DiscussMormonism.com

When LDS apologists jump into the fray to criticize some piece of writing about Mormonism they do not like, such as, say, "Happy Valley: A Photographer Reflects on His Mormon Upbringing," and someone else points out that they are associated with the Maxwell Institute, the usual response is that they are not paid to comment on the object of their criticism.

My feeling is, "so what?" It is like asking Karl Rove whether he was paid to comment on something for the Republican Party. We can all expect that Karl Rove, the diehard Republican, will comment in accordance with his mission and agenda to see that the Republican Party comes out on top in the way he envisions. Karl Rove is a deeply partisan person. Does anyone need to pay Karl Rove to motivate him to say whatever needs to be said to forward his Republican agenda?

So, what does it matter that LDS apologists who work for BYU in another capacity but also take an active part in the BYU-sponsored Maxwell Institute are not paid by the Maxwell Institute to go comment about "x" online in some forum or comments section? As committed partisans, who have made it their regular avocation to criticize material that they deem critical or even somewhat unflattering of the LDS Church, they should be expected to be true to form in their response to things like the Shumway piece.

I write this not as a criticism of these apologists, but for the sake of clarity. Both critics and apologists seem to me to get this one wrong. Critics need to understand that for these apologists pay is beside the point. They are dyed-in-the-wool, true blue partisans for their cause. They do what they do regardless of any monetary benefit. Indeed, they are very valuable to the cause because of this devotion. At the same time, it is fair to say that, for others, knowing this history is useful when dealing with these apologists. Both critics and confused members obtain real perspective by knowing that the person who just arrived in the comments section has been sparring with critics and disaffected Mormons for decades.

It behooves anyone who has a "public" face to consider that when making comments of any kind in any medium.

It is almost inevitable that people (with or without malicious intent) will associate the comments with the institution for which the commentor is considered to be spokesperson.

That this association may be unfair in no way prevents it from happening.

Is it not true that success in a venture such as religion or politics often requires management of public perceptions?

Edited for clarity!

Why is it that people use Republicans as an example of partison behavior? I wish "Progressives" would use someone, say like, James Carville as an example of the behavior they themselves don't like.

Kishkumen wrote:When LDS apologists jump into the fray to criticize some piece of writing about Mormonism they do not like, such as, say, "Happy Valley: A Photographer Reflects on His Mormon Upbringing," and someone else points out that they are associated with the Maxwell Institute, the usual response is that they are not paid to comment on the object of their criticism.

My feeling is, "so what?" It is like asking Karl Rove whether he was paid to comment on something for the Republican Party. We can all expect that Karl Rove, the diehard Republican, will comment in accordance with his mission and agenda to see that the Republican Party comes out on top in the way he envisions. Karl Rove is a deeply partisan person. Does anyone need to pay Karl Rove to motivate him to say whatever needs to be said to forward his Republican agenda?

So, what does it matter that LDS apologists who work for BYU in another capacity but also take an active part in the BYU-sponsored Maxwell Institute are not paid by the Maxwell Institute to go comment about "x" online in some forum or comments section? As committed partisans, who have made it their regular avocation to criticize material that they deem critical or even somewhat unflattering of the LDS Church, they should be expected to be true to form in their response to things like the Shumway piece.

I write this not as a criticism of these apologists, but for the sake of clarity. Both critics and apologists seem to me to get this one wrong. Critics need to understand that for these apologists pay is beside the point. They are dyed-in-the-wool, true blue partisans for their cause. They do what they do regardless of any monetary benefit. Indeed, they are very valuable to the cause because of this devotion. At the same time, it is fair to say that, for others, knowing this history is useful when dealing with these apologists. Both critics and confused members obtain real perspective by knowing that the person who just arrived in the comments section has been sparring with critics and disaffected Mormons for decades.

Good point. If it were not for their NAMIRS fun and games demanding so much of their time, would DCP and Hamblin be assigned by BYU to teach more classes--without a proportional increase in pay? I quite imagine that they would. Or, if Arabic and Middle Eastern studies are no longer in demand, DCP might find himself looking for a new job at another university, if he wasn't filling the rest of his plate with crafting mopologetic missiles launched from NAMIRS.

I think all you statists suck!

How many apologists are in a career that is totally unrelated to writing, speaking, publishing, religion, history, and philosophy?

Just curious if anyone knows. Will Schryver might be one.

