MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[_bcspace]

We have the nazis at Student Life to thank for this lesson..........

??? Will you please explain what the Hell you mean by that last sentence? I'm totally confused.

Student Life was (and still is?) the organization that went around enforcing the honor code at Church sponsored colleges (I went to one). While I rarely crossed their path, I found that even having such an organization is contrary to what the Church teaches about agency and personal responsibility. Many militants become members of that organization and while I agree with Church on moral and dress standards, I did not agree with the pharisitical way in which these standards were enforced. Here is where I crossed their path once....

I was engaged to be married in September. Rather than hassle with single housing for a month and then try to find married housing (an impossible task during the semester), I got married housing right from the beginning. I told them right from the beginning that I was not married yet, but would be in a few weeks. Someone made the executive decision to allow this to happen.

Well, Student Life got wind of it and basically accused me of being a fox in the henhouse, a single man in married housing, and tried to get me kicked out. I fought back and won but it was agreed (I was forced to accept or lose the apartment) that someone from Student Life would be visiting me every day until I was married to make sure nothing untowards was happening. Guess what? No one ever came.

No worries as this did not damage my faith in the Church in any way (as some of you are, no doubt, hoping). But I do believe this is an organization the Church should dump right away.

Now on the flip side, I was employed in the men's locker room for a time renting out clothes and equipment. We could not rent to those who were obviously in violation of the honor code and it was amazing how many guys came in with earrings still attached. But I think that's where enforcement should be, at the point of sale, so to speak, not pervasively throughout one's daily life, and everyone should be involved, not some special organization which removes personal responsibility.

I seem to recall the professors balking at enforcing the honor code in class, preferring someone else (Student Life) to do the 'dirty work'. What they didn't realize is that all it takes is for a few examples to be set and everyone gets the message.

[_Gadianton]

Guy,

I can "agree" to what you write to an extent. It's just that, I won't have the principle of perfect economies violated and be told that salaried people are free to do what they want so long as they do their work, and hourly are morally bound to the clock and come under fierce scrutiny if they deviate from the assembly line across the board (crockett's argument, which is more extreme than yours). I believe that the competition would uproot such free 100$ bills laying around on the floor.

I would look for something more fundamental if academic life is so easy, like intelligence factors which might cause some kind of separating equilibrium between the ease of being an academic and the ease of being a rock mover. A neurosergeon might be a workaholic, but could make an academic's salary working a single half-day a week, paid by the job, if s/he so chose.

And according to Peterson, his employer does care:

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.

[_guy sajer]

I seem to recall the professors balking at enforcing the honor code in class, preferring someone else (Student Life) to do the 'dirty work'. What they didn't realize is that all it takes is for a few examples to be set and everyone gets the message.

More likely the either thought that the dress and grooming standards (how one dresses grooms oneself has precious little to do with 'honor') were silly and chose not to enforce them.

Whatever their reason, I applaud them for not consenting to becoming the admin's enforcement arm for the dress and grooming standards.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Hi there, Prof. P. You stated in the other thread that your salary covers "administrative, editing, and personnel"-related duties. I'm curious: do any of those pertain to either FARMS Review or the Maxwell Institute? Furthermore, aren't you overlooking advances and/or royalties paid to those who write Mopologetic books?

Like others here, I'd like to reiterate that I have no problem with apologists being paid. Rather, I objective to the somewhat self-righteous trumpeting about how all of this is done purely in the service of the Lord.

[_Droopy]

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.

This argument actually has stretch marks on it. This is quite facile Beaste, even for you.

[_Droopy]

Like others here, I'd like to reiterate that I have no problem with apologists being paid. Rather, I objective to the somewhat self-righteous trumpeting about how all of this is done purely in the service of the Lord.

The question has been answered. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. How long is this charade going to continue? LDS apologists are not paid by the LDS church for their apologietic work. Period. End of story.

Ante up with some facts to the contrary, prove DCP a liar Scratch, or shut up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm curious: do any of those pertain to either FARMS Review or the Maxwell Institute?

No to the first. Yes to the second.

I'm paid a flat amount for editing the FARMS Review. I would receive the same rather insignificant amount whether I wrote anything in it or not.

My duties in connection with the Maxwell Institute have historically involved supervising its work, but I've never drawn a nickel of salary for writing anything for it. (Most of its relatively small core of employees never write or publish a line for it; they do editing, accounting, clerical work, shipping, and administrative duties.) Moreover, the Maxwell Institute is devoted to many things besides apologetics, including the production of digital databases of the Dead Sea Scrolls, multispectral imaging of the Herculaneum Papyri, electronic publication of Syriac-related reference materials, retrieval of data from the Bonampak murals and from Petra in Jordan, and the like, as well as the management of the WordCruncher software team and the publication and distribution of printed Jewish, Christian, and Islamic texts.

As I've said, not one dime of my salary derives from my apologetic writing or speaking. If I did none at all, my salary would not be reduced.

Furthermore, aren't you overlooking advances and/or royalties paid to those who write Mopologetic books?

No. I've explicitly mentioned those, several times, and I've expressly distinguished them (as I've always done) from salaries. I've been over this multiple times, here and elsewhere, as you know full well.

I objective to the somewhat self-righteous trumpeting about how all of this is done purely in the service of the Lord.

You've never heard any "self-righteous trumpeting" from me on that score. I've simply answered the questions about it when they've been asked by you, and by you again, and by you again, and by you again, and by others, and by you again.

And if you think that fifty or a hundred bucks a year (in a very good year) is enough to demonstrate that a given writer of apologetics is doing it for the money rather than, as he or she sees it, in the service of the Lord, I can only wonder what kind of a job you must have.

But enough of this. I know your modus operandi. (I've been your principal target for a long time now.) You ask your questions again and again and again, probing, desperately hoping to detect something that you can declare a contradiction or publish to your small following as an inadvertent but damning self-revelation. It's tiresome, and the final conclusion is foregone.

[_antishock8]

Like others here, I'd like to reiterate that I have no problem with apologists being paid. Rather, I objective to the somewhat self-righteous trumpeting about how all of this is done purely in the service of the Lord.

The question has been answered. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. How long is this charade going to continue? LDS apologists are not paid by the LDS church for their apologietic work. Period. End of story.

Ante up with some facts to the contrary, prove DCP a liar Scratch, or shut up.

Ha. To be immediately contradicted by a fellow Mormon. Priceless.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But, of course, apologists are not paid by the LDS Church.

The overwhelming majority are not paid at all.

Those who receive $50 or so for contributing to a FARMS book receive their lavish payment from a foundation that raises its own money via earnings on its donated endowment, as well as from on-going donations and royalties. Those who receive (very modest) royalties for writing a book published by FARMS (which they very often waive, in any case) are not paid by the LDS Church, either. Royalties come from book sales.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm curious: do any of those pertain to either FARMS Review or the Maxwell Institute?

No to the first. Yes to the second.

I'm paid a flat amount for editing the FARMS Review. I would receive the same rather insignificant amount whether I wrote anything in it or not.

That's fine. I'm glad that you are able to earn a supplemental income from this work.

My duties in connection with the Maxwell Institute have historically involved supervising its work, but I've never drawn a nickel of salary for writing anything for it. (Most of its relatively small core of employees never write or publish a line for it; they do editing, accounting, clerical work, shipping, and administrative duties.)

Nevertheless, this *does* mean that part of your salary relates to apologetics. Maybe not "writing", sure. But apologetics involves more than just writing, of course.

Moreover, the Maxwell Institute is devoted to many things besides apologetics, including the production of digital databases of the Dead Sea Scrolls, multispectral imaging of the Herculaneum Papyri, electronic publication of Syriac-related reference materials, retrieval of data from the Bonampak murals and from Petra in Jordan, and the like, as well as the management of the WordCruncher software team and the publication and distribution of printed Jewish, Christian, and Islamic texts.

As I've said, not one dime of my salary derives from my apologetic writing or speaking. If I did none at all, my salary would not be reduced.

But some of it derives from administration of apologetics. Correct?

Furthermore, aren't you overlooking advances and/or royalties paid to those who write Mopologetic books?

No. I've explicitly mentioned those, several times, and I've expressly distinguished them (as I've always done) from salaries. I've been over this multiple times, here and elsewhere, as you know full well.

No, no---my sincere apologies for the confusion. I never meant to suggest that book monies had anything to do with your salary. I was merely trying to point out that this is another place in which apologists get paid. (Perhaps even more than Maxwell Institute writers, eh? Hence why you guys are trying to bump up the MI advances and royalties?)

I objective to the somewhat self-righteous trumpeting about how all of this is done purely in the service of the Lord.

You've never heard any "self-righteous trumpeting" from me on that score. I've simply answered the questions about it when they've been asked by you, and by you again, and by you again, and by you again, and by others, and by you again.

Oh, once again: I never meant to indict you of "trumpeting." I think that you have been content to let TBMs believe that Mopologetics is a purely volunteer effort, but you are right: I don't think I've ever heard to you brag in this fashion. (That said, I have seen you deny up and down that your salary is in any way related to apologetics, which, it turns out, isn't quite true.)

And if you think that fifty or a hundred bucks a year (in a very good year) is enough to demonstrate that a given writer of apologetics is doing it for the money rather than, as he or she sees it, in the service of the Lord, I can only wonder what kind of a job you must have.

That's an interesting way of putting it, especially given that most writers of "complex, lengthy" academic articles tend not to receive *any* money at all. And anyways, I'm not trying to argue that apologetics is necessarily a lucrative venture. Rather, as I've stated, I merely meant to explode to old myth that it is all done voluntarily, without any compensation.

What is becoming more and more interesting to me, though, is the obvious fact that LDS apologetics is something which apparently requires funding. It's as if the controversies pertaining to the Church are so dire that people are actually trying to recruit able-minded persons to craft apologetics. This raises the old question: Why should the Lord's One True Church need any apologetics whatsoever? Furthermore, why should it need a paid apologetics?

But enough of this. I know your modus operandi. (I've been your principal target for a long time now.) You ask your questions again and again and again, probing, desperately hoping to detect something that you can declare a contradiction or publish to your small following as an inadvertent but damning self-revelation. It's tiresome, and the final conclusion is foregone.

C'mon, Professor P. You claim to dislike it when others "misinterpret" or "distort" what you're saying, so why are you doing it to me? There aren't any real contradictions here. You simply helped to explode an old myth, that's all.