More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

A research assistant typically works for a professor. This person will write up materials, do research, and that sort of thing. I don't get the impression that Roper is a grad student. Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, DCP once fingered Roper as the person responsible for the dishonest "Florida Horse" entry on the FARMS website FAQ. So, perhaps part of Roper's job is to be a scapegoat for FARMS screw-ups?

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?

No, no---I'm referring to the "ruse" that nobody gets paid to be a full-time apologist. (You'll notice that DCP has been avoiding this particular point like the plague.)

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?

I never said that it should be.

[_harmony]

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.

On what is "Kathleen" basing her allegation? In other words, where's the smoking gun? Do you mean that all you have for proof that this is indeed so is that "Kathleen" said so? Why should anyone believe "Kathleen"?

Goodnightshirt, Mr Scratch. Please say you have something more than "Kathleen said so!"

And you didn't answer my question: what has <Matt Roper> done that would put him at the top of the apologist's list?

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.

I don't see Gad pointing that out at all. I see him commenting on Nibley and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but not commenting on anything else on that list at all. So I'll wait to see what he says.

I don't see the connection between all those things and LDS apologetics, so if anyone would like to start a new thread and actually delinate that out, I think that would be interesting.

[_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.

On what is "Kathleen" basing her allegation? In other words, where's the smoking gun? Do you mean that all you have for proof that this is indeed so is that "Kathleen" said so? Why should anyone believe "Kathleen"?

"Kathleen" is a very reliable source who is in a good position to know. I'm afraid I can't say much more since I promised her I'd keep her identity secret.

Goodnightshirt, Mr Scratch. Please say you have something more than "Kathleen said so!"

And you didn't answer my question: what has <Matt Roper> done that would put him at the top of the apologist's list?

What "apologist's list" are you talking about?

[_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?

A research assistant typically works for a professor. This person will write up materials, do research, and that sort of thing. I don't get the impression that Roper is a grad student.

You forgot the "visiting scholar" part. Surely a visiting scholar would have a degree?

You make it sound like he is just some hack off the street, with no training and no degree? I find that hard to believe, Mr Scratch. But if that is indeed so, they may pay him, but it doesn't sound like he's much of an apologist.

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, DCP once fingered Roper as the person responsible for the dishonest "Florida Horse" entry on the FARMS website FAQ. So, perhaps part of Roper's job is to be a scapegoat for FARMS screw-ups?

Oh that sounds like a delightful position. NOT. I hope they pay him more than the going wage for whipping boys.

No, no---I'm referring to the "ruse" that nobody gets paid to be a full-time apologist. (You'll notice that DCP has been avoiding this particular point like the plague.)

Well, it sounds like Matt Roper isn't an apologist. He's a go-fer.

[_Gadianton]

I think Roper was offered as an instance of paid apologists, not the only one. And he was brought up by Scratch's informant, not myself.

I thought I was clear, but I'll try again on the matter of the 3-layer apologetic model.

- FARMS originated out of a bunch of BYU Nibley disciples who were very inspired by Nibley's Dead Sea Scroll research and antiquities in general that sought to prove half the world's intellectual heritage reduces to Mormonism. Hence, all their original work was to publish Nibley. 100% apologetics.

-Nibley's efforts were inspiring but problematic
a) His obvious agenda clouded his credibility as a legitimate antiquarian and distorted his findings.
b) He cast his net too wide, and the quality of his work suffered.

It was quickly learned 100% apologetics could not so easily be pawned off as serious 100%real scholarship to anyone but general church membership. Nibley even became problematic for the apologists themselves. It was learned by FARMS that the "valley crossers" such as Nibley and even John Sornsen were not viable for present-day concerns. FARMs could not become an institution of "one man shows", its credibility would otherwise never go beyond believing households.

Rather, FARMs learned to employ a multi-layered approach to apologetics that includes a division of labor. Consider that while Nibley inspired it all, he's really quite useless on any level. No educated person reads his work as serious introduction and commentary on antiquities. No one quotes him in serious research. And at the same time, his apologetics became so strained and overreaching that even apologists became critical of his work.

