Paid Apologetic Arm?

[_Gadianton]

IF the church did a detailed study of and found that apologetics dramatically increased member retention rates, increaed tithes and temple attendence, and increased the likelihood of investigators joining, would it begin to directly fund apologetic efforts?

If not, why? Wouldn't they be foolish not to?

[_The Nehor]

I hope they start funding me to show up on message boards and proudly defend the faith by derailing threads and calling people crappy members. If any of you are watching, PM me and I'll give you a mailing address for my paycheck.

[_Gadianton]

There are a couple other points to be made. One is that, "You get what you pay for". While there are apologists lined up to the Wyoming border who would write papers and books for free in order to defend the church, there are similarily, millions of musicians who would be willing to play their gigs on MTV for free. And that's because the value and notoriety for most people, of getting published by anyone exceeds the market worth of their contribution. I think it's just a given that for 99% of the musicians who would play free gigs for MTV, that they'd also play paid ones! I don't think apologists on the whole would be any different.

What really is the value of the various contributing apologists? It's tough to tell, as Book of Mormon studies in many ways clearly is a pseudoscience and there is no graduate school in the country, not even at BYU, to formally train students in this "discipline". There are some whose contribution are clearly in line with their profession. For instance, Dr. Bushman really is a notable american historian (I think). Most of the time though it seems to me that the contirbuting reviewers for FARMS, while they may be bright and successful in their fields, are writing outside of their area of expertise. Perhaps that's why the Joseph Smith seminar this summer is offering 3,000 big ones for participants: because it expects to attract qualified American historians. Not Islamacists who consider themselves experts on all fields, Lawyers, or Chemists, Dentists, Journalists, English majors, or experts on European history. To really get the quality apologetics, money might need to change hands.

The best way to open the doors for apologetics would be for the church to get more actively involved. I think that up until recently, for many, many years in between the McKonkie/JFS era and now, it might have felt apologetics was a waste of time, of no benefit to really changing peoples minds. I think it believed changing people's opinions about the church and retaining members happened by feel-good propoganda, the Earl Nightingale slick-presentation PR church has ruled the day. I think it still leans in this direction, but that Dr. Peterson really might have the ear of some of the leaders, and that the church may be more open today than it was 10 years ago to taking apologetics to the next level. To a level that would result in bigger paychecks.

The only thing standing in the way is the question as to whether apologetics on a big scale would do any good. There is no question that an affirmative answer to that question would result in the brethren opening up the till.

[_Gadianton]

Nehor,

You illustrate one of my points very well. You're content - much like the rest of us - to spout off your ideas on this or that and that anyone reads what we have to say at all is payment enough. But certainly, if someone were to offer you money in addition, you'd be glad to take it. It's unlikely that your thoughts on Mormonism have any monetary value (and niether would I expect my own to have any either) so you may not ever get paid. And that's true for most. Even the top FAIR participants and most of the FARMS participants are writing and speaking on an amateur, hobby basis. The bigger money going toward apologists who find a niche as general, popular LDS authors. I'd be interested in who ends up getting those, were they twelve(?), paid positions for a summer to write papers on Smith from a New Apologetic History perspective. I wonder if any of them will be posters we know or have heard of on the boards. I can't imagine 3,000 big ones being thrown at the feet of virtually any apologist I've ever met on these boards

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Sorry Neh, they would not take you.

You have no marital merits to add to your bio.

[_Gadianton]

It may really make some sense to fund apologetics. I had to rethink my position. While true that a demonstratable value to the church would seal the deal, there is one reason I can think of for it to do some apologetics even if that value is questionable. I think it would prefer not to have apologetics for reasons I have discussed before. It's clearly tried to control members having church websites in the past. But one can't simply road-block the information highway. For the fact that the church doesn't want to go on the books with a position on anything, its trouble is that all these amateur apologists are all the rest of the world has to go to for information about LDS beliefs. At least if it were to fund apologetics, it could make sure some professional materials were available which could bolster its credibility a little bit.

[_Jason Bourne]

IF the church did a detailed study of and found that apologetics dramatically increased member retention rates, increaed tithes and temple attendence, and increased the likelihood of investigators joining, would it begin to directly fund apologetic efforts?

If not, why? Wouldn't they be foolish not to?

I think yes, they would pay to have apologetics done if the above was shown to true. Most likely they would do it through seminars like the one Bushman is putting together this summer, FARMS, BYU professors and so on. Yes they would be foolish not to in such a case.

[_mbeesley]

IF the church did a detailed study of and found that apologetics dramatically increased member retention rates, increaed tithes and temple attendence, and increased the likelihood of investigators joining, would it begin to directly fund apologetic efforts?

If not, why? Wouldn't they be foolish not to?

The initial IF is so unlikely to ever find a place in the real world that there is really no point in speculating on anything that would, could or should follow.

What kind of a study would you envision being undertaken? How would results be tabulated and analyzed? And even if the methodology for such a study could be developed and reliable results compiled, what makes you think that Church would be interested in abandoning or diluting what has been the foundational strength of the Church for nearly 180 years, i.e. personal revelation. From my perspective, the Church seeks members who have a spiritual witness of its truth claims. Intellectual witnesses do little to motivate one to live the law of sacrifice.

[_skippy the dead]

I don't the church would want to directly fund apologetic efforts (which is not to say that it does not now indirectly fund such activities). To fund these things would put a stamp of approval on the findings, and the church has not shown a willingness to openly endorse most, if not all, of the theories developed by apologists. The church has no interest in developing specifics that could later be disproven. It's bad enough when doctrine or arguably integral practices long preached from the highest pulpit change - it wouldn't want to deal with later scholarship (from both within and without) that contradicts earlier published findings.

[_Mister Scratch]

It may really make some sense to fund apologetics. I had to rethink my position. While true that a demonstratable value to the church would seal the deal, there is one reason I can think of for it to do some apologetics even if that value is questionable. I think it would prefer not to have apologetics for reasons I have discussed before. It's clearly tried to control members having church websites in the past. But one can't simply road-block the information highway. For the fact that the church doesn't want to go on the books with a position on anything, its trouble is that all these amateur apologists are all the rest of the world has to go to for information about LDS beliefs. At least if it were to fund apologetics, it could make sure some professional materials were available which could bolster its credibility a little bit.

An excellent set of posts here, Gad. I think, however, that you are overlooking something fundamental here: namely, the hierarchical nature of the Church. The Brethren would concede a good deal of power if they were to begin explicitly funding apologetics. In effect, this would send a message along the lines of, "Ah, well, we don't know the answers to these very important doctrinal and historical questions, but our apologists do!" Actually, I think that this shift has already begun to happen. As I've noted elsewhere, the contemporary Brethren seem to be called more on the basis of administrative experience rather than doctrinal knowledge or spiritual giftedness. And we have seen instances where the First Presidency will revise its own statements in order to correlate with apologists' pet theories (e.g., Two Cumorahs and the 2nd Watson Letter). So, given how important it is to keep up appearances in the Church, I doubt we will ever see the Brethren openly acknowledging, praising, or funding any apologetics. And it should be pointed out that the apologists themselves seem to understand that they are treading on thin ice, hierarchy-wise. The Hamblins and DCPs of the world know that they are taking care of problems the Brethren are unwilling or unable to reckon with, and this give them (the apologists) quite a lot of power and leverage. On the other hand, they are probably crapping themselves with fear at the possibility of committing some kind of insubordination. This may help explain why they always go to such lengths to deny up and down that their views are in any way "officially" sanctioned by the LDS Church, and why DCP was so flustered over the revelation that apologists get paid.