MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[_guy sajer]

For what it's worth, I've never declared that I've never received any money whatsoever for any activity related to apologetics. (That is a typical Scratchian straw man.) But the amount of money that I've received for apologetic writing or speaking over the course of my entire lifetime, I'm guessing, probably totals less than 1% of my current annual salary -- and no part of it was paid as salary. My salary would not be lower had I never written an apologetic sentence; arguably, in fact, given the incentives and rewards factored into salary determinations at BYU, it might actually have been somewhat higher. I was warned when I first arrived at BYU not to write on Mormon topics, and I've since been criticized occasionally for doing so. That I've done so and managed nonetheless to thrive was by no means assured; others have not.

And I'm not attempting, contrary to Scratch's unsupported allegations, to make apologetics lucrative. (It will never be that.) I simply think that a person who edits a book or writes a book should not be obligated to do it absolutely for free, simply because he or she is doing it for FARMS. (My concerns center on the long-term health and interests of FARMS as much as on those of the writers, incidentally.) And the amounts of money involved are, in any case, minimal.

the vast amounts of time he's spent on message boards alone

Averaging five posts a day on the board formerly known as FAIR, with a small and very occasional burst of posting here, and none (or virtually none) anywhere else? "Vast"? (I write quickly, by the way.)

By my calculation, you yourself have averaged approximately 2.5 posts daily here. That appears to make your posting on this board, by your own standard, half-vast.

Have I wasted more time than I should have on largely fruitless internet squabbles? Absolutely. And I hope to reform. But it has come out of my own personal research and writing time. My classes have been taught, my students' papers read, my Middle Eastern Texts Initiative books vetted, edited, and published, my administrative responsibilities attended to. (I've won teaching awards, for what it's worth, and shown up in at least one nationally published book that I'm aware of as one of BYU's top teachers -- which I don't take particularly seriously, but which does appear to demonstrate that I'm doing my job. And I wasn't named a lifetime member and fellow of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters last year -- the only person so named in 2007 -- for my apologetics, let alone for my posting on a message board. Which, again, I take with a grain of salt [and I realize full well that it's not the National Academy of Sciences or the Académie française], but which, I think, suggests that I've actually been doing some non-apologetic academic work.)

on company time

What do you think would constitute "company time" for an academic? Between 9-5, say, on Mondays through Fridays?

Does this mean that when, as I commonly do, I'm participating in academic conferences or delivering public lectures in the evenings and on weekends, I'm working overtime? Am I working overtime when, as I typically do, I'm editing and writing on weekends and on holidays (e.g., today)? When I travel, as I often do, on university and translation project business -- throughout North America, Europe, and the Near East -- am I racking up hours and hours of overtime?

in full view of his employers

Do you seriously imagine that anybody in the administration of the Church or the University pays even the slightest attention to the goings-on here or on the board formerly known as FAIR?

For what it's worth, I have no problem if Dan and his colleagues get paid for apologetic work. Why shouldn't they if there's a market for it that's willing to pay, if only a minimal amount.

My question has alway been what percentage of Dan's (and his colleagues) 'productive work time' is spent in apologetic pursuits and whether this time could be better spent in legitimate academic work resulting in an increase in academic output. Dan's apologetic work is, I am sure, of no secret to his Dept. Chair and Dean, and whatever its extent, they appear to be pleased with his performance. So more power to him.

For many academics, time is fungible, and performance assessment is based to a large degree on outputs rather than the process on producing those outputs. So, in theory (and in practice), one could work 70 hours a week and have few outputs, and thus be denied tenure or promotion, or one could work 25 hours a week and have multiple outputs, and thus be granted tenure and promotion. (Before I left, I was spending approximately 50% of my time consulting, but I still managed to publish, so I was pretty much left alone.) So, in effect, I was paid by the University to consult (for which I received additional payment.) In the same light, Dan is probably paid, in effect, to do apologetic stuff. That's not a value judgement, just an observation. But if his admin superiors are ok with it, what's the big deal? By the time I left, I was making almost the equivalent of my BYU salary to consult, in addition to my BYU salary. So I certainly don't begrudge Dan any money he earns from apologetics. It's only too bad for him he doesn't earn more.

[_Gadianton]

Dr. Peterson,

I took a second and fixed your av as a gift from Shades's board. Go ahead and right-click on mine, download, and then change. I will then resume my normal av.

My salary would not be lower had I never written an apologetic sentence; arguably, in fact, given the incentives and rewards factored into salary determinations at BYU, it might actually have been somewhat higher. I was warned when I first arrived at BYU not to write on Mormon topics, and I've since been criticized occasionally for doing so.

I gave two options, A and B. You affirm A. Contrary to Crockett's argument about being salaried opening up the hobby horse fun on company time

By my calculation, you yourself have averaged approximately 2.5 posts daily here. That appears to make your posting on this board, by your own standard, half-vast.

I've in the past posted way too much. Agreed. I'm not counting just your activities here which are just a portion, and I'm talking about over the years. I personally don't have a problem with it nor do I look down on it.

Do you seriously imagine that anybody in the administration of the Church or the University pays even the slightest attention to the goings-on here or on the board formerly known as FAIR?

Since FAIR and scholarship are like oil and water, I doubt BYU which I regard as a solid institution would have any interest in FAIR. Interest at least, beyond any other company having an interest of what goes on at webstes their employees are viewing frequently. I happen to know, very well, that BYU cares about what generally goes on with the web-surfing of its students and employees.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for helping me to express my inner self more adequately.

Now back to counting my ill-gotten gains.

