FARMS wants you to beef of its apologetics...

[_Jason Bourne]

Wow... Holy smokes, this is huge, CK. I am just blown away by a number of things in this. In one swift stroke, Bushman has dispelled a number of Mopologetic myths. I'm especially intrigued by Prof. Bushman's frank dismissal of the long-held legend that apologists aren't paid to do apologetics. (That $3,000 stipend sounds pretty nice. Do they throw in a per diem, I wonder?) I also find it interesting that he is saying outrightly that the purpose of apologetics is to prevent (as Elder Maxwell reportedly said to Steve Benson) the "critics from outflanking the Brethren." It also seems that he is admitting the main function of apologetics is "spin doctoring." Very, very intriguing, CK.

If I may ask, where did you come across this notice?

1 You think $3000 for full time over 6.5 weeks is a lot? If so and you have any business talent I have a job for you at that rate.
2: It seems the Bushman really understands there are issues and that members that run into them are not always getting good answer and he also seems to understand that this is valid. He does not blame it on the member.
3 Not sure where you get the idea about out flanking the brethren.
4: Why is defending the faith always spin for you but your avid and prolific attacks here are not?

[_Jason Bourne]

Holy smokes is right. You guys don't understand about stipends. People need to have a place to live and food to eat when they are away from home. Transportation to and from. Six and half weeks. That doesn't meet expenses much less pay for their time.

It is beside the point that the stipend "doesn't meet expenses." DCP and other Mopologists have insisted---strenuously and for a long time---that nobody received money for apologetic activities. This statement from Bushman totally blows up that old canard. LDS apologetics is something which is obviously being funded by the LDS Church, and Mopologists get paid for their activities.

So maybe there is a change in policy. Big deal.

[_richardMdBorn]

Wow... Holy smokes, this is huge, CK. I am just blown away by a number of things in this. In one swift stroke, Bushman has dispelled a number of Mopologetic myths. I'm especially intrigued by Prof. Bushman's frank dismissal of the long-held legend that apologists aren't paid to do apologetics. (That $3,000 stipend sounds pretty nice. Do they throw in a per diem, I wonder?) I also find it interesting that he is saying outrightly that the purpose of apologetics is to prevent (as Elder Maxwell reportedly said to Steve Benson) the "critics from outflanking the Brethren." It also seems that he is admitting the main function of apologetics is "spin doctoring." Very, very intriguing, CK.

If I may ask, where did you come across this notice?

1 You think $3000 for full time over 6.5 weeks is a lot? If so and you have any business talent I have a job for you at that rate.
2: It seems the Bushman really understands there are issues and that members that run into them are not always getting good answer and he also seems to understand that this is valid. He does not blame it on the member.
3 Not sure where you get the idea about out flanking the brethren.
4: Why is defending the faith always spin for you but your avid and prolific attacks here are not?

That's fine, but LDS apologists have wasted a lot of ink attacking the Tanners for receiving pay for their work. Perhaps if they concentrated on the arguments, they would do better.

[_Jason Bourne]

Wow... Holy smokes, this is huge, CK. I am just blown away by a number of things in this. In one swift stroke, Bushman has dispelled a number of Mopologetic myths. I'm especially intrigued by Prof. Bushman's frank dismissal of the long-held legend that apologists aren't paid to do apologetics. (That $3,000 stipend sounds pretty nice. Do they throw in a per diem, I wonder?) I also find it interesting that he is saying outrightly that the purpose of apologetics is to prevent (as Elder Maxwell reportedly said to Steve Benson) the "critics from outflanking the Brethren." It also seems that he is admitting the main function of apologetics is "spin doctoring." Very, very intriguing, CK.

If I may ask, where did you come across this notice?

1 You think $3000 for full time over 6.5 weeks is a lot? If so and you have any business talent I have a job for you at that rate.
2: It seems the Bushman really understands there are issues and that members that run into them are not always getting good answer and he also seems to understand that this is valid. He does not blame it on the member.
3 Not sure where you get the idea about out flanking the brethren.
4: Why is defending the faith always spin for you but your avid and prolific attacks here are not?

