How Much Are LDS Apologists Paid?

[_Mister Scratch]

Why do we need Daniel when we have Nevo? The person we really need is Bushman.

Hi Harmony,

The main reason why we need Daniel C. P. in this Discussion thread, is because He is the Chief LDS Apologist. DCP should know whether if he gets paid or not for any his LDS Apologetics.

Well, we may have damned ourselves, since I posted those old SHIELDS messages of his where he is pretty firmly denying that he ever receives any money for apologetics. We may have stood a better chance of "luring" him out if we were just speculating, but, given GoodK's testimony, and the various insights people have into the worlds of academia and publishing, it seems almost a fully settled matter that yes, in fact, DCP has received payment for apologetics.

Edited to add: Actually, I'm quite curious as to the actual amount DCP and others have "raked in." I wouldn't be surprised if DCP's tally extends into the mid-six figures.

I sure hope you are not a trial attorney. You would have a lousy track record. But you certainly do have a penchant for rumor mongering and innuendo. Rakes in indeed. Mid six figures?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really are a piece of work.

Jason---

I have to say, your endless immaturity and whining on this thread have grown rather tiresome. It remains unclear why this particular topic has so unhinged you emotionally. Why should you care whether or not apologists "rake in" enormous sums? Moreover, why should you be bothered at our speculations? I mean, it's not as if we are making guesses about what DCP eats each day, or anything of a highly personal nature.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason---

I have to say, your endless immaturity and whining on this thread have grown rather tiresome.

Oh please. MY immaturity? Go read your own posts man. You make sweeping yet rather baseless conclusions on innuendo and speculation and can barely contain almost child like glee. You arrogantly declare yourself the winner on this topic but you would lose, yes dude, lose in a court on the scant evidence in this thread.

It remains unclear why this particular topic has so unhinged you emotionally.

See this is what you try to do to anyone that disagrees with you. Unhinged. Not in the least. I am just holding your feet to a higher standard. It is clear that you are on a smear campaign against Dr Peterson and other LDS apologists. You take any little tid bit and spin it in the absolute worst light all the time. I think your behavior is despicable. I feel it appropriate to point that out here and this thread is a fine opportunity to do so.

Why should you care whether or not apologists "rake in" enormous sums?

I don't care. Where did I say I did? I could care less either way. You on the other hand seem obsessed about it.

Moreover, why should you be bothered at our speculations?

If you state them as speculations fine. But here you over and over state that it is clear that they get paid. But it is not clear what they get, if they do, how they are paid, etc,

I mean, it's not as if we are making guesses about what DCP eats each day, or anything of a highly personal nature.

Oh no. Not personal at all. Let me see, you have just gone from calling the man a bald face liar to betting that he had made a good six figure income on his apologetic work. Nothing personal there at all.

[_moksha]

I don't expect any of this year's participants to take the side of Joseph Smith's critics, but I think their project to contextualize the criticisms against the Prophet will produce scholarship that is more accurately described as "revisionist" than "apologetic" per se.

Could you elaborate on the suspected revisionist scholarship?

[_Mister Scratch]

Jason---

I have to say, your endless immaturity and whining on this thread have grown rather tiresome.

Oh please. MY immaturity? Go read your own posts man. You make sweeping yet rather baseless conclusions on innuendo and speculation and can barely contain almost child like glee. You arrogantly declare yourself the winner on this topic but you would lose, yes dude, lose in a court on the scant evidence in this thread.

"Lose" what? See: this is why I think you are whining just for the sake of whining. I have maintained all along that
A) It is highly likely that apologists get compensated in some way for their work, and
B) That DCP has been dishonest about this in the past

How would I "lose" on either of those counts, Jase-meister? You yourself conceded that it's highly likely that DCP gets $$$ for his books....did you not?

It remains unclear why this particular topic has so unhinged you emotionally.

See this is what you try to do to anyone that disagrees with you. Unhinged. Not in the least. I am just holding your feet to a higher standard. It is clear that you are on a smear campaign against Dr Peterson and other LDS apologists. You take any little tid bit and spin it in the absolute worst light all the time. I think your behavior is despicable. I feel it appropriate to point that out here and this thread is a fine opportunity to do so.

I asked you before, so, heck, why not ask again? Where have I engaged in "spinning" or "smearing" on this thread, Jason? Or anywhere else? Feel free to supply some actual evidence this time. I reckon that the best you've got is my comment regarding DCP's "brazen and spectacular lie." (Apparently, this inside joke has sailed right over your head. This is what The Good Professor called *me*, with even less evidence than I've got now.) But, in lieu of what GoodK has revealed, in addition to all the evidence and support we have gathered in this thread, I think it's perfectly reasonable and fair to conclude that some bit of sophistry or dishonesty has taken place. In short, I think it's reasonable to deduce that, in fact, folks receive $$$ in exchange for LDS apologetics.

Moreover, why should you be bothered at our speculations?

If you state them as speculations fine. But here you over and over state that it is clear that they get paid.

Yes, and? It *does* seem pretty clear/obvious that they get paid. For books, at the very least, and likely from some other activities as well, I would imagine.

But it is not clear what they get, if they do, how they are paid, etc,

Indeed. Hence the speculation.

I mean, it's not as if we are making guesses about what DCP eats each day, or anything of a highly personal nature.

Oh no. Not personal at all. Let me see, you have just gone from calling the man a bald face liar to betting that he had made a good six figure income on his apologetic work. Nothing personal there at all.

What, among all the things I have said, is either "highly personal" or inaccurate about what I've said, Jason? I fail to see what's "personal" about trying to deduce whether or not an apologist earns income from projects which, in virtually any other circumstance, would earn a person income. Furthermore, what's wrong with wondering why DCP has repeatedly stated that he gets "nothing" from apologetics, despite GoodK's remarks to the contrary?

I guess, in the end, it's just not clear what you're complaining about, Jason. Perhaps you are just harboring some grudge against me personally, and are using this thread as a means of venting?

[_Nevo]

I don't expect any of this year's participants to take the side of Joseph Smith's critics, but I think their project to contextualize the criticisms against the Prophet will produce scholarship that is more accurately described as "revisionist" than "apologetic" per se.

Could you elaborate on the suspected revisionist scholarship?

I was thinking of something along the lines of Bushman's "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith", BYU Studies 37, no. 1 (1997-98):183-203, or his "Joseph Smith as Translator," in The Prophet Puzzle, ed. Bryan Waterman (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), 69-85, or Ronald Walker's "The Persisting Idea of American Treasure Hunting," BYU Studies 24, no. 4 (1984): 430-59--that is, scholarship that challenges the older orthodox interpretations. Another example of this would Alexander Baugh's reinterpretation of the extermination order:

"Mormons, I think, have looked at Boggs thinking he’s a bloodthirsty killer, that basically what he was saying is "Now Mormons must be totally annihilated or killed." I think we have to probably rethink that interpretation. Boggs was not a bloodthirsty killer. He was a family man--I believe he was a God-fearing man--but in his mind the Mormon problem had caused him enough problem[s] to say it’s time they be removed. I think we have to look at the extermination order as a removal order, not as one to totally annihilate the Latter-day Saints" (interviewed on Joseph: Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet [DVD])

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I don't expect they'll spend all their time trying to debunk and discredit hostile testimony. I think they'll be looking to understand the historical context above all.

[_Gadianton]

Mister Scratch,

I fully endorse people looking to profit for their time. I even believe that bishops should be paid. I have no problem with the fact that there is a paid apologetic force out there, but for some reason apologists do. Is it wrong to get paid for doing something you like and that you believe in?

Sure enough, many apologists are paid. John Gee was outright hired and paid as a full-time apologist. Peterson is also a paid apologist, but I realize that he's moved into the position rather than having been directly hired into it. But that's a really common thing, you know. How many people are hired and retained at their jobs under a certain title but end up taking on very different duties "not in their job description" as time goes on?

It would be interesting to see how long Dr. Peterson and Gee would last at BYU if they both continued to be faithful Mormons but began to challenge the truthfulness and integrity of apologetics. Theoretically they should be able to right? Since apologetics has nothing to do with their job descriptions.

[_harmony]

It would be interesting to see how long Dr. Peterson and Gee would last at BYU if they both continued to be faithful Mormons but began to challenge the truthfulness and integrity of apologetics. Theoretically they should be able to right? Since apologetics has nothing to do with their job descriptions.

Since the Brethren support FARMS, challenging FARMS challenges the Brethren, and that's a good way to get fired.

[_Chap]

I don't expect any of this year's participants to take the side of Joseph Smith's critics, but I think their project to contextualize the criticisms against the Prophet will produce scholarship that is more accurately described as "revisionist" than "apologetic" per se.

Could you elaborate on the suspected revisionist scholarship?

I was thinking of something along the lines of Bushman's "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith", BYU Studies 37, no. 1 (1997-98):183-203, or his "Joseph Smith as Translator," in The Prophet Puzzle, ed. Bryan Waterman (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), 69-85, or Ronald Walker's "The Persisting Idea of American Treasure Hunting," BYU Studies 24, no. 4 (1984): 430-59--that is, scholarship that challenges the older orthodox interpretations. Another example of this would Alexander Baugh's reinterpretation of the extermination order:

"Mormons, I think, have looked at Boggs thinking he’s a bloodthirsty killer, that basically what he was saying is "Now Mormons must be totally annihilated or killed." I think we have to probably rethink that interpretation. Boggs was not a bloodthirsty killer. He was a family man--I believe he was a God-fearing man--but in his mind the Mormon problem had caused him enough problem[s] to say it’s time they be removed. I think we have to look at the extermination order as a removal order, not as one to totally annihilate the Latter-day Saints" (interviewed on Joseph: Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet [DVD])

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I don't expect they'll spend all their time trying to debunk and discredit hostile testimony. I think they'll be looking to understand the historical context above all.

But they will, won't they, spend the major part of their time trying to achieve what the seminar announcement says is the aim of the seminar:

Our aim is to persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith.

If they don't do that, the people who are paying them to pursue this avowedly apologetic aim will have grounds for complaint, won't they?

[_harmony]

Why do we need Daniel when we have Nevo? The person we really need is Bushman.

Hi Harmony,

The main reason why we need Daniel C. P. in this Discussion thread, is because He is the Chief LDS Apologist. DCP should know whether if he gets paid or not for any his LDS Apologetics.

Is that what his business card says? Or is that an assumption from outsiders? Or is that his calling?

[_Mister Scratch]

Mister Scratch,

I fully endorse people looking to profit for their time. I even believe that bishops should be paid. I have no problem with the fact that there is a paid apologetic force out there, but for some reason apologists do. Is it wrong to get paid for doing something you like and that you believe in?

No, not at all. I approve of apologists getting paid. What I *don't* approve of, is this bogus mythology about how they are all doing it for "nothing."

Sure enough, many apologists are paid. John Gee was outright hired and paid as a full-time apologist.

Wait a sec... Are you sure about this? Many of the naysayers on this thread have been saying that none of the "they get paid" arguments have been "substantiated".... Do you have real evidence, Gad, that Gee receives payment/salary for Mopologetics?