More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Gadianton]

Yes, but the introduction is more importantly, a niew aspect of the story none of us have been aware of, regardless of who is telling. And he must have some importance if he had you in his service. I don't think any of this necessarily reflects bad on you Dr. Peterson. But I can't shake the sinking feeling when I entertain the thought of this professional on a contratact basis working the business networks.

Did this same individual have something to do with raising the money that will be paid to the 12 candidates (12 being symbolic of an alternative, scholarly priesthood?) who are participating in the summer Joseph Smith seminar later this month? And has it been publically announced anywhere who these 12 are? Can you relay that information to us if you happen to know?

[_Trevor]

I don't think you're character is in any danger.

Yeah, if the charges are baseless, the insinuations bogus, and so obviously so, as DCP contends, then why the effort to rebut? I agree with Kevin. I don't see how Daniel's character is in any danger.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The fact that insinuations are false doesn't mean that they never stick or do damage.

Yes, but the introduction is more importantly, a niew aspect of the story none of us have been aware of, regardless of who is telling.

There's an enormous amount that you and others don't know about the day-to-day functioning of the Maxwell Institute . . . and Ford Motor Company and the Audubon Society and the Libertarian Party and The Nation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Yale University. I'm not sure why you think it sinister or unexpected that nobody's told you about the details of fundraising efforts by one particular non-profit entity. Are you in a position where you should have been told?

Honestly, I don't get it.

And he must have some importance if he had you in his service.

I've occasionally been asked to help out, and, when I can, I do. I believe in the importance of what the Maxwell Institute does -- which is why, frankly, I've devoted an enormous amount of time to it that could have gone instead to my own personal research and writing.

I don't think any of this necessarily reflects bad on you Dr. Peterson.

I appreciate that. Seriously.

I'm simply not the scoundrel and amoral buffoon that a few want to portray me as.

But I can't shake the sinking feeling when I entertain the thought of this professional on a contratact basis working the business networks.

Candidly, it's not a job that I would want. I find the idea of asking people for their money personally awkward and distasteful, even if sometimes necessary, and I try not to be there when it happens. I really dislike feeling like a TV evangelist.

But, as harmony can tell you, there is an army of fundraisers out there for thousands of non-profit organizations and causes, and I'm glad that such organizations exist and that such causes gain support. I'm happy that there are hospitals and conservation organizations and archaeological digs and, even, sometimes, political candidates. Logically, if we want A, we have to be willing to allow, tolerate, or even support B.

You might be interested to know that, for good or for ill, LDS Philanthropies fundraisers are paid a standard salary regardless of how much they "bring in." Fundraisers for Harvard University, by contrast, receive cuts of what they raise, which provides an obvious performance incentive.

Did this same individual have something to do with raising the money that will be paid to the 12 candidates (12 being symbolic of an alternative, scholarly priesthood?) who are participating in the summer Joseph Smith seminar later this month? And has it been publically announced anywhere who these 12 are? Can you relay that information to us if you happen to know?

I couldn't tell you. I know nothing about it. I suspect, though, that Richard Bushman secured his own funds, somehow. Richard has lots of contacts, and he's historically been pretty good at it.

I might add, by the way, that the compensation for this summer seminar is in line with my own experience. Such seminars typically pay a stipend, which is especially useful for participants coming from elsewhere or foregoing summer teaching in order to take part. I've participated in two two-month NEH faculty seminars -- one in Berkeley and one in Princeton -- and the terms of this one seem to have been modeled on such precedents.

[_Jersey Girl]

Am I reading this thread correctly that there is a seminar regarding Joseph Smith to be held this summer? Details?

And this from DCP:

one in Berkeley and one in Princeton

I hope you enjoyed your visit to the Garden State.

Jersey Girl

[_Daniel Peterson]

Am I reading this thread correctly that there is a seminar regarding Joseph Smith to be held this summer? Details?I hope you enjoyed your visit to the Garden State.

I love Princeton.

[_Mister Scratch]

There is, of course, absolutely nothing “clandestine” about legally compliant fund-raising, whether by the Maxwell Institute or the BYU College of Engineering, or by Harvard, or by Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, or by the Sierra Club, or by Barack Obama.

Well, this is the first I have ever heard of such a thing. Perhaps you can point me to some place where you've mentioned this Church-appointed fundraiser in the past?

