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

[_moksha]

This is a direct quote from a post of his on the FAIR/MAD board:

I was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of "agent"of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. My mission? To try to help a member of the Church whose apostasy was threatening his marriage and causing anguish to his very active wife, children, and parents. (The wife and parents, and his stake president, has asked for help.) The weapons of choice? Talking with him for about four hours in Salt Lake City, in the presence of his wife and stake president, and recommending some readings."

(emphasis added)

As you can see, by his own admission, he was an "agent" of the SCMC.

I think he was more of an Agent of the MAD-files. The unnamed operative in the SCMC merely fed him this information. The four hours of talking was enough for Agent Peterson to work his magic and rectify this situation.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Sigh. I once said that I once acted as "a kind of 'agent' of the Strengthening Church Members Committee."

Meaning, simply, that I was acting on the SCMC's behalf, at the request of one of its members. I went with a colleague to a stake center in the Salt Lake Valley, where, for about four hours, a disaffected member raised his various concerns about Church history and doctrine and the two of us tried to deal with them. He wasn't a prisoner. It wasn't an "interrogation." He was there of his own free will and choice. He was perfectly free to leave, get into his car, and drive home at any point. It was cordial. It wasn't sinister. The man's wife and parents had asked the secretary of the SCMC, who was a family friend, if he could suggest any help for their wavering husband/son. The secretary of the SCMC asked us if we would try to help. We said yes. We drove up. That's it. Period. We weren't paid for it. We weren't reimbursed for our gas. It was on our own time. We filed no report. We were never questioned about the conversation. I've never heard from the SCMC's secretary since.

The connection to the SCMC is very odd. If the SCMC secretary was a family friend, why didn't he simply contact you in his role as friend of the family, rather than on behalf of the SCMC? Did the fact he was a member of the SCMC make a difference in whether you would agree to meet with this disaffected fellow? Why did any of this have anything to do with the SCMC? Or is this something that the SCMC routinely gets involved in?

EDITED TO ADD: Why did you feel it necessary to describe your role as "like an agent for the SCMC" rather than simply trying to help an LDS family?

[_The Nehor]

Also how do we know that DCP's 'interrogation' didn't involve waterboarding? We have only his word on the matter.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

As has been pointed out by others, DCP's self-deprecating humor is the most severe of the hyperbole going around these boards. It's very bad, because it paints the critics falsely to be just what his audience expects. I'll admit, not on this topic, but on a couple of other topics I've disagreed with Scratch. But I just don't see much hyperbole coming from him. I think his presentations skills are sometimes counted against him when they shouldn't be.

I don't think DCP is a bad person, I've never said he is. I do think he's weak at times and instead of standing up for what he believes in, he tip-toes so as not to create waves within his circle of sympathizers. But that doesn't make him bad. Bad is, for instance, some of his friends. Such as, the ones who sent rcrocket down the river. DCP stood on the sidelines and probably tried to be diplomatic both ways and I can't see him taking satisfaction in throwing one of his own under a bus.

But for some of his friends, this is the root of their identity as church members.

I understant that DCPs self deprecation can be tiring and at times I wish he would drop it and reply more substantive which I know he is able to of. I am sorry but I still don't see his hyperbole anythign like Scratch's. I will admit that Scrathc can post some things of substance. But the substance is lost when he starts spinning. I just cannot condone that.

As for sending Crockett down the river I am not privy to what happened there so I cannot opine.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason !

Please shorten Your long "BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..."
(Or break it. Two shorter "BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" are worth of one long.)
It makes the page unreadable.


Thanks.
- - - Ludwig

Done :-)

[_Jason Bourne]

If you're still in doubt, read through all of the Scratch-related threads begun by me (there are none) and all of the Peterson-related threads begun by Scratch. Count the individual posts from me that are primarily aimed at attacking Scratch. Now count the individual posts from Scratch that are primarily aimed at attacking me. See which number is larger. Then count the posts from me that are primarily aimed at defending myself, and count the Scratch posts that primarily represent his defense of himself against my aggressive attacks. Again, see which number is larger.

My point exactly. I see Scratch being malisous towards DCP and others. I do not see the same from DCP. Thus I tend to favor DCPs comments about budgets and so forth over Scratch because DCP is on the inside and DCP is not attempting to smear anyone.

According to Scratch you admitred to being an "agent" of the SMC or whatever it is called.

Sigh. I once said that I once acted as "a kind of 'agent' of the Strengthening Church Members Committee."

Meaning, simply, that I was acting on the SCMC's behalf, at the request of one of its members. I went with a colleague to a stake center in the Salt Lake Valley, where, for about four hours, a disaffected member raised his various concerns about Church history and doctrine and the two of us tried to deal with them. He wasn't a prisoner. It wasn't an "interrogation." He was there of his own free will and choice. He was perfectly free to leave, get into his car, and drive home at any point. It was cordial. It wasn't sinister. The man's wife and parents had asked the secretary of the SCMC, who was a family friend, if he could suggest any help for their wavering husband/son. The secretary of the SCMC asked us if we would try to help. We said yes. We drove up. That's it. Period. We weren't paid for it. We weren't reimbursed for our gas. It was on our own time. We filed no report. We were never questioned about the conversation. I've never heard from the SCMC's secretary since.

This really was my point. My comment that Scratch says you admitted was more sarcastic than anything.

[_Tom]

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?)

I recall seeing color sketches of the proposed Book of Mormon Research Center back in the mid-1990s. What happened to the plans?

[_Chap]

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?)

I recall seeing color sketches of the proposed Book of Mormon Research Center back in the mid-1990s. What happened to the plans?

I presume it will be in the form of a Mesoamerican pyramid. Anybody want to supply a conjectural preconstruction?

[_Tom]

I recall seeing color sketches of the proposed Book of Mormon Research Center back in the mid-1990s. What happened to the plans?

I presume it will be in the form of a Mesoamerican pyramid. Anybody want to supply a conjectural preconstruction?

It did seem to have a pyramid shape. Here's an AP story on it from October 1995:

"New Research Facility Planned Near BYU

PROVO, Utah (AP) - A new 30,000-square-foot, $ 5 million facility for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies will be built adjacent to the Brigham Young University campus over the next two years.

The new building, which will be constructed near the McDonald Health Center and new Ezra Taft Benson building, will house the Book of Mormon Research Center, display and lecture halls, a library, office space and a distribution center.

Construction plans were announced recently by Noel Reynolds, the foundation's president.

Reynolds said the foundation was established 16 years ago to encourage and support research about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Book of Mormon and other ancient scriptures through scholarly study.

It also has worked with a worldwide community of Jewish and Christian biblical scholars studying the Dead Sea Scrolls."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hello, Tom.

The building was to have been erected on private property directly adjacent to BYU that the Maxwell Institute owned back when it was known as FARMS, and prior to its affiliation with BYU. Much has changed since then. The building hasn't been an active project for many years now.

The connection to the SCMC is very odd. If the SCMC secretary was a family friend, why didn't he simply contact you in his role as friend of the family, rather than on behalf of the SCMC?

I have no idea. I've never met the man, nor had I ever spoken with him before, nor have I ever spoken with him since.

Perhaps (I can only speculate) he thought that a pair of professors might take his request more seriously if he told us who he was rather than merely announcing himself as Joe Blow of, say, Sandy. (It would have made no difference to me at all, but he didn't know me.) He was asking us to drive up to the Salt Lake Valley on our own time and gas and to spend an indefinite period of time trying to help a wavering member of the Church whom we didn't know resolve his doubts.

However, unless one insists, in the manner of Scratch, on taking the title Strengthening Church Members Committee as a bit of sinister Orwellian irony, what he was asking us to attempt was precisely in line with that title: He wanted us to try to strengthen a wavering member.

Did the fact he was a member of the SCMC make a difference in whether you would agree to meet with this disaffected fellow?

No. But he might have thought that it would.

Why did any of this have anything to do with the SCMC?

I don't know exactly. See above.

Or is this something that the SCMC routinely gets involved in?

I have no idea. This has been my only contact with the SCMC.

Why did you feel it necessary to describe your role as "like an agent for the SCMC" rather than simply trying to help an LDS family?

I didn't feel it "necessary." However, I did it because, if I recall that long-ago conversation accurately, the SCMC was being portrayed as an evil spy organization that has it in for weak members of the Church, and yet my one experience with the SCMC had nothing to do with "spying" and was clearly motivated by a concern for the wavering member and his family. If you re-read the passage above that Scratch has culled from his apparently quite extensive files on me, you'll notice, along with my remark that "I was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of 'agent' of the Strengthening Church Members Committee," references to "my mission" on behalf of the SCMC and to my "weapons of choice" -- friendly discussion and some book recommendations. In the context of the original conversation, where the SCMC was being protrayed as something like a Mormon Gestapo, KGB, or CIA, it should have been obvious to every reasonable reader (and probably was) that these words were used with tongue firmly in cheek.

I understant that DCPs self deprecation can be tiring and at times I wish he would drop it and reply more substantive which I know he is able to of.

Everything about me irritates, offends, outrages, and/or astonishes several on this board. Too bad.

Of course I'm able to respond substantively. A flat denial of Scratch's claims is about as substantive as it's possible to be. (Scratch asserts A. I reply not-A. That's directly relevant and substantive.)

But, it's true, I'm not going to offer up neither the Maxwell Institute's internal financial documents nor any specific financial data for Scratch's delectation. To do so would, among other things, contradict official BYU policy.

So I simply say that Scratch's figures, for which he has no factual basis, are dramatically wrong. I know quite exactly what the actual figures are (having seen them again just yesterday morning). It's my insider's word, based on direct personal knowledge, against Scratch's speculative word. That anybody on this list continues to imagine that Scratch's speculations might be correct while my statement is false can only, it seems to me, rest on the assumption that I'm a flat-out liar.

I'm amazed that several here seem to take Scratch's speculations so seriously. Poor Gadianton, for example, who praises Scratch's "objectivity," plainly buys into Scratch's conspiracy-theory spin about Skinny-L, to which, since it's a small private list, neither of them has any personal access whatever. But Scratch and his victim, poor Gadianton, have no idea what they're talking about. And that's just one example of many, stretching over years of rather intense Scratchian demonization.