More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Ray---

Um, can you say spin job??? Where has *anyone* stated that the Mopologists are "only interested in money"? Can you cite that for me? Can you point to a single post, anywhere, any time??? If not, then I seriously think you should offer up an apology.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

No. The Maxwell Institute pays my way, and the Maxwell Institute pays my way out of funds that it raises from royalties and donations.

Why have FARMS writers been so critical and nitpicky about the funding of ventures which are critical of the Church?
I would have to see specific examples in order to comment. I don't believe that I've made an issue of this.

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

My salary covers the editing of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. If anything I've said suggested otherwise, I misspoke.

Honestly, Prof. P.---Why are you so sensitive to the suggestion that the Church might fund apologetics?

I'm not "sensitive." It's simply not true.

Or that people might receive small amounts of money to do it?

Because, overwhelmingly, they don't.

But... Dr. Hamblin stated that the $200 was for apologetics.... So, what was it for?

I have no idea. Ask him.

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?

I've acknowledged that, over the course of twenty-five years or so, I've made a few hundred bucks from royalties on apologetic writing. Never from the Church, though.

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

The secretive, clandestine, mysterious "fundraiser" who operates under the name of "Ed Snow" never solicits funds, in my experience with him, for "apologetics" as such. He solicits funds for the Maxwell Institute in general, or for specific projects. As I've indicated.

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"?

I'm sure that they think in terms of "defense of the Church" more than they think in terms of glue and paper stock. But most of them are successful business people, and they understand that paper and glue and printing cost money. And they probably also know that Maxwell Institute authors have typically been paid nothing at all for actually writing. So they probably understand things pretty accurately.

[_Ray A]

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?

Scratch, as I've said before, I think apologists should be handsomely paid. If I had the money, I'd pay them myself! What do you expect them to so research on? One thing I do know, Scratch, contrary to many assertions made here, is that they do not do it for the money. You'd have to be insane to put in this many hours/days/weeks/years, for the paltry sums they receive. They do it primarily because they believe, not for what they can earn. This is really simple, Scratch. Very simple. And attributing "ulterior motives" for the kind of "financial compensation" they earn, is really a bit rich. The way it's portrayed is as if they've been corrupted by money. I don't believe this.

[_Ray A]

Ray---

Um, can you say spin job??? Where has *anyone* stated that the Mopologists are "only interested in money"? Can you cite that for me? Can you point to a single post, anywhere, any time??? If not, then I seriously think you should offer up an apology.

Then what is your purpose in pursuing this? What are you trying to establish?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

No. The Maxwell Institute pays my way, and the Maxwell Institute pays my way out of funds that it raises from royalties and donations.

Which, of course, are raised via the LDS-approved "fundraiser." What a maze of intrigue.

Why have FARMS writers been so critical and nitpicky about the funding of ventures which are critical of the Church?
I would have to see specific examples in order to comment. I don't believe that I've made an issue of this.

Specific examples have been provided in this thread, such as the Midgley article. Feel free to pretend like you didn't see it.

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

My salary covers the editing of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. If anything I've said suggested otherwise, I misspoke.

You suggested that editing and administration of FARMS Review and other Mopologetic-related activities were covered by your salary. You stated elsewhere that your career as an Islamicist was "harmed" by your apologetic work. Why would BYU keep you on as an "Islamicist" if this were so?

Or that people might receive small amounts of money to do it?

Because, overwhelmingly, they don't.

Which doesn't change the irrefutable fact that they sometimes do.

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?

I've acknowledged that, over the course of twenty-five years or so, I've made a few hundred bucks from royalties on apologetic writing. Never from the Church, though.

Complete and utter bull. I defy you to supply me with one---just one!---instance of you stating that you collected money from apologetics. Please! I can't wait to see this! I will literally eat my hat if you can supply evidence for this.

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

The secretive, clandestine, mysterious "fundraiser" who operates under the name of "Ed Snow" never solicits funds, in my experience with him, for "apologetics" as such. He solicits funds for the Maxwell Institute in general, or for specific projects. As I've indicated.

So... that's a "yes," I suppose?

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"?

I'm sure that they think in terms of "defense of the Church" more than they think in terms of glue and paper stock.

