More on the Financing of Mopologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Which Ray are you referring to, Dude?


At least people know who I am. Scratchy, you have no credibility whatsoever. You are an anonymous hack attcaking the character of other people, a vile leech and liar of the worst proportions, and frankly, I'd settle for any "Mormon delusions" before I'd bow to villains like you, because you are a DISHONEST person. You are a lying leech, and you damn well know it, though your naïve supporters haven't been subjected to your lies as I have.


I don't know who you are. I don't care. In fact, everone could post using a handle and that would be fine since we're discussing Mormon topics, not "Ray A" even though you've made this about yourself.

Answer this question: Does the church finance Mormon apologetics?

Let's see how honest this Mormon is...
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Mister Scratch wrote:Well said, Gad. In summary, I'd just like to note that there were a few issues which DCP completely avoided:

1) Matt Roper as a paid apologist
2) The 2nd Watson Letter and its significance vis-a-vis the connection b/w the Brethren and Mopologetics
3) The reason(s) why the Church uses what is purportedly a "philanthropy" to fund apologetics.

I noticed that DCP very strenuously tried to avoid these points. Personally, I wish he'd address them.



1. Who is Matt Roper and why is the source of his paycheck important?
2. If the letter wasn't written yesterday, why does it matter to what happened yesterday? Things change all the time. Yesterday's policy could be thrown out the window today.
3. What percentage of the Maxwell Institute's fundraising dollar goes to apologetics?
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

antishock8 wrote:Answer this question: Does the church finance Mormon apologetics?

Let's see how honest this Mormon is...

Poor antishock8.

I've always, for years, every time the question has come up, pointed out that FARMS was given low-priority office space by the university -- which clearly indicates at least a minimal level of support for the activities of FARMS (which are partially apologetic) on the part of BYU, which is largely funded by the Church. Poor antishock8 imagines that I haven't said this many times, but poor antishock8 is wrong. More recently, with the acquisition of FARMS by the university, and with the establishment of an umbrella organization first called the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts and now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, the relationship between the various activities of the Institute -- some of them apologetic and many of them not -- and the university has become obvious and official. Apparently it has come as a stunning shock to my Malevolent Stalker, normally quite an obsessive sleuth, that an entity owned by BYU receives funding from BYU, and that BYU -- brace yourselves -- is affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which largely funds the university. And poor antishock8 regards it as a vast and gratifying surprise.

One of the many ironies here is that the Institute actually receives relatively little funding from the university -- far, far less, proportionately speaking, than any other department, college, or other entity on campus -- leading some of us who are affiliated with the Institute to joke about beng owned by a minority shareholder. It would actually be more accurate to say, using Scratchlogic, that "the Church itself" funds the teaching of evolution at BYU, and that the Brethren "supervise" such teaching, than to say such things of apologetics, since the Maxwell Institute is only partially supported by BYU (and none of its projects receive university funding, let alone funding directly from the Church), whereas teaching in the College of Biological Sciences is wholly funded by BYU and the College of Biological Sciences has several fundraisers attached to it whose checks are, as my Malevolent Stalker puts it, signed by the Presiding Bishop.

FARMS brought an endowment into the university, when it agreed to join BYU, that it had raised entirely on its own from private donors, without help from school or church. It continues to draw on that endowment, as well as on both operating and endowment donations and on royalties from books, to fund its on-going projects -- projects that BYU does not fund.

When FARMS grew out of its low-priority BYU office space, it bought its own. When it came into the university, that private space came into the university with it, and, as compensation for the school's acquisition of that property, BYU agreed to help FARMS (which has since morphed into the Institute) raise money to expand its endowment and cover its research, editing, and publishing expenses.

Why did the university want to acquire FARMS? Was it to support FARMS apologetics? No. The primary reasons, by far, were two: First of all, the property that FARMS had acquired was property that the university had sought in vain for years to acquire, and which it wanted for its campus development plans. (It is directly south of Campus Drive, right below the Widtsoe Building.) Second, FARMS was doing internationally respected work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and everybody doing it was a BYU professor, yet, when that work appeared, it appeared under the name of FARMS, a private foundation. The university wanted to gain the academic credit for first-class work done by its faculty, who had established FARMS to foster research and publication of a kind that these faculty members felt had been neglected by the university.

Finally, on a somewhat separate note, I really don't understand why Gadianton regards this as so sinister and "creepy." Harvard, Stanford, the University of Utah, Yale, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Democratic Party, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Organization of Women, the Boy Scouts of America -- all employ fundraisers. There's nothing weird or unprecedented about this.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

harmony wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Well said, Gad. In summary, I'd just like to note that there were a few issues which DCP completely avoided:

1) Matt Roper as a paid apologist
2) The 2nd Watson Letter and its significance vis-a-vis the connection b/w the Brethren and Mopologetics
3) The reason(s) why the Church uses what is purportedly a "philanthropy" to fund apologetics.

I noticed that DCP very strenuously tried to avoid these points. Personally, I wish he'd address them.



1. Who is Matt Roper and why is the source of his paycheck important?


Harmony, this thread is about the funding of apologetics by the LDS church. You may not find that an interesting topic. However, given that this is the topic of the thread, if Matt Roper were a paid apologist, his mention in that capacity is obviously relevant.

2. If the letter wasn't written yesterday, why does it matter to what happened yesterday? Things change all the time. Yesterday's policy could be thrown out the window today.


That is true. But documenting those changes has relevance to this thread, since one of those changes allied the church closer to apologetics.

3. What percentage of the Maxwell Institute's fundraising dollar goes to apologetics?


100%
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Finally, on a somewhat separate note, I really don't understand why Gadianton regards this as so sinister and "creepy." Harvard, Stanford, the University of Utah, Yale, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Democratic Party, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Organization of Women, the Boy Scouts of America -- all employ fundraisers. There's nothing weird or unprecedented about this.


Gad will no doubt answer in his time, but for me, that BYU employs fundraisers is not weird or unprecendented. My Sweet Pickle has been solicited for years by BYU. I suspect all alumni are. There is nothing strange in that at all. What is strange is the idea that apologetics are also funded by these same solicitations. Just as it was earth-shaking (Level 10 on the Richter scale) to find out that the Brethren are compensated, it feel like a lower-level earthquake (maybe Level 3) to find out that apologists are compensated. Somehow, after 38 years of believing that none of our leaders receives compensation for the work they do for the church, (and yes, Daniel, you are a leader) it's both a bit of a shock and a disappointment to find out the nonbelievers were right all along.

True, it's just another illusion shattered by harsh reality, but it's also another stone added to the burden of the faithful. Some of us can shrug off those stones; others can't and suffer needlessly.

Clarity from the Brethren would be nice. An open set of books would be even nicer.
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

What would be interesting would to see quoted how many times in the past apologists have insisted they don't get paid for apologetics, or that the Mormon church doesn't employ apologists/pay for apologetics.

At least we've gone from "Not one dime!" to "Ok, I make $50-$100 bucks on occasion!" to "Yeah, I include apologetics in my curriculum vitae, and it's part of my salaried duties!" to "The Mormon church fundraises and finances apologetics. Period."

From "Not one dime." to "Yes it does. Period."

Make no mistake, had Mr. Scratch not been so tenacious the deliberately erroneous idea that apologetics is simply a voluntary, unpaid, hobby by Mormon church members would have continued.

Shame on Potato Head. Shame on others for aiding and abetting yet another lie. Shame on you.
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Gadianton wrote:
harmony wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Well said, Gad. In summary, I'd just like to note that there were a few issues which DCP completely avoided:

1) Matt Roper as a paid apologist
2) The 2nd Watson Letter and its significance vis-a-vis the connection b/w the Brethren and Mopologetics
3) The reason(s) why the Church uses what is purportedly a "philanthropy" to fund apologetics.

I noticed that DCP very strenuously tried to avoid these points. Personally, I wish he'd address them.



1. Who is Matt Roper and why is the source of his paycheck important?


Harmony, this thread is about the funding of apologetics by the LDS church. You may not find that an interesting topic. However, given that this is the topic of the thread, if Matt Roper were a paid apologist, his mention in that capacity is obviously relevant.


I never said it wasn't interesting or relevant, Gad. I asked because I don't know who Matt Roper is. I know who Daniel Peterson is, and Bill Hamblin, and Midgley and a few of the others, but I don't know Matt Roper.

Try to not patronize me, Gad. The resultant grinding of my teeth gives me a headache.

