More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_cksalmon]

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".

One of Dr. Peterson's tried-and-true methods of MB argumentation is to equate his opponent's position with something utterly ridiculous and then argue on the basis of his ridiculous example that his opponents are being utterly ridiculous.

Can you point me to any post, book, article, or speech in which I attack any other faith?

Me:

Really?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous--DCP, MADB, Oct 8 2007

And, now for something completely different: Why this isn't really an attack.

You're right. I don't consider it an attack. An attack is an argument. Simply sayiing "I don't like X" is neither an argument nor an attack, and that is essentially what I said. I think liver is repulsive and disgusting, too, but it would be rather silly to claim that I "attack" liver simply by saying so.

You know the background to this. After watching you mock and insult my faith continuously one night, I decided to share with you my gut reaction to your faith, Calvinism -- something that I have never expressed in an article, column, or book. Something that I had never posted before and have not posted since. I wanted you to notice (though I apparently failed in my intent) that, while the distance between my faith and your faith is precisely the same as that between your faith and my faith, I have never published or posted any attack on Calvinism, on John Calvin, on the history of Calvinism, or anything like thereunto. I have never gone on a Calvinist message board to criticize Calvinism, have never (ahem) edited an anti-Calvinist newspaper, have never sought to hinder the spread of Calvinism, etc. On the contrary, as a matter of fact, I've published an admiring brief portrait of John Calvin.

Come on. If I have a tendency to attack other faiths, you ought to be able to come up with plenty of clear examples. I've published enough to have revealed my true colors many times over.

Me:

You're right. I don't consider it an attack. An attack is an argument.

No, it's not. An argument is an argument, whether its intended effect is to attack or not.
Here's the definition I have in mind for the transitive verb, "attack":
: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words, or, from another source, To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.

"An attack is an argument." I don't know how one would support this grammatical copulation.

Simply sayiing "I don't like X" is neither an argument nor an attack, and that is essentially what I said.

You didn't really essentially say something innocuous like, "I don't like Calvinism." You said, "I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." I regard this as "[criticizing] strongly or in a hostile manner." To suggest that this invective essentially boils down to "I don't like Calvinism" is a bit silly. Of course, that you don't like Calvinism can be reasonably inferred from your comments, but your comments go far, far beyond that.

I think liver is repulsive and disgusting, too, but it would be rather silly to claim that I "attack" liver simply by saying so.

Right, it would be silly, because liver is food. I think it's absurd to place talk about food on the same level with talk about systems of belief.

"I hate Bleu Cheese."
"I hate Buddhism."

Not the same sorts of statements.

You know the background to this...[snip]

You posted to Markk: "Can you point me to any post, book, article, or speech in which I attack any other faith?"
I can and did.

Come on. If I have a tendency to attack other faiths, you ought to be able to come up with plenty of clear examples. I've published enough to have revealed my true colors many times over.

You posted to Markk: "Can you point me to any post, book, article, or speech in which I attack any other faith?"
I can and did.

Chris

This has only recently crystallized for me. I guess I'm slow. But, this is what DCP does:

Critic: X
DCP: Y is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting anything approaching Y.
DCP: Therefore, X is ridiculous.

Meh.

Chris

[_beastie]

Thanks for that clear example, DCP!! Quite entertaining.

I have one change to make, applying your formula to this particular issue:

Critic: X
DCP: Y is ridiculous. I'm not suggesting anything approaching Y.
DCP: Therefore, X is ridiculous.

In this situation, DCP omits the final "Therefore, X is ridiculous". He won't even admit that the critics' point was X. He has just proceeded pretending Y was the critics' point all along. I guess that's a benefit of posting on MAD, where he can be fairly certain most readers won't bother to come to this board to read the original X in the first place.

[_beastie]

Well, it appears that we will never know the "real meaning" of Hamblin's text that Wade quoted, or why he "conveniently omitted" the very portion he so accused me of doing. Sigh. Alas, alack. He's fled back to the MAD board, where the strawman has continued uninterrupted and uncorrected. That's MAD for you.

But further threads on this subject make it appear likely that the reason apologists are so defensive about making any money at all from their endeavors is due to their harsh criticism of professional critics, like the Tanners, who make money from "anti-mormonism".

Of course they could borrow the MAD defense: no one's getting rich off of this, on either side.

[_Trevor]

But further threads on this subject make it appear likely that the reason apologists are so defensive about making any money at all from their endeavors is due to their harsh criticism of professional critics, like the Tanners, who make money from "anti-mormonism".

Of course they could borrow the MAD defense: no one's getting rich off of this, on either side.

Yes, but surely the Tanners do not act out of sincere religious conviction! Cough.

[_Mister Scratch]

You know, it's interesting. I was reading an old FARMS article by capo regime Louis Midgley, and found its discussion of fundraising to be very....peculiar. The article is called "Anti-Mormonism and the Newfangled Countercult Culture." Take a look at this text from under the "The Old Cash Nexus" subheading:

Religion on radio and TV—the so-called Electronic Church—provides an avenue for countercult preachers to do their thing. But all this costs money. The John Ankerberg Show,88 according to Tolbert, has thus "entered the marketplace."89 But Tolbert admits that "many Christians complain about the excessive solicitation for monies on The John Ankerberg Show."90 He then excuses Ankerberg's antics on the grounds that those who complain do not realize "the tremendous amount of money required to air a nation-wide program . . . on secular TV."91 Here we approach a key feature of the countercult industry. Much of the energy of those who have found a niche on TV and radio is directed to recruiting money.92

(emphasis added)

Just replace "air a nation-wide program" with "printing costs, distribution, and paper," (or whatever it was that LoaP said at the beginning of the thread).

But the same abject begging for money is also found in much of the anti-Mormon literature I have examined. Tolbert is critical of this deportment—he indicates "that a great many articles" in the countercult periodical literature "which begin as analytical, critiquing a cult, somehow transform around the middle into a public relations article, talking about what this particular ministry is doing and finally ends up soliciting money."93 He suggests that, "ethics aside, . . . this is clearly bad journalism."94 Hardly an anti-Mormon tabloid turns up that does not report the dire financial situation of the sponsoring ministry, accompanied by much groveling for money to save the desperate ministry from impending collapse, to finance some trip,95 or to purchase a new addition to the library.

I have to wonder: Why is Prof. Midgley arguing along these lines? What, at base, is really all that different in terms of the way LDS apologists go about collecting money? Granted, Mopologists don't seem to solicit donations out in the open. Rather, they are given a professoinal fundraiser straight out of the institutional Church to go and hit up wealthy members. That strikes me as being a far more effective and sophisticated method of keeping the ship afloat. So, again: Why is Midgley critical of this particular means of raising money? Would he feel better about it---and less inclined to describe it as "grovelling"---if the ministries employed a professional fundraiser, and if they received backing from a multi-billion-dollar multinational corporation?

As I have shown, Tolbert believes that countercult literature is aimed primarily at "the evangelical wing of Christianity."96 And, as I have already shown, he is not unaware of a struggle going on between countercult ministries attempting to tap this market.

One wonders if there is a "struggle" going on between FAIR and FARMS.... My guess is "probably not," since the actual funding gets funneled 100% to FARMS.

Later, Midgley rips into the "mom & pop"/"volunteerism" nature of these countercult ministries:

DCRO reveals the dimensions of both the larger countercult movement and its anti-Mormon component. Tolbert lists and describes 561 sectarian agencies and individuals (of which 444 are located in the USA and 28 in Canada). These are said to employ an evangelical approach (section 1, pp. 1–32) to "cult research." From an LDS perspective, the extent of this type of anti-Mormonism may be surprising. But these numbers are somewhat deceiving; most of the anti-Mormon ministries are without permanent staff—they are mostly merely individuals or Mom and Pop operations. And they come and go.100 For the most part they do not produce a literature; they peddle what others produce. They usually operate on a shoestring. In 1991, "only eight or nine" of the evangelical countercult

ministries have paid staff and do original research. Most are shoestring organizations run by a handful of volunteers with a fervent interest in a particular aberrant group. Naturally, such groups come and go. But their overall number is rapidly increasing, and the largest countercult organizations seem to be growing.101

(emphasis added)

Wow! Quite interesting! It seems that, in comparison, LDS apologetics is a far, far better funded and far more sophisticated operation that the "anti-Mormon industry." Whereas the ministries' staff members "come and go," FARMS has full-time Ph.D.s doing apologetics practically around the clock. Whereas the ministries "do not produce a literature," FARMS has a polished, "peer reviewed" journal.

It seems that LDS apologetics is much more guilty of the things it routinely chastises critics for.

[_cksalmon]

You know, it's interesting. I was reading an old FARMS article by capo regime Louis Midgley, and found its discussion of fundraising to be very....peculiar. The article is called "Anti-Mormonism and the Newfangled Countercult Culture." Take a look at this text from under the "The Old Cash Nexus" subheading:

Religion on radio and TV—the so-called Electronic Church—provides an avenue for countercult preachers to do their thing. But all this costs money. The John Ankerberg Show,88 according to Tolbert, has thus "entered the marketplace."89 But Tolbert admits that "many Christians complain about the excessive solicitation for monies on The John Ankerberg Show."90 He then excuses Ankerberg's antics on the grounds that those who complain do not realize "the tremendous amount of money required to air a nation-wide program . . . on secular TV."91 Here we approach a key feature of the countercult industry. Much of the energy of those who have found a niche on TV and radio is directed to recruiting money.92

(emphasis added)

Just replace "air a nation-wide program" with "printing costs, distribution, and paper," (or whatever it was that LoaP said at the beginning of the thread).

But the same abject begging for money is also found in much of the anti-Mormon literature I have examined. Tolbert is critical of this deportment—he indicates "that a great many articles" in the countercult periodical literature "which begin as analytical, critiquing a cult, somehow transform around the middle into a public relations article, talking about what this particular ministry is doing and finally ends up soliciting money."93 He suggests that, "ethics aside, . . . this is clearly bad journalism."94 Hardly an anti-Mormon tabloid turns up that does not report the dire financial situation of the sponsoring ministry, accompanied by much groveling for money to save the desperate ministry from impending collapse, to finance some trip,95 or to purchase a new addition to the library.

I have to wonder: Why is Prof. Midgley arguing along these lines? What, at base, is really all that different in terms of the way LDS apologists go about collecting money? Granted, Mopologists don't seem to solicit donations out in the open. Rather, they are given a professoinal fundraiser straight out of the institutional Church to go and hit up wealthy members. That strikes me as being a far more effective and sophisticated method of keeping the ship afloat. So, again: Why is Midgley critical of this particular means of raising money? Would he feel better about it---and less inclined to describe it as "grovelling"---if the ministries employed a professional fundraiser, and if they received backing from a multi-billion-dollar multinational corporation?

As I have shown, Tolbert believes that countercult literature is aimed primarily at "the evangelical wing of Christianity."96 And, as I have already shown, he is not unaware of a struggle going on between countercult ministries attempting to tap this market.

One wonders if there is a "struggle" going on between FAIR and FARMS.... My guess is "probably not," since the actual funding gets funneled 100% to FARMS.

Later, Midgley rips into the "mom & pop"/"volunteerism" nature of these countercult ministries:

DCRO reveals the dimensions of both the larger countercult movement and its anti-Mormon component. Tolbert lists and describes 561 sectarian agencies and individuals (of which 444 are located in the USA and 28 in Canada). These are said to employ an evangelical approach (section 1, pp. 1–32) to "cult research." From an LDS perspective, the extent of this type of anti-Mormonism may be surprising. But these numbers are somewhat deceiving; most of the anti-Mormon ministries are without permanent staff—they are mostly merely individuals or Mom and Pop operations. And they come and go.100 For the most part they do not produce a literature; they peddle what others produce. They usually operate on a shoestring. In 1991, "only eight or nine" of the evangelical countercult

ministries have paid staff and do original research. Most are shoestring organizations run by a handful of volunteers with a fervent interest in a particular aberrant group. Naturally, such groups come and go. But their overall number is rapidly increasing, and the largest countercult organizations seem to be growing.101

(emphasis added)

Wow! Quite interesting! It seems that, in comparison, LDS apologetics is a far, far better funded and far more sophisticated operation that the "anti-Mormon industry." Whereas the ministries' staff members "come and go," FARMS has full-time Ph.D.s doing apologetics practically around the clock. Whereas the ministries "do not produce a literature," FARMS has a polished, "peer reviewed" journal.

It seems that LDS apologetics is much more guilty of the things it routinely chastises critics for.

You make some good points here, Scratch.

I must say, though, that I despise the ostensibly-desperate call for funds I've often been subjected to by EV countercult movements (i.e., the folks on "my" side"). I have some specific examples in mind, but I'll forgo them here.

In other words, Midgley has a point here (much as it makes my skin crawl to side with him to any degree, nasty, conniving bully that he is); or, in other words, his justifiable points point their fingers directly back at himself, frankly.

Chris

[_Gadianton]

Scratch,

This is an important breakthrough. I hope everyone has a chance to read your post here. It seems like the apologists want to have their cake and eat it to. On the one hand, if you read the MI's history of FARMS, you'd think they delight in poverty and their own "mom and pop" production. Then you read this, and they want to make fun of critics for their lack of sophistication. They're probably hooting it up right now tht the EV's can't even afford a high-priced fundraiser like they can. But stop the press, because as soon as Midgley gets a whiff of a potential wealthy donar to the UTLM, he's thrown into the heat of rage and drags matt down to the bookstore to confront Sandra about her moral corruption.

There can be no doubt now though, as you suggest, that the apologists are more guilty of wedding their opperation to Mammon than the critics are. They've really hung themselves here! And astounding find, Mr. Scratch.

[_Ray A]

Scratch,

This is an important breakthrough. I hope everyone has a chance to read your post here. It seems like the apologists want to have their cake and eat it to. On the one hand, if you read the MI's history of FARMS, you'd think they delight in poverty and their own "mom and pop" production. Then you read this, and they want to make fun of critics for their lack of sophistication. They're probably hooting it up right now tht the EV's can't even afford a high-priced fundraiser like they can. But stop the press, because as soon as Midgley gets a whiff of a potential wealthy donar to the UTLM, he's thrown into the heat of rage and drags matt down to the bookstore to confront Sandra about her moral corruption.

There can be no doubt now though, as you suggest, that the apologists are more guilty of wedding their opperation to Mammon than the critics are. They've really hung themselves here! And astounding find, Mr. Scratch.

So do you, and Scratch, still believe that apologists "should be paid more"? Or even at all?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

I hereby declare Scratch not the anti-Christ, but the anti-Mo'pologist.

Bravo!

[_Gadianton]

Ray, I believe that every man should prosper according to his genius, and conquer according to his strength. If the apologists prove their worth to the church in monetary terms, then who am I to question the invisible hand of a market economy? I think if the church wants quality, and I use the term loosely, it will need to pay.