More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

Misrepresenting the situation is your goal, Scratch. Not mine.

That just isn't correct. You read Trevor's post, right? About how the FP was personally involved with lightning H. Nibley's teaching load? Why have things changed since then?

Anyways, I seem to remember a number of FAIR/MAD threads that asked a question along the lines of "Do the Brethren Approve of FARMS/FAIR?", etc. (Since I am banned, I cannot search the forum, sadly.) I could be wrong, but I seem to recall you denying rather strenuously that Church leaders had much of anything to do with apologetics.... Of course, now we know that the Presiding Bishopric is signing the checks of the official Maxwell Institute fundraiser.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Too bad you don't do Photoshop.

Here's one I did up for Scratch...



and one I did for DCP [for the same of balance]:

[_Mister Scratch]

Bond,

You need to add in some bit like,
"Obi-Hamblin never told you where we get our money."
"He told me enough! He told me it's all done by volunteers."
"No. The Church pays for Mopologetics."
[face crumpling with despair] "No.... That's not true.... That's impossible!" [screams and plunges into a seemingly endless abyss.]

[_Bond...James Bond]

Bond,

You need to add in some bit like,
"Obi-Hamblin never told you where we get our money."
"He told me enough! He told me it's all done by volunteers."
"No. The Church pays for Mopologetics."
[face crumpling with despair] "No.... That's not true.... That's impossible!" [screams and plunges into a seemingly endless abyss.

I can't get a decent photo of the scene where Luke is at CLoud City with him on the ledge...but it would read:

Fundraiser--"I raise money for FAIR"

Luke Skywalker--"No....it subsists on pennies from widows..that's not true..that's IMPOSSIBLE!"

[_Bond...James Bond]

Like Hamblin would get to be Obiwan...

[_harmony]

Things have truly gone to hell when we are subjected to pictures in the thread.

A question: what exactly does "semi-autonomous" mean?

[_antishock8]

By way of adding historical perspective, let me bring forward a couple of pertinent facts.

Hugh Nibley was an employee for the LDS magazine, The Improvement Era, when he wrote his review of Brodie's No Man Knows My History, but as a volunteer project. He used the Church Administration Building's "comprehensive library of anti-Mormon books" to do so. See Peterson, A Consecrated Life, p. 225.

Bookcraft published his 1961 rebuttal of anti-Mormon arguments, The Myth Makers (ibid., 297). The leaders of the Church were so impressed that the First Presidency asked Nibley to write a response to Irving Wallace's The Twenty-Seventh Wife. The First Presidency even requested that BYU lighten Nibley's teaching load so he could devote more time to the project (ibid., 298-99). The resulting book was published under the title, Sounding Brass.

One could go on, but I think you get the point. In the nascent days of scholarly apologetics, there was a healthy mix of Church direction and volunteerism. I would be surprised if things were so terribly different today.

On a final note, Hugh Nibley gave the most delightful quip about the Pearl of Great Price, "I have always steered clear of the Pearl of Great Price which, as you can well imagine, has been a Happy Hunting-Ground for crack-pots" (ibid., 313).

Oh pish posh, Trevor. No need to illuminate this discussion with accurate context! Something I read once comes to mind when I read through this thread:

"Being trapped in the snares of dishonesty and misrepresentation does not happen instantaneously. One little lie or dishonest act leads to another until the perpetrator is caught in the web of deceit. ...

A wise person will not allow himself to be victimized by the unscrupulous because of false pride. Oftentimes people are swindled because false pride prevents them from asking questions and seeking additional information." -Marvin J. Aston

[_Ray A]

Although Dan and I have some significant differences of opinion on Mormonism, which we have (believe it or not) discussed in much detail through emails, over many years, I've never found him to be intolerant of my heretical views (post-ZLMB, of course, where it was only forum antagonism, before I met him in person, and sorely repented of my misjudgements of his character).

