Jason Bourne wrote: The only thing I see that they probably get paid for is royalties on books which really makes sense.
Which means, I'm afraid, that DCP lied to Infymus and others about "getting paid" to do Mopologetics.
Oh and yes the stipned thing, but that came about after DCP made his claim that you so desperately want to shatter. I see no other evidence of getting any pay here.
Does it seem reasonable to assume that the top LDS apologists receive remuneration of some kind for writing many articles for FARMS Review, or for editing that journal? Or for running FARMS, organizing conferences, etc.?
Why do I take issue? Because frankly your glee to take and small chance to smear DCP and others associated with him is sickening.
How is it a "smear" to overturn a longstanding and rather dishonest apologetic myth?
Mister Scratch wrote:It seems to me that Bushman is an anomaly in the world of LDS apologetics (and yes, I'd still term what he's doing as "apologetics", albeit a far more honest and decent-minded form of it). The fact remains that participants will be paid a stipend. Thus, apologists are "gettin' paid." I'm still at a loss as to why TBMs seem to object so strenuously to this.
What I objected to was TAK's claim that "FARMS offers stipends for the work they produce." As far as I know, that's not the case. And with regard to your opening post, I've seen no evidence that FARMS pays DCP a salary for doing apologetics. The implication that apologetics is a lucrative sideline for any LDS scholar is ridiculous.
Mister Scratch wrote:It seems to me that Bushman is an anomaly in the world of LDS apologetics (and yes, I'd still term what he's doing as "apologetics", albeit a far more honest and decent-minded form of it). The fact remains that participants will be paid a stipend. Thus, apologists are "gettin' paid." I'm still at a loss as to why TBMs seem to object so strenuously to this.
What I objected to was TAK's claim that "FARMS offers stipends for the work they produce." As far as I know, that's not the case. And with regard to your opening post, I've seen no evidence that FARMS pays DCP a salary for doing apologetics.
Yes; as you no doubt noticed, there was some concern within this thread on the semantic use of the term "salary." I pointed out that, whenever the topic comes up of DCP "gettin' paid" to do Mopologetics, he always, without fail, inserts the qualifier "salary" into the sentence denying his remuneration.
I would be interested in seeing his answer to this simple question: "Do you, or have you ever, received payment of any kind from your Mopologetic endeavors?"
As Dr. Shades noted above, it has been a long-standing, well-accepted "truth" that no LDS apologist gets money for their work. In fact, the denials on this have been noticeably strenuous.
[ The only thing I see that they probably get paid for is royalties on books which really makes sense.
Which means, I'm afraid, that DCP lied to Infymus and others about "getting paid" to do Mopologetics.
I doubt that Peterson had royalties in mind. Most likely he was referring to the work he does at FARMS or his speaking engagements. All authors get royalties for books.
Oh and yes the stipned thing, but that came about after DCP made his claim that you so desperately want to shatter. I see no other evidence of getting any pay here.
Does it seem reasonable to assume that the top LDS apologists receive remuneration of some kind for writing many articles for FARMS Review, or for editing that journal? Or for running FARMS, organizing conferences, etc.?
No it does not seem reasonable at all.
Why do I take issue? Because frankly your glee to take and small chance to smear DCP and others associated with him is sickening.
How is it a "smear" to overturn a longstanding and rather dishonest apologetic myth?
[ The only thing I see that they probably get paid for is royalties on books which really makes sense.
Which means, I'm afraid, that DCP lied to Infymus and others about "getting paid" to do Mopologetics.
I doubt that Peterson had royalties in mind. Most likely he was referring to the work he does at FARMS or his speaking engagements. All authors get royalties for books.
Jason,
The "story" all along has been that Mopologists do not get any payment whatsoever for their work. This is the myth which has---and was---perpetuated by DCP in the items I quoted from the SHIELDS website. Are you really trying to tell me that DCP "accidentally" slipped up and wrote the wrong thing? Come on now, Jason. You and I both know how careful The Good Professor is with his words. It's transparently obvious that he wanted to continue to perpetuate the myth that Mopologists are these noble "warriors for God" who don't accept any money for what they do. But, as you admit, this "myth" isn't exactly the truth.
Oh and yes the stipned thing, but that came about after DCP made his claim that you so desperately want to shatter. I see no other evidence of getting any pay here.
Does it seem reasonable to assume that the top LDS apologists receive remuneration of some kind for writing many articles for FARMS Review, or for editing that journal? Or for running FARMS, organizing conferences, etc.?
No it does not seem reasonable at all.
Huh? How do you figure? Moreover, as others on the thread have pointed out, DCP is getting paid a salary from BYU....despite the fact that the bulk of his work seems to be apologetics-related. I'd bet that he gets payment of some kind to do apologetics.
Why do I take issue? Because frankly your glee to take and small chance to smear DCP and others associated with him is sickening.
How is it a "smear" to overturn a longstanding and rather dishonest apologetic myth?
Oh please. Don't play coy.
Sorry, Jason, but I fail to see what is a "smear" in this thread.