That's fine, but LDS apologists have wasted a lot of ink attacking the Tanners for receiving pay for their work. Perhaps if they concentrated on the arguments, they would do better.

Another drive by slam from one of our Evangelicals. Do you ever offer any substantive comments here Richard?

[_the road to hana]

Or is it just jealousy that nobody pays for the cardboard for the signs you wave at General Conference?

Earth to Charity: If you're looking for General Conference cardboard-wavers, you're in the wrong place.

[_Gazelam]

General Conference cardboard-wavers

[_truth dancer]

Wow!

The purpose of the seminar is to bring together a dozen experienced LDS scholars to review the arguments on both sides of a number of these issues and formulate replies that serve inquirers more satisfactorily. The emphasis will be less on providing answers to every question than on putting the adverse evidence in a new light. Our aim is to persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith. In fact, negative information can sometimes illuminate his cultural situation and mission.

I feel sick inside.

It brings up my many years of trying to make horrible things seem right. :-(

I like Bushman, I understand the approach, and I sense some desperation... still, it feels so unhealthy to think that the church hires its best scholars to try to figure out a way to make Joseph Smith's behavior, seem all fine and dandy... even holy.

It reminds me of abusive men trying to justify their sick abuse. Or a bunch of integrity-lacking lawyers trying to free a guilty criminal.

I totally get I do not understand the God of Mormonism, but it just seems to me that a prophet communing with Jesus Christ himself, creator of the whole earth, would be more help than a few LDS scholars. Or maybe the brethren who are prophets, seers, and revelators would have some sort of inspiration? Or maybe God would have created a plan where the restorer of the one and only true church upon the face of the earth was actually a great man (or woman... smile) who doesn't need LDS scholars to try to convince people that his horrific behavior was actually decent?

(sigh)

Personally, the only apologetic response that even remotely seems workable to believers, is to go with the facts, admit Joseph Smith's behavior was less that decent, and rationalize it away by reminding believers that the prophets of old were not very good men either.

God just doesn't usually pick good men as prophets... so be it.



~dancer~

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Wow... Holy smokes, this is huge, CK. I am just blown away by a number of things in this. In one swift stroke, Bushman has dispelled a number of Mopologetic myths. I'm especially intrigued by Prof. Bushman's frank dismissal of the long-held legend that apologists aren't paid to do apologetics. (That $3,000 stipend sounds pretty nice. Do they throw in a per diem, I wonder?) I also find it interesting that he is saying outrightly that the purpose of apologetics is to prevent (as Elder Maxwell reportedly said to Steve Benson) the "critics from outflanking the Brethren." It also seems that he is admitting the main function of apologetics is "spin doctoring." Very, very intriguing, CK.

If I may ask, where did you come across this notice?

It's on the Maxwell/FARMS site:
http://maxwellinstitute.com/sumsem.html

CKS

Well, I'm amazed that Bushman was apparently "dumb" enough to leak this fact about Mopologists receiving money for their efforts.

Isn't that bribary? Geez how corrupt is this world? I am an active Mormon by the way and I am shocked and the stuff I am learning.

[_Ray A]

Or is it just jealousy that nobody pays for the cardboard for the signs you wave at General Conference? You might want to talk to Bob Betts. He gets about $40K to be an anti-Mormon. Ask him how he does it.

No complaints about the Tanners, either. Being a Mormon critic was far more profitable for Jerald than being a machinst. But, of course, his motives were "pure". No questions asked.

[_the road to hana]

Or is it just jealousy that nobody pays for the cardboard for the signs you wave at General Conference? You might want to talk to Bob Betts. He gets about $40K to be an anti-Mormon. Ask him how he does it.

No complaints about the Tanners, either. Being a Mormon critic was far more profitable for Jerald than being a machinst. But, of course, his motives were "pure". No questions asked.

And how much exactly per year would you say the LDS Church gets in tithing money from new converts from other religions?