Thank you, Professor P. That's what I thought. That is what "Kathleen"'s communique to me suggested: namely, that you are soliciting wealthy LDS for funds in support of the "war" against Church critics.

But most of them are successful business people, and they understand that paper and glue and printing cost money.

Yes, I'm sure that, on a subconscious level, they know such things. In the here-and-now, though, they believe they are paying for top-drawer apologetics, and not "Metcalfe is Butthead" tomfoolery.

And they probably also know that Maxwell Institute authors have typically been paid nothing at all for actually writing. So they probably understand things pretty accurately.

Well, if they have followed your statements, I'm quite sure they'd believe that Maxwell Institute authors are "paid nothing," even though that isn't strictly true. Just ask Bill Hamblin!

[_Gadianton]

But most of them are successful business people, and they understand that paper and glue and printing cost money

Well of course it does! If you're Mormon. But if you're a critic, it's all free, right?

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

There is no excuse. Airing a nation-wide program is free for critics.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=282

[_Daniel Peterson]

[What a maze of intrigue.

Intrigue???

Specific examples have been provided in this thread, such as the Midgley article. Feel free to pretend like you didn't see it.

I didn't see it.

I'm going to bed now, but, if I get time tomorrow or Monday, I'll look for it.

You suggested that editing and administration of FARMS Review and other Mopologetic-related activities were covered by your salary.

The editing of the FARMS Review is definitely not covered by my salary. I don't know what other "activities" you have in mind.

You stated elsewhere that your career as an Islamicist was "harmed" by your apologetic work. Why would BYU keep you on as an "Islamicist" if this were so?

I didn't say that it had been fatally harmed.

Complete and utter bull. I defy you to supply me with one---just one!---instance of you stating that you collected money from apologetics. Please! I can't wait to see this! I will literally eat my hat if you can supply evidence for this.

No you won't. You're anonymous, and don't need to.

I've said this several times. And perhaps, if I get time tomorrow or Monday, I'll find you an example or two.

Thank you, Professor P. That's what I thought. That is what "Kathleen"'s communique to me suggested: namely, that you are soliciting wealthy LDS for funds in support of the "war" against Church critics.

Of course, I've never said anything of the sort.

And it simply doesn't happen.

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Scratch, as I've said before, I think apologists should be handsomely paid. If I had the money, I'd pay them myself! What do you expect them to so research on?

Gee, I don't know. Islam, perhaps? Or history? Or Egyptology? Or the various disciplines they were hired to research?

One thing I do know, Scratch, contrary to many assertions made here, is that they do not do it for the money.

Again, my dear spin doctor Ray: I defy you to supply *one* single instance of anyone arguing that apologists are "doing it for the money."

You'd have to be insane to put in this many hours/days/weeks/years, for the paltry sums they receive. They do it primarily because they believe, not for what they can earn. This is really simple, Scratch. Very simple. And attributing "ulterior motives" for the kind of "financial compensation" they earn, is really a bit rich. The way it's portrayed is as if they've been corrupted by money. I don't believe this.

Who is "portraying" things this way, Ray? Please supply some actual evidence, mate.

Ray---

Um, can you say spin job??? Where has *anyone* stated that the Mopologists are "only interested in money"? Can you cite that for me? Can you point to a single post, anywhere, any time??? If not, then I seriously think you should offer up an apology.

Then what is your purpose in pursuing this? What are you trying to establish?

I'd be glad to answer your question, as soon as you or DCP or anyone else can explain why apologist and apologetics have been receiving money despite the adamant denial of all manner of apologists.

[_Mercury]

Ray---

Um, can you say spin job??? Where has *anyone* stated that the Mopologists are "only interested in money"? Can you cite that for me? Can you point to a single post, anywhere, any time??? If not, then I seriously think you should offer up an apology.

Then what is your purpose in pursuing this? What are you trying to establish?

Oh great. Here comes ray riding in on his big white horse to queer up the board for a while.

[_Ray A]

Oh great. Here comes ray riding in on his big white horse to queer up the board for a while.

Go back to trying to grow a brain, twerp. You're an inane Ass, always were, always will be, with pure crap for brains.