Mister Scratch wrote:The description of this year's seminar def. made it sound like an "apologetic venture," as it seems to be focusing on figuring out ways to spin the negative/disconcerting aspects of Joseph Smith's life. Further, as Chap noted---quibbling about where the money comes from is really beside the point, in my opinion. As you'll see in my OP and in other places in this thread, DCP has claimed that he receives "nothing" from apologetics, though that's been pretty clearly debunked.
I can see why this year's seminar might sound like an "apologetic venture" since one of its aims is to persuade Latter-day Saints who have "adversely affected" by criticisms of Joseph Smith that "the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith." At the same time, the seminar represents an implicit rejection of much of the current apologetic material on Joseph Smith. Instead of downplaying or dismissing critics' arguments, the seminar will review the critical evidence to see if it can shed new light on Joseph Smith's "cultural situation and mission." In other words, it is "faith seeking understanding," not a defense of the faith at all costs.
In a recent issue of the Journal of American History, Richard Bushman reflected on the decades-old tensions in the LDS academic community between the "apologists" (BYU Religion faculty) and the "historians" (Smith Institute) vis-a-vis Joseph Smith:
The apologists wonder why the historians do not spring to the defense of the faith when Joseph Smith comes under attack. The apologists want to war with the critics; the historians ask them out to lunch. . . . The apologists insist that the historians fail to understand what is at stake. The historians for their part question the apologists' polemical writing and special pleading. They think the apologists repel readers with their bellicose style and unwillingness to yield points. Though assembled on the same campus at Brigham Young University and acknowledging each other as brothers and sisters in the gospel, they live in different worlds.
- Richard Lyman Bushman, "A Response to Jan Shipps," Journal of American History 94 (September 2007): 518-19.
While Bushman wishes the "historians" would engage Joseph Smith more directly (noting their tendency "to bypass the early history" in order to "avoid strain between keeping the peace with non-Mormons and showing their colors as believers"), he certainly doesn't advocate that they become "apologists." I think the summer seminar is his attempt to find a middle ground.
But if you still want to call that "apologetics" then so be it.
The annual Joseph Smith summer seminar, sponsored by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship, will take as its theme in 2008 "Joseph Smith and His Critics." The theme has been chosen in response to the growing number of critical attacks in books and on the web. Many Latter-day Saints have been affected adversely by these criticisms, and the materials supplied by our apologetic institutions have not always met their needs.
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 cannot see that there is any room for doubt that the aim of this seminar is anything else than to generate apologetic material.
Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.
Mark you, this is by normal standards a pretty last-ditch attempt at apologetics. The best that these scholars can hope for seems to be to "persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith". The Internet is clearly biting deep into the territory occupied by thinking TBMs who are prepared to look at possibly adverse evidence. Of course, that will still leave an awful lot of LDS completely unaffected ...
Chap wrote:Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.
Richard Bushman is a practitioner of "faithful history," which is not the same thing as apologetics--at least not of the FARMS/FAIR variety. I am not alone in making this distinction. Michael Quinn never applies the term "apologist" to Bushman in his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Instead, he calls him a "conservative revisionist"--a label Quinn uses to describe himself as well (p. xvii). Of course, if you're the sort of person who thinks of Quinn as an apologist, then this is a distinction without much of a difference.
Chap wrote:Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.
Richard Bushman is a practitioner of "faithful history," which is not the same thing as apologetics--at least not of the FARMS/FAIR variety. I am not alone in making this distinction. Michael Quinn never applies the term "apologist" to Bushman in his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Instead, he calls him a "conservative revisionist"--a label Quinn uses to describe himself as well (p. xvii). Of course, if you're the sort of person who thinks of Quinn as an apologist, then this is a distinction without much of a difference.
I don't consider Bushman to be an "apologist," per se, but I def. agree with Chap that this upcoming seminar is, without question an "apologetic venture."
Chap wrote:Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.
Richard Bushman is a practitioner of "faithful history," which is not the same thing as apologetics--at least not of the FARMS/FAIR variety. I am not alone in making this distinction. Michael Quinn never applies the term "apologist" to Bushman in his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Instead, he calls him a "conservative revisionist"--a label Quinn uses to describe himself as well (p. xvii). Of course, if you're the sort of person who thinks of Quinn as an apologist, then this is a distinction without much of a difference.
I am talking about whether the seminar is an apologetic effort or not. That is germane to this thread, since people are paid for attending it. You do not seem to want to deny that it is an apologetic effort
However in your post, you seem to be addressing a different point, about what we are to think of Richard Bushman. I have expressed no opinion on this, nor do I wish to.
Chap wrote:I am talking about whether the seminar is an apologetic effort or not. That is germane to this thread, since people are paid for attending it. You do not seem to want to deny that it is an apologetic effort
However in your post, you seem to be addressing a different point, about what we are to think of Richard Bushman. I have expressed no opinion on this, nor do I wish to.
Bushman has been directing the Joseph Smith summer seminar for a decade. It's his project. It has been doing the same thing for the past ten years: researching the cultural context of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. It will be doing the same thing again this year. But now that it's being sponsored by the (apologist) Maxwell Institute rather than the (New Mormon history) Smith Institute it has transmogrified into an "apologetic venture" plain and simple. Got it.
Well, I guess we'll find out in a few months, won't we?