More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Joey]

Ah yes, I remember this thread well as I was the one who initiated it and eventually got banned because these supposed "professors" of the Hamblin - Peterson duo could not take the direct questions in an unprotected environment. Eventually they needed the protection of Juliann's skirt and the mods at that board when questioning became too direct.

Whether the second letter still exists or not, I don't know. It definitely once did, because I saw it, the FARMS Review managing editor saw it, our source checker(s) saw it, and, of course, Professor Hamblin, to whom it was addressed, saw it.

Professor Hamblin tells me that he has mislaid the original. Since I've mislaid many things during my lifetime, and since I know Professor Hamblin well, this strikes as entirely plausible.

Here is the problem with this dynamic duo: They did not want to show the original letter, or as Brent Metcalf shed light on the subject at the time, perhaps it was only an "email", because they wanted the context subject only to "their" or "FARMS" interpretation of it.

Peterson and Hamblin could never accept the fact that Watson was, in his 1990 letter to the bishop, answering on behalf of the bretheren. The letter makes that very clear. I have shown it to many in the Church, intelligent men who have to have earn a living with "real jobs", and without exception all concluded that Watson was responding on behalf of the bretheren or would have been released using "First Presidency" letterhead for personal opinion without making it explicity clear in such letter. So Peterson & Hamblin were left with concocting some "Watson was only giving his personal opinion" spin! No one of minimal intelligence could read that letter and reach that conclusion. As if Watson regularly used official church letterhead for such personal pontifications!!!

At their request I sent a certified letter to the office of the first presidency with a copy of Watson's first letter and copies of Hamblin's and Peterson's comments from that thread asking for clairification to the discrepancies and if Watson was merely giving a personal opinion! Not surprisingly, no response after nearly 4 years!!!!

I've also never actually seen the first letter. I've only seen a purported photocopy of it, which could, I suppose, be a forgery. I don't believe it to be a forgery, and am not inclined to believe it a forgery, but, if I lived in the apologetic equivalent of Scratchworld, I suppose maybe I might imagine such a thing.

Classic! Attempt to raise doubt about facts when they don't suit your agenda. Any wonder why he is a part time associate professor and full time apologist?

The reason that the "supposed correspondence" from Watson to Hamblin will never be made public is because it's interpretation would probably be far different than what this dynamic duo want to portray it as. Unlike the letter from the Office of the First Presidency, this correspondence may well have been on an "opinion" of Watson. And when we see how ineptly Hamblin/Peterson want to spin their interpretation of the first letter, is it any wonder they would never want anything in writing to be left for public review other than their spin on it.

IF you are to believe Hamblin/Peterson, one has to conclude that Watson has (had) a serious character/integrity disorder in his duties with the First Presidency. Perhaps, however, a requirement for such employ???

In the end, what is very obvious is that more people have seen and read the 1990 letter from the Office of The First Presidency than have seen or read Hamblin's FARM article attempting to dismiss it. Perhaps by design if you believe Peterson's admission that FARMS is pretty much ignored!

[_wenglund]

Wade and Hamblin continue chatting about the sheer idiocy of the posters on this thread.

But tell me - where did any critic on this thread declare a belief that apologists are getting rich from apologia?

It's possible an isolated critic may have loosely suggested that (depending on how one defines "wad of cash", I suppose), but in general critics have been pretty clear: no one is saying that apologists are well paid.

The supreme irony in this case of misrepresentation and strawmen is Wade's declaration:

This tells me that it is not the Church that has failed the good folks at Shadey's Inferno, but the public school system.

Would it suprise you to learn that one of the leading participants over there teaches reading comprehension in a public school?

Mind-boggling indeed

LOL!!!

Look, Wade, I'm sure you're reading this. If you read this thread and came away believing that the point is that apologists are getting rich from apologetics then you have, once again, demonstrated very poor reading comprehension. I'd offer to tutor you, but I don't work with adults..

I just now read your post after reading backwards from page 14. So, I have yet to view the rest of the thread, and thus cannot comment on it.

However, by way of correction, nothing in what you quote above from me could there be reasonably concluded that I think the good folks here are suggesting that apologists are getting rich from apologia. In fact, I was intentionally SILENT as to what the good folks here have said on the matter precicely because I had yet to read what had been said.

That you would think that I had suggested the "straw man", is further evidence in support of my inference that some of the good folks here have reading comprehension isssues. ;-)

As further evidence of your own lack of comprehension, what you quote from me above was not in response to Hamblin's statement about "getting rich" (note that there is no mention of "getting rich" in what I quoted from him in my post), but rather Dr. Peterson's paraphrasing of Gad regarding Hamblin's allegedly receiving "qiote a wad of bills" and Hamblin's comment that "I said exactly the opposite of what they claim I said."

