More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Trevor]

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

A fine credit to his faith, this Ray A.

[_beastie]

This thread, along with the MAD thread, should be archived under "massive strawman".

Critics are not saying apologists should not be paid. Critics are not saying apologists are getting rich. Critics are not saying apologists are in it for the money alone, motivated by greed.

Critics are saying that apologists are sometimes paid for their work. Critics are saying that other people are paid to enable the apologia to be printed and distributed. Critics are saying the church enables fund-raising to take place to fund the production of apologia.

in my opinion, the reason apologists and their defenders have created the massive strawman they have is to divert attention from the fact that apologists have criticized anti-mormons for asking for donations to produce their material, and have criticized anti-mormons for making money from their work. It is hypocritical and deceptive for apologists to criticize anti-mormons for these things. That is the real problem. The problem is not that any of them have been (poorly) paid for their work over the year, or that they - in different ways - ask for donations to support their endeavors.

This has been clearly stated several times. I conclude that those who still and yet repeat the strawman argument (like ray has just done) are doing so because they know they've lost the real argument.

[_Trevor]

Critics are saying that apologists are sometimes paid for their work. Critics are saying that other people are paid to enable the apologia to be printed and distributed. Critics are saying the church enables fund-raising to take place to fund the production of apologia.

The Church offers material support, directly and indirectly, for the conduct of its own defense. It does so in accordance with revelation to Joseph Smith.

in my opinion, the reason apologists and their defenders have created the massive strawman they have is to divert attention from the fact that apologists have criticized anti-mormons for asking for donations to produce their material, and have criticized anti-mormons for making money from their work. It is hypocritical and deceptive for apologists to criticize anti-mormons for these things. That is the real problem. The problem is not that any of them have been (poorly) paid for their work over the year, or that they - in different ways - ask for donations to support their endeavors.

This has been clearly stated several times. I conclude that those who still and yet repeat the strawman argument (like ray has just done) are doing so because they know they've lost the real argument.

There is probably a good deal of truth to this. It reminds me of LDS folk criticizing the poor-as-a-church-mouse pastor as a "hireling of Satan," while the seminary teachers, religion professors, and GAs are never to be questioned for their living on the "Lord's errand." We are to imagine the unprincipled, Satanic enemies of Mormonism making ill-gotten gains attacking the Lord's one true church, while its stalwart defenders are simply righteous, altruistic volunteers to the cause, fulfilling their temple covenants.

All of this is a fine myth, if you are LDS, but many Christian critics of the LDS Church probably see themselves in the tradition of New Testament criticism of false prophets and false christs. As vulnerable as their position is, they don't see it, just as LDS apologists have a hard time seeing how many holes are in their position. Both sides are a strange mirror image of each other.

[_Ray A]

This thread, along with the MAD thread, should be archived under "massive strawman".

Critics are not saying apologists should not be paid. Critics are not saying apologists are getting rich. Critics are not saying apologists are in it for the money alone, motivated by greed.

Critics are saying that apologists are sometimes paid for their work. Critics are saying that other people are paid to enable the apologia to be printed and distributed. Critics are saying the church enables fund-raising to take place to fund the production of apologia.

in my opinion, the reason apologists and their defenders have created the massive strawman they have is to divert attention from the fact that apologists have criticized anti-mormons for asking for donations to produce their material, and have criticized anti-mormons for making money from their work. It is hypocritical and deceptive for apologists to criticize anti-mormons for these things. That is the real problem. The problem is not that any of them have been (poorly) paid for their work over the year, or that they - in different ways - ask for donations to support their endeavors.

This has been clearly stated several times. I conclude that those who still and yet repeat the strawman argument (like ray has just done) are doing so because they know they've lost the real argument.

Fully understood, always understood, but the whole subject is beating a dead horse. FYI, as one of the first FARMS volunteers, in the world, when there were only a handful, and before Dr. Peterson began writing his editorials in 1989, I watched FARMS grow into what it is today. Anyone with a smidgen of sense will know that, of course they received some minimal token payments for work. Does that count as being "paid apologists"? I received about $300 for each of my Quadrant articles, so am I a paid writer? If Dr. Peterson, or Dr. Hamblin, wrote articles for Quadrant defending Mormonism, are they paid apologists for that? If they do it for FARMS, are they paid apologists? The role of payments has been explained, quite clearly, many times. If a professor of Geology happens to be a staunch Catholic apologist, and writes apologetic articles for a Catholic journal, receives token payments, is he a paid apologist?