On the relatively few occasions where I’ve accompanied a fundraiser,

Whoa, whoa... Back up a second here. What??? Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like you are saying that the Church itself was looking to scrape up funds for LDS apologetics, and that you were merely invited along as a figurehead. Is that correct?

s/he has been entirely upfront about who s/he was and what s/he was there for. When I’ve given a fireside at his or her request, s/he has, invariably, spoken briefly to the group beforehand, identifying him- or herself and inviting those interested to contact him or her, either directly afterwards or in some fashion later.

That's great. All I'm saying is that this is news to me. I've long been under the impression, based on all my readings of things pertaining to LDS apologetics, that the Church in no way funded anything having to do with Mopologetics. I mean, perhaps you know of some place where this was stated up-front?

Did Dan really bring this man with him when he [went on the trip] with the purpose of hitting . . . rich members up for cash?

No. The fundraiser brought me with him, in order to solicit donations.

Again: I find this absolutely earth-shattering. This is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics. We learn the the Church itself is actively involved in drumming up money to fund LDS apologetics. No; it's not DCP, just being Mr. Good-Guy and engaging in a hobby. Rather, the Church is sending out its top-drawer fundraisers, wiht DCP in tow, in order to collect money.

I notice that you rather conveniently ignored the point I made about how the FP revised its stand on the Hill Cumorah.

Yes, and for several reasons. Among them: It didn't happen; it's a silly accusation[/quote]

No, it's not "silly." If it were "silly," then why the need for a 2nd Watson Letter? The old doctrine was always that the Hill Cumorah had been in New York. That's probably what most of the Brethren thought, but you somehow got them to revise the statement. The connection between apologists and the institutional Church is much tighter than we've been led to believe.

Do you see what I mean? It is this endless playing around with meaning.

It's precision.

Huh? Maybe in the "shaggy dog" school of writing and story-telling. To the rest of us, it's spin-doctoring.

I always do what I've always done. I neither want to deny that the University, a wholly-owned Church operation, does provide some assistance to an organization that, among many other things, devotes a portion of its efforts to apologetics, nor do I want to support accusations that the Church funds apologetics as such. To do either would be to mislead and misrepresent -- which is your goal, not mine.

How on earth is it an "accusation"? You've stated not that the Church has appointed some kind of official "fundraiser" in order to collect funds for apologetics. That's pretty much end of story, as far as I can tell. You probably wanted to keep it a secret, so that questioning LDS wouldn't learn of such a thing. Oopsie! There's that old problem of the Church keeping secrets rearing its ugly head yet again.

I doubt you'd be too anxious to tell them that the Church is sending a professional fundraiser along with you on trips in order to try and drum up money for apologetics

That a professional fundraiser, when s/he has taken me along on trips, is a fundraiser seeking to raise funds has been absolutely open, above-board, and publicly acknowledged, at private meetings, small "cottage meetings," and public firesides, with both Mormons and non-Mormons. There is no secret here, and no secretiveness.

Does the wider, rank-and-file LDS membership know that the Church is sending out a professional fundraiser to collect fund for apologetics? You said above that you don't want to "support the accusation" that the Church is collecting money for Mopologetics, and yet, that's precisely what's going on.

[_Mister Scratch]

I sometimes feel the need to respond to public attacks on my character.

I do my serious writing elsewhere, though.

Odd, perhaps. But there you have it.

Sorry, but I fail to see where anyone has attacked your character. A financial connection has been established between the Church and Mopologetics, but that's pretty much it. The fact that you're all bent out of shape over this has been duly noted, though. Personally, I don't think any of this reflects badly on you at all.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, this is the first I have ever heard of such a thing. Perhaps you can point me to some place where you've mentioned this Church-appointed fundraiser in the past?

The fact that you haven't heard about it and that I may not have mentioned it -- why on earth would I have mentioned it? it seems pretty obvious to me that non-profit organizations that have to raise their own funds (a fact about the Maxwell Institute that I've surely mentioned many times) will often have fundraisers -- hardly makes it "clandestine," "mysterious," or "sneaky."

Whoa, whoa... Back up a second here. What??? Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like you are saying that the Church itself was looking to scrape up funds for LDS apologetics, and that you were merely invited along as a figurehead. Is that correct?

Of course not.

"The Church itself" doesn't send the fundraisers out on specific trips (and has, so far as I'm aware, never, ever, done so in connection with the Maxwell Institute).

