MYTH DISPELLED: LDS Apologists Are Paid

[_Yong Xi]

How do you feel about doing it anonymously?

Yes. We all know that you disdain the anonymity of the Internet and those who embrace it. I mean, really, we all get it. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make your position any more relevant or persuasive. At this point, you're either preaching to the choir or you're annoying the heck out of the never-to-be-converted.

Perhaps, when you see a new poster has joined the board, you might email him or her with your position statement re: Internet anonymity. That way, the rest of us wouldn't have to read it over and over and over and over and over again.

If you think this is actually an effective rhetorical point, you're just blind to the dynamics and constituency of the board.

If you wish to be merely annoying while failing to score any discernible rhetorical victory whatsoever via your righteous disdain, then continue.

Generally, the first time I read, in any of your posts, "anonymous," "anonymite," "anonymously," etc., I scroll past it without a second glance: I know your position; I'm not particularly interested; and I have limited time. I doubt I'm alone.

I'm dropping in at this post merely to sound a plea for reason, Robert: I'd dare say that no regular poster on this board cares what you think about Internet anonymity--not even your fellow LDS. Your repetitious refrain functions merely as a roadblock to effective communication at this point.

Anonymity is simply not at issue in the vast, vast, vast majority of discussion topics here.

If you must continue in this regard, might it be via PM? That way, I have no excuse to skip your posts. And, frankly, I'd rather not have one. I enjoy reading what you have to say, generally.

Non-anonymously yours,

Chris

Amen to that!

[_harmony]

Paid is paid. There is simply no other way around it. It doesn't matter if it's salary or not, it doesn't matter if it's $100 or $1000; paid is paid. Anything over $0.00 is paid.

In my agency, I am staff. I work with hundreds of volunteers. We all know the difference, even while we do some of the same things: I am paid a salary; they are not. We work for a common goal, but I would never insult their contribution by saying I wasn't paid.

[_cksalmon]

For the record, I view myself not solely as an Islamicist, but as an intellectual historian -- and, first and foremost, as a historian of religion and a historian of philosophical theology.

But, do you have the academic cred for that, Dr. Peterson?

Imagined critical rejoinder: "Why on earth would Dr. Peterson pretend to the status of a historian of philosophical theology? Just because he has an undergrad degree in philosophy and a doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures?"

Reasonable response: "Well, he's a smart fellow, presumably widely-read, with broad-ranging interests."

But, with W. Shryver positing that folks who don't routinely read Egyptological journals have no business opining on the current state of Book of Abraham research, reason, at least in some cases it seems, takes a backseat to feigned academic snobbery.

I simply have no problem (not that you care one way or the other) with your self-description as a historian of philosophical theology. Which, for what it's worth, makes Schryver's pretensions all the more silly. Not that he doesn't have anything intelligent to contribute (which I gladly and willingly grant), but I find it curious that he blithely attempts ye good ol' appeal to authority, when, when reflected back upon him, renders his own observations quite suspect.

Oh, and, "'idiots," "trailer-park denizens," and "orgiastic circle-jerking." That's W. Schryver's typical input here on MDB. I'd point you to Urban Dictionary for the definition of "circle jerk." MD is much the worse in your absence, because "orgiastic circle-jerking" (Schryver), "anonymity" (rcrockett), and "leftist, communist, etc." (Loran) is about the best MDB has been able to procure of late in terms of pro-LDS comment.

In the plus column, we have Alter Idem, Jason Bourne, the sometimes Nehor, mental gymnast, and some others.

Best.

Chris

[_Daniel Peterson]

Paid is paid. There is simply no other way around it. It doesn't matter if it's salary or not, it doesn't matter if it's $100 or $1000; paid is paid. Anything over $0.00 is paid.

Sigh. Once more: I've never denied having sometimes received money -- I'll be candid and say that it's sometimes reached as high as $100 in a single year, though it's more often been $0.00 -- for my apologetic writing. I've said that I do not receive a salary for apologetic writing, that apologetic writing is not required of me as a condition of my employment, that I would receive at least as much in salary if I wrote nothing apologetic whatever, that I've never been asked by the University to write apologetics (quite the contrary, in fact), etc.

This isn't really all that difficult to comprehend.

For the record, I view myself not solely as an Islamicist, but as an intellectual historian -- and, first and foremost, as a historian of religion and a historian of philosophical theology.

But, do you have the academic cred for that, Dr. Peterson?

Dunno. My dissertation (which won an award from the Middle East Studies Association) was an exposition and analysis of the major work of an eleventh-century Islamic Neoplatonist, I've presented and published on Islam as a religion and on Islamic philosophical theology, and I edit a bilingual series devoted to Islamic philosophy, as well as two smaller series dedicated to Eastern Christian thought and a collection of the Arabic-language medical works of the great medieval rabbi and philosopher Moses Maimonides. (These publications are distributed by the University of Chicago Press; you're free to inspect them, if you choose.) I teach courses on Islamic philosophy, Islamic civilization, Islamic history, and Arabic language and literature.

(And I'm beginning to tire of being asked to justify my career, my paycheck, etc., to strangers on a message board.)

[Guest]

Wow. This is getting fairly personal. Would anybody like to inspect my journal, read my letters to my missionary son, study my contract, or tape-record my meetings with my department chairman?

My question was directed at any LDS academic who participates in LDS apologetics. You happened to be available, so I dragged the question over to a thread where you had posted in the hopes that you would reply. There was really nothing intentionally 'personal' about it, as an answer from any such person was welcome. You were also free, of course, not to respond. Thanks for your response, by the way.

Obviously, I included nothing about posting on message boards, etc. That's a private hobby.

I would have figured as much.

I did include a number of apologetic lectures and popular writings as well as my administrative responsibilities and editorial activities with what has become the Maxwell Institute under the "citizenship" category (which is the third of three categories in BYU's reporting structure, after "Teaching" and "Scholarship"). But that category also included numerous popular lectures and short writings on Islam and the Arabs, too. Substantive pieces on Mormon studies (e.g., book reviews in non-LDS scholarly journals and an article in BYU Studies on exemplar historiography that, co-written with a Sinologist colleague, drew on classical Greek, Chinese, and Islamic historical writing to make a point about Old and New Mormon History were included among my publications, but segregated from my Arabic- and Islam-related publications. As I understand it, the rank advancement committee weighted them less heavily than the Islamic material, but apparently did give them at least some weight.

Then, I would say that it is technically you are employed by the LDS Church, at least in part, for your contributions to apologetic scholarship. I don't think this is a big deal, but it is more significant than pocket change.

For the record, I view myself not solely as an Islamicist, but as an intellectual historian -- and, first and foremost, as a historian of religion and a historian of philosophical theology.

I was only interested in whether any of your apologetic efforts were included in the dossier that you presented the university to receive BYU's version of tenure. I know you engage in other, more purely scholarly work.

You have indicated that you did include your apologetic efforts in two categories of "citizenship" and "scholarship." The citizenship part is also interesting, because the inclusion of your apologetic efforts there likely indicates the degree to which the LDS Church has incorporated apologetics into its premiere academic institution. If it didn't fit, you would not put it there.

Both citizenship and scholarship are crucial to obtaining continuing status at BYU, and BYU, like many teaching institutions (those institutions whose missions aren't primarily research oriented), often weighs citizenship and teaching more heavily than scholarship (when compared to research institutions). For this reason, the inclusion of your apologetic work in the "citizenship" category is more significant than it appears on first glance. Apologetic work is a significant part of your academic career and a substantive part of your job at BYU. You are a paid teacher, scholar, and apologist. And, I would probably weigh the roles in that order (first being most important), but that's just my guess.

Again, I don't consider this a big deal, or a cause for concern. I am simply surprised that this conclusion has been avoided for so long.

[_antishock8]

Did you include your apologetic writings (or other FARMS activities) in your continuing status dossier?

Blah blah blah... distract distract...

I did include a number of apologetic lectures and popular writings as well as my administrative responsibilities and editorial activities with what has become the Maxwell Institute...

Blah blah blah... More distractions...

Substantive pieces on Mormon studies... Blah blah blah more BS... were included among my publications... Blah blah... the rank advancement committee... Blah blah... apparently did give them at least some weight.

For the record, I view myself not solely as an Islamicist, but.. blah blah... first and foremost, as a historian of religion and a historian of philosophical theology.

So, he gets paid to do apologetic material, it's in his dossier, the church through its subsidiary approves it, and Mr. Peterson euphemistically calls himself a historian rather than an apologist.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night my friend...

[_Trevor]

So, he gets paid to do apologetic material...

The significant point in my mind is that apologetics comprises a substantive part of his academic career, and that through BYU the LDS Church supports this part of his career. The Church is supporting its scholars as they pursue apologetics on its behalf. Otherwise, these scholars who participate in apologetics would not include this in their "continuing status" dossier.

[_antishock8]

So, he gets paid to do apologetic material...

The significant point in my mind is that apologetics comprises a substantive part of his academic career, and that through BYU the LDS Church supports this part of his career. The Church is supporting its scholars as they pursue apologetics on its behalf. Otherwise, these scholars who participate in apologetics would not include this in their "continuing status" dossier.

This is an excellent point, and I'm glad you had the presence of mind to ask Mr. Peterson that question.

I'm not sure why they're so insecure about their endeavors. I think Mr. Peterson should be compensated well for his efforts, and it appears to be the case; at least he earns a little more than $50 a pop like he would have us believe.

It's unfortunate that he has to obfuscate when a little truthfulness is in actuality harmless. Shame.

[_beastie]

I think Trevor's analysis is correct.

The only reason this is a big deal at all is due to the church's history of disdaining other religions who pay for ministerial or apologetic services.

[_harmony]

Paid is paid. There is simply no other way around it. It doesn't matter if it's salary or not, it doesn't matter if it's $100 or $1000; paid is paid. Anything over $0.00 is paid.

Sigh. Once more: I've never denied having sometimes received money -- I'll be candid and say that it's sometimes reached as high as $100 in a single year, though it's more often been $0.00 -- for my apologetic writing.

Then you are indeed paid for your apologetics. Congratulations.

I've said that I do not receive a salary for apologetic writing, that apologetic writing is not required of me as a condition of my employment, that I would receive at least as much in salary if I wrote nothing apologetic whatever, that I've never been asked by the University to write apologetics (quite the contrary, in fact), etc.

So BYU has asked you to not engage in apologetics, and you do it anyway?

This isn't really all that difficult to comprehend.

Well, not once we get past the idea that apologists are not doing this as a volunteer, but are paid for their contributions (although not very well).

(And I'm beginning to tire of being asked to justify my career, my paycheck, etc., to strangers on a message board.)

There's a simple solution to that: avoid making statements about your career, your various paychecks, etc. on the boards. Avoiding making such statements on an individual board, such as this one, won't suffice, since your posts on one board will get quoted on another board quite often. So... avoid posts about your career (degree, responsibilities, tasks, etc), your paychecks (source, amount, expenditures attached thereto, etc) on every board, and no doubt the need to justify both or either will disappear.