[_beastie]

For what it's worth, I doubt if anyone objects to the idea of apologists being paid for their work. As has already been explained, that's not the point. The point is that the LDS church takes great pains to differentiate itself from apostate christianity by emphasizing that they don't have a paid ministry. Of course, this is false. They do have a paid ministry, and paid apologetics. It just doesn't pay well.

[_Gadianton]

Guy,

Not sure if you read Crockett's post or how carefully you read my response. First, what you are saying is true for any industry whatsoever and reflects basic common sense. If I'm paid 3$ an hour for raking leaves and I can rake 30 times as many piles of leaves in an hour as my colleagues, and if I do it all in a few minutes and then sleep under a tree the next 6 hours, my employer will probably not have an issue with me. If operating ethically, a business might make some positions salaried and others contract but in either case, if one is ouperforming expectations then no one is going to count minutes spent on hobbies that don't in some way otherwise conflict with business objectives.

I personally have no problemn with Peterson getting paid for his work. Why not? I would like to see Bishops and possibly executive secretaries get paid.

[_Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, I doubt if anyone objects to the idea of apologists being paid for their work. As has already been explained, that's not the point. The point is that the LDS church takes great pains to differentiate itself from apostate christianity by emphasizing that they don't have a paid ministry. Of course, this is false. They do have a paid ministry, and paid apologetics. It just doesn't pay well.

It pays, when it pays (which is rarely), about fifty bucks for an often lengthy and complex article -- the hourly payment may or may not (typically it doesn't, at least in my case) reach one dollar -- and the money comes not from the Church but, when it comes, from an essentially autonomous foundation that raises its own money independently via royalties and donations. In a really good year, such a paid apologist might clear a hundred dollars, before taxes.

If you want to call that a "paid ministry," I suppose you're at liberty to do so.

[_antishock8]

The Church, whether it's BYU or Corporate HQ, knows what Mr. Peterson is being paid, and for what he's being paid. They're both ok with the arrangement, knowing what one's obligation to the other, and also knowing what reciprocal benefits exist from the partnership. Guy makes a valid point, but Mr. Peterson's employers already have a good idea how much time he spends pursuing non-Middle Eastern scholarship. I'm pretty sure if they weren't happy with his endeavors they would have let him know. In other words they pay for a Middle Eastern studies professor, and get mostly apologetic scholarship with along with occasional ME work (plus course management for aides and students). Mr. Peterson gets to produce the occasional ME work, manage his courses, and practice a personal passion with gusto... Both sides are happy for the most part (I sense a little pecuniary dissatisfaction from Mr. Peterson). So, that's that. Never really in question.

However, we can finally put to rest that no money, whatsoever, was received in exchange for apologia. Myth busted.

I guess it's up to the observer to decide then whether Mr. Peterson is paid indirectly for his apologetics. I tend to think if he stopped with Mopologeticizin' and focused on ME studies exclusively (gots ta try n' get closer to that sweet Saudi petrocash somehow) the Church would be fine with it. If that's the case, he isn't a paid apologist. If he were put out to pasture for not producing Mopologetics, of if the threat of such an action existed, then he could be safely considered a paid Mopologist.

Frankly, if he's looking to make a little extra scratch he would be better served selling his soul on behalf of Islamopologia. Now THERE is a religion, culture, and body politic in dire need of dhimmi liars.

[_beastie]

It pays, when it pays (which is rarely), about fifty bucks for an often lengthy and complex article -- the hourly payment may or may not (typically it doesn't, at least in my case) reach one dollar -- and the money comes not from the Church but, when it comes, from an essentially autonomous foundation that raises its own money independently via royalties and donations. In a really good year, such a paid apologist might clear a hundred dollars, before taxes.

If you want to call that a "paid ministry," I suppose you're at liberty to do so.

The paid ministry are the GAs. You're the paid apologetics.

We know it pays poorly. We wouldn't expect otherwise.

No one cares that you're getting paid, Dan. You ought to be paid for your work. I'm sure you ought to be paid more. That isn't the point.

[_antishock8]

No one cares that you're getting paid, Dan. You ought to be paid for your work. I'm sure you ought to be paid more. That isn't the point.

I actually agree with this if the Church isn't indirectly paying him for his apologetics. He puts in a LOT of time, effort, and professionalism geared toward maintaining the Church's tithe-paying base. He's an asset to the Church, and one has to wonder how much attrition he's helped the Church avoid over the years with his efforts. I'm not being facetious, by the way. I really mean it. Mr. Peterson should be getting compensated well for his efforts.

[_guy sajer]

Guy,

Not sure if you read Crockett's post or how carefully you read my response. First, what you are saying is true for any industry whatsoever and reflects basic common sense. If I'm paid 3$ an hour for raking leaves and I can rake 30 times as many piles of leaves in an hour as my colleagues, and if I do it all in a few minutes and then sleep under a tree the next 6 hours, my employer will probably not have an issue with me. If operating ethically, a business might make some positions salaried and others contract but in either case, if one is ouperforming expectations then no one is going to count minutes spent on hobbies that don't in some way otherwise conflict with business objectives.

No, there's a difference. In academics, I could only show up to work 2-3 days a week, go skiing or golfing on any given day, spend 6 hours of any given day in the office doing unrelated work or even earning income from another job, or not even show up to work, or do much work at all for 4 entire summer months, and still get paid my full salary and even promoted, as long as I publish, show up to teach, and fulfill whatever other admin jobs I'm given.

I know of no other industry that permits such loose flexibility. That's one reason why the academic lifestyle is so great.