I like the analogy with Rove. I think you're right, Reverend, to point out/argue that Mopologists would be vicious and attack-minded regardless of whether they're paid to launch attacks or not. They have "modeled" this behavior for decades now, and they now have a small cadre of followers who do--or try to do--the same things they've been doing.

I thought this portion of your OP was spot-on:

I write this not as a criticism of these apologists, but for the sake of clarity. Both critics and apologists seem to me to get this one wrong. Critics need to understand that for these apologists pay is beside the point. They are dyed-in-the-wool, true blue partisans for their cause. They do what they do regardless of any monetary benefit. Indeed, they are very valuable to the cause because of this devotion. At the same time, it is fair to say that, for others, knowing this history is useful when dealing with these apologists. Both critics and confused members obtain real perspective by knowing that the person who just arrived in the comments section has been sparring with critics and disaffected Mormons for decades.

Indeed. In looking over the "Comments" section on the Happy Valley piece, you see all stripes of people reacting in appalled fashion to the apologists' nastiness--in other words, these poor, blissfully unaware souls just don't know the context.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Why is it that people use Republicans as an example of partison behavior? I wish "Progressives" would use someone, say like, James Carville as an example of the behavior they themselves don't like.

James Carville is a rank amateur in comparison with Karl Rove. Maybe I should have said Rush Limbaugh, but I thought that would be too insulting. Limbaugh is a buffoon.

malkie wrote:It behooves anyone who has a "public" face to consider that when making comments of any kind in any medium.

It is almost inevitable that people (with or without malicious intent) will associate the comments with the institution for which the commentor is considered to be spokesperson.

That this association may be unfair in no way prevents it from happening.

I started down my personal journey by making this my business. I cared that my Church was being represented in a way that I thought was unhealthy. Now I have decided that a direct criticism of this is unproductive. I leave it to those who have some power and real say to decide whether they find the apologetic response to such things appropriate. The last person it is useful to engage is the partisan who has committed his or her life to this kind of activity.

Frankly, it is a waste of my time playing board nanny or whatever for either side. I do, however, gain some satisfaction from the fact that some active members of the Church are willing to express their difference of opinion with the LDS apologists. It is healthy to have a variety of voices in a community.

sock puppet wrote:Good point. If it were not for their NAMIRS fun and games demanding so much of their time, would DCP and Hamblin be assigned by BYU to teach more classes--without a proportional increase in pay? I quite imagine that they would. Or, if Arabic and Middle Eastern studies are no longer in demand, DCP might find himself looking for a new job at another university, if he wasn't filling the rest of his plate with crafting mopologetic missiles launched from NAMIRS.

I don't really care what BYU pays them to do. They would do what they do regardless of institutional support. They would lose sleep rather than forego the opportunity to defend Mormonism as they see fit. The LDS Church seems not to have a problem with it to the point that you see anything more than the occasional call for online civility from one apostle or some such. And let me be very clear, I have no desire to stick it to William Hamblin or Daniel Peterson. How they make their money or spend their free time is their business. I don't have to agree with their opinions or buy into their arguments, but I have almost no interest these days in how they are paid, for what they are paid, and what have you. In the end, it makes zero difference.

The LDS Church provides them support for what they do. I don't really think it matters all that much what form that support takes. The problem is that how the tithing funds of the LDS Church are used is a sensitive matter for both Church and member alike. So of course the apologists will bristle at the suggestion or accusation that they are paid to be apologists. At the same time, money comes from willing donors among the LDS and the Church provides some resources in support of the mission of the MI. But, from the apologists' point of view, they would happily visit a dingy office in an industrial zone to do what they do. They are passionate partisans who are fully invested on a personal level. To call them hired guns actually is an insult. It is not as if you could pay DCP or Hamblin to switch sides. They do what they do out of conviction.

When we call them paid apologists, as we have done, we may not fully realize why this is insulting. But it is to suggest that their personal integrity is bought and paid for. Whether we agree with what they believe or not, it is not accurate to say that they arrived where they did out of a desire for a paycheck. It is like saying that I became a Humanities professor for the cash. It is, indeed, much worse. We can passionately disagree with them and the rightness of their cause, and we can chuckle about the idea that they are still a poor little garage operation fighting the wealthy titans of the anti-Mormon industry, but they are not doing what they do to get wealthy. They do not sell themselves for money.