A Glimpse at SHIELDS' Financing

[_Doctor Scratch]

As many here know, I have grown quite interested in the admittedly labyrinthine way that LDS apologetics gets financed. We know that FARMS has (or had) a multi-million-dollar budget, but what about the smaller operations like SHIELDS and FAIR? They have always boasted about how they are "volunteer" efforts, but do they have grander ambitions? In the case of SHIELDS, this definitely seems to be the case:

In the future we hope to have a permanent location from which to operate. We envision the location as a research center. If you are interested in helping to fund this project, please contact us at the e-mail address above.

Fascinating! I wonder if they were ever informed about the so-called "FARMS Ziggurat". Would Stan Barker likewise have envisioned an ornate, pyramidal "research center"? Would paid apologists work there? We may never know. Sadly, SHIELDS seems far more focused, for the time being, on more modest acquisitions:

Items needed:

* A good photocopier (also efficient to operate) or finances to buy one.
* Mormonism, Shadow or Reality, (current and older editions, as well as an electronic edition)
* Strong's Concordance (latest edition)
* Collected Discourses, Vols. 3-5 (and index if there is one)
* By Study and also by Faith, Vol. 2
* Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7
* Brigham Young Addresses, Elden Watson, (need vols 1-5, 7)
* 2 copies: Biblical Archaeology Society CD-ROM containing the articles from all the issues of BAR from 1975 to 2000. Cost: $125 ea.

Oh, come on, now. Surely the massive wealth of FARMS could have tossed them a bone here. Surely Matt Roper could have loaned his copy of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality to Barker and Co. Perhaps they are being a bit greedy in their desire for "a good photocopier" (and one that is "efficient to operate" no less! the hubris!), but if Barker manages to sell his antique metal sacrament cup, he might be able to put a significant dent in a downpayment for a solid used Xerox--possibly one left over from FARMS.

What intrigued me most about SHIELDS's "calls for donations," though, was its draconian donation procedures:

Guidelines for Accepting Contributions:

1. We are not a tax exempt organization, hence donations will not have any tax benefits to the individual or organization.
2. All donations must be anonymous as far as the public is concerned (you must do it because you believe in what SHIELDS is doing and want no glory for your financial assistance).
3. All donations must have no strings attached. We will continue to run SHIELDS as we always have (to the best of our ability and honestly).
4. We reserve the right to refuse a donation from anyone or any organization.

Violations of SHIELDS privacy may result in refusal of future donations.

Thank you,
Stan Barker
Gene Humbert
Malin Jacobs

Gee, for a volunteer organization that is hard-up for funding, this doesn't seem very appreciative! This in particular is a classic: "All donations must be anonymous as far as the public is concerned (you must do it because you believe in what SHIELDS is doing and want no glory for your financial assistance)." And, I wonder: if I offered to donate a million dollars, or to purchase the SHIELDS equivalent of a Liahona Membership, couldn't I at least expect that Barker or one of the other SHIELDS turkeys could issue a public apology for something or other? Would Barker be willing to apologize for posting people's private email correspondence? Given these secretive, draconian rules, I guess not.

In any event, I just found this rather interesting, particularly when compared with the stringent secrecy surrounding FARMS's finances.

You can read the material in full here:

http://www.shields-research.org/Donations.htm

[_Bond James Bond]

[...]
Violations of SHIELDS privacy may result in refusal of future donations.
[...]

Yah...suuurreeee.

[_Droopy]

As many here know, I have grown quite interested in the admittedly labyrinthine way that LDS apologetics gets financed. We know that FARMS has (or had) a multi-million-dollar budget, but what about the smaller operations like SHIELDS and FAIR? They have always boasted about how they are "volunteer" efforts, but do they have grander ambitions? In the case of SHIELDS, this definitely seems to be the case:

In the future we hope to have a permanent location from which to operate. We envision the location as a research center. If you are interested in helping to fund this project, please contact us at the e-mail address above.

Fascinating! I wonder if they were ever informed about the so-called "FARMS Ziggurat". Would Stan Barker likewise have envisioned an ornate, pyramidal "research center"? Would paid apologists work there? We may never know. Sadly, SHIELDS seems far more focused, for the time being, on more modest acquisitions:

Items needed:

* A good photocopier (also efficient to operate) or finances to buy one.
* Mormonism, Shadow or Reality, (current and older editions, as well as an electronic edition)
* Strong's Concordance (latest edition)
* Collected Discourses, Vols. 3-5 (and index if there is one)
* By Study and also by Faith, Vol. 2
* Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7
* Brigham Young Addresses, Elden Watson, (need vols 1-5, 7)
* 2 copies: Biblical Archaeology Society CD-ROM containing the articles from all the issues of BAR from 1975 to 2000. Cost: $125 ea.

Oh, come on, now. Surely the massive wealth of FARMS could have tossed them a bone here. Surely Matt Roper could have loaned his copy of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality to Barker and Co. Perhaps they are being a bit greedy in their desire for "a good photocopier" (and one that is "efficient to operate" no less! the hubris!), but if Barker manages to sell his antique metal sacrament cup, he might be able to put a significant dent in a downpayment for a solid used Xerox--possibly one left over from FARMS.

What intrigued me most about SHIELDS's "calls for donations," though, was its draconian donation procedures:

Guidelines for Accepting Contributions:

1. We are not a tax exempt organization, hence donations will not have any tax benefits to the individual or organization.
2. All donations must be anonymous as far as the public is concerned (you must do it because you believe in what SHIELDS is doing and want no glory for your financial assistance).
3. All donations must have no strings attached. We will continue to run SHIELDS as we always have (to the best of our ability and honestly).
4. We reserve the right to refuse a donation from anyone or any organization.

Violations of SHIELDS privacy may result in refusal of future donations.

Thank you,
Stan Barker
Gene Humbert
Malin Jacobs

Gee, for a volunteer organization that is hard-up for funding, this doesn't seem very appreciative! This in particular is a classic: "All donations must be anonymous as far as the public is concerned (you must do it because you believe in what SHIELDS is doing and want no glory for your financial assistance)." And, I wonder: if I offered to donate a million dollars, or to purchase the SHIELDS equivalent of a Liahona Membership, couldn't I at least expect that Barker or one of the other SHIELDS turkeys could issue a public apology for something or other? Would Barker be willing to apologize for posting people's private email correspondence? Given these secretive, draconian rules, I guess not.

In any event, I just found this rather interesting, particularly when compared with the stringent secrecy surrounding FARMS's finances.

You can read the material in full here:

http://www.shields-research.org/Donations.htm

Where, where are the limits to this kind of mental masturbation?

[_Kishkumen]

Where, where are the limits to this kind of mental masturbation?

You just love to watch.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hello there, Loran. I have a few questions for you:

1. Have you ever donated any money to any apologetic organizations?
2. If so, which?
3. Did you have to sign or agree to some kind of "non-disclosure" agreement, ala SHIELDS?

I have to confess that I find that odd paranoia surrounding all this stuff to be very telling.

[_Kishkumen]

What they really need is for a lawyer to donate the time to make them a non-profit. (There you go, Bob, a worthwhile use of your time. We'd happily let you take a break from accusing people of being the equivalent of anti-Semites for a while.) Then they could collect some real donations and not make pathetic pleas for the crap they ask for. I mean, what the hell do they need this stuff for anyway?

See, the problem is that the question is too easy to ask, and once the question is posed one is less likely to get said donation. As a legitimate non-profit, however, they could buy whatever goodies they wanted for the organization, and people would happily fork over the cash without asking questions.

But, these guys are amateurs. They should take a clue from FARMS and have a membership structure, some real publications, or even just a real raison d'etre. What we are looking at here is pretty damn pathetic.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, hey--I'm willing to pitch in for their photocopier fund if Barker will publicly apologize for his dumb argument about educated people not joining the Church due to "not listening."

[_Kishkumen]

Well, hey--I'm willing to pitch in for their photocopier fund if Barker will publicly apologize for his dumb argument about educated people not joining the Church due to "not listening."

You must be in a very generous mood this evening, Doctor. I mean, here you deign to critique the prolix leavings of Drippy and now you are offering to help fund Stan's "photocopier" (how quaint)? I wonder if he'll take you up on it.

I am surprised they didn't ask for a ditto machine. Or would that be Wee Willy's request?

[_Analytics]

SHIELDS has been pandering for handouts like this for as long at it has existed.

Were you around about ten years ago when SHIELDS and FAIR were both young, and it wasn’t at all clear which organization, if either, would grow to be the dominate internet apologetic group?

There was a time when they were talking about merging their resources into a single focused apologetic machine. They even came to some sort of handshake agreement which they advertised on their respective sites. As they were working out the details, something happened and they broke off the engagement.

I get the distinct impression that the FAIR powers figured out that Stan is a nutcase and realized it would be better for their own credibility to distance themselves from him.

[_Doctor Scratch]

There was a time when they were talking about merging their resources into a single focused apologetic machine. They even came to some sort of handshake agreement which they advertised on their respective sites. As they were working out the details, something happened and they broke off the engagement.

Really? Do you have any documentation pertaining to this? If so, I'd love to see it.

In part, I think the division is partly a matter of resources, and also a matter of approach. FAIR ultimately opted to just put information out there, in the form of their website, and affiliated websites like juliann's blacklds.org, or whatever it's called, and the FAIRwiki. SHIELDS, on the other hand, has pretty much always been about baiting and attacking critics, as is evidenced by the pages upon pages of email correspondence with critics across the spectrum. More specifically: both organizations attack critics, but FAIR is a bit more...eh...."crafty" about it, since they have folks like Allen Wyatt and Greg Smith and Scott Gordon running things. E.g., their Wiki assaults on R. Abanes & et al. tend to be the nitpicky, "let's track down every last footnote" variety--a technique that was perfected by FARMS, whereas FARMS attacks critics in a more hamfisted, confrontational, and frankly, juvenile way. And, let's face it: Stan Barker is kind of a bonehead. (Or maybe egghead, since he sort of looks like Humpty Dumpty?) He isn't as smart as the FAIR guys, and he isn't as good a writer. Pretty recently, I came across a document which showed that SHIELDS, in its early stages, saw itself as a kind of "cloak-and-dagger"-type operation, where they were actively trying to draw the attention of "anti-Mormon" concerns. In other words, their main goal was to pick fights with critics. I'm not so sure that FAIR is out to do that. Instead, I think that FAIR is more strictly about playing defense, rather than flailing about in angry desperation.

I get the distinct impression that the FAIR powers figured out that Stan is a nutcase and realized it would be better for their own credibility to distance themselves from him.

Huh. I don't know if I'd call Barker a "nutcase," but he definitely isn't as sharp as many of the FAIR apologists. It makes sense that he would lean so heavily on the "real" scholars like DCP, Hamblin, Tvedtnes, and Midgley.