More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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!

Back up a second and get your facts straight, Ray. Just what, exactly, was Bill Hamblin paid for doing? Can you answer that?

[_Jersey Girl]

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

Not you again, Daniel. Would you please confess to whatever it is that you've done this go round. You're 79 posts away from achieving godhood on this board and I got a banana with your name on it ready to peel. Don't ask what Liz has, you don't want to know!

You bore me, Daniel.

[_Gadianton]

Ok, ray. So as not to derail the thread, I was kidding. I don't know or care if taxes are constitutional or not. I only pay because I can't get away with not paying.

But, when I was a teenager and mowed lawns a couple times for neighbors, I could, I did not report the income or pay taxes on it. Let me be clear, If I can drum up consulting work and get paid under the table, I will not report it! Ha Ha Ha.

[_Ray A]

Back up a second and get your facts straight, Ray. Just what, exactly, was Bill Hamblin paid for doing? Can you answer that?

He was paid for writing apologetics. I was paid for my Quadrant articles. The handsome sum of some $300, to exaggerate. It made all the difference to my enormous debts, a dent here, and a dent there. I was obviously an anti-Mormon in search of "filthy lucre".

[_Mister Scratch]

Back up a second and get your facts straight, Ray. Just what, exactly, was Bill Hamblin paid for doing? Can you answer that?

He was paid for writing apologetics. I was paid for my Quadrant articles. The handsome sum of some $300, to exaggerate. It made all the difference to my enormous debts, a dent here, and a dent there. I was obviously an anti-Mormon in search of "filthy lucre".

But... DCP is denying that it was payment for anything in FARMS Review. So... what was it for, then? Especially if it was supposedly spread out over a 20-year period? Something is fishy here, I think you'd have to admit. C'mon, Ray: you are an honest guy, as far as that goes. Surely you of all people would have to see that something is amiss here. Why are the Mopologists so squirrelly about payments?

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Yes. When I travel with our secret, mysterious, clandestine "fundraiser" Ed Snow to speak at clandestine, mysterious, secret, public firesides and things of that sort, my travel expenses are typically covered.

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.

Apologetics would be impossible, in its various forms, without the production of computers, ink, paper, electric power, and etc. But Apple Computers is not an apologetic enterprise. Nor is Utah Power. Nor is paper production. Nor is ink production.

And, you have admitted elsewhere that part of your BYU salary is meant to cover the editing of apologetic texts.

I have?

It's not.

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"?

It's very strange indeed that you should take it in that way.

I presume that he received fifty or a hundred bucks each for a couple of articles or so, but received nothing for most of what he wrote. I know that he was paid nothing at all for his FARMS Review artilcles. (As I've pointed out several times previously.)

What was the "wad of bills" paid out for, exactly, if not for apologetics, as you suggest?

I've already offered my thoughts on that subject, on this very board. About two weeks ago. I went through his FARMS articles, as listed on the Maxwell Institute web site, and suggested what he might have been paid for -- though, as I said, I could not come up with fully $200.

With your dedication and your sleuthing instincts, you'll easily be able to find my discussion of the topic.

Thank you very much for supplying me with a straightforward answer---at last!

At every point in every Scratchoscopy, including this one, I've always answered you accurately and straightforwardly. You simply don't always get the answer you want.

To follow up: Have you ever asked for funds specifically meant to support apologetics?

I've already answered this question:

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.

Feel free to read and re-read this answer as many times as you need to.

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?

The mysterious, clandestine, secretive "fundraiser" Ed Snow generally asks for "undirected" funds. Sometimes, though, he has asked for funds to support specific projects like Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, which is not apologetic in character, and the two Journey of Faith films, which, one might argue, are partially apologetic in character.

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?

When the secretive, mysterious, clandestine "fundraiser" who goes by the name of "Ed Snow" invites people to donate to the Maxwell Institute, there is an explicit understanding that funds going to the general program of the Maxwell Institute will support the general program of the Maxwell Institute, which includes FARMS, which, in turn, includes some undertakings that, in their turn, include some apologetic aspects. Editing and printing and travel and binding aren't free.

[_Ray A]

Ok, ray. So as not to derail the thread, I was kidding. I don't know or care if taxes are constitutional or not. I only pay because I can't get away with not paying.

But, when I was a teenager and mowed lawns a couple times for neighbors, I could, I did not report the income or pay taxes on it. Let me be clear, If I can drum up consulting work and get paid under the table, I will not report it! Ha Ha Ha.

Gad, I "ha ha" along with you. But what's so "ha ha" about condemning vile Mopologists like Bill Hamblin for earning the life-saving sum of - $200. If Bill has a cat, this sum would keep it alive for about a month. But I'm inclined to agree with you. These stinking Mopologists are only interested in money. They are totally corrupt. They should not earn anything! Let's see how long they last without fundraisers, BMWs, and long limos. I feel quite certain that once any financial income is nullified - they'd give it all away. Their abject financial greed is how I came to know the truth. NOBODY invested in this, even for $200 over 20-30 years, can possibly be truthful. They have been corrupted by money. I'm inclined to agree with Scratch on this, and I think he should keep exposing it. I, for one, am riveted. To think that Bill Hamblin made $200 for his apologetic endeavours - makes me sick to the stomach.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

Yes. When I travel with our secret, mysterious, clandestine "fundraiser" Ed Snow to speak at clandestine, mysterious, secret, public firesides and things of that sort, my travel expenses are typically covered.