But imagine a world where 50 or 100 take the place of Nibley, and with enough modularity as to protect each level of apologetic undertaking. You have researches who, for the sake of humanity, do nothing more than preserve documents like the dead sea scrolls. Part of Nibley's apologetics was just being "so smart" and educated, merely appealing to someone so important was a defense of the church. But like I said, this image crumbles under the weight of his agenda not to mention his eccentricities. So having a layer devoted entirely to sterile document preservation and general scholarship bolsters the church in the same way having Nibley did, but without the downside. And because this layer seems to exist independently, then if say, a "scholar" on layer 3 goes very far in his agenda and turns off as many as he inspires, then the entire project doesn't suffer. The bedrock layer is protected because they don't have anything explicitely to do with FROB.

While it's unlikely, if layer 1 were ever to produce materials that seemed contrary to the church, layer 3 has plausible deniability and can say, "they are a separate entity and do not reflect our pursuits in understanding the gospel". And if layer 3 produces something embarrassing and eye-rolling to the rest of the academic world, layer 1 says, "the church still has credibility because look at us! We're the real scholarship, and we have nothing to do with anything that guy says".

[_harmony]

"Kathleen" is a very reliable source who is in a good position to know. I'm afraid I can't say much more since I promised her I'd keep her identity secret.

You realize, of course, that you sound exactly like DCP, when he's made a statement and is then unable to back it up, except to say almost exactly what you just said?

The irony. C'mon, Mr Scratch. Don't disappoint me now. If there's proof, let's see it.

What "apologist's list" are you talking about?

Well, surely there must be a list, if Mr Roper is at the top of it? Or is he the only "verified" example you've got that apologists are paid? (and if the horse debacle is an example of Mr Roper's expertise, I don't think the nonbelievers have anything to fear from him)

[_harmony]

I think Roper was offered as an instance of paid apologists, not the only one. And he was brought up by Scratch's informant, not myself.

I thought I was clear, but I'll try again on the matter of the 3-layer apologetic model.

[snip]

I understand what you're saying, Gad. I just don't see how it applies to the rest of that list of what the Maxwell Institute supposedly does.

[_antishock8]

I think Roper was offered as an instance of paid apologists, not the only one. And he was brought up by Scratch's informant, not myself.

I thought I was clear, but I'll try again on the matter of the 3-layer apologetic model.

- FARMS originated out of a bunch of BYU Nibley disciples who were very inspired by Nibley's Dead Sea Scroll research and antiquities in general that sought to prove half the world's intellectual heritage reduces to Mormonism. Hence, all their original work was to publish Nibley. 100% apologetics.

-Nibley's efforts were inspiring but problematic
a) His obvious agenda clouded his credibility as a legitimate antiquarian and distorted his findings.
b) He cast his net too wide, and the quality of his work suffered.

It was quickly learned 100% apologetics could not so easily be pawned off as serious 100%real scholarship to anyone but general church membership. Nibley even became problematic for the apologists themselves. It was learned by FARMS that the "valley crossers" such as Nibley and even John Sornsen were not viable for present-day concerns. FARMs could not become an institution of "one man shows", its credibility would otherwise never go beyond believing households.

Rather, FARMs learned to employ a multi-layered approach to apologetics that includes a division of labor. Consider that while Nibley inspired it all, he's really quite useless on any level. No educated person reads his work as serious introduction and commentary on antiquities. No one quotes him in serious research. And at the same time, his apologetics became so strained and overreaching that even apologists became critical of his work.

But imagine a world where 50 or 100 take the place of Nibley, and with enough modularity as to protect each level of apologetic undertaking. You have researches who, for the sake of humanity, do nothing more than preserve documents like the dead sea scrolls. Part of Nibley's apologetics was just being "so smart" and educated, merely appealing to someone so important was a defense of the church. But like I said, this image crumbles under the weight of his agenda not to mention his eccentricities. So having a layer devoted entirely to sterile document preservation and general scholarship bolsters the church in the same way having Nibley did, but without the downside. And because this layer seems to exist independently, then if say, a "scholar" on layer 3 goes very far in his agenda and turns off as many as he inspires, then the entire project doesn't suffer. The bedrock layer is protected because they don't have anything explicitely to do with FROB.

