More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_harmony]

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.

So you're saying any member who contributes to the LDS Foundation, BYU, the Maxwell Institute, etc is really fundraising for the Mormon church?

Do you know if the LDS Foundation has a 501(c)3 designation, or do they use the LDS church's?

[_harmony]

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.

Well... who is he? What does he do? Why is he paid to do whatever it is he does that so offends you?

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

What of the rest of this list?:

The Institute also digitizes manuscripts and other texts at the Vatican, in Herculaneum (near Naples, Italy), at Petra (in Jordan), and in Bonampak (on the border of Guatemala and Mexico); publishes dual-language editions of medieval Jewish medical treatises and medieval Islamic philosophy and science and early eastern Christian literature; constructs databases of materials from Dead Sea Scrolls and the Popol Vuh; is creating an electronic library of out-of-print secondary literature on ancient Syriac Christianity; produces documentary films on the recovery of papyrus texts from the destruction of Vesuvius and on the ancient frankincense trail, etc.

I don't see how constructing a database of materials from the Dead Sea Scrolls in any way adds up to defending the LDS church, Nibley's bleatings notwithstanding.

It looks to me like they do a lot of things that has nothing to do with defending the LDS church and a lot to do with ancient religious documents and cultures.

[_antishock8]

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.

So you're saying any member who contributes to the LDS Foundation, BYU, the Maxwell Institute, etc is really fundraising for the Mormon church?

Do you know if the LDS Foundation has a 501(c)3 designation, or do they use the LDS church's?

I would say, in my opinion, that's an accurate description. If the Incorporated entity wanted fundraising for apologetics to stop it would issue an edict to members to cease the practice.

Which LDS foundation, just to be clear?

[_Gadianton]

Harmony,

Why would you think I have anything at all against Matt Roper? I don't. And further, I have no idea who he is other than having heard his named mentioned now and again by apologists. For the record, nothing Matt Roper has done that I'm aware of, and that's very little, offends me. It doesn't offend me that he gets paid. I think he should.

I think my post was clear enough and answers your other objection. For how every little clerical detail of work done on the 'Scrolls or other ancient manuscripts fits into apologetics, please refer to layer 1 of my 3-layer model of post-Nibley Mormon apologetics.

[_antishock8]

What prompted the BYU administration to consider making FARMS part of BYU, and what impact did the resulting merger have on you and FARMS?

Reynolds: Our need to be better known led us to promote publicity that raised concerns in the church and the university and led to the new BYU president's interest in merging FARMS with the university. This late 1996 proposal from President Bateman moved the two-year conversation with the previous administration to a higher level. On September 10, 1997, President Hinckley proposed in the monthly meeting of the BYU board of trustees that FARMS be invited into the university with partial funding for it and for CPART being provided. Seven months later, President Bateman appointed me to my present position as associate academic vice president, which led the FARMS board to seek a new president and to make the presidency a paid position. This change brought to FARMS a level of professional administration that had been lacking in an organization which was growing and expanding to such an extent.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... ghts&id=97

[_harmony]

Harmony,

Why would you think I have anything at all against Matt Roper?

Because you said you'd like to be "let in" on his activities, which sounded like you think someone is hiding his activities or something.

And further, I have no idea who he is other than having heard his named mentioned now and again by apologists. For the record, nothing Matt Roper has done that I'm aware of, and that's very little, offends me. It doesn't offend me that he gets paid. I think he should.

But why is he listed as the only paid apologist? What has he done that would put him at the top of that list?

I think my post was clear enough and answers your other objection. For how every little clerical detail of work done on the 'Scrolls or other ancient manuscripts fits into apologetics, please refer to layer 1 of my 3-layer model of post-Nibley Mormon apologetics.

Well, what you may think is clear obviously isn't clear to me or I wouldn't have asked you for further clarification.

Are you saying all the rest of that list is simply clerical work? Even were that so, how does clerical work of that nature support apologetics, especially to the tune of 100% of the work Maxwell does?

[_Mister Scratch]

Harmony,

Why would you think I have anything at all against Matt Roper? I don't. And further, I have no idea who he is other than having heard his named mentioned now and again by apologists. For the record, nothing Matt Roper has done that I'm aware of, and that's very little, offends me. It doesn't offend me that he gets paid. I think he should.

Matt Roper is a "research assistant and visiting scholar." This is quite significant, in my opinion, since it pretty much demonstrates that, in fact, the Church employs people who are 100% apologists. (Perhaps Roper had published in other arenas, but so far as I can tell, he seems to restrict his work to Mopology.) It's worth noting that his title is "research assistant and visiting scholar." Probably, his chief role, in addition to producing apologetic texts, is to work as an "errand boy" for the higher-up apologists such as J. Tvedtness, B. Hamblin, and D. C. Peterson.

