MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[_Mister Scratch]

I find the notion of these "meetings" to be extremely intriguing.

As a result of the 1972 meeting, Morgtech 200-X analog implants were embedded in the brains of all A and B class Mopologists. At the 1999 meeting, these were upgraded to Morgtech 666-Xq series digital implants, and each operative was given a plastic decoder ring.

For example, was the "go ahead" given to start monitoring "over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites" right after one of these "debriefings"?

No, that was communicated via the new Morgtech 666-Xq digital implant, directly to each field operative.

(For the record, I don't believe the claim that the Church is monitoring "over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites." Based on my own personal experience with people at Church headquarters, I would be surprised to learn that anybody up there is monitoring even fifteen. My friends up there regard me as the expert on this topic -- the subject arises briefly every few years -- and I look in from time to time on maybe four or five such sites.)

Thanks for brushing off what was a genuine question. If you want to make it seem as if the Church and the Brethren aren't actually concerned about Church critics and anti-Mormonism, do you really think this is the best way to do it?

Do these administrators answer to the GAs in any way, shape, or form?

No.

That certainly seems to fly in the face of accounts written by D. Michael Quinn, Brian Evenson, and others. Are you absolutely, 100% certain about this?

1. LDS apologists get paid to engage in Mopologetics. This is generally not a huge sum,

As in, "It's typically nothing at all, but can, in some cases, rise to two figures or even soar into the very low three figures."

I'm glad we agree. I also think it's worth pointing out that these sums are supplemental to apologists' normal incomes. So, really, you guys are getting paid to engage in what you have tried to portray as a "hobby". I sure wish I got paid for *my* hobbies!

though in some cases it can run up into the thousands of dollars, such as when someone publishes a book.

Which, being interpreted, means that, if a book sells really well, its author could make as much as two or three thousand dollars in royalties, which come not from the Church but from the pockets of those who buy the book. The Church is not involved in the situation at all. But this extraordinarily lucrative system of rewards is not yet fully in place at FARMS. See (5), below.

Are authors for Deseret Book and FARMS not paid advances?

2. You do not receive *salary* to "write" apologetics, although part of your salary does cover "administration" and "editing" and other such things relating to apologetics.

Especially when, as in the case of antishock8, texts like Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination and searchable databases of the Dead Sea Scrolls and recovered papyri from Petra are labeled "Mormon apologetics"!

Yeah, funny, but this does mean that you lied to Infymus and others when you said that "not one dime" of your salary had to do with Mopologetics.

4. Apologetics is funded mostly by "outside donors." However, some portions of it, such as the part of your salary which covers editing FARMS Review, is paid for by BYU.

No part of my salary covers editing the FARMS Review. (You plainly haven't been following the bouncing ball. Please try to focus.) I receive a token payment, quite separate from my salary, when an issue of the FARMS Review appears. This is to cover my editorial work. It is a pittance.

Okay, right. I think I follow you. (This all seems far more labyrinthine than it should.) You get a supplemental income for editing FARMS Review. Entirely apart from that, a part of your salary is devoted to some sort of Mopologetic administrative duties.

Now, the biggest point of contention (and the reason why you apparently took my statement out of context) has to do with whether or not the institutional Church---I.e., the Brethren---have anything whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, with the way that Mopologetic funds are disbursed. My contention is: yes, they do.

Your contention is both baseless and false.

Why do you say that?

Now, I could be wrong

You are.

FARMS would be your best shot -- FAIR and other such efforts are wholly and entirely independent of any ties to the Church, even indirect -- but the Brethren have nothing whatsoever to do with the way that FARMS disburses its funds.

Really? Not even in a distant, "We're looking over your shoulder" sort of way?

Is this not tacit admission on the part of GBH that, in fact, the Church was offering up a means to fund FARMS?

No, and it doesn't say so.

I assume that you're fixated on the word professional. I can only assume that President Hinckley meant that the work was well done, as in the compliment that "Frank did a very professional job."

Which means that the Brethren are overseeing Mopologetics, and that they have given their official approval.

The real truth is that the Church is culling together funds to support a cadre of professional, paid apologists.

Flatly untrue.

But you're going to persist in this tinfoil-hat nonsense regardless of what I say, so why should I bother to interact with you any more?

