More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_cksalmon]

What a profoundly weird place this is -- a hothouse for groundless paranoid speculation.

This is my one-liner.

[_Mister Scratch]

What a profoundly weird place this is -- a hothouse for groundless paranoid speculation.

Since you are back on this thread, I have a few question. You have said that the "fundraiser" approaches three types of potential donors:

(1) Large groups of people, such as those who attend firesides.
(2) Smaller groups of people
(3) Wealthy individuals

You stressed that, at all times, this "fundraiser" makes it clear that s/he represents the Maxwell Institute and, more generally, LDS apologetics. What I am wondering is: What sort of adjustments, pitch-wise, do you or the fundraiser make depending on the donor? At least one person on this thread has speculated that the "fundraiser" makes "veiled threats", perhaps along the lines of, "If you don't give us money, the Adversary will win. Do you want that to happen?" Would you say any of this is accurate? And, if not, how do these meetings tend to play out, in your experience?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You stressed that, at all times, this "fundraiser" makes it clear that s/he represents the Maxwell Institute and, more generally, LDS apologetics.

I've said nothing about our clandestine, mysterious "fundraiser" representing LDS apologetics generally. He doesn't. He represents the Maxwell Institute, and, if donors show no interest in that direction, he represents BYU and LDS Philanthropies as a whole.

What I am wondering is: What sort of adjustments, pitch-wise, do you or the fundraiser make depending on the donor?

He does pretty much what common sense would dictate. He tries to find approaches that would catch their interest. Harmony knows how this works.

At least one person on this thread has speculated that the "fundraiser" makes "veiled threats", perhaps along the lines of, "If you don't give us money, the Adversary will win. Do you want that to happen?" Would you say any of this is accurate?

No. I've never heard him say anything even remotely like that.

And, if not, how do these meetings tend to play out, in your experience?

The ones I've been involved with have always been pleasant. Only a minority of them actually translate into donations, though. And most sizeable donations require considerable cultivation.

Harmony apparently does this for a living. I would imagine that her experience is much the same.

[_Mister Scratch]

You stressed that, at all times, this "fundraiser" makes it clear that s/he represents the Maxwell Institute and, more generally, LDS apologetics.

I've said nothing about our clandestine, mysterious "fundraiser" representing LDS apologetics generally. He doesn't. He represents the Maxwell Institute, and, if donors show no interest in that direction, he represents BYU and LDS Philanthropies as a whole.

Thank you for your candor, Prof. P. I appreciate it.

You say that the "fundraiser" represents "the Maxwell Institute." If this is so, wouldn't it be fair to say that, in a "general" sense, this "fundraiser" is drumming up funds for apologetics? I certainly think so. Besides, you've not stated that the "fundraiser" shifts his representational strategy based on what he thinks will be most effective with potential donors. If the donor is uninterested in Mopologetics, then POOF! the "fundraiser" is suddenly representing "The Maxwell Institute." If the donor is uninterested in "The Maxwell Institute," then POOF! the "fundraiser" represents LDS Philanthropies. What a clever way to get funds for apologetics!

quot;]What I am wondering is: What sort of adjustments, pitch-wise, do you or the fundraiser make depending on the donor?

He does pretty much what common sense would dictate. He tries to find approaches that would catch their interest. Harmony knows how this works.[/quote]

Such as what? I'm particularly interested in those instances where the donor is openly willing to support apologetics.

At least one person on this thread has speculated that the "fundraiser" makes "veiled threats", perhaps along the lines of, "If you don't give us money, the Adversary will win. Do you want that to happen?" Would you say any of this is accurate?

No. I've never heard him say anything even remotely like that.

Well, what *does* he say?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You say that the "fundraiser" represents "the Maxwell Institute." If this is so, wouldn't it be fair to say that, in a "general" sense, this "fundraiser" is drumming up funds for apologetics?

Our mysterious, shadowy, clandestine "fundraiser" Edward Snow raises funds for the Maxwell Institute and its undertakings.

Besides, you've not stated that the "fundraiser" shifts his representational strategy based on what he thinks will be most effective with potential donors.

Au contraire, I've said precisely that.

If the donor is uninterested in Mopologetics, then POOF! the "fundraiser" is suddenly representing "The Maxwell Institute."

Edward Snow, our shadowy, clandestine, mysterious "fundraiser," approaches people as a representative of the Maxwell Institute. That is his primary assignment. He never approaches them as a representative of Mormon apologetics nor of "Mopologetics."

If the donor is uninterested in "The Maxwell Institute," then POOF! the "fundraiser" represents LDS Philanthropies. What a clever way to get funds for apologetics!

That's the approach followed by all of the fundraisers, as I understand it. If the representative of Physical and Mathematical Sciences finds that his contact has no interest in giving to that college but is passionately interested in engineering, the fundraiser is instructed to pursue that. If the fundraiser for Humanities finds that her contact has no interest in funding anything in that college but really wants to give to Humanitarian Relief, she is directed to facilitate such a donation.

Well, what *does* he say?

Every case is individual. If you want to hear what the fundraisers do and how they act, call up and express an interest in giving to LDS Philanthropies.

[_Mister Scratch]

You say that the "fundraiser" represents "the Maxwell Institute." If this is so, wouldn't it be fair to say that, in a "general" sense, this "fundraiser" is drumming up funds for apologetics?

Our mysterious, shadowy, clandestine "fundraiser" Edward Snow raises funds for the Maxwell Institute and its undertakings.

Ah! A name! At last. Unfortunately, you've also stated that you sometimes accompany a "she."

Besides, you've not stated that the "fundraiser" shifts his representational strategy based on what he thinks will be most effective with potential donors.

Au contraire, I've said precisely that.

You're right---I'm terribly sorry! That was a typo. Please forgive my mistake.

If the donor is uninterested in Mopologetics, then POOF! the "fundraiser" is suddenly representing "The Maxwell Institute."

Edward Snow, our shadowy, clandestine, mysterious "fundraiser," approaches people as a representative of the Maxwell Institute. That is his primary assignment. He never approaches them as a representative of Mormon apologetics nor of "Mopologetics."

Still, some of the money *does* wind up getting funneled into apologetics, right?

Well, what *does* he say?

Every case is individual. If you want to hear what the fundraisers do and how they act, call up and express an interest in giving to LDS Philanthropies.

Elsewhere you seemed to suggest that you are asked to come along with the "fundraiser" (a.k.a. Bro. Snow). If you don't mind me asking, what is your role in all of this? Particularly when it comes to meeting with individuals (rather than large gatherings)?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ah! A name! At last. Unfortunately, you've also stated that you sometimes accompany a "she."

Oh come on. At least two weeks ago I supplied a link where Ed Snow's name, brief bio, and photograph appear on the Maxwell Institute web site. Which is one of the reasons I've found your perpetual depiction of him as "shadowy," "mysterious," and "clandestine" so very funny. Here it is again:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/isparts ... n&whois=14

Some of the fundraisers at BYU and LDS Philanthropies are females. On a few occasions, I've spoken when one of them was running the event.

Still, some of the money *does* wind up getting funneled into apologetics, right?

As I've always said, without fail, our publications have to be edited, printed, and bound, and that costs money. And some of our publications are at least partially apologetic.

I've always said this. Always. And it should be transparently obvious, in any event.

Elsewhere you seemed to suggest that you are asked to come along with the "fundraiser" (a.k.a. Bro. Snow). If you don't mind me asking, what is your role in all of this? Particularly when it comes to meeting with individuals (rather than large gatherings)?

I've sometimes been asked. I've spoken at several firesides where people have been invited to donate money, and I've spoken at several smaller "cottage meetings." In such gatherings, my role is to . . . speak. On a few occasions, I've accompanied a fundraiser to meet with individuals. On such occasions, my role is to talk about Maxwell Institute projects that could use some support.

[_Mister Scratch]

Still, some of the money *does* wind up getting funneled into apologetics, right?

As I've always said, without fail, our publications have to be edited, printed, and bound, and that costs money. And some of our publications are at least partially apologetic.

I've always said this. Always. And it should be transparently obvious, in any event.

But it hasn't always been obvious. How can you not know that? Myself and many other people have long, LONG been under the impression that apologetics is purely a volunteer effort, and that no one is ever compensated for their FARMS articles, and no gets paid to edit or oversee the Review, and, perhaps most importantly, that the Church plays no role whatsoever in the funding of Mopologetics. But, as you've helpfully explained in this thread, the Church, in a very real and significant sense, *does* help obtain funding for LDS apologetics. I know you think this is no big deal, and that it's something to just laugh at and shrug off, but to me this is a significant revelation. I mean, did you see my post above, where I examined Prof. Midley's lambasting of anti-LDS ministries for the (relatively) paltry moneys they use to sustain themselves?

Elsewhere you seemed to suggest that you are asked to come along with the "fundraiser" (a.k.a. Bro. Snow). If you don't mind me asking, what is your role in all of this? Particularly when it comes to meeting with individuals (rather than large gatherings)?

I've sometimes been asked. I've spoken at several firesides where people have been invited to donate money, and I've spoken at several smaller "cottage meetings." In such gatherings, my role is to . . . speak. On a few occasions, I've accompanied a fundraiser to meet with individuals. On such occasions, my role is to talk about Maxwell Institute projects that could use some support.

Do you ever mention FARMS Review, or anything else which could, in any way, shape, or form, be construed as "apologetic"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Myself and many other people have long, LONG been under the impression that apologetics is purely a volunteer effort, and that no one is ever compensated for their FARMS articles, and no gets paid to edit or oversee the Review, and, perhaps most importantly, that the Church plays no role whatsoever in the funding of Mopologetics.

You imagined that editors and printers and binders and paper manufacturers don't have to eat?

But, yes, writers for the Review get a free copy of the book they're reviewing and free copy of the Review itself when it appears.

Shocking.

Do you ever mention FARMS Review, or anything else which could, in any way, shape, or form, be construed as "apologetic"?

Sometimes. It takes paper and printing and binding. We sometimes have to buy the books that we review.

What a stunner.

[_Mister Scratch]

Myself and many other people have long, LONG been under the impression that apologetics is purely a volunteer effort, and that no one is ever compensated for their FARMS articles, and no gets paid to edit or oversee the Review, and, perhaps most importantly, that the Church plays no role whatsoever in the funding of Mopologetics.

You imagined that editors and printers and binders and paper manufacturers don't have to eat?

No... In fact, I thought your denials about getting paid and your denials that the Church helps to finance apologetics were very strange. I thought it odd and (possibly) hypocritical that Prof. Midgley and other apologists would so often utilize funding as a battering ram with which to attack LDS critics. It turns out, in fact, that Mopologetics has a much, much larger cash reserve and set of resources than the typical anti-Mormon ministry. Thus, it seems kind of odd for Mopologists to launch attacks on this basis.

But, yes, writers for the Review get a free copy of the book they're reviewing and free copy of the Review itself when it appears.

Shocking.

And they sometimes receive honorariums of $200.00. (Thank you for that one, B. Hamblin!)

Even now, Prof. P. you are clearly very uncomfortable at having to admit that, yes, in fact apologists get paid. Yes, in fact, the LDS Church helps to pay for apologetics. Perhaps FARMS Review should publish an apology to all the ministries it has attacked over the years on this subject?

Do you ever mention FARMS Review, or anything else which could, in any way, shape, or form, be construed as "apologetic"?

Sometimes. It takes paper and printing and binding. We sometimes have to buy the books that we review.

What a stunner.

C'mon. That's not what I was asking, and I doubt very much that you say, "We'd like you to donate to the Maxwell Institute because we need to pay for paper and printing and binding." Are you going to actually answer my question honestly, or are you just going to dodge again? Or, am I to assume, on account of your sophistry, that you *do* solicit funds specifically earmarked for apologetics, all while in the company of the Church-appointed fundraiser?