More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've posted my sordid confession on the board formerly known as FAIR. There was a slight delay caused by a telephone call from one of my sons, asking for help on something. And no, I won't give you his name, address, telephone number, Social Security identification number, or tax returns.

Is it correct or not? Y/N?

It's not correct.

But, of course, you're going to continue claiming that it is regardless of my answer.

The whole thing seems sort of like a money-laundering scheme.

LOL.

Right. Just as LDS Philanthropies people working to raise money for student mentorships and electron microscopy and the like are engaged in "money laundering."

I enjoyed the movie Conspiracy Theory. I would imagine that you did, too.

Well, then, your quibble about my "figurehead" remark was rather pointless, wasn't it?

Maybe figurehead means something different in Scratchworld than it means in ordinary dictionaries. I wouldn't use the term figurehead to describe a person speaking at a fundraising meeting. "Figureheads" are people nominally in charge of an organization when others are actually running it. At least in my lexicon.

Don't you think charitable monies are better spent on helping the homeless and feeding the hungry? Why should LDS Philanthropies offer any aid to Mopologetics?

I struggle, often, with the question of whether any scholarship (or art or literature) should be funded when people are homeless and hungry. I worry whether I should spend any time on message boards, going to a movie, or enjoying a concert when I might be working in a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter.

If you want to apply such a standard, you will no more escape guiltless than your intended prey will.

Simply because certain carefully selected parties have been made privy to these rather dubious [sic] fundraising efforts doesn't meant that efforts haven't been made elsewhere to keep all of this on the down-low.

By "certain carefully selected parties" who have been "made privy" to our disgraceful secret, you mean audiences at often large public firesides? And people with access to our web site?

[_Trevor]

"I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!"

[_Yoda]

"Massive"? "Sneaking"?

A "mysterious" and "clandestine" fundraiser?

LOL.

I have a very serious question for you, Dr. Peterson.

Did you wear the outfit in your avatar to the fundraiser for added effect?

;)

[_antishock8]

I never thought I would live to see the day where someone drove the stake through the heart of a Mormon issue. We literally went from "Not one dime." to "The Mormonn church funds apologetics."

And on top of everything, the cherry right there on the very tippy top, Dr. Van Helsing gets Mr. Peterson to admit it. Right there. Years of flip flopping and obfuscation beaten down one slip, one admission, one droplet of blood squeezed out of that chubby turnip at a time...

Awesome job.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have a very serious question for you, Dr. Peterson.

Did you wear the outfit in your avatar to the fundraiser for added effect?

;)

Of course!

I learned from previous experience that going dressed as Scrooge McDuck was pretty ineffective.

When I offered to snatch babies from their mothers and to tie young heiresses to railroad tracks, though, the pace of donations increased dramatically.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I never thought I would live to see the day where someone drove the stake through the heart of a Mormon issue. We literally went from "Not one dime." to "The Mormonn church funds apologetics."

And on top of everything, the cherry right there on the very tippy top, Dr. Van Helsing gets Mr. Peterson to admit it. Right there. Years of flip flopping and obfuscation beaten down one slip, one admission, one droplet of blood squeezed out of that chubby turnip at a time...

Awesome job.

Back on your meds, poor fellow!

[_Trevor]

When I offered to snatch babies from their mothers and to tie young heiresses to railroad tracks, though, the pace of donations increased dramatically.

Yes, sadly they, like many others, are willing to throw money at things that go against their own best interests. ;-)

[_Yoda]

I have a very serious question for you, Dr. Peterson.

Did you wear the outfit in your avatar to the fundraiser for added effect?

;)

Of course!

I learned from previous experience that going dressed as Scrooge McDuck was pretty ineffective.

When I offered to snatch babies from their mothers and to tie young heiresses to railroad tracks, though, the pace of donations increased dramatically.

LOL! I do hope that you will soon be posting a televised docudrama of the event for MAD and YouTube. ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

Is it correct or not? Y/N?

It's not correct.

But, of course, you're going to continue claiming that it is regardless of my answer.

No, I'm genuinely interested in your answer. Why is the Church, via its philanthropy arm, helping to fund apologetics?

The whole thing seems sort of like a money-laundering scheme.

LOL.

Right. Just as LDS Philanthropies people working to raise money for student mentorships and electron microscopy and the like are engaged in "money laundering."

I enjoyed the movie Conspiracy Theory. I would imagine that you did, too.

No, I thought it was pretty crappy, frankly. A far better conspiracy film, in my opinion, is JFK. I also liked The Conversation. Anyways, back to my original point: Why would the LDS Church, via its philanthropic organization, be funding apologetics? Philanthropies are normally for charity work, wouldn't you agree?

Well, then, your quibble about my "figurehead" remark was rather pointless, wasn't it?

Maybe figurehead means something different in Scratchworld than it means in ordinary dictionaries. I wouldn't use the term figurehead to describe a person speaking at a fundraising meeting. "Figureheads" are people nominally in charge of an organization when others are actually running it. At least in my lexicon.

No, no---I think that describes you pretty accurately. You are Apologist Numero Uno, even though "others are actually running it"---and financing it.

Don't you think charitable monies are better spent on helping the homeless and feeding the hungry? Why should LDS Philanthropies offer any aid to Mopologetics?

I struggle, often, with the question of whether any scholarship (or art or literature) should be funded when people are homeless and hungry. I worry whether I should spend any time on message boards, going to a movie, or enjoying a concert when I might be working in a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter.

If you want to apply such a standard, you will no more escape guiltless than your intended prey will.

Are you really comparing LDS apologetics to "scholarship (or art or literature)"? Honestly, can you not understand how it would seem odd for a charitable organization to be paying for apologetics, of all things?

Simply because certain carefully selected parties have been made privy to these rather dubious [sic] fundraising efforts doesn't meant that efforts haven't been made elsewhere to keep all of this on the down-low.

By "certain carefully selected parties" who have been "made privy" to our disgraceful secret, you mean audiences at often large public firesides? And people with access to our web site?

How large are we talking about, and how clear is it made to the members thereof that their money will be going towards the Mopologetic effort?

by the way: I saw your "announcement", and I have to say---I'm not impressed. It didn't seem like too much to ask you to state it in plain English, but, apparently, it was. A simple, "The Church partially helps to fund apologetics" would have done. Why the need to offer up the lengthy preamble?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Misrepresenting the situation is your goal, Scratch. Not mine.