LDS Apologetics Operating Costs Are More Than $7,000,000

[Physics Guy]

I have been in a reflective mood lately. With the latest fiasco on FAIR involving Rod Meldrum, I was led to re-examine the still relatively fresh issue of Mopologetic financing. To recap:

---We know that apologists get paid to do apologetics.
---We know that the Church dispatches a professional "fundraiser" to collect monies.
---We know that LDS are encouraged to donate $1,000 to become "Liahona"-level members of FARMS.
---We know that the Maxwell Institute used its mammoth operating budget to buy academic credibility at Yale.


Now, thanks to Lieutenant Allen Wyatt, we also know that "The Church" itself is directing the way that Mopologetic money is spent:

I look forward to seeing the statement as, I’m sure, does the rest of FAIR.

Rod said: 1. Blatant and inflammatory Lies — such as the FAIR false claim that I said in my DVD that the church leadership was ‘wasting’ money, which never occurred.

This is not a false claim. Here’s what you say in the conclusion to your video: “Now there’s been millions and millions of dollars have been spent in a vain attempt to show the Book of Mormon happened in Central America.”

Those are your words, Rod, made at approximately 4:20 seconds into the conclusion of your video. (I’ve also personally heard you say it in one of your firesides.) Who has been spending that money? The Church, or the Church’s agents, such as BYU and FARMS (the “Mesoamerican scholars” you dismiss at the beginning of your video).

If spending the millions of dollars is “vain,” isn’t that a waste? In your statement the words are synonymous. Are you going to refine your statement and now say that spending the money was not vain, that it was not a waste?

(emphasis added)

D'oh! And to think: DCP has gone to so much effort trying to convince all of us that "The Church" isn't actually involved in paying for this stuff.

But wait---the plot thickens. Thanks to an anonymous informant, I was directed to a very provocative bit of Mopologetic history. Whereas today one can become a "Liahona" member of FARMS for the "pittance" of $1,000, in the past, the powers-that-be were apparently hoping for a whole lot more. According to a May 1991 issue of Insights, FARMS boys had pegged the price of "Liahona" membership at "$500--$100,000" (!!!).

This data and information has been collected here:

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no90.htm

Of perhaps even more interest is a letter from 1995 which the Tanners managed to get their hands on. Here is one portion of the letter:

In the last newsletter we announced the campaign to raise the funds to build the Book of Mormon Research Center.... Your help is needed. Many of you have already responded with generous contributions for which we are grateful, but more is needed. Local building costs are escalating rapidly. Presently the architects estimate the project will cost some seven million dollars.... We invite those of you who have abundant means to be very generous.... Please don't delay.

(emphasis added)

Seven million dollars, eh? One can only wonder how high the raised-funds figure has climbed to at this point. I think it is interesting that the author of this letter is using dubious language such as "Please don't delay" and "Local building costs are escalating rapidly." (I.e., wouldn't the builders be loyal LDS? Or are the handlers of these donations squandering the funds?) But the best summary of this very intriguing information comes from the Tanners themselves:

t appears that FARMS has vast resources that will be used to criticize our work and the work of other critics of the church. We, of course, do not have millions of dollars to fight off such an attack.

Yes, I rather doubt that most critics of the LDS Church have operating budgets even remotely approaching the 7 million dollars that was raised just for this one small building.

The Mormon Church is apparently very happy with the work done by FARMS The church seems to be in a no-lose situation. If, on the one hand, the Foundation should make serious mistakes, the church would not be held responsible. On the other hand, if Mormon scholars present material that convinces people of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the church will benefit from the work.

In any case, the scholars involved with FARMS take great pride in their Foundation. They strongly believe that no other organization on earth can compete with their knowledge of the Book of Mormon. They are convinced that as far as human wisdom is concerned they are the ultimate experts on the subject. Consequently, they are very offended if anyone ignores or is ignorant of the research emanating from FARMS.

Yes. It should be added that they are also "very offended" if information demonstrating their vast finances gets released. The whole puzzle of Mopologetic financing, as it gradually falls into place, grows ever more sinister.

[_Jason Bourne]

What is sinister about it? As I have read more and more of the utter nonsense that comes from you the more I have realized this is a non issue.

First of course the LDS Church funds FARMS. It has since FARMS became part of BYU. So what?

Apologist paid? Well if they get some royalties or stipends again BFD.

What is nefarious about this?

