Funding for apologetics

[_Mercury]

Who pays for studies surrounding Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, church history, or other church related topics?


3. the church's payroll includes a lot of people, from the janitors at BYU to the prophet. Is mormonstudies referring to FARMS/Maxwell? or BYU professors in general? Or GA's? Is there a book out there somewhere written by a GA that is actually a scholarly look at Book of Mormon historicity?

When was the last time you read a scholarly treatiste written by a janitor?

Considering your attempts, several times.

[_harmony]

Who pays for studies surrounding Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, church history, or other church related topics?

Daniel says it's not the church...

A couple of points:

1. Of course the LDS Church offers financial support to LDS apologetics on some level. If the LDS Church handles any money that goes to pay for facilities, resources, and personnel that go into the NMI, FARMS Review, etc., then they do fund Book of Mormon apologetics.

2. The Church pays as little as it can, and relies on the goodwill and generosity of others as much as possible. It asks its members to foot the bill, either through tithing, or through offerings, even extraordinary ones that it drums up from the rich via the LDS Foundation. If this is the way it gets the job done, it is still technically marshaling its resources through various means to get the job done. A rose by any other name...

3. I am not sure why this is a big deal. Of course the LDS Church is going to provide support for things that forward its cause. I am not sure why DCP would deny that this is the case, and I am even more puzzled as to why this should be something critics pick on.

If this is true, then why is the #1 apologist of the church publically denying it?

[_Trevor]

No, actually, its a very bad idea, and its also unbiblical, which is a plus for anyone who thinks its a bad idea.

Since when is "biblical" the touchstone standard for LDS teachings and practices?

[_wenglund]

And rather than spend a dime, didn't one of the twelve recently call upon members to start blogs and defend the church? Maybe the church is already feeling the financial strain FARMS is putting on them.

I think putting up websites is the best thing the Cult has asked for. It will help guide members who have nothing more to say other than, "I know the twerch is twoo", and "if you want real answers, go to FARMS". That in turn will guide more people into the gaping wound that is, FARMS, and and in tale, lead them to people like myself who will help them get out.

I love every bit of it. Thank you FARMS, I could not do so much work without you.

Evidently, you have become legend in your own mind--your own urban hero. And, in some ways, I suppose there is little harm in that.! ;-)

I can, though, certainly understand your desire to be meaningful to, and valued by, others. That is an inherent need that we all have. However, such is only artificially derived through the kind of mockery and self-congratulatory hubris woven heavely throughout your post. In fact, in some ways, it can actually have the opposite affect (i.e. such verbage may diminish one's meaningfulness and value in the eyes of others).

May I recommend a healthy and functional alternative? (That being: adopt attitudes and behaviors that are inherently meaningful/valued--such as being kind and loving and thoughtful of others. And inculcate your thinking with a balanced perspective of self and others. In other words, think and act in mature, uplifting, and responsible ways.)

Just a thought from someone who cares. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

If this is true, then why is the #1 apologist of the church publically denying it?

To be contrary? Because he doesn't understand that non-monetary transactions still count economically?

[_harmony]

If this is true, then why is the #1 apologist of the church publically denying it?

To be contrary? Because he doesn't understand that non-monetary transactions still count economically?

Or because he has to, because to admit otherwise is to open a door he cannot ever contemplate? The door to questioning?

[_Trevor]

Or because he has to, because to admit otherwise is to open a door he cannot ever contemplate? The door to questioning?

I don't know that I would go that far. He probably wants to appear as personally blameless and pure as possible.

As I have said about the leadership of the LDS Church before, though, what they lose out on in money they gain in power and prestige (within the community, that is).

[_skippy the dead]

If this is true, then why is the #1 apologist of the church publically denying it?

To be contrary? Because he doesn't understand that non-monetary transactions still count economically?

Or because he has to, because to admit otherwise is to open a door he cannot ever contemplate? The door to questioning?

Perhaps there is a concern that if open financial support were to be provided to apologetics, then it would be seen as an official endorsement of the resulting conclusions. As far as I can tell, the church is satisfied with the uncertainty around various subjects (as seen in the church's steady refusal to take an official stand on any number of subjects, including the LGT), and would prefer that there be some distance between it and the theories that arise from the apologists.

[_Coggins7]

Or because he has to, because to admit otherwise is to open a door he cannot ever contemplate? The door to questioning?

Harmony means " the door to apostasy from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" here. Let's be clear about that.

How tight can one girdle be Harmony?

[_richardMdBorn]

It's because the church prides itself on not having a paid ministry. I think that's silly, and paid ministries are a good idea, but in its early days the church made hay of the idea of the base minister working for satan for money, so it made its current bed.

No, actually, its a very bad idea, and its also unbiblical, which is a plus for anyone who thinks its a bad idea.

Evidence from the Bible please.