Well then, if, as you admit below, the purpose of these travels (even if only in part!) is to collect funds for apologetics, then, in fact, "the Church" is paying for it.

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.

Apologetics would be impossible, in its various forms, without the production of computers, ink, paper, electric power, and etc. But Apple Computers is not an apologetic enterprise. Nor is Utah Power. Nor is paper production. Nor is ink production.

You are splitting hairs. Let me ask you this: Why have FARMS writers been so critical and nitpicky about the funding of ventures which are critical of the Church?

And, you have admitted elsewhere that part of your BYU salary is meant to cover the editing of apologetic texts.

I have?

It's not.

You mentioned that your salary covers certain "administrative" and "editing" tasks which pertain to apologetics. Do you deny this?

Honestly, Prof. P.---Why are you so sensitive to the suggestion that the Church might fund apologetics? Or that people might receive small amounts of money to do it?

Now this is very strange. Why would Dr. Hamblin get $200 out of the blue for a whole "body of work"?

It's very strange indeed that you should take it in that way.

I presume that he received fifty or a hundred bucks each for a couple of articles or so, but received nothing for most of what he wrote. I know that he was paid nothing at all for his FARMS Review artilcles. (As I've pointed out several times previously.)

But... Dr. Hamblin stated that the $200 was for apologetics.... So, what was it for? Why be so cagey? Again: Why are you guys so anxious to avoid the obvious fact, which is that you have sometimes been paid for your apologetics?

What was the "wad of bills" paid out for, exactly, if not for apologetics, as you suggest?

I've already offered my thoughts on that subject, on this very board. About two weeks ago. I went through his FARMS articles, as listed on the Maxwell Institute web site, and suggested what he might have been paid for -- though, as I said, I could not come up with fully $200.

With your dedication and your sleuthing instincts, you'll easily be able to find my discussion of the topic.

Ah, gee. You see: as you so often assert, I can sometimes "spin" or "misconstrue" things. That's a problem in your eyes, no? So, in order to avoid that happening, I strongly advise that you report the information yourself.

To follow up: Have you ever asked for funds specifically meant to support apologetics?

I've already answered this question:

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.

Feel free to read and re-read this answer as many times as you need to.

That's not a real answer and you know it. If, in a worthiness interview, you ask, "Do you associate with apostate groups?", and the person replies, "I prefer not to view people in terms of 'members' and 'apostates'", would you find that an acceptable answer?

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?

The mysterious, clandestine, secretive "fundraiser" Ed Snow generally asks for "undirected" funds. Sometimes, though, he has asked for funds to support specific projects like Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, which is not apologetic in character, and the two Journey of Faith films, which, one might argue, are partially apologetic in character.

So.... Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

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?

When the secretive, mysterious, clandestine "fundraiser" who goes by the name of "Ed Snow" invites people to donate to the Maxwell Institute, there is an explicit understanding that funds going to the general program of the Maxwell Institute will support the general program of the Maxwell Institute, which includes FARMS, which, in turn, includes some undertakings that, in their turn, include some apologetic aspects. Editing and printing and travel and binding aren't free.

In your view, do the donors think that their funds will be directed principally towards "editing and printing and travel and binding"? Or do they think the funds will go more generally towards "defense of the Church"?

[_Gadianton]

Ray,

Please consider, that I've been very clear that I personally have no problem with apologists being paid at market value for their work. Can you quote me anywhere where I've called them dispicable for getting paid? It is rather, the apologists themselves that have huge issues with their funding. And their funding is very, very deep my friend.

Consider, that the apologists, notably Lou Midgley, have made accusations against "anti-Mormons" for the fact that they get funded. You know, they need paper, ink, and the usual things as well. But for them, it's all about the money. Right? because they can't afford a big dollar fundraiser, they ask for donations in their materials. And this makes them cons and cheats in the eyes of the apologists. Why? I don't know. But it is the apologists' own standards that condemn them. My standards would make their lives easier. So after making a big to-do about "anti-Mormons" and their begging for cash, and the "anti-Mormon" protests that he gets paid very little in comparison to the apologist, the goal posts are moved and you get a retort like the one featured in my sig line.

It's not I, or Scratch who condemn the apologists, it's the apologists who do by their own bizarre standards.

[_Jersey Girl]

Ah, gee. You see: as you so often assert, I can sometimes "spin" or "misconstrue" things. That's a problem in your eyes, no? So, in order to avoid that happening, I strongly advise that you report the information yourself.

Do you really think such a statement lends any sort of credibility to your writing, Scratch?