So what if the LDS Church is funding other apologetic efforts. I think they well should. It is in their interest to do so.

Nothing sinister here at all.

[_Trevor]

Scratch, I appreciate the light you are shedding on certain issues regarding finances that, in my recollection, have been minimized by apologists in their quotidian representations of FARMS. On the other hand, I have to agree with Jason inasmuch as I think sinister is a really poor choice of words here. What I think is the case is that the FARMS image of the doughty little band of volunteers taking on the greedy Goliath of anti-Mormon ministries was in fact a myth. Both sides were motivated largely by faith concerns, and FARMS has sought and obtained far more in the way of financial and institutional support than they ever let on. What is strange, though not at all sinister, is the continued sensitivity the apologists have had concerning this issue.

It seems to me that by misrepresenting it as "sinister," you are actually undermining what is a very sound point.

[_solomarineris]

What is sinister about it? As I have read more and more of the utter nonsense that comes from you the more I have realized this is a non issue.

First of course the LDS Church funds FARMS. It has since FARMS became part of BYU. So what?

Apologist paid? Well if they get some royalties or stipends again BFD.

What is nefarious about this?

So what if the LDS Church is funding other apologetic efforts. I think they well should. It is in their interest to do so.

Nothing sinister here at all.

Why, then DCP & gang deny that they are getting paid?

[_Trevor]

Why, then DCP & gang deny that they are getting paid?

That is a fair question, but I don't think that the reasons are necessarily "sinister."

[_Mister Scratch]

What is sinister about it? As I have read more and more of the utter nonsense that comes from you the more I have realized this is a non issue.

I personally find it "sinister" that the LDS Church, purportedly an organization headed by Christ himself, is funding an apologetic department whose function is, in part, to ruin people's professional reputations and to attack them personally. Since we know, further, that the Church draws upon Mopologetic "talent" in order to support its SCMC activities, I think it is fair to say that there ever more evidence of "sinister"-ness. But, of course, you can feel free to disagree. No doubt you find articles such as "That Old Black Magic" to be 100% kosher and totally free of any "sinister" intent. Surely you think Lou Midgley's obsessive "note taking" during casual conversations does not in any way smack of "the sinister." Probably you think the secretive cabal organized to crush the Tanners was totally on the "up and up."

First of course the LDS Church funds FARMS. It has since FARMS became part of BYU. So what?

It links the two together and provides implicit evidence that the Brethren approve of the various character assassinations and smears that apologists engage in. Surely, Jason, someone as up-to-speed and well-informed on apologetic issues knows that apologists have long tried to distance the Church itself from apologetics. You know that, right?

Apologist paid? Well if they get some royalties or stipends again BFD.

DCP, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgley and others have been quite vicious in their attacks on the funding of Church critics. The fact that FARMS has an operation budget up into the tens of millions renders these guys a bunch of whopping hypocrites. It may be no "BFD" to you and I, but it is a very, very "BFD" to the apologists. Perhaps if they had been honest from the get-go, this wouldn't be a problem. But, unfortunately, it is.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, I appreciate the light you are shedding on certain issues regarding finances that, in my recollection, have been minimized by apologists in their quotidian representations of FARMS. On the other hand, I have to agree with Jason inasmuch as I think sinister is a really poor choice of words here. What I think is the case is that the FARMS image of the doughty little band of volunteers taking on the greedy Goliath of anti-Mormon ministries was in fact a myth. Both sides were motivated largely by faith concerns, and FARMS has sought and obtained far more in the way of financial and institutional support than they ever let on. What is strange, though not at all sinister, is the continued sensitivity the apologists have had concerning this issue.

It seems to me that by misrepresenting it as "sinister," you are actually undermining what is a very sound point.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you, Trevor. The individual pieces may very well be "non-sinister," but the entire tamale, when taken as a whole, does seem very disturbing (in my opinion). I mean, step back and consider:

---In addition to apologetics, the LDS Church also funds and maintains an SCMC, and in at least one instance, the two organizations were linked.
---The LDS Church and its various "agents" (including ecclesiastical leaders) engage in spying and surveillance activities.
---FARMS is a staging grounds for rather severe and harsh attacks on often well-meaning scholars.
---A lot of the activities of apologists is done in secretive fashion (ala "L-skinny").
---Lou Midgley has made a number of "harassing" phone calls to critics, and he takes detailed notes of the conversations.
---DCP jokingly stated that he would like to blow me away with his "assault rifle."


