MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[Physics Guy]

Paid is paid. There is simply no other way around it. It doesn't matter if it's salary or not, it doesn't matter if it's $100 or $1000; paid is paid. Anything over $0.00 is paid.

Sigh. Once more: I've never denied having sometimes received money -- I'll be candid and say that it's sometimes reached as high as $100 in a single year, though it's more often been $0.00 -- for my apologetic writing. I've said that I do not receive a salary for apologetic writing, that apologetic writing is not required of me as a condition of my employment, that I would receive at least as much in salary if I wrote nothing apologetic whatever, that I've never been asked by the University to write apologetics (quite the contrary, in fact), etc.

This isn't really all that difficult to comprehend.

I think I understand what you're saying. You don't get paid to write apologetics. That said, your salary *does* apparently cover editing apologetics, overseeing apologetics, managing "peer review" of apologetics, functioning as a figurehead for apologetics, and administering apologetics.

I really wish (as you seem to do as well) that BYU---and by extension, the Church---would be more concrete and specific in its definitions. On the one hand, you don't get to draw any pay for writing, but you're allowed to get a portion of your salary for all the other things I already mentioned. On the one hand, Church leaders "discourage" writing about Mormon topics, but on the other, they allow an entire Institute devoted to "defending" the Church. Doesn't this all seem a bit schizophrenic to you?

[_haleray]

I don’t know whether or not LDS Apologists get paid, but I would like to point out that even if they didn’t, what would happen if they wrote something bad about the church?
They would get excommunicated! That very thing has happened to several people at liberal Mormon magazines, it of course would make them more willing to say something nice, something that the church agrees with, and not, sometimes, what history says.

[_antishock8]

The Maxwell Institute is independent, though it is associated with BYU. The "Church" does not pay DCP to write books about the intellectual vacuities of people like the anonymous Mr. Scratch.

This is how "independent" the NEIL A. MAXWELL institute is:

http://farms.BYU.edu/ispartstaff.php?fi ... nistration

Please feel free to tell me where FARMS, BYU, the Church, and the Institute part ways...? 'Cause it seems pretty f*****g' dependent on the Church to pay these people, for BYU to employ them, and for member of or contributors to FARMS to... Oh, I don't know.. Just look at the URL that is so clearly indepedent of any connection, whatsoever, to FARMS or BYU.

It's actually the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

Feegggghhhuuughhh....

[_antishock8]

The Neal Maxwell Institute is FMBMs, and paid FMBMs. How so? The Church provides a salary to you people. That's how. You can claim all day long until the cows come home that it's independent from FARMS, BYU, and by extension the Mormon church but that just cements the fact that you're lying.

Mr. Peterson. We can see what the Institute says about itself. We can see what YOU say YOU produce professionally. The vast majority of BOTH the MI and your scholarship is dedicated to Mormon apologetics... According to what we can see. Nothing is a mystery except your continued assertion that you're somehow not paid to produce apologetic material! No no NOOOOO. You're paid to produce ME material!! We know this because you tell us over and over and over again what it is that you're working on... And yet... Where it counts... This is what the world sees:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/
http://farms.BYU.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=1

You include your apologetica in your dossier, which is reviewed by Church officials, and by your own admission is considered a part the professional review process. The Mormon church lists your apologetica on BYU's website. The MI is linked to FARMS, BYU, and the Church... But somehow it's AAAAAAALLL INDEPENDENT!!!

Un-Fucking-Believe-Able. The balls it takes to keep lying like you do is amazing. Who in the world swallows this crap? Who?

You get paid to do your job. Part of your job is CLEARLY to produce apologetic material for the Mormon church. Want to prove that assertion wrong? Just stop. Stop doing it for, say... 5 years. Focus on your professional ME career. Go get some of that sweet dhimmi-cash out there.

Betcha can't. Betcha won't. Betcha don't. What I do expect is some sort of bloviated rationale for why you can't, won't. and don't.

Whatever. Gets. You. To sleep. At night. Mr. Peterson.

Then, I would say that it is technically you are employed by the LDS Church, at least in part, for your contributions to apologetic scholarship. I don't think this is a big deal, but it is more significant than pocket change.

You've read that article on exemplar historiography in BYU Studies and concluded that it's an apologetic piece?

You appear to be conflating Mormon-related and apologetic. The two are not synonymous. I've written a number of Mormon-related pieces -- including articles in enyclopedias, book reviews, etc. -- that only an antishock8 (see below) could possibly view as "apologetic."