I don't know, Professor P. I'm not really sure what it is you're so anxious to disprove. I stated pretty plainly the purpose of this thread: to explode the old myth that LDS apologists receive no compensation. As far as that goes: Mission Accomplished. Following that, I've found it interesting to explore the relationship between the institutional Church and the Brethren and Mopologetics. You seem very, very anxious to put a lot of distance between Mopologetics and the Church, and I can't quite figure out why. Do you think that LDS apologetics somehow reflects badly on the Church? Or is it upsetting for you to think that the Church needs apologists? (Which is a good and pertinent question, by the way.) It seems pretty clear to me that, regardless of whether the Brethren feel that they "need" apologetics (and even this is questionable given your report about being summoned to these shadowy "meetings"), they definitely "approve" of the Mopologetic effort, and in fact are willing to revise FP statements in order to support it. (That seems an awfully big concession of doctrinal power.)

[_Dr. Shades]

-- I include Education Week lectures under "citizenship," too --

(Forgive the off-topic post, but) you speak at Education Week? Do you do so routinely, or was it a one- or two-shot deal? And on what topics did/do you speak?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you absolutely, 100% certain about this?

Yes.

So, really, you guys are getting paid to engage in what you have tried to portray as a "hobby".

I've never portrayed apologetics as a "hobby."

But most who do apologetics receive nothing, and, among those who occasionally do, most receive nothing in most years, and, when they do, it's probably in the $50-100 range. If you want to thump your chest over that, feel free.

I sure wish I got paid for *my* hobbies!

If you publish books and articles on your hobby, you should ideally get paid. (Though I doubt that there's much money, frankly, in compiling and publishing dossiers on scores of fairly obscure people. You might want to find a different hobby.)

Are authors for Deseret Book and FARMS not paid advances?

Never at FARMS. I've not written for Deseret Book directly, so couldn't tell you what their policy is.

IYeah, funny, but this does mean that you lied to Infymus and others when you said that "not one dime" of your salary had to do with Mopologetics.

I'm not a liar, and I didn't lie. I receive no salary for apologetic writing or speaking.

Editors are often compensated for their editorial services, just as printers and binders are compensated. I don't regard editing a text as an "apologetic" undertaking any more than I regard printing it or binding it as an "apologetic" effort.

Your contention is both baseless and false.

Why do you say that?

Because your contention is both baseless and false.

Really? Not even in a distant, "We're looking over your shoulder" sort of way?

That's what I said.

Is this not tacit admission on the part of GBH that, in fact, the Church was offering up a means to fund FARMS?

No, and it doesn't say so.

Which means that the Brethren are overseeing Mopologetics, and that they have given their official approval.

It says nothing of the sort, and they aren't overseeing apologetics.

That's the simple truth, Scratch, and all your obsessiveness and spinning and distorting and mind-reading and character assassination and conspiracy-theorizing and rumor-mongering and searching for contradictions and invention of "admissions" isn't going to change it.

Sayonara, Scratch.

[Guest]

-- I include Education Week lectures under "citizenship," too --

(Forgive the off-topic post, but) you speak at Education Week? Do you do so routinely, or was it a one- or two-shot deal? And on what topics did/do you speak?

Islam generally, Mormonism sometimes. For the past four years or so. And I've even done it up in Rexburg twice. I'll be doing it in Provo this year (only on Islam, as I recall), but not in Rexburg.

Amazingly big crowds in the Islam sessions, on the order of 1300-1600, I'm told.

I think public education on such issues is a moral obligation for an academic.

[_Mister Scratch]

But most who do apologetics receive nothing, and, among those who occasionally do, most receive nothing in most years, and, when they do, it's probably in the $50-100 range. If you want to thump your chest over that, feel free.

Yes, it is obvious that, within the Church, there is a distinction made between "professional" apologists (who get paid) and "amateurs," such as those at FAIR, who operate on a purely volunteer basis. This existence of this hierarchy is underscored by GBH's comments, which I already cited.

I sure wish I got paid for *my* hobbies!

If you publish books and articles on your hobby, you should ideally get paid. (Though I doubt that there's much money, frankly, in compiling and publishing dossiers on scores of fairly obscure people. You might want to find a different hobby.)

Ha! Yeah, where's Ed Decker with my suitcase full of money?