I also understand the charge that anti-Mormons get paid, "we don't". Anyone doubt the Tanners were paid apologists for their cause? Jerald resigned as a machinist in the mid-1960s and set up the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, and for the next 40 years survived from the proceedings of this. They always insisted that they never earned much, but lived quite comfortably from it. No one see a difference? From the "about us" on their website:

Utah Lighthouse™ Ministry is a Christian non-profit organization providing humanitarian outreach to the Community, and printing critical research and documentation on the LDS Church.

(My emphasis)

No one here cares to take up the Tanners, and I wonder why?

[_Mister Scratch]

Fully understood, always understood, but the whole subject is beating a dead horse. FYI, as one of the first FARMS volunteers, in the world, when there were only a handful, and before Dr. Peterson began writing his editorials in 1989, I watched FARMS grow into what it is today. Anyone with a smidgen of sense will know that, of course they received some minimal token payments for work. Does that count as being "paid apologists"? I received about $300 for each of my Quadrant articles, so am I a paid writer? If Dr. Peterson, or Dr. Hamblin, wrote articles for Quadrant defending Mormonism, are they paid apologists for that? If they do it for FARMS, are they paid apologists? The role of payments has been explained, quite clearly, many times. If a professor of Geology happens to be a staunch Catholic apologist, and writes apologetic articles for a Catholic journal, receives token payments, is he a paid apologist?

Part of the problem is that DCP repeatedly lied about receiving payment. In one quote, he states that he has never received a "single dime" for apologetics. Well, this just isn't true.

I also understand the charge that anti-Mormons get paid, "we don't". Anyone doubt the Tanners were paid apologists for their cause? Jerald resigned as a machinist in the mid-1960s and set up the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, and for the next 40 years survived from the proceedings of this. They always insisted that they never earned much, but lived quite comfortably from it. No one see a difference? From the "about us" on their website:

Utah Lighthouse™ Ministry is a Christian non-profit organization providing humanitarian outreach to the Community, and printing critical research and documentation on the LDS Church.

(My emphasis)

No one here cares to take up the Tanners, and I wonder why?

Well, Ray, can you find a quote where the Tanners are attacking LDS apologists on the grounds that they are in it to make a profit?

[_Ray A]

Part of the problem is that DCP repeatedly lied about receiving payment. In one quote, he states that he has never received a "single dime" for apologetics. Well, this just isn't true.

A single dime as an employed apologist, which he isn't. That's the way I understand it. Surely no one will deny that writers receive something for their efforts, "compensation" for time involved if nothing else, and the sort of pittance that comes from this is barely worth chicken feed.

Well, Ray, can you find a quote where the Tanners are attacking LDS apologists on the grounds that they are in it to make a profit?

No, I can't offhand, probably because even the Tanners realised that comparing themselves to FARMS simply wasn't worth it. Putting big dollars into poverty relief would also give them generous tax deductions to continue their "non-profit" status. Why would the kettle attack a pot?

[_Mister Scratch]

No, I can't offhand, probably because even the Tanners realised that comparing themselves to FARMS simply wasn't worth it. Putting big dollars into poverty relief would also give them generous tax deductions to continue their "non-profit" status. Why would the kettle attack a pot?

Well, you're right about that. *NO* ministry could even begin to compare itself with the financing and fundraising power of the LDS Church. Thus, it sure is strange that apologists such as Lou Midgley would try to score points by attacking the finances of various anti-Mormon ministries.

[_Ray A]

Well, you're right about that. *NO* ministry could even begin to compare itself with the financing and fundraising power of the LDS Church. Thus, it sure is strange that apologists such as Lou Midgley would try to score points by attacking the finances of various anti-Mormon ministries.

Of course. The Tanners were in a sense underdogs, and I don't begrudge them, nor any struggling individual who wants to live off the proceedings of professional anti-Mormonism. Opposition in all things. This could be a David and Goliath comparison, but the fact is that apologists still have to earn an income outside of apologetics. If they relied on the pittance from apologetics they'd quickly come to financial ruin. So let's not confuse the "corporation" here with individuals who earned degrees in respective fields, and are employed in those fields, and whose apologetics can be even described as a hobby. There was even the suggestion that Dr. Peterson is paid to post on MADB. That's a good indication of the paranoia.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, you're right about that. *NO* ministry could even begin to compare itself with the financing and fundraising power of the LDS Church. Thus, it sure is strange that apologists such as Lou Midgley would try to score points by attacking the finances of various anti-Mormon ministries.

