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

[_Daniel Peterson]

The board is a place where people of different opinions and backgrounds post. It does not have anything like an "official spokesperson" that I am aware of, unless the owners and mods lay claim that role. Its personality comes from Scratch no more than it derives from your participation. Feel free to insult people individually, but be apprised that your and your associates at MA&D's constant running down of the entire board as though it were a monolithic entity is about as fair as the caricature many angry anti-Mormons hurl at FARMS and the LDS Church.

Good grief. Lighten up.

Do you not see why I think it would be impossible for the two of us to communicate? You appear to have completely misread everything I've written to you today. Every single thing.

How do you want me to respond to antishock8's foul-mouthed and asinine comments? Usually I ignore the pathetic little twit, but, every once in a while, I feel lke commenting on his juvenile emissions. I tend to prefer to do it with a bit of modest humor rather than saying what I really think of his moronic and spiteful contributions, which would not be remotely kind. (Even now, I'm not expressing my low opinion of his posts anywhere near as completely as I could.)

Of course I know that no single poster here is the board's official spokesman. Are you really so woodenly literalistic as that? I think not. But I think that the atmosphere of this board is, as I said, poisonous, and that it warps communication. And Scratch and antishock8 and their ilk have a great deal to do with that poisonous atmosphere.

Conversation here has little or no real value that I can see. Not, anyway, for communication between believers and critics. I don't see many here even trying such communication, and, frankly, I'm not sure that it can be done here.

[_Mister Scratch]

Feel free to elaborate on just what the relationship is between the money and apologetics.

Editing and printing books costs money. It's that simple.

Right: apologetic books. Yes? So, it is entirely fair and accurate to state that the bulk of the millions of dollars poured into FARMS is devoted, in some way, shape, or form, to apologetics.

[_Trevor]

Good grief. Lighten up.

I would like to lighten up, as you say, I really would, but I can't see that you are helping what you call the poisonous atmosphere here by calling it Shady Acres, referring to its atmosphere as "poisonous," or even joking about antishock8 being its spokesperson. As someone who has been kicked off of FAIR and MA&D by touchy mods for persistently arguing with you on a point (and I am not suggesting you requested this) and others, I have a hard time with you taking a place that I am not at risk of being booted from and running it down because you do not like the style of a handful of its participants. I don't think it is making the problem any better.

Go ahead and get as pissed with them all you want, but must you do exactly what you hate the critics and anti-Mormons doing? Painting the whole thing with one simplistic brush repeatedly? I think the best way to break the cycle is to refuse to stoop to the same tactics. Refusing to suggest we're all alike, even in jest, might not be a bad way to start.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Right: apologetic books. Yes?

So far as I'm aware, the editing, printing, and binding of all books costs money.

So, it is entirely fair and accurate to state that the bulk of the millions of dollars poured into FARMS is devoted, in some way, shape, or form, to apologetics.

FARMS is the single largest portion of the Maxwell Institute. But I'm still not sure that your characterization is true. METI books, for example, are considerably more expensive to produce than are FARMS books. And digitizing and multispectral imaging and producing electronic databases are quite expensive. And even a substantial portion of the FARMS research and publishing budget is not really apologetic: Royal Skousen's Critical Text project, for instance, is extremely expensive, but isn't apologetic in character.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I can't see that you are helping what you call the poisonous atmosphere here by calling it Shady Acres

For the record, I don't believe I've ever used that term.

Go ahead and get as pissed with them all you want, but must you do exactly what you hate the critics and anti-Mormons doing?

I needn't, and I don't. I can't gather data about Scratch's income and daily activities. I can't stalk him constantly, gathering dirt for creepy "dossiers." I can't because he's completely anonymous. But I wouldn't even if I could.

I've never posted any warm and fuzzy fantasies picturing the agonizing death of any poster here, nor posted any note about the sexual behavior of any poster's spouse, nor called anybody here an obscene name, nor commented on anybody's appearance (real or imagined), nor anything of the sort. There is no moral equivalence here.

I'm quite aware that not everybody here is cut from the same cloth. I have considerable respect for Tarski, for example, and for Ray A, and, yes, for Shades himself. And for others. But it seems to me that some of the lower forms of life on the board do too much to set the tone here, partly because their excesses are passed over in silence by their betters. I can't blame any reasonably intelligent believing Latter-day Saint who takes a glance here and decides that life is too short to expose oneself to the kind of toxic idiocy that is spewed out here by too many in too great a quantity.

[_beastie]

DCP - maybe if you came here to seek out substantial dialogue (like, say, in the celestial forum), or were willing to respond to questions of substance I, personally, would take your complaints more seriously. But you obviously come here for the toxic stuff. You aren't interested in substance on this board whatsoever, and when people really try to get you to respond with substance, you decline.