I'm writing this for the lurkers mainly, who may be enticed to draw false conclusions about Dr. Peterson based on "Mister Scratch's" incessant character assassination upon all and sundry who disagree with his views. You Scratch-lovers have not as yet woken up to what a dishonest and vile character-assassin this LEECH and LIAR is. Dan Peterson, as much as I may disagree with some of his religious views, is an honourable man, and I'm sure the more perspicacious posters here fully realise that. I have found his openness and sincerity to be almost disarming, but this hasn't changed my personal views about Mormonism, ultimately. Sure, he defends his religion with much passion, and why shouldn't he? If he did otherwise, he would not be true to his core beliefs, just like some of you are true to your core unbeliefs! The issue of "paid apologetics" is another of Scratch's sick and distorted obsessions, fortunately relieved much by Dan and Bill Hamblin's humorous exchanges on MADB about this, which often leave me in fits of laughter. This kind of humour is totally beyond the morose and morbid character of Scratch, who seems fully employed in living off character assassination. Wonder WHO pays "Scratch", the Omnipresent Judge of others while he remains COMPLETELY anonymous. Such cowardice is rarely seen among humans, but you can behold it here totally on the Moron Discussions Board.

[_Mister Scratch]

Although Dan and I have some significant differences of opinion on Mormonism, which we have (believe it or not) discussed in much detail through emails, over many years, I've never found him to be intolerant of my heretical views (post-ZLMB, of course, where it was only forum antagonism, before I met him in person, and sorely repented of my misjudgements of his character).

Ah, I see. You had to grovel on your knees before His Highness, the Grand King of Mopologetics, before you came to your senses. I get it, Ray.

I'm writing this for the lurkers mainly, who may be enticed to draw false conclusions about Dr. Peterson based on "Mister Scratch's" incessant character assassination upon all and sundry who disagree with his views.

I'm disappointed in you, Ray. However, I would like to applaud you for the relative calmness of this post. The truth is that I just want the truth, and it's often hard to come by in Mopologetics. I disagree with all kinds of people---marg and BCspace, for example--and yet can you find any instance of this so-called "character assassination"?

You Scratch-lovers have not as yet woken up to what a dishonest and vile character-assassin this LEECH and LIAR is. Dan Peterson, as much as I may disagree with some of his religious views, is an honourable man, and I'm sure the more perspicacious posters here fully realise that. I have found his openness and sincerity to be almost disarming, but this hasn't changed my personal views about Mormonism, ultimately. Sure, he defends his religion with much passion, and why shouldn't he? If he did otherwise, he would not be true to his core beliefs, just like some of you are true to your core unbeliefs! The issue of "paid apologetics" is another of Scratch's sick and distorted obsessions, fortunately relieved much by Dan and Bill Hamblin's humorous exchanges on MADB about this, which often leave me in fits of laughter. This kind of humour is totally beyond the morose and morbid character of Scratch, who seems fully employed in living off character assassination. Wonder WHO pays "Scratch", the Omnipresent Judge of others while he remains COMPLETELY anonymous. Such cowardice is rarely seen among humans, but you can behold it here totally on the Moron Discussions Board.

Why are you so sore, Ray? Oh, yeah---that's right. You were exposed as a colossal flip-flopper. Anyways, I've long forgiven you for that sin. You would do well, however, to repent for your very false and appalling accusations against Dr. Shades. I'd like to think that you were man enough to do that.

[_Gadianton]

You know, Ray, I don't think this thread is slanderous of Dr. Peterson at all. At the Most, Scratch and Dr. Peterson seemed to have locked horns over whether or not Dr. Peterson has been forthright in his depiction of the money trail and apologetics. This thread is primarly a discussion about a well-compensated salesperson paid by the church to work the elite social networks of the membership for cash. In fact, it would seem Dr. Peterson's role fades into the background and has become more one of support to a larger powerbroker who is seeing to the interests of the LDS board of directors. The only named accusation is that of Matt Roper as a paid apologist. Which is not insulting, in itself. Clearly, Dr. Peterson's intentions with apologetics are good. I wonder if in some ways he's being taken advantage of by bigger players, in fact. The well-meaning intellectuals are often the last to "get" what they've allied themselves with. I don't see Dr. Peterson's sometimes conflicting statements as lies, but rather as an honest man trying to navigate some murky waters.

I personally have stated elsewhere, in a thread I believe both you and Dr. Peterson missed, that it may be in the church's interest to have paid apologists. One problem of the information age is that there are so many loose canons out there, FAIR apologists, for instance, that it makes good sense for the church to throw some financial backing the way of professional scholars who have a better chance at presenting respectable-looking work.