Daniel Peterson wrote:Liz:
I'm quite confident that you don't fall for Scratch's sophistic nonsense. But here's a thought that will perhaps clarify the situation.
If, by "clarify the situation" you actually mean, "provide a case study in sophistry," then you're right.
Scratch believes, or claims to believe, that having a role in the management of an organization that (among many other things) does apologetics is, in itself, to do apologetics.
Cf. the Mission Statement. Apologetics is the
main thing that FARMS is all about, and as I pointed out, even the tangential projects---the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance---wind up receiving a Mopologetic spin.
But it seems absurd to suggest that such an organization's accountant, in keeping the books of the organization, is doing apologetics. Certainly there's a distinction to be made between tracking income and expenditures for such an organization and actually writing an essay responding to a criticism of the Church.
It would seem absurd if that was the claim being made, but it's not. (And weren't you just criticizing Silent Kid over reading comprehension?) No one is suggesting that the accountant would be "doing Mopologetics" any more that one might suggest that a Mob accountant would be "doing crime." But, just as the Mafia accountant is getting paid
by way of the Mafia, the FARMS accountant is getting paid
by way of Mopologetics. The Mafia exists primarily to make money, just as FARMS exists primarily to do apologetics. Sure, FARMS does "other things," but so does the Mafia.
Consider this, too: My college at BYU, the College of Humanities, contains departments of English, linguistics, Asian and Near Eastern languages, humanities, classics, comparative literature, Germanic and Slavic Languages, Spanish and Portuguese, philosophy, French and Italian, and perhaps some other department that I've forgotten off hand.
The current dean of the college, John Rosenberg, is a professor of Spanish literature.
Isn't it obvious that, in administering the college, he's not, as such, doing scholarship on Spanish literature, let alone on Japanese linguistics, continental philosophy, Dante studies, Homeric poetry, Dostoevsky, or Emily Dickinson? Wouldn't it be transparently absurd to claim that, in his capacity as dean, he was being paid to do humanities scholarship?
Who's claiming that? It *would* be accurate to claim that he is getting paid for administering Humanities scholarship, just as it's accurate to claim that Tony Soprana was paid to oversee his Family, and that you were getting paid for administering an apologetic organization. Feel free to tell us yet again that FARMS does "other things." The Brethren-sanctioned Mission Statement of FARMS (which may as well amount to official doctrine) tells us that the main reason for FARMS existence is
apologetics. You can puff all you want about how you guys do other things. Tony Soprano can tell the senate subcommittee that his crew also sold cookies at the bake sale. It won't change the essential character of the organization.
He's being paid to manage rank and tenure decisions, handle budgets, allocate space, distribute professorships, and the like. And, most likely, he'd much rather be working on his own academic interests, but carries out his duties as dean out of a spirit of university citizenship and a sense of obligation.
You are describing his
daily activities; you're not telling us the basic
reason why he is being paid. Again: Tony Soprano, in a given day, might go out to get the paper, eat his breakfast, pay a visit to Bada-Bing, meet with Silvio, go to AJ's soccer game, and meet Carmella for dinner. Sure, he might "rather be working" on killing and extortion, but he carries out his duties as Chief in the spirit of family and a sense of obligation.
The Dean is being paid to oversee the humanities, just as Don Soprano is being paid to oversee the family, just as you were paid to oversee apologetics.
You're not going to be able to wiggle out of this, Dan. In order to do that, you'd have to very clearly establish, using specific examples, that FARMS is primarily about something other than apologetics, and given the fact that this would totally contradict the Mission Statement, I don't see that happening. What you are trying to do here would be akin to Pres. Monson claiming that, since he's the head of the Church, he doesn't have anything to do with "perfecting the Saints." After all, the Church does lots of other things! Sorry: it's in the Mission Statement. Either change the mission statement or admit your responsibility. It's as simple as that.