I think you like feeling persecuted and love collecting malicious quotes to savor later. You complain endlessly about scratch, but his are the threads you participate the most on. You seem more interested in defending apologia than in defending the truth claims of the church when you participate on boards. It's been like this for a very long time, and we've heard you claim that you're quitting this toxic place forever and ever too many times to count. Do you even believe yourself anymore when you say it?

[_Trevor]

For the record, I don't believe I've ever used that term.

If your recollection is accurate, and I am not saying it isn't, I stand corrected. You have, however, characterized the board in a rather simplistic fashion at times, and this is reminiscent of the same kind of generalizations that dominate anti-Mormon rhetoric about FARMS and the LDS Church.

I needn't, and I don't. I can't gather data about Scratch's income and daily activities. I can't stalk him constantly, gathering dirt for creepy "dossiers." I can't because he's completely anonymous. But I wouldn't even if I could.

Well, that is good to know.

I can't blame any reasonably intelligent believing Latter-day Saint who takes a glance here and decides that life is too short to expose oneself to the kind of toxic idiocy that is spewed out here by too many in too great a quantity.

Well, if apologists are supposed to engage critics, then they will have a difficult time doing it when so many get booted from the one place where apologists hang out in large numbers (MA&D). If the Celestial Kingdom were used to its potential, I think one would find that both critics and apologists could participate without the excesses that tend to disrupt other areas of the board.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP - maybe if you came here to seek out substantial dialogue (like, say, in the celestial forum), or were willing to respond to questions of substance I, personally, would take your complaints more seriously. But you obviously come here for the toxic stuff. You aren't interested in substance on this board whatsoever, and when people really try to get you to respond with substance, you decline.

I readily admit that what interests me most about message boards -- all of them, really -- is the egregiously bad behavior of some people on them. I often say, and I'm not making it up, that over-the-top religious bigotry (whether on the part of anti-Mormons or atheists or anti-Muslims or whatever) fascinates me, in an odd sort of way.

I think you like feeling persecuted and love collecting malicious quotes to savor later.

I haven't collected a single specimen in several months, despite a plenitude of opportunities.

You complain endlessly about scratch, but his are the threads you participate the most on.

I'm not making it up when I say that over-the-top behavior in religious matters intrigues me, in an odd sort of way.

You seem more interested in defending apologia than in defending the truth claims of the church when you participate on boards.

As I've often noted, my more serious writing goes elsewhere.

It's been like this for a very long time, and we've heard you claim that you're quitting this toxic place forever and ever too many times to count. Do you even believe yourself anymore when you say it?

I readily admit that it's a kind of addiction. I suspect that I'm not the only one here who senses it that way.

But someday, mañana perhaps, I'm going to quit. It isn't a good use of my time. Maybe there's a Twelve-Step Program somewhere.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, if apologists are supposed to engage critics, then they will have a difficult time doing it when so many get booted from the one place where apologists hang out in large numbers (MA&D). If the Celestial Kingdom were used to its potential, I think one would find that both critics and apologists could participate without the excesses that tend to disrupt other areas of the board.

I might point out that some here (probably not you) seem to have the impression that "serious" apologists hang out on the board formerly known as FAIR, or they they pay attention to internet message boards. In my experience, they don't. Few of my colleagues at the Maxwell Institute even know that that board exists, and fewer still know of this one. Bill Hamblin occasionally posts on that board -- perhaps every month. Two others do very, very occasionally, under pseudonyms. I know of no others. Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Kent Brown, Kevin Barney, Noel Reynolds, Louis Midgley, etc. -- I've never known any of them ever to post on any message board nor even to look in on one.

[_Trevor]

I might point out that some here (probably not you) seem to have the impression that "serious" apologists hang out on the board formerly known as FAIR, or they they pay attention to internet message boards. In my experience, they don't. Few of my colleagues at the Maxwell Institute even know that that board exists, and fewer still know of this one. Bill Hamblin occasionally posts on that board -- perhaps every month. Two others do very, very occasionally, under pseudonyms. I know of no others. Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Kent Brown, Kevin Barney, Noel Reynolds, Louis Midgley, etc. -- I've never known any of them ever to post on any message board nor even to look in on one.

Yes. I have seen Hamblin a little, and that is about it. I don't know where Julianne Reynolds fits into the overall apologetics scene, but I have read some of her stuff online and know she regularly attends FAIR's yearly gathering. Kerry Shirts spends a fair amount of time over there, and he is a pretty active amateur apologist without any graduate training that I know of. But then, you don't see many of the published critics spending a lot of time on the boards either. Metcalfe and Vogel check in. Don Bradley has published one piece in Sunstone, and he is not a believer, but he also does not make criticism of the LDS Church his focus. In fact, the piece he wrote was fairly positive about Joseph Smith. He and I have had numerous conversations about why he should avoid boards. His recent participation at MA&D was very fruitful for him, though.