Daniel Peterson Insults and Attacks Dr. Scratch and DrW

[_wenglund]

The investigative reporting here is to be envied even by the Washington Post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Shulem]

But if anyone is really guilty of milking the teet while doing apologetics, it would have to be John Gee.

Yeah, DCP is a jolly old guy who eats donuts and laughs. I like him.

But John Gee is another story. The scowl on his face says it all. I would like to stuff the Facsimile No. 3 right up his lying nostrils and make him it eat it in front of the whole church while the First Presidency tap dances a jig on the altar during General Conference. What a bunch of lying clowns! The First Presidency is a circus act and the apologists are their clowns!



Paul O

[_Yoda]

The investigative reporting here is to be envied even by the Washington Post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Move over, Woodward and Bernstein!

[Guest]

But he also said (emphasis mine), "Not a penny of my salary rewards me for writing a single word of apologetics; my salary would be unchanged if I never wrote a single line of apologetic materials."

As someone possessing some familiarity with the way of academic careers, I offer my honest appraisal of this statement:

To my ear this sounds like, "Not a penny of my salary as a professor of philosophy rewards me for writing a single word about Kantian ethics; my salary would be unchanged if I never wrote a single line about Kantian ethics."

The crucial thing that is left unstated here is that this professor of philosophy damn well better be writing something in order to be a productive employee of his university. And, lo and behold, if we look on his CV, he has published articles on Kantian ethics, as well as numerous articles on other subjects like Heideggerian existentialism, etc.

It has never been clear to me that the FARMS crew did not consider their apologetics to be scholarship. And, it is often the case at a teaching university like BYU--i.e., one that does not aspire to be a leading research institution, but rather focuses more on pedagogy--that a more generous definition of "research" is observed. So, whereas a person seeking tenure at a research institution better darn well have articles in major peer-reviewed journals in the field of their expertise, as well as a book coming out from a major university press, the professor at a teaching institution may get more credit for books or articles published in-house, non-peer-reviewed pieces, work on encyclopedia entries, editing books, etc.

Thus it was not surprising to me to see things I would consider apologetic appearing on a FARMS participant's CV. In my experience, one's CV is a representation in writing of one's career, and it is something that one's employer evaluates for purposes of rating job performance.

[_Kishkumen]

The investigative reporting here is to be envied even by the Washington Post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Move over, Woodward and Bernstein!

Who knows, eh?

I mean, what is really lacking here is something worthy of examination.

[_Kevin Graham]

But he also said (emphasis mine), "Not a penny of my salary rewards me for writing a single word of apologetics; my salary would be unchanged if I never wrote a single line of apologetic materials."

As someone possessing some familiarity with the way of academic careers, I offer my honest appraisal of this statement:

To my ear this sounds like, "Not a penny of my salary as a professor of philosophy rewards me for writing a single word about Kantian ethics; my salary would be unchanged if I never wrote a single line about Kantian ethics."

The crucial thing that is left unstated here is that this professor of philosophy damn well better be writing something in order to be a productive employee of his university. And, lo and behold, if we look on his CV, he has published articles on Kantian ethics, as well as numerous articles on other subjects like Heideggerian existentialism, etc.

It has never been clear to me that the FARMS crew did not consider their apologetics to be scholarship. And, it is often the case at a teaching university like BYU--i.e., one that does not aspire to be a leading research institution, but rather focuses more on pedagogy--that a more generous definition of "research" is observed. So, whereas a person seeking tenure at a research institution better darn well have articles in major peer-reviewed journals in the field of their expertise, as well as a book coming out from a major university press, the professor at a teaching institution may get more credit for books or articles published in-house, non-peer-reviewed pieces, work on encyclopedia entries, editing books, etc.

Thus it was not surprising to me to see things I would consider apologetic appearing on a FARMS participant's CV. In my experience, one's CV is a representation in writing of one's career, and it is something that one's employer evaluates for purposes of rating job performance.

Isn't that why Hamblin dropped everything, including his blog, to focus on real scholarship?

[_Kishkumen]

In the interest of trying to be as fair as possible, I think I understand what DCP is saying:

He joined MI to work on the text initiatives, which had nothing to do with apologetics, and at the same time he was the editor of an in-house journal at MI that was very much involved in LDS apologetics, though not entirely apologetic. So, as he says, this particular 20,000 salary buy-out had nothing to do with pay for apologetics.

If we had been present for the transaction, we would know for a fact that at no time was the pursuit of apologetics any part of the discussion of what this salary buy-out was for. Since we were not, we have to take his word for it. Since I don't really care one way or the other, I am happy to take his word for it.

Tada!

Can we just get off this roundabout already?

[_Kishkumen]

I apologize that it took me a while to reach this conclusion. I have been driving many miles today, and I have been very busy doing multiple tasks.

[_SteelHead]

And while he is not be rewarded for writing apologetics, he has not said anything about being compensated for otherwise supporting apologetics; editing, fundraising, consulting, stuffing envelopes, what have you.....

His response is meticulously crafted and worded. Very specify activities are noted but a whole range is left out.

[_Bazooka]

I was always careful to say, not that I had never received any money at all for apologetics, but that none of my salary came from apologetics -- and this was and is precisely right.

No, Dan. It is precisely wrong. The relevant documents show that it is precisely wrong.

Does anyone dispute DrW's conclusion?

Does anyone dispute that DCP's statement sounds like he made a deliberate attempt(s) at misleading people?

Does anyone dispute that DCP has gone from portraying that he did his apologetic work for free, to he did get paid for his apologetic work on top of his salary?

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng