MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[_guy sajer]

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.

In other words, don't quit your day job :-)

[_antishock8]

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.

Maxell Institute->BYU->Mormon Church, no?

http://farms.BYU.edu/

C'mon... Jesus. You people are just playing games. “F”. That's why you get the ass from critics, because you play it all off like it's one thing, but definitely not the other. The Maxwell Institute is almost entirely dedicated to apologetics. Ffffuuuuuugh. It's like Groundhog Day with you people...

edit:

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship Mission Statement

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to

Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship

Provide critically edited, primary resources (ancient religious texts) to scholars and lay persons around the world Build bridges of understanding and goodwill to Muslim scholars by providing superior editions of primary texts

Provide an anchor of faith in a sea of LDS Studies

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I think this is an extremely problematic statement. Who, after all, have the MI endowments come from? Members of the LDS Church? "Independently wealthy" GAs? I just see this as being very problematic, because apologetics is being done for the LDS Church, by members of the LDS Church, and so it seems odd to me that anyone would try to deny that, in essence, the Church itself either funds, or approves of the funds which are given to support Mopologetics. It seems highly unlikely to me that one or more of the Brethren were not involved in all of this at some point.

I would imagine that this was set up rather like the purchase of Mark Hoffman's documents---i.e., the Church would have some wealthy member purchase the goods and then "donate" them to the Church.

[_Droopy]

I think this is an extremely problematic statement.

Scratch, do you really have a reading comprehension problem of such magnitude? What, precisely, is the problem here? How far can your mental and ethical deterioration actually go?

I just see this as being very problematic, because apologetics is being done for the LDS Church, by members of the LDS Church, and so it seems odd to me that anyone would try to deny that, in essence, the Church itself either funds, or approves of the funds which are given to support Mopologetics.

No Scratch. You don't see any problem here any more than I do. This tortured argument of yours is as transparent and strained to you as it is to me. DCP has been excruciatingly clear. He has explained this to you, in detail, time and again. He has disclosed who gets what, why, and in what amounts.

This is a pose Scratch, and you are the grand poseur. That you really appear to believe you're fooling anyone with this is the real icing on the cake.

The Maxwell Institute is independent, though it is associated with BYU. The "Church" does not pay DCP to write books about the intellectual vacuities of people like the anonymous Mr. Scratch.

[_rcrocket]

You probe for matters in which to attack Dr. Peterson's integrity and reputation. How do you feel about doing it anonymously? A matter of integrity on your part, or as you put it, "problematic."

The simple fact is that the Church and its pursuits are funded by the contributions of members. That, by the way, was the ancient Christian practice. The contributions fund BYU and the salaries of its teachers. Like other academics in other institutions, and as Guy Sajer points out, they are free to do whatever they want during their waking hours so long as they meet the university's objectives for them to teach and publish.

Your posts over the past couple of years has led me to some conclusions about you.

1. You have no clue about what the world of academics entails. (Proof -- on the way journals are operated, I asked you to name a private major university. Any one. We would then explore how the journals operated and compare them to FARMS Review. You declined.)

2. Similarly, you have no clue as to how peer review operates for theme-oriented journals.

3. You have little knowledge of the Church or Church history. You quote from Quinn.

4. You have little integrity when you cite your sources. You cite sources from Quinn without attribution, making it seem you have the original source. When asked for a copy of the source you cite, you refuse.

5. You have little clue as to what it means for a professor to be on a salary, or anybody to be on a salary. That leads me to suspect that you are an hourly employee -- "not that there is anything wrong with that" in a Seinfeldly way.

6. You probe for things said by people in past posts. That is very empty-headed. Grab a book and read it.

7. You like to claim victory a lot. Claiming that you are kicking that butt and this butt. In your case, if you have to continually claim victory, it means that your victory is not self-evident.

[_antishock8]

The Maxwell Institute is independent, though it is associated with BYU. The "Church" does not pay DCP to write books about the intellectual vacuities of people like the anonymous Mr. Scratch.

This is how "independent" the NEIL A. MAXWELL institute is:

http://farms.BYU.edu/ispartstaff.php?fi ... nistration

Please feel free to tell me where FARMS, BYU, the Church, and the Institute part ways...? 'Cause it seems pretty fuckin' dependent on the Church to pay these people, for BYU to employ them, and for member of or contributors to FARMS to... Oh, I don't know.. Just look at the URL that is so clearly indepedent of any connection, whatsoever, to FARMS or BYU.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think this is an extremely problematic statement.

Well of course you do!

'Twas a foregone conclusion that you would.

Who, after all, have the MI endowments come from? Members of the LDS Church?

For the most part. There have been some non-LDS donors to the endowment, and there are several on-going non-LDS funding sources.

Independently wealthy" GAs?

I think we received one donation from a wealthy person who became a General Authority a few years later. But it wasn't very large.

I just see this as being very problematic, because apologetics is being done for the LDS Church, by members of the LDS Church, and so it seems odd to me that anyone would try to deny that, in essence, the Church itself either funds, or approves of the funds which are given to support Mopologetics.

That casual "in essence" is a Scratchian blank check. It is a universal solvent or elixir that permits him to transmute non-evidence into evidence so as to power his on-going crusade.

That some LDS people are defending LDS beliefs, in Bizarro Scratchworld, proves that the Church is funding them. Abracadabra! Presto! Shazaam!

The wonder of his methodology never ceases to amaze, even after years. This particular maneuver reminds me of the old Far Side cartoon where the two scientists are contemplating a blackboard full of equations. In the middle of the equations occurs the phrase "Then a miracle happens," and, thereupon, the equations continue. "Could you," asks the one scientist of the other, "perhaps be a little bit more explicit about this step?"

It seems highly unlikely to me that one or more of the Brethren were not involved in all of this at some point.

Scratch's personal sense of probabilities (assuming it's even genuine) doesn't represent evidence. The Brethren have not been involved in funding FARMS at any point.

I would imagine that this was set up rather like the purchase of Mark Hoffman's documents---I.e., the Church would have some wealthy member purchase the goods and then "donate" them to the Church.

Likewise, Scratch's conspiracy-theorist imagination doesn't constitute evidence, either. Nothing remotely like this has ever happened in the history of FARMS.

[_Trevor]

I posted this on another thread, but seeing as Dr. Peterson has responded to this thread, I thought it appropriate to move here.

Did you include your apologetic writings (or other FARMS activities) in your continuing status dossier?

Traditionally, professors do not get paid directly for writing articles. It is, however, usually necessary for them to publish articles to get tenure. Although BYU does not grant tenure, thus making it easier for them to fire professors, they do grant continuing status, which is awarded to those professors who meet certain criteria, among which research and writing are important. If Church university faculty are given consideration for apologetic writing, on the grounds that such publications count as scholarly work, then they are in a sense paid to write it. Granted, a professor could get continuing status without writing apologetics, of course, but those who got continuing status partly for apologetic efforts arguably benefited as much as any other professor whose research and writing counts toward tenure. It is, in other words, part of the job for which they are paid.

Having said this, I have no personal knowledge of a BYU professor being granted continuing status based in whole or partly on apologetic publications or related duties (e.g., editing the FARMS Review). Naturally, if activities related to apologetics figured in no way in the issue of granting continuing status, then those professors who do these things truly haven't been paid anything more than a nominal amount for their apologetic work.

[_cksalmon]

How do you feel about doing it anonymously?

Yes. We all know that you disdain the anonymity of the Internet and those who embrace it. I mean, really, we all get it. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make your position any more relevant or persuasive. At this point, you're either preaching to the choir or you're annoying the heck out of the never-to-be-converted.

Perhaps, when you see a new poster has joined the board, you might email him or her with your position statement re: Internet anonymity. That way, the rest of us wouldn't have to read it over and over and over and over and over again.

If you think this is actually an effective rhetorical point, you're just blind to the dynamics and constituency of the board.

If you wish to be merely annoying while failing to score any discernible rhetorical victory whatsoever via your righteous disdain, then continue.

Generally, the first time I read, in any of your posts, "anonymous," "anonymite," "anonymously," etc., I scroll past it without a second glance: I know your position; I'm not particularly interested; and I have limited time. I doubt I'm alone.

I'm dropping in at this post merely to sound a plea for reason, Robert: I'd dare say that no regular poster on this board cares what you think about Internet anonymity--not even your fellow LDS. Your repetitious refrain functions merely as a roadblock to effective communication at this point.

Anonymity is simply not at issue in the vast, vast, vast majority of discussion topics here.

If you must continue in this regard, might it be via PM? That way, I have no excuse to skip your posts. And, frankly, I'd rather not have one. I enjoy reading what you have to say, generally.

Non-anonymously yours,

Chris

[_Daniel Peterson]

Did you include your apologetic writings (or other FARMS activities) in your continuing status dossier?

Wow. This is getting fairly personal. Would anybody like to inspect my journal, read my letters to my missionary son, study my contract, or tape-record my meetings with my department chairman?

Obviously, I included nothing about posting on message boards, etc. That's a private hobby. I did include a number of apologetic lectures and popular writings as well as my administrative responsibilities and editorial activities with what has become the Maxwell Institute under the "citizenship" category (which is the third of three categories in BYU's reporting structure, after "Teaching" and "Scholarship"). But that category also included numerous popular lectures and short writings on Islam and the Arabs, too. Substantive pieces on Mormon studies (e.g., book reviews in non-LDS scholarly journals and an article in BYU Studies on exemplar historiography that, co-written with a Sinologist colleague, drew on classical Greek, Chinese, and Islamic historical writing to make a point about Old and New Mormon History were included among my publications, but segregated from my Arabic- and Islam-related publications. As I understand it, the rank advancement committee weighted them less heavily than the Islamic material, but apparently did give them at least some weight.

For the record, I view myself not solely as an Islamicist, but as an intellectual historian -- and, first and foremost, as a historian of religion and a historian of philosophical theology.