How Much Are LDS Apologists Paid?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Yes, about the "other guys"---I've long speculated that there is a kind of "inner sanctum," or "cabal," if you will, of Mopologists who are making bank on their work.

Do you really think they are "making bank" on their work?

Having received a little coinage for a wee bit of tripe I had published about 4 years ago, and knowing that the shelf-life of an LDS Book is rather short (or at least that is my impression, and such has been stated to me by more than one employee at Deseret Book), and compound that further by the apologetic and scholarly niche of the LDS market being (or at lest I believe it to be) substantially smaller than other niches, and I really don't see how they could be "making bank." Are they making money off their work? I don’t see how any reasonable person would act as an editor of a publication, or publish a book and not receive at least some semblance of compensation for their intellectual work, but I hardly think it would be worthy of being considered “making bank.”

Or maybe I’ve just jumped the gun and misread you, and it was a bit of fine crafted hyperbole(?)

Edited to add:
It's possible that he (i.e. Dr. Peterson) doesn't consider FARMS or his books as "apologetic" and instead considers them to be scholarly in nature. This could be the source of the disconnect.

[Guest]

Well, if Mr. Peterson isn't teaching right now, then how exactly is he earning his keep? In what capacity if the Mormon church seeing fit to pay him a salary. What is DOING for the Mormon church to the point that they see fit to pay him?

[_rcrocket]

Scratch, you accuse me of foul-mouthed apoplectic postings on this thread. I've made only two post and I don't see anything like that in them, but you certainly have my apologies. I thought that in the past I've suggested to you that your loss of temper in written discussions shows lack of discipline and once again it is showing.

In response to some of the points above, I really have nothing more to say about GoodK's family. It has told you in its PM all you need to know on the subject. I reference you there. And no, I am not sworn to an oath of secrecy on this subject.

Submitters to FARMS Review do not get paid for their work. Reviewers don't get paid to review.

GoodK refers to one of my reviews and to a review of a small paperback. It has it incorrect. I reviewed Denton's work, a best-seller (I guess, depends upon whose list you consult) and Bagley's work. Neither are paperbacks when I reviewed thema and neither are small.

As far as Dr. Peterson being paid for his FARMS work, I am not an expert on his work and I don't know what FARMS books he has published except for Offenders. I have no clue, but I feel pretty confident in saying that he has had royalties from that book, but my understanding of the Mormon trade is that the royalties are pitifully small.

Regarding the charge that these apologists really get paid because they work for BYU is silly. Professionals do not punch a clock. What they do on their own time or even on the University's time is up to them so long as they hit the performance objectives required by their job. I'm sure that if you check with your friend Guy Sajer, he'll tell you that while working at any university if he wanted to publish in Train Hobbyists' Magazine nothing prohibited from working on his article in his university office during business hours.

Further, the criticism that Dr. Peterson does not teach a class at BYU is also rather ignorant. Universities employ professionals to teach, research and publish (at least at BYU's level; not true for so-called "teaching colleges" such as the Cal State system). Not all do all three. Some never publish. Some don't teach. Some do a little of both here and there.

Mr. Scratch says: "First, the notion that FARMS Review uses normative peer review was exploded." That never happened on this board or anywhere else. Just because Scratch says something is true (such as accusing my two posts on this thread as "foul-mouthed" and apoplectic) does not make it true and, I suggest, probably makes it untrue.

I have been through the editing process at FARMS Review. The editing and review of my first article took almost a year, with behind-the-scenes and unknown-to-me historians picking apart my conclusions, flyspecking every cite and suggesting changes. I have also published elsewhere, and served as a peer reviewer elsewhere, and see no difference between what I went through at FARMS Review at what I have done elsewhere.

I also know how peer reviewers are picked generally They are hand-selected by the Board of Editors or editor in chief. The Board looks for friendly and responsive and credentialed reviewers who can spot flaws. The Board does not look for argumentative persons disloyal to the mission of the rag. FARMS Review is no different.

So, in all review respects, FARMS Review is very similar to academic rags elsewhere.

But, FARMS Review is different in some respects. It writes on the subject of gold plates, angels, miracles and the like -- subjects no self-respecting academic rag would ever touch (although, really, things are changing; Mormon Studies are on the increase). It accepts articles from non-credentialed persons, so long as the articles meet minimum standards of research and writing. It advances the mission of the Church and BYU and does not accept critical views to the contrary (although it is a rare methaphysical research journal that would, in my estimation, bite the hand of the institution which publishes it). It fulfills its mission. And, I think rather well.

