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

[_Jason Bourne]

I personally find it "sinister" that the LDS Church, purportedly an organization headed by Christ himself, is funding an apologetic department

Of course you do. You obsess over it. That is clear from your prolific posting about it here.

whose function is, in part, to ruin people's professional reputations and to attack them personally.

That simply is you personal spin and your own attempt to smear and hurt the apologetic effort. You are as guilty of character assasination and half baked smearing as you think they are.

Since we know, further, that the Church draws upon Mopologetic "talent" in order to support its SCMC activities,

No you do not know this. This is another of your wild imaginative leaps and innuendos.

I think it is fair to say that there ever more evidence of "sinister"-ness.

Not really. And you are not fair at all.

But, of course, you can feel free to disagree

.


Clearly I do.

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."

Some apologetics leaves something to be desured. Not all does. You isolate egregious issues and then exploit them to the point where these people are like the danites you imagince were in the 19th century. Like I have said before the black helicopters are coming for you Scratch.

Probably you think the secretive cabal organized to crush the Tanners was totally on the "up and up."

There was no cabal. This is a creation of your own over active mind and rather a lie in fact.

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?

The brethren are not able to control all their leaders. There are stupid bishops and SPs out there. Same for apologetics.

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.

Yes and they are paid what? How much? Is it enough for any of them to live on? Hardly.

The fact that FARMS has an operation budget up into the tens of millions renders these guys a bunch of whopping hypocrites.

Tens of Millions? I highly doubt that. Can you prove it? If not shut the hell up. Oh wait. Scratch does not need proof to smear people.

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

I don't think they have been dishonest really.

[_Jason Bourne]

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

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!


Course you don't. You are a glad and willing participant of the smear with out much more than innuendo.

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.

Please document the profits, I mean real and substantive profits and stacks of cash. Till then you are just peeing in the wind.

[_Mister Scratch]

whose function is, in part, to ruin people's professional reputations and to attack them personally.

That simply is you personal spin and your own attempt to smear and hurt the apologetic effort.

Jason---

You show up on each of my threads in order to issue these "grumpy old man" denunciations, but where is your evidence? Here: I'll give you a helping hand. William Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic", in which he boasts of discrediting Quinn in front of his undergraduate students, and in which he calls Quinn a "bad historian." Please, Jason---tell me how my characterization of that article (and that's just one example, mind you) as "personal attack" is a "spin"? Could you please, pretty please with sugar on top, tell me how and why my label is "inaccurate" or a "spin"? I'm just dying to know!

See, Jason, the problem with you is that you never proffer any evidence or analysis. You just whine, over and over again. And gee, you know what? Maybe if you actually presented a solid case I would "cease and desist" with these threads which apparently bother you so much! Wouldn't that just make your day?

Since we know, further, that the Church draws upon Mopologetic "talent" in order to support its SCMC activities,

No you do not know this. This is another of your wild imaginative leaps and innuendos.

<sigh> DCP himself admitted that he was an "agent" of the SCMC. The secretary of the SCMC personally contacted the Good Professor in order to ask him to interrogate a wavering LDS. Once again, Jason: you don't know what you're talking about. You just issue hollow complaints that don't have any basis in knowledge. DCP-as-SCMC-agent is old news.

I think it is fair to say that there ever more evidence of "sinister"-ness.

Not really. And you are not fair at all.

And neither are you.

But, of course, you can feel free to disagree

.

Clearly I do.

Yes, but without any apparent reason beyond personal disdain.

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."

Some apologetics leaves something to be desured. Not all does. You isolate egregious issues and then exploit them to the point where these people are like the danites you imagince were in the 19th century.

But, Jason: the "egregious issues" pop up again, and again, and again, and again.... Do you not recognize that to be the case? "The Witchcraft Paradigm," "That Old Black Magic," Midgley's Grant Palmer piece, etc., etc., etc. The articles on Quinn. How many examples do I need to cite before it finally sinks in with you that these apologists engage in personal attack?

Like I have said before the black helicopters are coming for you Scratch.

Oooh! Oh no! What will I do? Can "Jason Bourne" be next? More hypocrisy from you, Jason. If you thought all of this stuff was fine and dandy and free from any "sinister" consequences then you would be posting under your in real life name. What are *YOU* afraid of, Jason?

Probably you think the secretive cabal organized to crush the Tanners was totally on the "up and up."

There was no cabal. This is a creation of your own over active mind and rather a lie in fact.

Read the link, Jason. There was a "top secret" P.O. box in Calabasas, CA which was set up to help organize the assault on the Tanners.

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?

The brethren are not able to control all their leaders. There are stupid bishops and SPs out there. Same for apologetics.

Totally beside the point. The point was: apologists have long tried to distance the Church itself from apologetics. Stupid or not, the Brethren are throwing their support (and their finances) into the Mopologetic enterprise. Of course, apologists don't want people to know that.

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.

Yes and they are paid what? How much? Is it enough for any of them to live on? Hardly.

Difficult to say, given all the subterfuge and obfuscation. Or do you have actual evidence to the contrary? As Trevor astutely pointed out in another thread, the BYU administration is obviously supporting DCP apologetic activities in an official or semi-official capacity. In other words: his salary partly covers his duties as an apologist. So, in at least one case, apologetics *is* paying "enough for [him] to live on."

The fact that FARMS has an operation budget up into the tens of millions renders these guys a bunch of whopping hypocrites.

Tens of Millions? I highly doubt that. Can you prove it? If not shut the hell up. Oh wait. Scratch does not need proof to smear people.

Telling me to "shut up"? Wow, Jason! That's not very nice! And please, feel free to tell me how noting a high Mopologetic budget is a "smear"?

And the evidence is in the link I cited in my OP. (See: unlike you, I try to provide evidence for the things I say.) The Tanners procured a brochure stating that "7 million" dollars were need for construction of the building. This was over ten years ago, mind you. Since that time apologetics has expanded, and so, when you calculate the $7,000,000 into the rest of FARMS's operating budget, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that their funds go into the tens of millions.

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

I don't think they have been dishonest really.

Okey doke. And, since there is nothing "sinister" or worrisome about apologetics or online Mormonism, I'm sure you'll be posting with your in real life name from now on. Right?

[_Trevor]

OK. There is a certain cloak and dagger aspect to the whole thing, but really it goes both ways. The Church has people leaking documents to its enemies. You get guys like that crazy Bahai convert (what was his name?) who played both sides (apologist and critic). Ex-LDS turn on the Church and attack it all of the time. The thing is that we are not just talking about a Church; we are talking about all of the people of wealth and power who now rely upon the Church maintaining a decent image for the purposes of protecting their own reputation. Will the LDS Church find a way to play dirty and use agents to get its business taken care of? I have no doubt about it. I would be more surprised if they did not. It is clear to me that the Church has long ago compromised its ideals to a certain extent in order to gain power, influence, and the right image in the world.

[_Mister Scratch]

OK. There is a certain cloak and dagger aspect to the whole thing, but really it goes both ways. The Church has people leaking documents to its enemies. You get guys like that crazy Bahai convert (what was his name?) who played both sides (apologist and critic). Ex-LDS turn on the Church and attack it all of the time. The thing is that we are not just talking about a Church; we are talking about all of the people of wealth and power who now rely upon the Church maintaining a decent image for the purposes of protecting their own reputation. Will the LDS Church find a way to play dirty and use agents to get its business taken care of? I have no doubt about it. I would be more surprised if they did not. It is clear to me that the Church has long ago compromised its ideals to a certain extent in order to gain power, influence, and the right image in the world.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this. It seems to me that too many people want to pooh-pooh away the conspiratorial and secretive facets of Mormonism, but the truth is that these things are ingrained into the very fabric of the Church. I appreciate your clear-sightedness on all of this, Trevor.

[_Jason Bourne]

You show up on each of my threads in order to issue these "grumpy old man" denunciations, but where is your evidence?

When I see solid eveidnce from you then I will take the time to post some myself.

Here: I'll give you a helping hand. William Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic", in which he boasts of discrediting Quinn in front of his undergraduate students, and in which he calls Quinn a "bad historian." Please, Jason---tell me how my characterization of that article (and that's just one example, mind you) as "personal attack" is a "spin"? Could you please, pretty please with sugar on top, tell me how and why my label is "inaccurate" or a "spin"? I'm just dying to know!

I already said there are some bad apologetics. For the handful you find there are hundreds of more reasonable well thought out responses from reasonable apologists.

See, Jason, the problem with you is that you never proffer any evidence or analysis. You just whine, over and over again. And gee, you know what? Maybe if you actually presented a solid case I would "cease and desist" with these threads which apparently bother you so much! Wouldn't that just make your day?

]

As noted, when I see substance rathet than innuendo based on scant evidence then perhaps I will invest some time.

Since we know, further, that the Church draws upon Mopologetic "talent" in order to support its SCMC activities,

No you do not know this. This is another of your wild imaginative leaps and innuendos.

<sigh> DCP himself admitted that he was an "agent" of the SCMC. The secretary of the SCMC personally contacted the Good Professor in order to ask him to interrogate a wavering LDS. Once again, Jason: you don't know what you're talking about. You just issue hollow complaints that don't have any basis in knowledge. DCP-as-SCMC-agent is old news.

I have never seen him admit as such. In fact I have seen him deny it.

I think it is fair to say that there ever more evidence of "sinister"-ness.

Not really. And you are not fair at all.[/quote]

And neither are you.

I do not participate in anonymous character smears.

Clearly I do.

Yes, but without any apparent reason beyond personal disdain.

Yes I proudly disdain what you do. If you presented solid evidence without spin, spin, spinning that would be one thing. I disdain what you do. If I saw someone doing what you do in the way you do it to you I would pounce on them as well.

But, Jason: the "egregious issues" pop up again, and again, and again, and again.... Do you not recognize that to be the case? "The Witchcraft Paradigm," "That Old Black Magic," Midgley's Grant Palmer piece, etc., etc., etc. The articles on Quinn. How many examples do I need to cite before it finally sinks in with you that these apologists engage in personal attack?

I do not think the egregious is all that excessive as compared to decent and respectful apologetics.

Read the link, Jason. There was a "top secret" P.O. box in Calabasas, CA which was set up to help organize the assault on the Tanners.

I will.

Totally beside the point. The point was: apologists have long tried to distance the Church itself from apologetics. Stupid or not, the Brethren are throwing their support (and their finances) into the Mopologetic enterprise. Of course, apologists don't want people to know that

.

Great. I think they should. I am not sure why any apologist would be bothered that this would be public.

Yes and they are paid what? How much? Is it enough for any of them to live on? Hardly.[

Difficult to say, given all the subterfuge and obfuscation. Or do you have actual evidence to the contrary? As Trevor astutely pointed out in another thread, the BYU administration is obviously supporting DCP apologetic activities in an official or semi-official capacity. In other words: his salary partly covers his duties as an apologist. So, in at least one case, apologetics *is* paying "enough for [him] to live on."

Peterson himself denys that there is anything substantive. But you make the claim. It is up to you to back it up. Especially since you and Gd think there are "stack of cash."

The fact that FARMS has an operation budget up into the tens of millions renders these guys a bunch of whopping hypocrites.

Tens of Millions? I highly doubt that. Can you prove it? If not shut the hell up. Oh wait. Scratch does not need proof to smear people.

Telling me to "shut up"? Wow, Jason! That's not very nice! And please, feel free to tell me how noting a high Mopologetic budget is a "smear"?

Yes, when you have no, NO, evidence you should shut up. It is a smear because you use speculation and innuendo to make it seem like they have some big war chest when you know nothing of the sort.

And the evidence is in the link I cited in my OP. (See: unlike you, I try to provide evidence for the things I say.) The Tanners procured a brochure stating that "7 million" dollars were need for construction of the building. This was over ten years ago, mind you. Since that time apologetics has expanded, and so, when you calculate the $7,000,000 into the rest of FARMS's operating budget, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that their funds go into the tens of millions.

A capital expenditure of 7 Million does not indicate a regular operating budget of tens of millions.

Okey doke. And, since there is nothing "sinister" or worrisome about apologetics or online Mormonism, I'm sure you'll be posting with your in real life name from now on. Right?

As soon as you do bud. But my reasons for anonymity have nothing to do with this. Yours must.[/quote]

[_moksha]

Since that time apologetics has expanded, and so, when you calculate the $7,000,000 into the rest of FARMS's operating budget, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that their funds go into the tens of millions.

How can they mount a decent counterintelligence operation with the bucks? Apologetics does not come cheaply.

The hardware alone to tie the surveillance efforts in the basement of the Maxwell Institute, to the NSA network was both financially and politically costly. The Church had to renew its pledge to the Republican Party for another hundred years. Sort of like the Panama Canal.

Don't worry, with no system of public reporting these funds will be put to maximal good use. No more speaking tour of the Yukon and Antarctica for Dr. Peterson when more comfortable destinations await.

[_beastie]

First, whether or not it is "sinister" depends on how one defines that particular word. It's probably "sinister" in the same way that early church leaders were sinister when they were willing to publicly smear the reputation of women who rejected Joseph Smith' advances (whore from her mother's breast ring a bell)?

Having said that, I pretty much agree with Trevor here. Scratch, I think your points would be more powerful if you would drop the hyperbole, even if you believe it is justified.

But, as the above Martha Brotherton example demonstrates, this has always been the ideals of the LDS church - defend the church no matter what the cost - moral or financial. So that hasn't changed, they still adhere to that ideal.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is a bit of food for thought: The early "call for donations" listed a Liahona Membership range of $500-$100,000. Now, however, the FARMS website lists the Liahona at $1,000, and refers "Whales" or "big spenders" to professional LDS "fundraiser" Ed Snow. I wonder why they clipped the original listing? Do they not want people to know how big the donations are? That would be odd, if true. Usually, academic departments like to boast about how much money they've brought in.

[_Trevor]

Here is a bit of food for thought: The early "call for donations" listed a Liahona Membership range of $500-$100,000. Now, however, the FARMS website lists the Liahona at $1,000, and refers "Whales" or "big spenders" to professional LDS "fundraiser" Ed Snow. I wonder why they clipped the original listing? Do they not want people to know how big the donations are? That would be odd, if true. Usually, academic departments like to boast about how much money they've brought in.

I think I have a perfectly innocuous explanation for this. The reason they do not refer to giant donations on the site is perhaps because they do not want people to have the impression that the organization is actually receiving donations that large, and, therefore, does not need their measly grand.