For example, here is an excerpt from an old email exchange he had with Infymus (note: this is posted on SHIELDS):

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.

Second, no part of my salary -- absolutely none, not a dime -- comes from my apologetic undertakings. I am a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, situated in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages:

(emphasis added)

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics ... ymus01.htm

You will note that, in rather sneaky fashion, The Good Professor has transitioned from saying "apologetic undertakings" to "apologetic writing or speaking."

Here is another tidbit from SHIELDS:

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. So I would gladly trade my income from Mormon subjects for yours. Are you game? Can you live on nothing?

Here, he is a bit more careful to say that none of it is related to "writing." Later, he slips up, however, when he states that he gets "nothing" for Mopologetics.

[_Trevor]

But the mere conjoined facts that (a) I included some of my apologetic activities under my "Citizenship" report and that (b) I received continuing status leave underdetermined the answer to the question of whether I received continuing status because of those reported activities, regardless of those activities, or despite those activities.

In my yearly review file, I include items that I believe will enhance my dossier. I don't take time to include my efforts to help little old ladies, etc. I find it difficult to believe that you would have included your FARMS work in your dossier if you thought it might threaten your career as a member of the BYU academic community. Yet, to hear you tell it, this seems to be exactly what you want us to believe.

Suggesting that they may have really liked it is, equally, empty speculation. That's my point. Unless you know more about my specific case in that respect than I do, you have no basis on which to reach a verdict.

Of course, I have no idea whether they beamed with joy when they read about your apologetic service. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that you thought it pertinent to your career and that you put it in your dossier for some reason related to its pertinence. This isn't like baking cookies for your family. Certain items do not belong in an academic dossier, and other items do. You chose to put this work in your dossier, presumably because it was pertinent to your academic career at BYU.

But we probably also both understand that, if it would be absurd to suggest that I am paid at BYU for my "citizenship" as a Gospel Doctrine teacher or a bishop, there is no clearly superior reason to suggest that I'm paid at BYU for my "citizenship" as an apologist. The University simply wants to know that its faculty are contributing to the University and its community (or communities) --

You are salaried for being a member of the BYU academic community on its terms. If the requirements demand that you behave as a good citizen of the community, and yet provide you some latitude for how you do fulfill the requirement, this does not mean that acting as a good citizen is not something you are salaried to do. It is part of the whole deal. I am not using the term, "paid for..." because it implies some compulsion or intentionality on the specifics of how you fulfill the requirement. All I am saying is that your citizenship at BYU is part of your career, and that this citizenship effort includes apologetics.

No offense taken. Plainly, I think you're mistaken and misguided. Rather than an expression of your personal taste, of course, it would be more interesting to see you engage actual evidence and argument. I don't know how much of my writing you've read, anyway, and I'm certainly not an admirer of the course you've chosen.

Well, I am glad neither of us is going to take offense. I too think you are mistaken and misguided. I believe that the truth does not need the defense of FARMS or the Neal Maxwell Institute, if it is indeed the truth. The effort to answer critics in the way that you do is an expression of weakness, not strength.

Also, you can pretend that I have presented no evidence in favor of the view that apologetic work is part of your career, but it will not wash. I have not told people how to react to the evidence of this fact. I personally think there is nothing much to be upset about. But, clearly apologetic work is part of your career at BYU.

Only in a world where hyper-legalism substitutes for the truth would people believe that a man who is a salaried employee of BYU, and who provides labor services for one of its arms (FARMS/Neal Maxwell Institute), and who at the same time reports this work in his official dossier for BYU, is not performing this task as part of his career as an employee of that organization. You may choose to live in that world. I prefer to be reasonable and realistic.

I am very happy with the course I have charted out of the LDS Church. I have not regretted it, and I doubt I will ever regret it. It has allowed me to grow in ways that were not possible as a member of that organization. Your feelings on the matter are meaningless.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump