More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Daniel Peterson]

In fact, I thought your denials about getting paid your denials that the Church helps to finance apologetics were very strange.

I've always clearly stated that the Church pays nobody to do apologetics.

Mopologetics has a much, much larger cash reserve and set of resources than the typical anti-Mormon ministry.

The Maxwell Institute is not "Mopologetics," "Mopologetics" is not the Maxwell Institute, and "Mopologetics," as such, has no bank account or cash reserve.

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!)

Nobody has ever received $200, nor even $1, for writing for the Review, and Professor Hamblin never said anything to the contrary.

[_Mister Scratch]

In fact, I thought your denials about getting paid your denials that the Church helps to finance apologetics were very strange.

I've always clearly stated that the Church pays nobody to do apologetics.

Which, it turns out, is a bit of an equivocation.

Mopologetics has a much, much larger cash reserve and set of resources than the typical anti-Mormon ministry.

The Maxwell Institute is not "Mopologetics," "Mopologetics" is not the Maxwell Institute, and "Mopologetics," as such, has no bank account or cash reserve.

The Maxwell Institute houses and supports (and finances!) Mopologetics.

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!)

Nobody has ever received $200, nor even $1, for writing for the Review, and Professor Hamblin never said anything to the contrary.

Bill Hamblin stated that he received $200 for his FARMS articles. Quite a "wad of bills"! ; )

Anyways, I noticed that you avoided answering my question. Here it is again:

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

And my follow-up:

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?

So: Do you ever ask donors for funds which are specific to apologetics? Y/N?

[_antishock8]

Mr. Peterson wants to have it both ways:

The Church doesn't pay for apologetics, but fundraises for apologetics, employs apologists vis a vis BYU, houses an apologetic institute, and pays for an online repository of vast apologia. But it doesn't pay for apologetics.

I'm having a 1984 moment, once again, as I watch this liar spin his way into implication. It's... Well... It's really fascinating.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Which, it turns out, is a bit of an equivocation.

No it's not. The Church pays nobody to write apologetics or to give apologetic lectures.

I don't consider editing, printing, or binding apologetics. I've been very clear on this. I've expressly said it. Many times. Many many times.

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!)

Nobody has ever received $200, nor even $1, for writing for the Review, and Professor Hamblin never said anything to the contrary.

Bill Hamblin stated that he received $200 for his FARMS articles. Quite a "wad of bills"! ; )

Over the course of a number of years. (Not such an impressive "wad of bills" if spread over a decade or two. Would you consider eighty cents a month a "wad of bills"?) And never for an article for the FARMS Review. And quite possibly not even for an apologetic article. Not everything that FARMS publishes is apologetic. And never paid by the Church.

Anyways, I noticed that you avoided answering my question. Here it is again:

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

And here, once again, is my answer:

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

What a stunner.

Feel free to read that again if you need to.

And my follow-up:

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?

Since the Review doesn't pay its writers, and since its editing and printing and binding costs are by far its principal expenses, if and when we ask for specific support for the Review, we will probably just ask for support for the Review without specifying paper stock and glue.

I don't recall ever asking (or receiving) support specifically for the Review, though I would like to see this happen.

So: Do you ever ask donors for funds which are specific to apologetics? Y/N?

We prefer to ask for general funds. Sometimes we raise money for specific projects, like the two Journey of Faith films. (Oddly, the airlines didn't fly our camera crews to Yemen, Oman, Guatemala, Israel, Jordan, etc., for free, and the cameras and guides and food and lodging cost money.) If you want to label those ventures apologetic, I suppose you can. We've also raised money for Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, which is not apologetic in nature.

[_Ray A]

According to reports Bill Hamblin earns: $200 from Mopologetics, over 30-plus years.

According to other reports Bill (no pun intended) Gates earns: $83 a minute.

Hamblin, you are scum!

[_Gadianton]

Ray,

The problem you and others have with this is simple:

In the last 20 years, I've made 50$ mowing lawns. I'll let you figure the rest out. Damn, I'm a saint.

[_Ray A]

Ray,

The problem you and others have with this is simple:

In the last 20 years, I've made 50$ mowing lawns. I'll let you figure the rest out. Damn, I'm a saint.

Did you declare this to the taxation office?

[_Gadianton]

Nope. Taxes are unconstitutional.

[_Mister Scratch]

Which, it turns out, is a bit of an equivocation.

No it's not. The Church pays nobody to write apologetics or to give apologetic lectures.

Are your expenses covered when you travel with the "fundraiser"?

I don't consider editing, printing, or binding apologetics. I've been very clear on this. I've expressly said it. Many times. Many many times.

Oh! Of course, of course. I understand. I never in any way meant to suggest that you consider those things to be "apologetics." On the other hand, I have to wonder how apologetics is possible without those things. And, you have admitted elsewhere that part of your BYU salary is meant to cover the editing of apologetic texts.

Bill Hamblin stated that he received $200 for his FARMS articles. Quite a "wad of bills"! ; )

Over the course of a number of years. (Not such an impressive "wad of bills" if spread over a decade or two. Would you consider eighty cents a month a "wad of bills"?) And never for an article for the FARMS Review. And quite possibly not even for an apologetic article. Not everything that FARMS publishes is apologetic. And never paid by the Church.

Now this is very strange. Why would Dr. Hamblin get $200 out of the blue for a whole "body of work"? Did you guys just have some funds left over or something? What was the "wad of bills" paid out for, exactly, if not for apologetics, as you suggest?

I don't recall ever asking (or receiving) support specifically for the Review, though I would like to see this happen.

Thank you very much for supplying me with a straightforward answer---at last! This was really all I was asking. To follow up: Have you ever asked for funds specifically meant to support apologetics?

So: Do you ever ask donors for funds which are specific to apologetics? Y/N?

We prefer to ask for general funds.

That doesn't really answer my question.... To your knowledge, have you and the "fundraiser" ever sought to acquire money meant to help fund apologetics? Yes or no?

Going back to my OP (yes, I know, a whopping 16 pages ago....), the informant known as "Kathleen" stated that the "fundraiser" asked somebody to donate funds specifically earmarked for FARMS, with the implicit understanding that these funds would go towards apologetics. Would you say that is a true statement?

[_Ray A]

Nope. Taxes are unconstitutional.

I refer you to this review of the 16th Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... _arguments

Some protesters have argued that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed", the Amendment is ineffective to change the law. Others argue that due to language in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., the income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that should be apportioned (divided equally amongst the population of the various states). Several tax protesters assert that the Congress has no constitutional power to tax labor or income from labor,[3] citing a variety of court cases. These arguments include claims that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages; that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them; that taxing wages violates individuals' right to property,[4] and several others. Another argument raised is that because the federal income tax is progressive, the discriminations and inequalities created by the tax should render the tax unconstitutional. These kinds of arguments have been ruled without merit.

You seem to be arguing from extreme positions here, Gad. Would your not declaring of taxable income, on "constitutional grounds", not resort to some kind of fraud through trying to use "legal (Constitutional interpretation) loopholes"?

I'll tell you how it works here in Oz. If you mow lawns, all of your income is taxable. So, according to US, and Australian laws, a tax defrauder is a cheat.