More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Yes, a good point. One wonders, then, if apologetics is such a "non-issue" for the vast majority of members, then why would the LDS Church send out a paid, professional fundraiser in order to help collect funds? Clearly, someone in the upper echelons of the hierarchy has seen fit to help develop a paid apologetic arm within the Church.

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.

Yes, I agree. It is also about technique and methodology. It would be one thing if the Mopologists were getting paid for simple defense of the Church. (And yes: I agree that the principle "motive" behind apologetics is love for the Church, and desire to defend it.) Still, since any commentary on motives will necessarily involve a certain amount of "psychoanalyzing," I think it is fair to say that other motives figure into the work of LDS apologists. For example, ego, and the thirst for vengeance. The endless ad hominem attacks and character assassinations that are de rigueur for FARMS Review show that the "motives" extend well beyond a simple and noble-hearted desire to "defend." Further, the existence of the "skinny-l" list and the emails posted to SHIELDS show that apologists are partially involved in all of this in order to mock and ridicule.

In terms of technique, which is "worse", Ray? The Televangelists, or the Mopologists? It seems to me that, on the "ledger of morality" vis-a-vis motive, the Televangelists and the Mopologists are essentially on the same footing. Their motives are questionable in both cases. But, technique-wise, the Mopologists come up short compared to the Televangelists, at least in a very general sort of way.

[_Ray A]

Yes, a good point. One wonders, then, if apologetics is such a "non-issue" for the vast majority of members, then why would the LDS Church send out a paid, professional fundraiser in order to help collect funds? Clearly, someone in the upper echelons of the hierarchy has seen fit to help develop a paid apologetic arm within the Church.

Initially FARMS was treated with some suspicion (even disdain by others) by the leaders. When it evolved into proactive defence of the Church some leaders began to openly support it. I parted with them c.1987, after I left the Church, and was critical of this evolution and told John Welch (by snail mail) I felt FARMS was becoming less objective, and becoming nothing but a "defence mechanism" of the Church. Objectivity seemed to be going out the window, and my motive as a volunteer was to support studies of the Book of Mormon, pro and con, and this is what I was led to believe was the FARMS motive. Prior to this the Book of Mormon was the main focus of FARMS. But I was actually happy to see the FROB (initially RBBM) appear, because it provided a real avenue for comparisons. And as I've mentioned many times, even some members were critical of this proactive approach, "taking on the anti-Mormons", and it was contrary to what apostle Marvin J. Ashton (for one example) had long taught - just ignore them. Elder Maxwell had different ideas, and it's now known as the Maxwell Institute for a reason. He was the champion of this approach, that if attacks were left undefended, it could open members to serious doubting. I haven't been impressed with all of the apologetics, and I do believe that some of it is misleading, but this is where "member diligence" has to occur, the compare and analyse approach. If "someone" thinks this is worth financing, I don't have a problem with that, and that's where we're different.

Yes, I agree. It is also about technique and methodology. It would be one thing if the Mopologists were getting paid for simple defense of the Church. (And yes: I agree that the principle "motive" behind apologetics is love for the Church, and desire to defend it.) Still, since any commentary on motives will necessarily involve a certain amount of "psychoanalyzing," I think it is fair to say that other motives figure into the work of LDS apologists. For example, ego, and the thirst for vengeance. The endless ad hominem attacks and character assassinations that are de rigueur for FARMS Review show that the "motives" extend well beyond a simple and noble-hearted desire to "defend." Further, the existence of the "skinny-l" list and the emails posted to SHIELDS show that apologists are partially involved in all of this in order to mock and ridicule.

If you missed it, Dr.Midgley was severely chastised by a member for his ad hominem comments to Craig Paxton on the FAIR blog. She was in fact disgusted. I just saw it as the "tooing and froing" of "normal" exchanges that occur between apologists and critics. So whether this approach has the support of members is open to question. Her reaction sustained a long-time attitude of many members towards proactive apologetics spiced with ad hominem discourse. In the end it could backfire with some, or even many members. And witness Paul Ray calling DCP an "anti-Mormon". FARMS isn't without opposition even in the Church.

In terms of technique, which is "worse", Ray? The Televangelists, or the Mopologists? It seems to me that, on the "ledger of morality" vis-a-vis motive, the Televangelists and the Mopologists are essentially on the same footing. Their motives are questionable in both cases. But, technique-wise, the Mopologists come up short compared to the Televangelists, at least in a very general sort of way.