[_Mister Scratch]

You yourself have suggested that you've reported to the Brethren on the "state of Internet anti-Mormonism" on a few occasions. Right?

There were two or three meetings, widely separated in time and with few people in common, a few years ago. A member of the Seventy who is an old friend knows of my interest in anti-Mormonism, and so he saw to it that I was invited. Nothing whatever came of these meetings, so far as I can tell.

I find the notion of these "meetings" to be extremely intriguing. Why were they called in the first place? Who all was there? What kinds of issues were discussed? What was the chronology, and what impact might these meetings have had on the state of Mopologetics? For example, was the "go ahead" given to start monitoring "over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites" right after one of these "debriefings"?

How is it that the Church, and Church leaders, have absolutely no say whatsoever as to what happens with Mopologetics, and yet some person you know was actually penalized for writing LDS apologetics?

I didn't say that he was penalized for writing LDS apologetics. I said that he was penalized for writing on Mormon topics. The two are, as I've pointed out, not necessarily the same thing.

A good point. But again: why was he "penalized"? Or perhaps more to the point: why was this individual penalized, while you and countless other Mopologists carry on?

He was penalized by an administrator in his college. Administrators in colleges and departments are drawn from the faculty of those colleges and departments. They aren't General Authorities.

Do these administrators answer to the GAs in any way, shape, or form?

Why have lawyers been installed as heads of the Church history department, rather than trained, professional historians? Did the Church have no say in that?

(a) I have absolutely no idea. I'm not privy to such deliberations. (That said, for what it's worth, I think Elder Marlin Jensen and Richard Turley are doing a very good job.)

(b) What has this got to do with anything? Departments at Church headquarters that are under direct General Authority supervision are quite distinct from University departments led by faculty that are under University colleges led by faculty that are under the academic vice president (currently a widely respected professor of English literature).

You are yanking my comments out of context. Let me try to clarify. Here are some basic points which I see as being pertinent to this issue:

1. LDS apologists get paid to engage in Mopologetics. This is generally not a huge sum, though in some cases it can run up into the thousands of dollars, such as when someone publishes a book.
2. You do not receive *salary* to "write" apologetics, although part of your salary does cover "administration" and "editing" and other such things relating to apologetics.
3. You earn a supplemental income from some aspects of apologetics, such as writing books.
4. Apologetics is funded mostly by "outside donors." However, some portions of it, such as the part of your salary which covers editing FARMS Review, is paid for by BYU.
5. The Maxwell Institute is in the midst of trying to change the ways that authors of Mopologetic books are paid, so that publishing with the MI is more "attractive," or so it is at least as "attractive" as publishing with Deseret Book.

Are any of these points incorrect?

Now, the biggest point of contention (and the reason why you apparently took my statement out of context) has to do with whether or not the institutional Church---i.e., the Brethren---have anything whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, with the way that Mopologetic funds are disbursed. My contention is: yes, they do. Ever since the Camelot Era of LDS history, the Brethren have grown increasingly paranoid about publicly dealing with anything controversial. This would most definitely include Mopologetics. Evidence for this paranoia would include the way that purchase of the Hoffman documents was handled, and the installation of attorneys in the position of Church Historian.

Now, I could be wrong, but you appear to be arguing, in side-winderly fashion, that the institutional Church has nothing whatsoever---not in any way! AT ALL!---to do with the funding of Mopologetics. Is that your contention? If so, I think it would be worthwhile to revisit Pres. Hinckley's comments:

FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university.

(emphasis added)

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/about/introduction.php

Is this not tacit admission on the part of GBH that, in fact, the Church was offering up a means to fund FARMS?

Now, I recognize and accept that there is somewhat of a "disconnect" between FARMS and the Church, since the theories you guys were concocting ran in direct opposition to FP declarations (cf. the now-infamous "2nd Watson Letter"). But just how wide is this disconnect?

Silly and misleading, but deftly done!

It's not silly at all. It shows the power that FARMS has to revise FP statements. How could this happen if there weren't a strong link between FARMS and the Brethren? You have long wanted to make it seem as if you and Bill Hamblin and the rest of the FARMS boys were just a bunch of hobbyists doing it for the "love of the game." But, increasingly, it seems that this just isn't true. The real truth is that the Church is culling together funds to support a cadre of professional, paid apologists.