In other words, your assumption that my comments were "supreme irony in this case of misrepresentation and strawmen", is not only a miscomprehension on your part (quite a feat for someone who teaches reading comprehension), but is itself a supremely ironic strawman. Bravo!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Peterson and Hamblin could never accept the fact that Watson was, in his 1990 letter to the bishop, answering on behalf of the bretheren. The letter makes that very clear. I have shown it to many in the Church, intelligent men who have to have earn a living with "real jobs", and without exception all concluded that Watson was responding on behalf of the bretheren or would have been released using "First Presidency" letterhead for personal opinion without making it explicity clear in such letter. So Peterson & Hamblin were left with concocting some "Watson was only giving his personal opinion" spin! No one of minimal intelligence could read that letter and reach that conclusion. As if Watson regularly used official church letterhead for such personal pontifications!!!

This is spot on. Watson's 1st letter certainly makes it more difficult for the FARMS apologists to pursue the LGT.

At their request I sent a certified letter to the office of the first presidency with a copy of Watson's first letter and copies of Hamblin's and Peterson's comments from that thread asking for clairification to the discrepancies and if Watson was merely giving a personal opinion! Not surprisingly, no response after nearly 4 years!!!!

But, yet, DCP continues to state that anyone here can easily get a copy of the letter from Watson/headquarters. Thanks for proving that suggestion false.

The reason that the "supposed correspondence" from Watson to Hamblin will never be made public is because it's interpretation would probably be far different than what this dynamic duo want to portray it as. Unlike the letter from the Office of the First Presidency, this correspondence may well have been on an "opinion" of Watson. And when we see how ineptly Hamblin/Peterson want to spin their interpretation of the first letter, is it any wonder they would never want anything in writing to be left for public review other than their spin on it.

I believe you are probably right, which is why I (and others) continue to push DCP/Hamblin to produce the letter rather than just take their word for what it said. Frankly, I'm surprised such "scholars" would have a problem with proving up their sources.

IF you are to believe Hamblin/Peterson, one has to conclude that Watson has (had) a serious character/integrity disorder in his duties with the First Presidency. Perhaps, however, a requirement for such employ???

Item of trivia: F. Michael Watson was promoted to General Authority (1st Quorum of the Seventy) at the last GC.

Thanks for this latest information, Joey.

[_The Nehor]

don't understand the LDS faith as well as a modern Nehor does. That figures.

The witnesses were there to make sure more then one person testified of these things. If proof were important to God/Joseph, he would have shown the plates to everyone. Hell, they would have had Moroni talk to everyone.

[_The Nehor]

Yet true, very true.

Purely, your opinion.

So was your comment on weakness.

If we let you see the plates tomorrow would you join?

Who is we? You make it sound like you have the plates?? Quite honestly today I would still be very skeptical but it would go a long way in making me take second looks at the church but if these tangible things were available in my youth I am sure it would have cemented my feelings into a full blown testimony.

It might make you look but it wouldn't have built a testimony. Unless you have a very different definition of the word testimony. Hint: It doesn't mean intellectual acceptance of when and where a book was written and a few doctrines about God.

[_beastie]

Here is the the portion of Hamblin's post that Wade was responding to, as indicated by his citation of it preceding his own post which I quoted above:

These people are morons and liars, incapable of understanding plain English. For writing a couple dozen articles and editing several books (totaling nearly 2000 pages) I may have received a few of hundred dollars total, for everything I've done over the course of perhaps twenty years years. This couple hundred dollars is not per article, it is the total, for everything. This compares to a single lecture on a non-Mormon topic for which I received $1000 in honorarium from a non-LDS university. For this single 20 page paper I received around twice as much money as I have for producing 2000 pages (written or edited) for FARMS. How this could possibly be understood as:

is simply astonishing. I said exactly the opposite of what they claim I said. I have made thousands of dollars in royalty for my non-LDS books. I haven't made a penny in royalties for my FARMS publications. I have not made money by publishing with FARMS. I have, in fact, lost thousands of dollars in potential income that I could have made had I written non-LDS related books. That is the simple truth of the matter.

Hamblin's reply is a rebuttal to the inane strawman that apologists are being paid "top dollar" and "getting rich". This is clear. Wade chimed in and stated that this was evidence of our poor reading comprehension.

Now he claims his reply had nothing to do with the strawman that apologists are getting rich! Forgive me for assuming that the text Wade quoted had the slightest connection to his own response.

Wade, here's a clue: better to remain silent and just let people think you're a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

[_wenglund]

Here is the the portion of Hamblin's post that Wade was responding to, as indicated by his citation of it preceding his own post which I quoted above:

These people are morons and liars, incapable of understanding plain English. For writing a couple dozen articles and editing several books (totaling nearly 2000 pages) I may have received a few of hundred dollars total, for everything I've done over the course of perhaps twenty years years. This couple hundred dollars is not per article, it is the total, for everything. This compares to a single lecture on a non-Mormon topic for which I received $1000 in honorarium from a non-LDS university. For this single 20 page paper I received around twice as much money as I have for producing 2000 pages (written or edited) for FARMS. How this could possibly be understood as:

is simply astonishing. I said exactly the opposite of what they claim I said. I have made thousands of dollars in royalty for my non-LDS books. I haven't made a penny in royalties for my FARMS publications. I have not made money by publishing with FARMS. I have, in fact, lost thousands of dollars in potential income that I could have made had I written non-LDS related books. That is the simple truth of the matter.

