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

[_beastie]

I think Brant still participates on MAD now and then.

Interesting that the "serious" apologists seem to be avoiding the place. It's moderated in as friendly a way possible for them.

And DCP - if you go to messages boards interested mainly in bad behavior (too bad the bad behavior of your own side doesn't seem to interest you), and without any intention to engage in serious interactions, then you really have no cause to complain when you find exactly what you're looking for.

[_richardMdBorn]

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.

Kevin Barney posted on ZLMB. SInce ZLMB was upgraded, the old names were lost unless they were updated. Type in Kevin Barney ZLMB on google and you turn up:

DNA testing to find Joseph Smith's "lost" children
Kevin Barney. Meta ZLoMBie. Posts: 195 (1/26/04 10:56 am) Re: Why? ... ZLMB - Roundtable Archives VIII - This Board Sponsored by Pacumeni's Pages ...

[_Ray A]

Kevin Barney posted on ZLMB.

He also posts on By Common Consent

[_Daniel Peterson]

Kevin Barney posted on ZLMB.

He also posts on By Common Consent

Blogs like By Common Consent strike me as quite different animals than this or, for that matter, any other message board.

They tend to be much more civilized and substantive. Why, I sometimes ask myself, do I gravitate to this kind of place rather than to them? Perhaps, when my character flaws are more completely exorcised, I'll spend more time there and much, much less time in places like this.

[_Ray A]

Blogs like By Common Consent strike me as quite different animals than this or, for that matter, any other message board.

They tend to be much more civilized and substantive. Why, I sometimes ask myself, do I gravitate to this kind of place rather than to them? Perhaps, when my character flaws are more completely exorcised, I'll spend more time there and much, much less time in places like this.

BCC is boring. Not suitable for you. I'm confident it would bore the hell out of you. They are Mormon intellectuals talking to other Mormon intellectuals. No real controversy there, as far as I'm concerned. Unless you want to discuss literary criticism and how to improve Mormon fiction writing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

BCC is boring. Not suitable for you. I'm confident it would bore the hell out of you. They are Mormon intellectuals talking to other Mormon intellectuals. No real controversy there, as far as I'm concerned. Unless you want to discuss literary criticism and how to improve Mormon fiction writing.

Frankly, that was my impression, too.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think Brant still participates on MAD now and then.

He participates only quite rarely.

Interesting that the "serious" apologists seem to be avoiding the place. It's moderated in as friendly a way possible for them.

You may not be following me: Most don't even know that the place exists, friendly or not. And, of the others, most couldn't care less whether it's friendly. It simply doesn't interest them.

And DCP - if you go to messages boards interested mainly in bad behavior (too bad the bad behavior of your own side doesn't seem to interest you), and without any intention to engage in serious interactions, then you really have no cause to complain when you find exactly what you're looking for.

You're mistaken if you imagine that I haven't engaged in pretty serious conversations, and many of them, on the board formerly known as FAIR.

But I don't do my most serious and sustained writing on message boards. That's true, and I see nothing wrong with it.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

You don't need to. The SCMC, or some other LDS zealot would do it for you. Then, you'd be able to send condemnatory emails to my family, as you did with GoodK.

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.

Sure there is. You fantasized about blowing me away with an assault rifle. You have called me what I would characterize as "obscene" names. Etc., etc.

Anyways, all of this is beside the point, and is getting rather too personal for my tastes. I prefer these threads to be about actual issues (such as Mopologetic finances) than about particular individuals (such as DCP). I understand, Prof. P., that you believe that inserting yourself into the discussion might make it seem, to certain outside observers, that the thread is actually a personalized attack on *you*, rather than a discussion of the actual issue, which is Mopologetic finances. But, at heart, that's not really what I was interested in discussing. At heart, I am most interested in sifting away all the chaff to discover that.... The LDS Church has a very well-funded cadre of professional apologists, undergirded with a massive operating budget in the millions of dollars.

[_Trevor]

The LDS Church has a very well-funded cadre of professional apologists, undergirded with a massive operating budget in the millions of dollars.

Well-funded is a relative term. Personally I don't believe that most professors are particularly well paid. Many of the better-paid ones could have gotten more in the private sector at one time.

If you were to say that FARMS had a healthy operating budget in the years you retrieved the records for, that would seem to be correct.

[_Mister Scratch]

The LDS Church has a very well-funded cadre of professional apologists, undergirded with a massive operating budget in the millions of dollars.

Well-funded is a relative term. Personally I don't believe that most professors are particularly well paid. Many of the better-paid ones could have gotten more in the private sector at one time.

If you were to say that FARMS had a healthy operating budget in the years you retrieved the records for, that would seem to be correct.

No: I mean that the project itself is well-funded. Further, are you aware of other apologetic organizations which have budgets this large? Or any anti-Mormon ministries that take in millions each year?