While it's unlikely, if layer 1 were ever to produce materials that seemed contrary to the church, layer 3 has plausible deniability and can say, "they are a separate entity and do not reflect our pursuits in understanding the gospel". And if layer 3 produces something embarrassing and eye-rolling to the rest of the academic world, layer 1 says, "the church still has credibility because look at us! We're the real scholarship, and we have nothing to do with anything that guy says".

Exactly. They were getting out of hand, were brought under the auspices of LDS HQ, given a full-time paid position to oversee correalation, erm, "peer review", given the mission to "protect the Church on the flanks from the critics", aaaaaaaand... Given some busy work that offers a cover story when presenting itself to the academic world. Geck.

I'll guarantee you if you show how much apologia has been produced and do a side-by-side comparasion to their "academic" work... The apologia far outweighs their "academic" work. Heck, just go to the MI, and look for yourself.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Kathleen" is a very reliable source who is in a good position to know. I'm afraid I can't say much more since I promised her I'd keep her identity secret.

You realize, of course, that you sound exactly like DCP, when he's made a statement and is then unable to back it up, except to say almost exactly what you just said?

The irony. C'mon, Mr Scratch. Don't disappoint me now. If there's proof, let's see it.

I've never stated that I had anything beyond what the informant told me. I'm sure DCP can come swooping in to state that I'm wrong.

What "apologist's list" are you talking about?

Well, surely there must be a list, if Mr Roper is at the top of it? Or is he the only "verified" example you've got that apologists are paid? (and if the horse debacle is an example of Mr Roper's expertise, I don't think the nonbelievers have anything to fear from him)

Why must there be a "list"? Honestly, Harmony, where are you getting this? What ever made you think that Mr Roper (I am getting Three's Company flashbacks....) was at the top of some list?

And no: DCP has also confirmed that part of his salary covers administrative and editing duties that he performs for FARMS. Further, antishock8's quote shows that the President (or "Executive Director"?) gets paid as well. I guess one can quibble about just what, exactly, constitutes "apologetics"---whether we should only treat writing as apologetics, or whether fundraising, clerical work, editing, and administration also counts. Being the generous sort, I tend to think the latter is the more accurate way of seeing things.

[_harmony]

Why must there be a "list"? Honestly, Harmony, where are you getting this?

Out of the trashcan?

Of course there's a list. DCP is at the top, as the Foremost LDS Church Apologist (said in a very reverent tone), or whatever his present title is. Then comes John Gee, as the Foremost Book of Abraham Apologist (said in a very solemn tone). Then comes Tved-whatchamacallit, then Hamwhat'shisname, then Midgley (for some reason, I always think Midget, and I know that's just not nice of me), then on down the list. But if Mr Roper is the only paid apologist, that moves him to the top of the list, don't you think?

What ever made you think that Mr Roper (I am getting Three's Company flashbacks....) was at the top of some list?

Okay, now that made me giggle. Shame on you!

And no: DCP has also confirmed that part of his salary covers administrative and editing duties that he performs for FARMS. Further, antishock8's quote shows that the President (or "Executive Director"?) gets paid as well. I guess one can quibble about just what, exactly, constitutes "apologetics"---whether we should only treat writing as apologetics, or whether fundraising, clerical work, editing, and administration also counts. Being the generous sort, I tend to think the latter is the more accurate way of seeing things.

You don't much about this, do you, Mr Scratch?

Writing apologetics is what apologists do. Fundraising, clerical work, editing, and admin does not count as apologetics. I am a fundraiser. I don't do apologetics, clerical work, editing, or admin... ever. I have people to do those things (well, not the apologetics). I raise money... lots of money. I don't have time to do the support stuff. I doubt that apologists do either.