The motive is to "preach the gospel", and defend it, in both cases. This isn't questionable, it's the natural state of apologetics. More productive than trying to read and analyse motives, would be to answer apologetic arguments, or challenge apologetic arguments. In the end, who gets paid what isn't the real issue as far as apologetics is concerned, but whether the arguments stand up, and whether the ad hominem approach is sustainable. The role of the critic is important, but if the critic also engages in ad hominem, (or focus on trivial things, especially through mockery) he/she will also lose credibility with Mormons. The Tanners were not like this, highly critical, but to my knowledge never mocking. When President Hinckley was accused of having secret homosexual relations, the Tanners immediately came to his defence. Contrast that with some of the critics now on the Internet. Perhaps we should look at the faults on both sides of the fence.

[_beastie]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Who cares if the Tanners have made a living at their anti-mormon ministry? All along critics have been saying that apologists deserve to be paid for their labors - so do the Tanners.

The only reason, the only reason this is an issue that obviously pricks the apologists is due to the fact that they have harshly criticized anti-mormons for the same behavior apologists engage in.

[_Ray A]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Who cares if the Tanners have made a living at their anti-mormon ministry? All along critics have been saying that apologists deserve to be paid for their labors - so do the Tanners.

The only reason, the only reason this is an issue that obviously pricks the apologists is due to the fact that they have harshly criticized anti-mormons for the same behavior apologists engage in.

Actually, it was Dr. Lawrence Foster who coined the term "career apostates" in 1984. The point was not lost on him. As I have clearly clarified above, the is a difference between the two. John Vedtnes criticism was that he had to work for a living, and do apologetics in his spare time. The Tanners didn't. They devoted their full time to their anti-Mormon ministry.

Lawrence Foster's CV (PDF)

[_beastie]

Who cares, Ray? The fact that the Tanners made a full-time job out of it is irrelevant to the point critics have been making. This is just another diversion.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Part of the problem is that DCP repeatedly lied about receiving payment.

That's flatly false.

But it's refreshing, at least, to catch a clear glimpse of the hostility that's always seething just below the surface.

In one quote, he states that he has never received a "single dime" for apologetics. Well, this just isn't true.

Could you please supply the quotation?

One wonders, then, if apologetics is such a "non-issue" for the vast majority of members, then why would the LDS Church send out a paid, professional fundraiser in order to help collect funds?

The LDS Church, as such, has done no such thing. The LDS Church set up a fundraising group called LDS Philanthropies. LDS Philanthropies, in its turn, delegated some of its personnel to raising funds for BYU. In its turn, BYU delegated one of those delegated personnel to the Maxwell Institute, partly as compensation for the property that FARMS turned over to BYU when FARMS (theretofore a private foundation) affiliated with BYU.

How many people receive a $200 "wad of bills" for their "hobbies"?

Spread out over two decades or so?

Probably quite a few.

[_Mister Scratch]

Part of the problem is that DCP repeatedly lied about receiving payment.

That's flatly false.

No, it's not. You've clearly expended effort in order to try and deflect attention away from the fact that apologists receive payment. Feel free to sift through SHIELDS. Your exchanges with Infymus and James White in particular.

In one quote, he states that he has never received a "single dime" for apologetics. Well, this just isn't true.

Could you please supply the quotation?

I've already posted it on this board. But, I'll make you a deal: If you pony up the "skinny-l" names, I'll re-post the quotations.

[_Trevor]

Initially FARMS was treated with some suspicion (even disdain by others) by the leaders. When it evolved into proactive defence of the Church some leaders began to openly support it. I parted with them c.1987, after I left the Church, and was critical of this evolution and told John Welch (by snail mail) I felt FARMS was becoming less objective, and becoming nothing but a "defence mechanism" of the Church....

Fantastic post, Ray A. Simply wonderful from beginning to end. Thanks for sharing all of that.

[_antishock8]

Wow. Mr. Peterson has become The Nehor. I skim past his responses since virtually every_single_one is without substance and end up being a passive-aggressive ad hom.

I suppose that's all one can do when you're attempting to dodge and weave truth while defending an obvious con. You become the con man. Funny how true colors always seem to surface as the facade fades away...