It really is all very interesting and sneaky-seeming. DCP has been very careful to avoid admitting that, in fact, some people have apparently been hired to do apologetics and apologetics only. Meanwhile, tenured Profs like himself and John Gee can keep up the ruse that they are all actually being salaried for teaching, and not apologetics. O, what a tangled web!

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Here are two instances for your reading pleasure:

First, I'm not paid "directly by the Mormon Church" at all. I'm paid by Brigham Young University, as are all other professors and staff at the University (including those who are not Latter-day Saints). Thus, at best, I'm indirectly paid by the Mormon Church. This is less dramatic than your formulation, but it’s more accurate.

Second, no part of my salary -- absolutely none, not a dime -- comes from my apologetic undertakings. I am a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, situated in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages

I earn absolutely none of my salary for writing on Mormon topics. Zilch. Zero. I make my living teaching academic subjects like Arabic and Near Eastern studies, and for directing international research projects. So I would gladly trade my income from Mormon subjects for yours. Are you game? Can you live on nothing?

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.

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that The Good Professor was so strenuous in his denials that he received any kind of compensation. Note that he's very careful in both of these quotes to insert the word "salary" so that he has a semantic "backdoor," as it were. The first quote, in particular, though, is problematic, since he *is* paid in part to do editing and administrative work for apologetics.

[_harmony]

Matt Roper is a "research assistant and visiting scholar." This is quite significant, in my opinion, since it pretty much demonstrates that, in fact, the Church employs people who are 100% apologists. (Perhaps Roper had published in other arenas, but so far as I can tell, he seems to restrict his work to Mopology.) It's worth noting that his title is "research assistant and visiting scholar." Probably, his chief role, in addition to producing apologetic texts, is to work as an "errand boy" for the higher-up apologists such as J. Tvedtness, B. Hamblin, and D. C. Peterson.

What exactly is a research assistant and visiting scholar? Does that mean he's a grad student?

It really is all very interesting and sneaky-seeming.

Well, it's somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure it's sneaky.

DCP has been very careful to avoid admitting that, in fact, some people have apparently been hired to do apologetics and apologetics only. Meanwhile, tenured Profs like himself and John Gee can keep up the ruse that they are all actually being salaried for teaching, and not apologetics.

I thought he actually is a tenured professor (or would be, if BYU had tenure, which it seems to me like they don't). He teaches classes, publishes in his field, gives presentations in his field. How is this a ruse? Because that's not all he does?

I hate to break it to you, Mr. Scratch, but I'm a fundraiser by profession. It's what my agency pays me for. In addition to being a fundraiser, I also sit on various high-up committees, hobnob with the senior staff, and give presentations to our board and in other venues that have nothing to do with fundraising. My expertise is not confined to fundraising. Why should Daniel's be confined to Arabic Studies?

O, what a tangled web!

Well, I think you're stretching on this one. It looks pretty straightforward to me.

[_Mister Scratch]

And further, I have no idea who he is other than having heard his named mentioned now and again by apologists. For the record, nothing Matt Roper has done that I'm aware of, and that's very little, offends me. It doesn't offend me that he gets paid. I think he should.

But why is he listed as the only paid apologist? What has he done that would put him at the top of that list?

My informant, who I have referred to as "Kathleen", told me that Matt Roper draws a salary for apologetics, meaning that he is the first confirmed person to be paid entirely to do LDS apologetics. Other people, such as DCP, get paid as well for their administrative activities. But, as I think you can observe in The Good Professor's recent posts, there has been a very strenuous effort to make it seem as if no one is being paid to do apologetics. But, it seems, this just isn't true.

I think my post was clear enough and answers your other objection. For how every little clerical detail of work done on the 'Scrolls or other ancient manuscripts fits into apologetics, please refer to layer 1 of my 3-layer model of post-Nibley Mormon apologetics.

Well, what you may think is clear obviously isn't clear to me or I wouldn't have asked you for further clarification.

Are you saying all the rest of that list is simply clerical work? Even were that so, how does clerical work of that nature support apologetics, especially to the tune of 100% of the work Maxwell does?

I could be wrong, but I think Gad was pointing out that there is really a connection amongst those seemingly unrelated things. In other words, FARMS has a vested interested in The Dead Sea Scrolls for much the same reason that it is interested in Chiapas. That is, these things might turn out to have something to do with Mormonism, and thus they might turn out to be valuable tools in the War of Mopologetics. Lumping these things under the rubric of FARMS serves a twofold purpose: it lends an air of credibility and legitimacy to the whole enterprise, and it helps the more controversial apologetic material to fly under the radar.