I'm sorry, but all these things tend to add up. You post anonymously, right, Trevor? Right, Jason Bourne? There is nothing wrong with pointing out some of the reasons why doing so is wise. If you want to label it all as something other than "sinister," I'm all ears. Perhaps you could separate things out a bit---e.g., state that the SCMC isn't actually, "officially" connected with apologetics per se, or that the secretive behavior of the Mopologists isn't necessarily related to the secrecy of the SCMC, or the LDS Church itself, etc., etc. But to my mind, most of this stuff *is* related, at least on a cultural, polemical, ideological level. Again: think of the way that FatherK turned on GoodK in order to show his allegiance to the Mopologetic cause. I don't think words like "sinister", "disquieting", and "disturbing" are too far off the mark.

[Guest]

I personally find it "sinister" that the LDS Church, purportedly an organization headed by Christ himself, is funding an apologetic department whose function is, in part, to ruin people's professional reputations and to attack them personally. Since we know, further, that the Church draws upon Mopologetic "talent" in order to support its SCMC activities, I think it is fair to say that there ever more evidence of "sinister"-ness. But, of course, you can feel free to disagree. No doubt you find articles such as "That Old Black Magic" to be 100% kosher and totally free of any "sinister" intent. Surely you think Lou Midgley's obsessive "note taking" during casual conversations does not in any way smack of "the sinister." Probably you think the secretive cabal organized to crush the Tanners was totally on the "up and up."

Well, I still don't buy into "sinister," but it has long been my feeling that something about the whole enterprise has a bad odor. I agree with you that the modus operandi of much of what these guys do is inconsistent with the values they profess. I would go so far as to say that it does seem that they are becoming a kind of informal assistant to the SCMC. By now, however, this is all pretty out in the open. The only people who are likely to be blind to it are those who continue to be invested in the organization and its faux-spotless image. By now it should be abundantly clear that the LDS Church is willing to play hardball to cast off people who challenge or besmirch its PR image.

DCP, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgley and others have been quite vicious in their attacks on the funding of Church critics. The fact that FARMS has an operation budget up into the tens of millions renders these guys a bunch of whopping hypocrites. It may be no "BFD" to you and I, but it is a very, very "BFD" to the apologists. Perhaps if they had been honest from the get-go, this wouldn't be a problem. But, unfortunately, it is.

And very hypocritically so, but sinister?

[_Gadianton]

Scratch,

I'm having a hard time disagreeing anything you've said here and I appreciate your patient objectivity.

What really fascinates me is how the apologists conceal their profits while at the same time brag about how well-funded they are and how poorly funded the EV ministries are. And then they have the audacity to accuse the EV ministries of being the ones in the devil's service, out for gain while they're secretly counting their stacks of cash and denying that they are paid. And have so much confidence in their game, that when you access the FARMS subscription page the "Liahona" level membership has been preselected for you.

It is startling indeed to learn from the source that FARMS thugs are agents of the church. It will be interesting to watch Meldrum navigate his way through this complex racketeering.

[_Mister Scratch]

I personally find it "sinister" that the LDS Church, purportedly an organization headed by Christ himself, is funding an apologetic department whose function is, in part, to ruin people's professional reputations and to attack them personally. Since we know, further, that the Church draws upon Mopologetic "talent" in order to support its SCMC activities, I think it is fair to say that there ever more evidence of "sinister"-ness. But, of course, you can feel free to disagree. No doubt you find articles such as "That Old Black Magic" to be 100% kosher and totally free of any "sinister" intent. Surely you think Lou Midgley's obsessive "note taking" during casual conversations does not in any way smack of "the sinister." Probably you think the secretive cabal organized to crush the Tanners was totally on the "up and up."

Well, I still don't buy into "sinister," but it has long been my feeling that something about the whole enterprise has a bad odor. I agree with you that the modus operandi of much of what these guys do is inconsistent with the values they profess. I would go so far as to say that it does seem that they are becoming a kind of informal assistant to the SCMC.

No, no---it goes well beyond an "informal" association. DCP once stated that he was asked by the SCMC's secretary to function as an "agent" for the Committee. Basically, he served the role of "interrogator," as he and a BYU colleague questioned a wavering LDS for some four hours in SLC. It is these kinds of things, couple with the stories about what happened to folks like Chad Hardy and Mike Quinn that make the whole thing "sinister" in my eyes. And by "sinister" I mean, "You had better watch your back and protect yourself."