Hamblin's reply is a rebuttal to the inane strawman that apologists are being paid "top dollar" and "getting rich". This is clear. Wade chimed in and stated that this was evidence of our poor reading comprehension.

Now he claims his reply had nothing to do with the strawman that apologists are getting rich! Forgive me for assuming that the text Wade quoted had the slightest connection to his own response.

Wade, here's a clue: better to remain silent and just let people think you're a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

I have taken the liberty of bolding the portions of the quoted statement above where Hamblin mentioned "top dollar" and "getting rich".

What? You don't see any bolding?

That is because HE DIDN"T USE THOSE TERMS.

So, what exactly was Hamblin referring to when he mentioned: "I said exactly the opposite of what they claim I said"?

Well...lets look at Beasties citation above to see.

Oh, wait, that's right, she conveniently omitted the clarifying quote. So, here it is for everyone's viewing pleasure:

Note that Bill Hamblin has now admitted to receiving qiote a wad of bills on that thread. He receives standard payment for his apologetics that are in line with his professional work as an academic, per him.

This is a statement made by Dr. Peterson in which he paraphrased a comment made here by Gad. I have taken the liberty of bolding yet again the mention of "top dollar" and "getting rich".

What? You can't see any bolding there either?

Well...that is because IT WASN"T STATED.

Instead, as I clearly and obviously mentioned in my previous post, the comment was in regards to "qiote a wad of bills".

Please forgive me for using all caps with certain words, but Beastie seems to be having great difficulty comprehending what is being said (again, quite a feat from someone who teaches reading comprehension, and also further evidence in support of what I had implied about some of the good folks here having comprehension issues), and I have emphasised those words to assist her (not that that will necessarily do the trick).

What was that she ironically said about remaining silent? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

3) Some apologists enjoy funded trips to present their claims. Over the course of years this can cost the Mormon church well in excess of six figures.

One correction before Dr. Peterson makes you an offender for a word:

It's not directly costing the "Mormon church". It is costing the group that is encouraged by leaders of the LDS church to obtain donated funds from wealthier members, which they can then spend on apologia without the Mormon church being "directly" responsible.

Yes, I think it is very important to point out the rather deft way that the Brethren & et. al. have managed to conceal the "paper trail" of apologetic finances. It is a very, very sneaky business.

By the way, Beastie, your argument vis-a-vis the old temple film is quite persuasive, in my opinion.

[_Yong Xi]

Weak, very weak.

I guess I don't need or would have to have everything proved but at least one or two things would be nice. Like a tapir, or a word on a plate or stone, or anything tangible instead of just stories and stories about stories.

Yet true, very true.

If we let you see the plates tomorrow would you join? Came up with the perfect explanation of horses in the Book of Mormon? This would be worst of all. You spend a lot of time here mocking God, his leaders, his institutions, and his teachings. Would proof change that? Would you stop thinking DCP is a liar? That teachings are incorrect? I doubt it. Would it give you a spiritual witness? No.

I think it might be more appropriate to suggest that the God that is being mocked, may or may not exist.

I, for one, would gladly come back to church and confess my many sins should the Golden Plates reappear and be translated into a record that matches the Book of Mormon. In fact, I'll give strong consideration to returning if you can provide any source document that Joseph Smith translated correctly.

[_beastie]

Wade,

I know that you struggle with English, but try not to get confused by the fact that we can use different words to convey the same meaning. When DCP transported a "wad of bills", as he has in the thread that used the phrase, he used "wad of bills" to mean "make a lot of money". Obviously, if he had been using "wad of bills" in the same way that Gad had intended, he wouldn't be using the phrase to support the idea that "anti-mormons" are saying apologists are getting "top dollar", "fabulous income".

by the way, the phrase that was omitted was omitted IN YOUR OWN CITATION, and I did not want to insert it when YOU had omitted it. See, Wade, I copied and pasted exactly what YOU had cited. It's your post numbered 108, and the citation you used looked like this:

These people are morons and liars, incapable of understanding plain English. For writing a couple dozen articles and editing several books (totaling nearly 2000 pages) I may have received a few of hundred dollars total, for everything I've done over the course of perhaps twenty years years. This couple hundred dollars is not per article, it is the total, for everything. This compares to a single lecture on a non-Mormon topic for which I received $1000 in honorarium from a non-LDS university. For this single 20 page paper I received around twice as much money as I have for producing 2000 pages (written or edited) for FARMS. How this could possibly be understood as:

is simply astonishing. I said exactly the opposite of what they claim I said. I have made thousands of dollars in royalty for my non-LDS books. I haven't made a penny in royalties for my FARMS publications. I have not made money by publishing with FARMS. I have, in fact, lost thousands of dollars in potential income that I could have made had I written non-LDS related books. That is the simple truth of the matter.

But, pray tell, in Wade's World, what in the world was Hamblin using as a case of this board's moronic and idiotic tendencies, if "wad of bills" wasn't talking about - follow along, I'm going to use slightly different words - making a lot of money???? He admits he made a small amount of money, so he can't be objecting to bills, per se... he's objecting to what he thinks "wad of bills" means. He thinks it means "a lot of money", because that is what he is arguing against.