[_GoodK]

Scratch, I thought this was already determined in a thread a while back ?

We knew this all along, didn't we?

Now on the flip side, I was employed in the men's locker room for a time...

Never mind. Too easy. ;p

[_antishock8]

You yourself have suggested that you've reported to the Brethren on the "state of Internet anti-Mormonism" on a few occasions. Right?

There were two or three meetings, widely separated in time and with few people in common, a few years ago. A member of the Seventy who is an old friend knows of my interest in anti-Mormonism, and so he saw to it that I was invited. Nothing whatever came of these meetings, so far as I can tell.

I find the notion of these "meetings" to be extremely intriguing. Why were they called in the first place? Who all was there? What kinds of issues were discussed? What was the chronology, and what impact might these meetings have had on the state of Mopologetics? For example, was the "go ahead" given to start monitoring "over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites" right after one of these "debriefings"?

How is it that the Church, and Church leaders, have absolutely no say whatsoever as to what happens with Mopologetics, and yet some person you know was actually penalized for writing LDS apologetics?

I didn't say that he was penalized for writing LDS apologetics. I said that he was penalized for writing on Mormon topics. The two are, as I've pointed out, not necessarily the same thing.

A good point. But again: why was he "penalized"? Or perhaps more to the point: why was this individual penalized, while you and countless other Mopologists carry on?

He was penalized by an administrator in his college. Administrators in colleges and departments are drawn from the faculty of those colleges and departments. They aren't General Authorities.

Do these administrators answer to the GAs in any way, shape, or form?

Why have lawyers been installed as heads of the Church history department, rather than trained, professional historians? Did the Church have no say in that?

(a) I have absolutely no idea. I'm not privy to such deliberations. (That said, for what it's worth, I think Elder Marlin Jensen and Richard Turley are doing a very good job.)

(b) What has this got to do with anything? Departments at Church headquarters that are under direct General Authority supervision are quite distinct from University departments led by faculty that are under University colleges led by faculty that are under the academic vice president (currently a widely respected professor of English literature).

You are yanking my comments out of context. Let me try to clarify. Here are some basic points which I see as being pertinent to this issue:

1. LDS apologists get paid to engage in Mopologetics. This is generally not a huge sum, though in some cases it can run up into the thousands of dollars, such as when someone publishes a book.
2. You do not receive *salary* to "write" apologetics, although part of your salary does cover "administration" and "editing" and other such things relating to apologetics.
3. You earn a supplemental income from some aspects of apologetics, such as writing books.
4. Apologetics is funded mostly by "outside donors." However, some portions of it, such as the part of your salary which covers editing FARMS Review, is paid for by BYU.5. The Maxwell Institute is in the midst of trying to change the ways that authors of Mopologetic books are paid, so that publishing with the MI is more "attractive," or so it is at least as "attractive" as publishing with Deseret Book.

Are any of these points incorrect?

Now, the biggest point of contention (and the reason why you apparently took my statement out of context) has to do with whether or not the institutional Church---I.e., the Brethren---have anything whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, with the way that Mopologetic funds are disbursed. My contention is: yes, they do. Ever since the Camelot Era of LDS history, the Brethren have grown increasingly paranoid about publicly dealing with anything controversial. This would most definitely include Mopologetics. Evidence for this paranoia would include the way that purchase of the Hoffman documents was handled, and the installation of attorneys in the position of Church Historian.

Now, I could be wrong, but you appear to be arguing, in side-winderly fashion, that the institutional Church has nothing whatsoever---not in any way! AT ALL!---to do with the funding of Mopologetics. Is that your contention? If so, I think it would be worthwhile to revisit Pres. Hinckley's comments:

FARMS represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. . . . I see a bright future for this effort now through the university.

(emphasis added)

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/about/introduction.php

Is this not tacit admission on the part of GBH that, in fact, the Church was offering up a means to fund FARMS?

Now, I recognize and accept that there is somewhat of a "disconnect" between FARMS and the Church, since the theories you guys were concocting ran in direct opposition to FP declarations (cf. the now-infamous "2nd Watson Letter"). But just how wide is this disconnect?

Silly and misleading, but deftly done!

It's not silly at all. It shows the power that FARMS has to revise FP statements. How could this happen if there weren't a strong link between FARMS and the Brethren? You have long wanted to make it seem as if you and Bill Hamblin and the rest of the FARMS boys were just a bunch of hobbyists doing it for the "love of the game." But, increasingly, it seems that this just isn't true. The real truth is that the Church is culling together funds to support a cadre of professional, paid apologists.

