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

[_Trevor]

Why, Dan? What on earth are you talking about? Has all of this just been about getting me to shut up? You threaten me with lethal force and "legal troubles" so that I'll shut up?

Well, Duh! Of course that is what these guys are up to, Scratch. And, in addition, to provide some kind of answer or diversion whenever someone criticizes the LDS Church. And the interesting thing, in my opinion, is that your apparently crazy (so they characterize them) accusations and implications seem to attract more attention than just about anything else here.

[Guest]

See my signature line.

I don't have to read your signature line to find out whether or not I've threatened your life, silly fellow.

Are you sorry you said those things?

If you're a genuine paranoid, yes, I'm sorry. I would not like to have aggravated a mental illness, even in you.

But I don't believe that your paranoia is genuine.

Or do you genuinely wish I'd be sued, or killed with an assault rifle?

I doubt that even the lesser lights here really believe that I hanker for you to be ruined in litigation, let alone that I yearn for your violent death.

This is the kind of overly dramatic stuff that, as even some of your friendlies here have suggested, harms your credibility.

You haven't, I notice, made any effort whatsoever to demonstrate that you regretted your "assault rifle" comment.

I don't, particularly. In its original context, it was linked with a joke about your being out at my curb sifting through the contents of my garbage cans, seeking materials for your creepy "dossiers." Any reasonable person who saw it would instantly understand it as a joke.

I don't believe that you're quite as unreasonable as you pretend to be.

Or that, in fact, you *don't* wish I was dead, or harmed, or sued, or put under distress of some kind.

I don't think that I'm obliged to defend myself against every allegation or insinuation you choose to publish against me. Some are simply so implausible and absurd that I don't believe they merit a serious response. (Moreover, as more than a few observers here will easily recognize, discussions with you about your various accusations against me never, ever, ever result in a verdict of innocent. Nor do they ever end.)

I'm left to assume that you regard me with utter contempt and hatred---something you once actually said, as I recall.

Not hatred. But, yes, contempt. Unless, that is, you really are mentally ill.

Thus, for my own safety and well-being, I think have to take your threats against me very seriously.

There have been no "threats."

If you're really mentally disturbed, I hope that comforts you.

If you're not, I'm merely telling you what you already know full well.

Then why the "Hack" remarks?

Because your behavior toward me seems very reminiscent of the news account's description of "Hack's" behavior toward his targets.

Why the death threats?

There have been no "death threats."

Or do you think that threatening people's lives, threatening to destroy them completely, is something that's funny to joke about?

I've made no such threats.

Why, Dan? What on earth are you talking about? Has all of this just been about getting me to shut up? You threaten me with lethal force and "legal troubles" so that I'll shut up?

If you're really disturbed, you urgently need to contact your therapist, or find one. If you're genuinely upset by your perception of "death threats" against you, etc., and my statements here truly don't ease your mind, you need help. Seriously.

I don't think that talking with you about this any more can serve any actual purpose. You're either play-acting, in which case you'll keep on going as long as it suits your odd purposes, or else you're emotionally and/or mentally disturbed, in which case it's beyond my power or that of a message board post to help you. But further conversation might well upset you even more.

I can't stress this enough: If you're genuinely worried about supposed threats to your life here, get professional help.

[_rcrocket]

Give it up.

Do you think that Torquemada would give in, finally, to your argument? Or, rather, would he just find more reasons to torment you no matter what you said?

I don't understand why you are so willing to be a lightning rod when the jaws of hell have an unlimited supply of bolts.

Scratch is shockingly ill-informed when it comes the doctrine, policy and history of the Church. I doubt he is even a member. But he is adequately skilled at the pick-you-apart rhetoric no matter the subject. He doesn't need a foundation in anything except rhetoric. He is obviously not in academia.

[_Maxrep]

In some ways I agree with you, in others I don't. I agree with you that the substance of Scratch's stuff is definitely patchy. Some decent, some wacked. As for the continuing discussion of anonymity, I tend to see imbalances of power clouding the issue. It would seem to me that it is relatively easy for Daniel Peterson to come here and do what he always does: defend the LDS Church. From all appearances it would seem that he is free to do so (as far as the LDS Church is concerned). He also comes here as one who represents the Church. He is an employee of the Church and he is a low-level ecclesiastical leader. As long as Daniel toes the party line, he is under no threat of losing his job or his standing as a member. I don't really see that it takes a whole lot of courage to do what he is doing.

Many of us do not operate under the same kind of umbrellas that Dr. Peterson enjoys. And this has much more to do with our status (where pertinent) in the LDS Church. It has to do with employment. It also has to do with the widespread prejudice against those who criticize religion or (as the case may be) do not believe in God. I think a good case can be made for the bigotry of the religious against those who are not and who would dare criticize some of the truly bad aspects of some religions, whereas it seems to me that religious folk (of the right religion, at least) get a pass for doing and believing some of the most boneheaded things imaginable. Anonymity in such a situation is sadly a prudent self protection.

Having said that, I think choosing anonymity places an extra burden of self-editing upon one. Scratch is stepping over the line from my perspective, and the risk of stepping over the line may be an "outing." I have no interest in outing Scratch, but there are those here who might gladly do so if given the opportunity. As a side note, I will say that I would prefer that the extreme rhetoric of a few not be transformed into a general condemnation of anonymity, not that I think Ray A is doing that.

Thanks Trevor -

Probably one of the best descriptions of anonymity as it relates to LDS discussions. Not everyone that has a critical view of Mormonism is in a position to uproot their family from the community in which it was raised.

[_Maxrep]

In some ways I agree with you, in others I don't. I agree with you that the substance of Scratch's stuff is definitely patchy. Some decent, some wacked. As for the continuing discussion of anonymity, I tend to see imbalances of power clouding the issue. It would seem to me that it is relatively easy for Daniel Peterson to come here and do what he always does: defend the LDS Church. From all appearances it would seem that he is free to do so (as far as the LDS Church is concerned). He also comes here as one who represents the Church. He is an employee of the Church and he is a low-level ecclesiastical leader. As long as Daniel toes the party line, he is under no threat of losing his job or his standing as a member. I don't really see that it takes a whole lot of courage to do what he is doing.

Many of us do not operate under the same kind of umbrellas that Dr. Peterson enjoys. And this has much more to do with our status (where pertinent) in the LDS Church. It has to do with employment. It also has to do with the widespread prejudice against those who criticize religion or (as the case may be) do not believe in God. I think a good case can be made for the bigotry of the religious against those who are not and who would dare criticize some of the truly bad aspects of some religions, whereas it seems to me that religious folk (of the right religion, at least) get a pass for doing and believing some of the most boneheaded things imaginable. Anonymity in such a situation is sadly a prudent self protection.

Having said that, I think choosing anonymity places an extra burden of self-editing upon one. Scratch is stepping over the line from my perspective, and the risk of stepping over the line may be an "outing." I have no interest in outing Scratch, but there are those here who might gladly do so if given the opportunity. As a side note, I will say that I would prefer that the extreme rhetoric of a few not be transformed into a general condemnation of anonymity, not that I think Ray A is doing that.

Thanks Trevor -

Probably one of the best descriptions of anonymity as it relates to LDS discussions. Not everyone that has a critical view of Mormonism is in a position to uproot their family from the community in which it was raised.

[_Mister Scratch]

Now Dr Peterson is clear that his time was bought from BYU for various and sundry activviteis at FARMS. I can take him at his word for itl.

I've actually said it several times previously. Scratch simply regards me as an inveterate liar.

It's not at all uncommon at BYU for one entity within the University to buy someone's time from another University entity.

Gee, do I dare respond? Or will Bishop Peterson threaten to use violence against me?

Anyways, as you helpfully pointed out earlier in the thread: during the time in question, FARMS was not yet a part of BYU. You stated that you were, at that very time, involved in the negotiations to add this official apologetic branch to BYU.

Also: you have not provided any explanation for the odd discrepancy in payments. The best explanation so far posited has been Rollo Tomasi's theory that you guys "rewarded" yourselves for the good investment year you had.

In my home department, for example, the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, one of our number heads up the interdepartmental/intercollege Asian Studies program. The Asian Studies budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can partially replace him with a part-time person. Our Korean curriculum could not be maintained curently without such an arrangement.

Another of my department colleagues is an associate dean of General and Honors Education. The General and Honors Education budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can partially replace him with a part-time person. Our Japanese curriculum could not be maintained currently without such an arrangement.

My Arabist colleague Kirk Belnap is the executive director of the federally-funded National Middle East Languages Resource Center, established in the wake of 11 September 2001 and housed at BYU. The NMELRC budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can replace him almost full time with a nearly full-time person. Our Arabic curriculum could not be maintained without such an arrangement.

When I or one of my Arabist or Hebraist colleagues goes over for a semester or a year to BYU's Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies, the Jerusalem Center's budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can replace him during his absence. Our Arabic and Hebrew programs in Provo would not survive without such an arrangement.

When I went over to direct the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, what was then FARMS (and is now the Maxwell Institute) compensated my department so that it was able to hire Dr. Muhammad Eissa to take over my Arabic classes during a period when he had left Northwestern University but had not yet taken up a position at the University of Michigan. That gave the department a breathing spell during which it could devise more long-term strategies for covering what has turned out to be a very long-term (and perhaps permanent) assignment outside the department.

I would be quite surprised if such arrangements are not common at other universities and in the business world.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

At the time, you were paid an annual payment of roughly $6,000 for being the Chair of the FARMS board. During one year, however, FARMS "bought" some of your teaching time, thus resulting in the $20,000 dollar figure. Would you say this is an accurate statement?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gee, do I dare respond? Or will Bishop Peterson threaten to use violence against me?

Get help, Scratch. Or else drop the silly pretense.

You stated that you were, at that very time, involved in the negotiations to add this official apologetic branch to BYU.

We were deeply involved in such apologetic efforts as publishing Islamic texts, producing digital databases of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.

Also: you have not provided any explanation for the odd discrepancy in payments.

I haven't looked at the documents. But I know that my salary didn't change in any unusual way from one year to the next.

The best explanation so far posited has been Rollo Tomasi's theory that you guys "rewarded" yourselves for the good investment year you had.

It's a nice hypothesis, and would certainly fit your Hack-'n-Caz agenda, but we didn't.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

At the time, you were paid an annual payment of roughly $6,000 for being the Chair of the FARMS board. During one year, however, FARMS "bought" some of your teaching time, thus resulting in the $20,000 dollar figure. Would you say this is an accurate statement?

My hypothesis, not having looked at the documents, is that that is probably pretty much what happened. As I've said several times.

But I wasn't paid "roughly $6,000 for being the Chair of the FARMS board." That's precisely what I was paid. And the buyout wasn't for just one year. It's been on-going. I direct and edit METI (which has grown considerably) and, accordingly, teach a somewhat reduced course load. This is made possible because the Maxwell Institute buys some of my time from my department, so that the courses I would othewise be teaching can be covered by someone else.

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee, do I dare respond? Or will Bishop Peterson threaten to use violence against me?

Get help, Scratch. Or else drop the silly pretense.

Apologize. And try really hard to keep control of yourself in the future.

You stated that you were, at that very time, involved in the negotiations to add this official apologetic branch to BYU.

We were deeply involved in such apologetic efforts as publishing Islamic texts, producing digital databases of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.

And publishing FARMS Review. And funding the purchase of all sorts of Mopologetic-related books, etc.

Also: you have not provided any explanation for the odd discrepancy in payments.

I haven't looked at the documents. But I know that my salary didn't change in any unusual way from one year to the next.

Of course your *salary* didn't change! You've said that all along. And I, for one, believe you. Rather, it was your supplemental, Mopologetic income which fluctuated.

The best explanation so far posited has been Rollo Tomasi's theory that you guys "rewarded" yourselves for the good investment year you had.

It's a nice hypothesis, and would certainly fit your Hack-'n-Caz agenda, but we didn't.

How is this a "Hack-'n-Caz" agenda? How does this reflect badly on you, or "lampoon" you, or whatever else? What exactly do you think is being attacked here?

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

At the time, you were paid an annual payment of roughly $6,000 for being the Chair of the FARMS board. During one year, however, FARMS "bought" some of your teaching time, thus resulting in the $20,000 dollar figure. Would you say this is an accurate statement?

My hypothesis, not having looked at the documents, is that that is probably pretty much what happened. As I've said several times.

But I wasn't paid "roughly $6,000 for being the Chair of the FARMS board." That's precisely what I was paid. And the buyout wasn't for just one year. It's been on-going. I direct and edit METI (which has grown considerably) and, accordingly, teach a somewhat reduced course load. This is made possible because the Maxwell Institute buys some of my time from my department, so that the courses I would othewise be teaching can be covered by someone else.

Well, this confuses things somewhat, then. It means that the 20 G's came in addition to your normal 6K payment. Or something like that.... Odd how your memory is so remarkably accurate when it's convenient for your argument.

[_The Nehor]

In return for that, I have received death threats from DCP and The Nehor, both of whom have suggested (joking or otherwise) that they would like to use an "assault rifle" on me.

I don't think you understand what a death threat is.

If I were to threaten you with death, I would say something along the lines of:

"I'm going to hunt you down and break into your house while you smugly type on your computer. I will then use my sidearm to shoot out your kneecaps. Then I will use my machete to cut your throat and slowly slice up your pudgy body while you stare at me in terror. Then when all is ending your last sight in this world will be of my grinning face gloating over your demise."

That's a death threat. Learn the difference and live a fuller life.

You should probably sig this. :)

[_Mister Scratch]

In return for that, I have received death threats from DCP and The Nehor, both of whom have suggested (joking or otherwise) that they would like to use an "assault rifle" on me.

I don't think you understand what a death threat is.

If I were to threaten you with death, I would say something along the lines of:

"I'm going to hunt you down and break into your house while you smugly type on your computer. I will then use my sidearm to shoot out your kneecaps. Then I will use my machete to cut your throat and slowly slice up your pudgy body while you stare at me in terror. Then when all is ending your last sight in this world will be of my grinning face gloating over your demise."

That's a death threat. Learn the difference and live a fuller life.

You should probably sig this. :)

Unbelievable.