Which means that the Brethren are overseeing Mopologetics, and that they have given their official approval.

It says nothing of the sort, and they aren't overseeing apologetics.

That's the simple truth, Scratch, and all your obsessiveness and spinning and distorting and mind-reading and character assassination and conspiracy-theorizing and rumor-mongering and searching for contradictions and invention of "admissions" isn't going to change it.

Sayonara, Scratch.

The extent to which the Brethren are involved in, associated with, or overseeing Mopologetics isn't entirely clear. I will make note of the fact that you completely avoided dealing with this:

I don't know, Professor P. I'm not really sure what it is you're so anxious to disprove. I stated pretty plainly the purpose of this thread: to explode the old myth that LDS apologists receive no compensation. As far as that goes: Mission Accomplished. Following that, I've found it interesting to explore the relationship between the institutional Church and the Brethren and Mopologetics. You seem very, very anxious to put a lot of distance between Mopologetics and the Church, and I can't quite figure out why. Do you think that LDS apologetics somehow reflects badly on the Church? Or is it upsetting for you to think that the Church needs apologists? (Which is a good and pertinent question, by the way.) It seems pretty clear to me that, regardless of whether the Brethren feel that they "need" apologetics (and even this is questionable given your report about being summoned to these shadowy "meetings"), they definitely "approve" of the Mopologetic effort, and in fact are willing to revise FP statements in order to support it. (That seems an awfully big concession of doctrinal power.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

And a fond farewell to poor antishock8, too.

Did you realize, antishock8, that not a single member of the House of Representatives is a senator? And that every single town in Austria is Austrian? May such discoveries delight and entertain you for many years to come.

[_the road to hana]

As an aside to the good professor, I wonder why soldiers for the cause don't have tithing-exempt paychecks? It seems to me if soldiers fighting for our country can get tax-exempt paychecks, BYU professors whose salaries come from the LDS Church ought to be getting tithing exempt paychecks.

It's a musing as much as a question.

I'd make the observation that while apologetics might not be an expectation for an LDS Church/CES/BYU employee/faculty member, it can certainly be stated that doing anything contrary to support of the LDS Church puts the employee at risk of losing his or her job, so in that sense, yes, they are incentivized to defend the LDS Church. And those who produce apologetic writings who are concurrently on LDS Church/CES/BYU payroll can certainly be said to be compensated for the same (whether it results in additional compensation, or not).

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'd make the observation that while apologetics might not be an expectation for an LDS Church/CES/BYU employee/faculty member, it can certainly be stated that doing anything contrary to support of the LDS Church puts the employee at risk of losing his or her job, so in that sense, yes, they are incentivized to defend the LDS Church.

That doesn't follow.

The fact that a BYU professor would be penalized for attacking the LDS Church in no way compels or encourages any BYU professor to affirmatively write apologetics. The fact that you would go to prison for robbing a bank has, I'm guessing, not led you to become a bank security guard.

And those who produce apologetic writings who are concurrently on LDS Church/CES/BYU payroll can certainly be said to be compensated for the same (whether it results in additional compensation, or not).

I'm on the BYU payroll and I concurrently attend movies and concerts. Thus, it can certainly be said that I'm compensated by the LDS Church for attending movies and concerts.

[_the road to hana]

I'm on the BYU payroll and I concurrently attend movies and concerts. Thus, it can certainly be said that I'm compensated by the LDS Church for attending movies and concerts.

Hopefully you have the decency to zip up to SLC to see the R-rated ones.

[_the road to hana]

I'd make the observation that while apologetics might not be an expectation for an LDS Church/CES/BYU employee/faculty member, it can certainly be stated that doing anything contrary to support of the LDS Church puts the employee at risk of losing his or her job, so in that sense, yes, they are incentivized to defend the LDS Church.

That doesn't follow.

The fact that a BYU professor would be penalized for attacking the LDS Church in no way compels or encourages any BYU professor to affirmatively write apologetics. The fact that you would go to prison for robbing a bank has, I'm guessing, not led you to become a bank security guard.

More accurately, if I were a bank employee I would not speak out against the bank, and if asked to speak on their behalf in a public capacity, or write something in support of the bank, I would be legitimately expected to do so.

The "bank robber" comparison doesn't really work.