Do I like all of what is published in FARMS Review? No. I don't like lots of its sarcastic tone. I question the competence of some or many of the writers. Some of the subjects reviewed are rather speculative and worthless (the LGT looms prominent in my mind). But, there are great nuggets of value just as there are in Signature's books.

rcrocket

[_antishock8]

Mr. Schryver,

Are you stating that mopologists don't earn "one cent" from their apologetic work? What's your position on this issue?

[_cksalmon]

I don't find it odd that folks are paid royalties on books they write or edit. That's normal. I also don't find it odd that someone would be paid for being the editor of FARMS review.

What might be odd is being paid a salary from BYU, not for teaching, but for other endeavors. Usually, when that sort of thing happens, one is labeled a scholar in residence, or a research professor, which is not odd, in and of itself.

If the Middle East Textual Initiative is the sole reason DCP earns a salary, then perhaps that's a bit odd. But, then, one of FARMS primary (1 of 4) reasons for existence is to provide critical editions of Islamic texts.

Since DCP is neither a scholar in residence nor a research professor from what I can tell from BYU's website (and noting that DCP is teaching no, as far as I can tell, Winter 2008 courses in the relevant BYU department, then one might legitimately ask, "What is he being paid for?"

One might think it is for providing critical editions of Islamic texts.

Since this is one of the utterly primary , self-identified reasons FARMS exists, maybe that's not too weird.

Also, DCP might not consider FARMS an apologetic publication, although it admittedly holds to the presupposition of the truth of Joseph Smith's restorationist claims.

What seems odd to me is that DCP would be paid a salary from BYU (which includes his FARMS work, as FARMS is part of BYU now) not for teaching, but for heading up an organization dedicated (in some sense primarily) to publishing Islamic texts. Thus, DCP might contend that he is not paid for apologetic works per se, but for publishing Islamic works in English.

One might answer that DCP gets paid to do whatever he wants to do. But that is too simple. If BYU holds that one of its child organization's primary purposes is to publish Islamic texts, and that's what DCP is in charge of, then so be it. But, at least according to the Winter 2008 schedule at BYU, he's not being paid a salary to teach at BYU. Since he's not teaching there.

Meh.

But, then, one might ask when did the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies decide that one of its primary reasons for existence is to publish Islamic texts in English?

I dunno the answer to that question.

CKS

see here

[_Nevo]

I thought it was known that FARMS offers stipends for the work they produce..
I think this has been going on for at least a few years..

http://farms.BYU.edu/sumsem.html

Wow... Good find TAK!

This is old news

No. It's not. This is new news to at least two posters on this board, myself included. The FACT that some apologists get paid now establishes this notion concretely. Now. The questions of which mopologists, how much they get paid, and for what apologia remain to be answered in light of claims by some well-known mopologists that they don't get paid for their efforts.

This is pretty big in light of the link above, and GoodK's assertions.

I wouldn't make too much of this. As far as I know, this is the first year that the Joseph Smith summer seminar has been sponsored by the Maxwell Institute. And I'm pretty sure it is still being funded by private donations. That was certainly the case when Don Bradley and I were summer fellows back in the late '90s (the program was then under the aegis of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History). And you can see what great apologists we turned out to be!

From an e-mail Richard Bushman sent out to former summer fellows, dated 12 July 2006:

"I also write with a slightly more serious request. I label this the last of the summer seminars because we have now exhausted the funds so generously provided through the labors of Karen and David Davidson. We had a good run, sponsoring six seminars on Joseph Smith and one on Mormon Women in the Twentieth Century. Now we face the question: should the seminars come to an end?

The addition of Terryl Givens to the seminar leadership has persuaded me we should try to continue the program if possible. We would like to renew our fund-raising campaign and seek a home at BYU, probably at the newly named Maxwell Institute."

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, you accuse me of foul-mouthed apoplectic postings on this thread.

No, Bob. I accused you *and* Schryver of those things.

I've made only two post and I don't see anything like that in them, but you certainly have my apologies. I thought that in the past I've suggested to you that your loss of temper in written discussions shows lack of discipline and once again it is showing.

Lol. You know, it seems obvious to me, Bishop Bob, that your apoplexy is really roiling and toiling deep down beneath your usually calm exterior. Sadly for you, it reared its ugly head earlier in this thread. And I cannot stop laughing about it.