Of course. The Tanners were in a sense underdogs, and I don't begrudge them, nor any struggling individual who wants to live off the proceedings of professional anti-Mormonism. Opposition in all things. This could be a David and Goliath comparison, but the fact is that apologists still have to earn an income outside of apologetics. If they relied on the pittance from apologetics they'd quickly come to financial ruin.

It's impossible to say that for certain, though. The Church essentially gets to have its cake and eat it to. Professors are installed in various different disciplines, and get to say publicly that they are "Professors of History," or whatever else, and yet the bulk of their working time seems to be given over to apologetics. The point is that, via some very sneaky maneuvering, the LDS Chuch does indeed operated and finance a paid arm of professional apologetics. You can add whatever qualifiers to it that you want. The truth of the matter remains.

So let's not confuse the "corporation" here with individuals who earned degrees in respective fields, and are employed in those fields, and whose apologetics can be even described as a hobby.

I don't think that's accurate, Ray. How many people receive a $200 "wad of bills" for their "hobbies"? How many people are provided with a professional "fundraiser" to help collect money for their "hobbies"? I'm sorry, Ray, but to label LDS apologetics a "hobby" is a huge stretch.

[_Ray A]

It's impossible to say that for certain, though. The Church essentially gets to have its cake and eat it to. Professors are installed in various different disciplines, and get to say publicly that they are "Professors of History," or whatever else, and yet the bulk of their working time seems to be given over to apologetics. The point is that, via some very sneaky maneuvering, the LDS Chuch does indeed operated and finance a paid arm of professional apologetics. You can add whatever qualifiers to it that you want. The truth of the matter remains.

When DCP was in Australia he lectured at several universities, on Islam. To my knowledge Mormonism was never mentioned. He did do media interviews on Mormonism. I doubt he was paid for any of these, or any of the interviews he did on Mormonism in the past. So there is a combined motive here, kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. If that's part of the "Monolith of Apologetics", so be it. If you want to view the "meshing" as "paid apologetics", that's your POV. I don't see it that way. Considering how few members know about, or even care about FARMS, or even see it as "necessary", it's pretty much a non-event for them.

I don't think that's accurate, Ray. How many people receive a $200 "wad of bills" for their "hobbies"? How many people are provided with a professional "fundraiser" to help collect money for their "hobbies"? I'm sorry, Ray, but to label LDS apologetics a "hobby" is a huge stretch.

DCP has already explained where his royalties from Offenders For A Word goes. I would guess that most royalties/payments are recycled back into the time and effort invested in apologetics. Backyard swimming pools and Hawaii tours seem out of the question (hence the jokes). If they were personally profiting from this, like Swaggart and the Bakers, and earning the trillions that Televangelists get, then it would be an issue, and one could say that priestcraft is involved. The issue here is motives.

I know one anti-Mormon who is now trying to get into this full-time, and asking for support. All power to him if he can do it. I'm quite certain his motive isn't to get rich, but to be able to rescue as many "dupes" as he can, full time. So we have to look at motives, whether in regard to apologetics, or anti-Mormonism. Unlike you, I am not at all concerned about the time and effort invested in apologetics, and as I've said before, the more the better. How DCP manages to be so prodigious in apologetics, and at the same time working on the METI, and being a bishop, is probably as baffling to me as how Jacob Neusner continues to churn out books on Judaism, and almost everything under the sun.

In addition to his scholarly activities, Neusner has been heavily involved in the shaping of Jewish and Religious Studies in the American University. He has sponsored a number of conferences and collaborative projects that drew different religions into conversation on common themes and problems. Neusner’s efforts have produced conferences and books on, among other topics, the problem of difference in religion, religion and society, religion and material culture, religion and economics, religion and altruism, and religion and tolerance. These collaborations build on Neusner’s intellectual vision, his notion of a religion as a system, and would not have happened otherwise. By working in the realm of Judaism and Jewish Religion, he developed methods and theories applicable to the study of Religion generally.

In case you weren't aware, DCP's role in Islamic studies have a similar impetus. If DCP can do this fulltime, all power to him. I don't consider him to be a "hack", but someone making genuine contributions in regard to a better understanding of religious differences in this field, and his lectures on Islam, and METI, impact on this. That's far more important than earning the princely sum $200 here and there.