My friend, you are like a damn hound dog on the trail. When you catch a whiff of their scent (ie. BS), you know how to stay on the trail. Kudos to you for not allowing them to lie through omission, and outright obfuscation. Kudos.

The ties that bind the Neal Maxwell Institute, FARMS, BYU, and the Mormon church are solid, irrefutable, and much to a certain poster's chagrin... Overt.

Mr. Peterson is paid by BYU. BYU is part of the Mormon church. His apologetica is reviewed as part of his official dossier. That's that. He's paid to produce apologia. Until he stops producing it, and BYU continues to pay him solely for ME material, he is 100% a paid apologist for the Mormon church.

That's a fact. It's irrefutable. He's admitted to it. That's that.

[_Trevor]

I agree that apologetic work is part of Dr. Peterson's career. BYU, by granting him continuing status, has given him support for this work. There are many duties that I perform, which I am not specifically paid to do, but which nevertheless comprise a part of my professional development. I may choose from a variety of activities to meet expectations. I might present at more conferences or participate in more committees. The standard is not absolute, and it is to no small degree dependent upon the values of that particular university community. The university nevertheless expects me to do enough of the activities that fall within the range of what it rates as valuable in order to get tenure. The university supports me with a salary and expects that I will fulfill these aspects of my professional development without prodding.

At BYU, one is expected to fulfill Church callings, pay tithing, etc. Dr. Peterson's participation in apologetic efforts has been counted as part of his citizenship. While he is not allotted a certain amount of salary for doing these things, his performance of them is part of his development as a professional and member of the academic community at BYU.

We can continue to split hairs here, but I see no reason to do so. It is clear enough that the LDS Church supports Dr. Peterson's apologetic activities through the continuing status that it granted him, which provides him an annual salary. A particular administrator may have a different opinion about the value of this apologetic work, but the university, by granting him continuing status, has provided its approval of the way Dr. Peterson conducts himself as a scholar, teacher, administrator, and citizen of the university. Part of that citizenship, evidently, is apologetic work.

[Guest]

I find the notion of these "meetings" to be extremely intriguing.

I knew you would.

Why were they called in the first place?

Because Mormons love meetings.

Who all was there?

Vera, Chuck, and Dave.

What kinds of issues were discussed?

The July and August issues.

What was the chronology, and what impact might these meetings have had on the state of Mopologetics?

29 February 1953, and then again on 31 June 1972, with a follow-up on New Year's Eve 1999.

As a result of the 1972 meeting, Morgtech 200-X analog implants were embedded in the brains of all A and B class Mopologists. At the 1999 meeting, these were upgraded to Morgtech 666-Xq series digital implants, and each operative was given a plastic decoder ring.

For example, was the "go ahead" given to start monitoring "over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites" right after one of these "debriefings"?

No, that was communicated via the new Morgtech 666-Xq digital implant, directly to each field operative.

(For the record, I don't believe the claim that the Church is monitoring "over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites." Based on my own personal experience with people at Church headquarters, I would be surprised to learn that anybody up there is monitoring even fifteen. My friends up there regard me as the expert on this topic -- the subject arises briefly every few years -- and I look in from time to time on maybe four or five such sites.)

But again: why was he "penalized"?

Because an administrator in his college insisted that he shouldn't write on Mormon topics.

Or perhaps more to the point: why was this individual penalized, while you and countless other Mopologists carry on?

Because an administrator in his college insisted that he shouldn't write on Mormon topics, whereas nobody in my college insists so strongly. Others writing on Mormon topics may have similarly permissive superiors at BYU, or may not work at BYU. You'll have to compile individual dossiers on each of them. (I know you're up to the task!)

Do these administrators answer to the GAs in any way, shape, or form?

No.

1. LDS apologists get paid to engage in Mopologetics. This is generally not a huge sum,

As in, "It's typically nothing at all, but can, in some cases, rise to two figures or even soar into the very low three figures."

though in some cases it can run up into the thousands of dollars, such as when someone publishes a book.

Which, being interpreted, means that, if a book sells really well, its author could make as much as two or three thousand dollars in royalties, which come not from the Church but from the pockets of those who buy the book. The Church is not involved in the situation at all. But this extraordinarily lucrative system of rewards is not yet fully in place at FARMS. See (5), below.