2. If the letter wasn't written yesterday, why does it matter to what happened yesterday? Things change all the time. Yesterday's policy could be thrown out the window today.


That is true. But documenting those changes has relevance to this thread, since one of those changes allied the church closer to apologetics.


But hasn't it been shown that Nibley was also paid? So this isn't new. Or is it that it's more open now, so more people can actually see it?

3. What percentage of the Maxwell Institute's fundraising dollar goes to apologetics?


100%
[/quote]

How do you justify that answer? Because it is not at all believable and I doubt that Daniel would agree with you. I suspect at least some of that money goes towards the Dead Sea Scrolls project and other projects they're working on which are not apologetic in nature, rather than on defending the church against attack. The answer of 100% is no doubt a knee-jerk reaction for you, but I'd prefer a more realistic number, thanks.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

antishock8 wrote: "The Mormon church fundraises and finances apologetics. Period."


This does not track.

1. The Mormon church is not the LDS Foundation. They are separate entities on a heirarchal chain.

2. The Mormon church does not raise money via fundraising. It raises money via tithing (a much more reliable source, I'm sure).

3. The LDS Foundation raises money, but not directly for the Mormon church. It raises money for various causes, one of which is Maxwell, which has as part of its mandate, apologetics defending the church.

Therefore, your first phrase is not accurate. You would be more accurate to say "The Mormon church finances apologetics."
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

harmony wrote:
antishock8 wrote: "The Mormon church fundraises and finances apologetics. Period."


This does not track.

1. The Mormon church is not the LDS Foundation. They are separate entities on a heirarchal chain.

2. The Mormon church does not raise money via fundraising. It raises money via tithing (a much more reliable source, I'm sure).

3. The LDS Foundation raises money, but not directly for the Mormon church. It raises money for various causes, one of which is Maxwell, which has as part of its mandate, apologetics defending the church.

Therefore, your first phrase is not accurate. You would be more accurate to say "The Mormon church finances apologetics."


I don't view the Mormon church as only the incorporated entity headquarted in Salt Lake City. I view it holistically. The Mormon church is any believing member working to further the Kingdom of God. Regardless, the former take their cue from the latter, and are ultimately under the authority of the incorporated entity, and if it wants something stopped it would make it happen, or simply excommunicate the radical elements.
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

There is no "patronizing" going on here Harmony. I merely answer questions in the grain of the sense as I read them. I must have been mistaken on what you were looking for. Certainly we'd all like to be let in on the activities of Dr. Roper.

The Dead Sea Scrolls project is part of a broader apologetic effort. No doubt all of the Mormons involved were greatly inspired by Hugh Nibley. Nibley redefined apologetics because he had all the requisite abilities and education and then went on to put all the pieces together in one package which was both his strength and failing. Strength, because he gave a glimpse of what could be done in defense of the church by thoroughly studying andtiquities and presenting his findings as a unified whole with Mormon beliefs. Weakness because as one subjective man, he strained credibility with his presentation of history and by so closely wedding his "scholarship" and his defenses of the church. But he was an inspiring starting point. And publishing the works of Nibley was or was not the first act of FARMS?

What was needed, however, was a division of labor within apologetics. On a very low, bedrock layer, you need working professionals in the relevant fields who appear unconnected with apologetic efforts at all. Professionals who can establish a base credibility to Mormonism and work in antiquities. On a level just above that, you need professionals who are careful in their research, not to find things that may appear contrary to Mormon teachings, and if possible shape discoveries as needed to be compatible with Mormon beliefs. And then on a layer above that, you need professionals who can connect the dots and show the world how modern day Mormon beliefs are merely a restoration of early Christian beliefs and practices. Individual "hired guns" for the church can work within multiple layers, but it's best to restrict that as much as possible.

It is by no means amazing at all that the church might fund the efforts began by Nibley. Specifically, Dead Sea Scroll research which according to Nibley proved that early Christians were Mormons and Egyptology, for the Book of Abraham controversies. In the early days of Dead Sea Scroll research, how many LDS firesides were given that went to ridiculously strained lengths to prove that Mormonism was the original Christianity, right down to the keepers of the books calling themselves "Latter-Day Saints"!

Please! If there ever were apologetics at play, it's serious Mormon "Dead Sea Scroll" research. LOL!
Post Reply