In response to some of the points above, I really have nothing more to say about GoodK's family. It has told you in its PM all you need to know on the subject.

What makes you think GoodK sent me a PM?

Submitters to FARMS Review do not get paid for their work. Reviewers don't get paid to review.

And your proof is...what? Your lone experience?

As far as Dr. Peterson being paid for his FARMS work, I am not an expert on his work and I don't know what FARMS books he has published except for Offenders. I have no clue, but I feel pretty confident in saying that he has had royalties from that book, but my understanding of the Mormon trade is that the royalties are pitifully small.

Fair enough, but this shows that he has lied in the past about getting paid.

Mr. Scratch says: "First, the notion that FARMS Review uses normative peer review was exploded." That never happened on this board or anywhere else.

Sure it has. In fact, further evidence of FARMS's shoddy peer review is your own MMM article! How did they let that sloppy and dishonest elipsis slip through the cracks, Bob?

I have been through the editing process at FARMS Review. The editing and review of my first article took almost a year, with behind-the-scenes and unknown-to-me historians picking apart my conclusions,

Good point. You don't know. In all likelihood, it was just DCP and Bill Hamblin, just as, in all likelihood, it always is.

flyspecking every cite and suggesting changes.

Except the most important one, of course.

So, in all review respects, FARMS Review is very similar to academic rags elsewhere.

But, FARMS Review is different in some respects. It writes on the subject of gold plates, angels, miracles and the like -- subjects no self-respecting academic rag would ever touch

Sig line, anyone?

[_Brackite]

Daniel C. P. must of have already seen this Discussion thread by now. DCP has already Posted at least 11 Messages on the MA&D Message Board, since this Discussion Thread has been created here.

[_GoodK]

GoodK refers to one of my reviews and to a review of a small paperback. It has it incorrect. I reviewed Denton's work, a best-seller (I guess, depends upon whose list you consult) and Bagley's work. Neither are paperbacks when I reviewed thema and neither are small.

rcrocket

No I referred to the FARMS Review as being a small, paperback book. Which it is.
Just to show that the amount of writing you have done for them probably equals less than a term paper.

No one here has a hard time believing you weren't paid.

[_guy sajer]

Regarding the charge that these apologists really get paid because they work for BYU is silly. Professionals do not punch a clock. What they do on their own time or even on the University's time is up to them so long as they hit the performance objectives required by their job. I'm sure that if you check with your friend Guy Sajer, he'll tell you that while working at any university if he wanted to publish in Train Hobbyists' Magazine nothing prohibited from working on his article in his university office during business hours.

True, we don't punch clocks. My department perhaps wouldn't mind if I published in Train Hobbyists' Magazine if I met my other performance targets. But, I think that it would mind if I spent a substantial portion of my productive time working on such personal pursuits, as opposed to working on things related to my job. There's a line somewhere, and it is highly subjective, depending on who the relevant admin person is making the judgment.

In Prof P's case, we know he doesn't do any academic publishing, but he is involved in a variety of other academic pursuits. His department appears to be well aware of his apologetic activity, and surely it must be aware that he devotes a substantial share of his produtcive time to this activity. I know not what his productivity level is in other areas, but his Dept. appears pleased with his work, so it's their call.

From where I sit, however, it appears to me that Prof P. has the explicity, or at least tacit, consent to devote a large share of his productive time to apologetics. That is, it appears that apologetics is part of his job description, whether explicit or implicit. So it does not seem unreasonable to me to conclude that he is, in effect, paid for apologetic work.

That said, I've had my rounds with Daniel, and I'm done with it. I do not offer any of the above as a criticism but as an effort to look at the situation objectively. Whatever the case, his Dept. and College appear to be happy with him, and in the end, that is probably what counts most.

Further, the criticism that Dr. Peterson does not teach a class at BYU is also rather ignorant. Universities employ professionals to teach, research and publish (at least at BYU's level; not true for so-called "teaching colleges" such as the Cal State system). Not all do all three. Some never publish. Some don't teach. Some do a little of both here and there.

Yes, that's true, but usually this is the case for professors who either (1) have full time admin positions, or (2) publish beaucoup amounts. From what I can tell, neither apply to Daniel.

Profs are occassionally given termporary time off from teaching for certain reasons, perhaps this is the case here. But if true, I doubt it is permanent, and I'm sure his college and Dept have what is in their minds a good reason for it.

Frankly, if he does get off from teaching, I'm jealous. I would have loved an even lighter teaching load than my 2-2 load.