2. You do not receive *salary* to "write" apologetics, although part of your salary does cover "administration" and "editing" and other such things relating to apologetics.

Especially when, as in the case of antishock8, texts like Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination and searchable databases of the Dead Sea Scrolls and recovered papyri from Petra are labeled "Mormon apologetics"!

4. Apologetics is funded mostly by "outside donors." However, some portions of it, such as the part of your salary which covers editing FARMS Review, is paid for by BYU.

No part of my salary covers editing the FARMS Review. (You plainly haven't been following the bouncing ball. Please try to focus.) I receive a token payment, quite separate from my salary, when an issue of the FARMS Review appears. This is to cover my editorial work. It is a pittance.

5. The Maxwell Institute is in the midst of trying to change the ways that authors of Mopologetic books are paid, so that publishing with the MI is more "attractive," or so it is at least as "attractive" as publishing with Deseret Book.

See under (1.[b]), above.

Now, the biggest point of contention (and the reason why you apparently took my statement out of context) has to do with whether or not the institutional Church---I.e., the Brethren---have anything whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, with the way that Mopologetic funds are disbursed. My contention is: yes, they do.

Your contention is both baseless and false.

Now, I could be wrong

You are.

FARMS would be your best shot -- FAIR and other such efforts are wholly and entirely independent of any ties to the Church, even indirect -- but the Brethren have nothing whatsoever to do with the way that FARMS disburses its funds.

Is this not tacit admission on the part of GBH that, in fact, the Church was offering up a means to fund FARMS?

No, and it doesn't say so.

I assume that you're fixated on the word professional. I can only assume that President Hinckley meant that the work was well done, as in the compliment that "Frank did a very professional job."

The real truth is that the Church is culling together funds to support a cadre of professional, paid apologists.

Flatly untrue.

But you're going to persist in this tinfoil-hat nonsense regardless of what I say, so why should I bother to interact with you any more?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I agree that apologetic work is part of Dr. Peterson's career. BYU, by granting him continuing status, has given him support for this work. There are many duties that I perform, which I am not specifically paid to do, but which nevertheless comprise a part of my professional development. I may choose from a variety of activities to meet expectations. I might present at more conferences or participate in more committees.

Do you have any actual reason to suppose that the department, college, or university rank advancement committees and the department chairman, college dean, and vice presidents who considered my petition for continuing status determined that my apologetic work "met" any of their "expectations"? If you do, they must have communicated more to you on that subject than they have ever communicated to me.

All I know is that I included some Mormon-related work (not necessarily the same thing as Mormon apologetics, by the way) with the materials accompanying my petition for continuing status, and that I was granted continuing status. For all I really definitively know, those committees approved my petition despite my Mormon-related work, or in perfect indifference to it.

Do you think that my having served, at the time, as a counselor in a bishopric "met" their "expectations" too? Would I have been granted continuing status had I only been a primary teacher or a Scout leader? Or if I had listed no Church callings at all? How do non-Mormons on the faculty meet the seeming expectation that they serve in bishoprics?

At BYU, one is expected to fulfill Church callings, pay tithing, etc. Dr. Peterson's participation in apologetic efforts has been counted as part of his citizenship.

If you have firm data confirming this to be so, I would appreciate hearing about it. You can contact me via PM.

While he is not allotted a certain amount of salary for doing these things, his performance of them is part of his development as a professional and member of the academic community at BYU.

I'm exceedingly happy to hear it!

We can continue to split hairs here, but I see no reason to do so. It is clear enough that the LDS Church supports Dr. Peterson's apologetic activities through the continuing status that it granted him, which provides him an annual salary.

It must be noted that "the LDS Church" didn't grant me continuing status. The University did. Not, actually, a small distinction.

A particular administrator may have a different opinion about the value of this apologetic work, but the university, by granting him continuing status, has provided its approval of the way Dr. Peterson conducts himself as a scholar, teacher, administrator, and citizen of the university. Part of that citizenship, evidently, is apologetic work.

There seems to me quite a distance between the proposition that "The Church pays Dr. Peterson to be a Mopologist" and the proposition that "The University, by granting Dr. Peterson continuing status, has provided its approval of the way Dr. Peterson conducts himself as a scholar, teacher, administrator, and citizen of the university. Part of that citizenship, evidently, is apologetic work."

The latter proposition is demonstrably true. The former, though inadequately supported by the evidence, will be more popular among certain conspiracy theorists.