LDS Philanthropies is a semi-autonomous operation, and its fundraisers are typically seconded out to organizations and then again seconded out, if the organizations are big enough, to units and subunits within those organizations. Within the University, the relevant fundraisers work with deans and directors. They coordinate with each other so that they aren't stepping on each other's toes or ganging up on potential donors.

One fundraiser has been asked to help the Maxwell Institute raise money to support itself, which I have continually and always indicated is something it has to do.

It's the fundraiser's job to raise money. The fundraiser comes up with ideas. The fundraiser sometimes invites people along that the fundraiser thinks might be helpful -- e.g., deans, people doing interesting projects, speakers that the fundraiser thinks would be interesting. This isn't "figurehead" service.

Again: I find this absolutely earth-shattering. This is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.

Good grief.

We learn the the Church itself is actively involved in drumming up money to fund LDS apologetics. No; it's not DCP, just being Mr. Good-Guy and engaging in a hobby. Rather, the Church is sending out its top-drawer fundraisers, wiht DCP in tow, in order to collect money.

Do you write for the National Enquirer?

You've stated not that the Church has appointed some kind of official "fundraiser" in order to collect funds for apologetics. That's pretty much end of story, as far as I can tell.

Sigh. Is the spinning and wild exaggeration deliberate, or unconscious?

Here is the general web site for philanthropic giving to BYU:

http://www.LDS.org/ldsfoundation/BYU/welcome/

I trust that it sends delicious shivers of horror up and down your spine. Note how cleverly hidden it is!

The Church has a fundraising arm, LDS Philanthropies. Some of the fundraisers who work for it are specifically tasked with raising money for BYU-Hawaii, or for BYU-Idaho, or for BYU-Provo. Among those who are specifically focused on BYU-Provo, there are specific assignments to the College of Humanities, the Marriott School of Management, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, the College of Nursing, and etc. Though things are somewhat flexible, the Maxwell Institute has also had a fundraiser assigned to it during the past few years. That fundraiser's responsibility (among his/her other responsibilities) is to help the Maxwell Institute raise money for its various projects.

You probably wanted to keep it a secret, so that questioning LDS wouldn't learn of such a thing. Oopsie! There's that old problem of the Church keeping secrets rearing its ugly head yet again.

How on earth could it conceivably be a secret when a fundraiser routinely goes (with or without me or others) to private individuals, small groups, and large groups, including large public firesides, announcing that s/he is a fundraiser and soliciting donations for the Maxwell Institute?

The Maxwell Institute is so "secretive," "clandestine," "sneaky," and "mysterious" about this eery matter that our ineffably "creepy" current fundraiser, whom we call our Director of Development, appears on the Maxwell Institute's web site:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/isparts ... n&whois=14

Does the wider, rank-and-file LDS membership know that the Church is sending out a professional fundraiser to collect fund for apologetics?

Anybody contacted by the fundraiser working with the Maxwell Institute, or who has been involved in a small cottage meeting with that fundraiser, or who has attended any large public fireside connected with that fundraiser, is or should be aware of the fact that a fundraiser tries to raise funds for the Maxwell Institute and the Maxwell Institute's various projects. It's been anything but a secret.

You said above that you don't want to "support the accusation" that the Church is collecting money for Mopologetics, and yet, that's precisely what's going on.

LDS Philanthropies, an agency of the Church, has delegated some of its personnel to raise money for BYU, and one among that contingengent of fundraisers works with the Maxwell Institute to raise money for the projects of the Maxwell Institute.

As I said above, I neither want to deny that the University, a wholly-owned Church operation, does provide some assistance to an organization that, among many other things, devotes a portion of its efforts to apologetics, nor do I want to support accusations that the Church funds apologetics as such. To do either would be to mislead and misrepresent -- which is your goal, but is not mine.

[_antishock8]

Oh my god. So we went from "The Church doesn't pay one cent for apologetics to The Church is fully engaged in financing apologetics."

I would love for any of the staunch Mocolytes to offer up an apology for the YEARS of decit they've peddled for this issue. The Mormon church pays for apologetics. Apologists are paid agents of the Mormon church.

The truth gets more interesting the more Mister Scratch digs. What a disgrace Mr. Peterson and his handful of Internet Life Partners have been so dishonest.

[_Trevor]

I think Dr. Peterson has essentially said this: "The Church finances apologetics like it funds everything else. It looks deep into the pockets of its committed membership for the funds to defend itself."

Controversial? Meh.