How Much Are LDS Apologists Paid?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
GoodK

Post by GoodK »

Jason Bourne wrote:You are in fact missing quite a bit. Weren't you planning on asking your father about this?


Would that be sufficient? I was only speaking of things that have been substantiated here. I have asked him, and shared my limited knowledge both here and with Scratch personally, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for it.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Nevo wrote:While Bushman wishes the "historians" would engage Joseph Smith more directly (noting their tendency "to bypass the early history" in order to "avoid strain between keeping the peace with non-Mormons and showing their colors as believers"), he certainly doesn't advocate that they become "apologists." I think the summer seminar is his attempt to find a middle ground.

But if you still want to call that "apologetics" then so be it.


It seems to me that Bushman is an anomaly in the world of LDS apologetics (and yes, I'd still term what he's doing as "apologetics", albeit a far more honest and decent-minded form of it). The fact remains that participants will be paid a stipend. Thus, apologists are "gettin' paid." I'm still at a loss as to why TBMs seem to object so strenuously to this.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Jason Bourne wrote:
dartagnan wrote:Who cares if anyone gets paid?

Some of you don't seem to realize how tough a job it is being an apologist.


I don't care. But the legend in his own mind scratch is having and orgasm here over what he thinks is catching DCP in a bald face lie. Seems like he has scant to go on.


Actually, quite a bit of evidence, whether it be solid and fully substantiated (such as DCP being on leave), or anecdotal (GoodK's experience/contact w/ FARMS), or circumstantial (DCP's book deals) have been proffered. Why you seem to take such issue with this, Jason, is anybody's guess. Tell me: Does it seem likely to you, based on everything that's been discussed, that LDS apologists "get paid"? Y/N?

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
dartagnan wrote:Who cares if anyone gets paid?

Some of you don't seem to realize how tough a job it is being an apologist.


I don't care. But the legend in his own mind scratch is having and orgasm here over what he thinks is catching DCP in a bald face lie. Seems like he has scant to go on.


Actually, quite a bit of evidence, whether it be solid and fully substantiated (such as DCP being on leave), or anecdotal (GoodK's experience/contact w/ FARMS), or circumstantial (DCP's book deals) have been proffered. Why you seem to take such issue with this, Jason, is anybody's guess. Tell me: Does it seem likely to you, based on everything that's been discussed, that LDS apologists "get paid"? Y/N?


The only thing I see that they probably get paid for is royalties on books which really makes sense. Oh and yes the stipned thing, but that came about after DCP made his claim that you so desperately want to shatter. I see no other evidence of getting any pay here. Nothing but speculation and innuendo. But that often seems enough for you Scratch.

Why do I take issue? Because frankly your glee to take and small chance to smear DCP and others associated with him is sickening.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Jason Bourne wrote:
The only thing I see that they probably get paid for is royalties on books which really makes sense.


Which means, I'm afraid, that DCP lied to Infymus and others about "getting paid" to do Mopologetics.

Oh and yes the stipned thing, but that came about after DCP made his claim that you so desperately want to shatter. I see no other evidence of getting any pay here.


Does it seem reasonable to assume that the top LDS apologists receive remuneration of some kind for writing many articles for FARMS Review, or for editing that journal? Or for running FARMS, organizing conferences, etc.?

Why do I take issue? Because frankly your glee to take and small chance to smear DCP and others associated with him is sickening.


How is it a "smear" to overturn a longstanding and rather dishonest apologetic myth?

Nevo
God
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Post by Nevo »

Mister Scratch wrote:It seems to me that Bushman is an anomaly in the world of LDS apologetics (and yes, I'd still term what he's doing as "apologetics", albeit a far more honest and decent-minded form of it). The fact remains that participants will be paid a stipend. Thus, apologists are "gettin' paid." I'm still at a loss as to why TBMs seem to object so strenuously to this.


What I objected to was TAK's claim that "FARMS offers stipends for the work they produce." As far as I know, that's not the case. And with regard to your opening post, I've seen no evidence that FARMS pays DCP a salary for doing apologetics. The implication that apologetics is a lucrative sideline for any LDS scholar is ridiculous.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Nevo wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:It seems to me that Bushman is an anomaly in the world of LDS apologetics (and yes, I'd still term what he's doing as "apologetics", albeit a far more honest and decent-minded form of it). The fact remains that participants will be paid a stipend. Thus, apologists are "gettin' paid." I'm still at a loss as to why TBMs seem to object so strenuously to this.


What I objected to was TAK's claim that "FARMS offers stipends for the work they produce." As far as I know, that's not the case. And with regard to your opening post, I've seen no evidence that FARMS pays DCP a salary for doing apologetics.


Yes; as you no doubt noticed, there was some concern within this thread on the semantic use of the term "salary." I pointed out that, whenever the topic comes up of DCP "gettin' paid" to do Mopologetics, he always, without fail, inserts the qualifier "salary" into the sentence denying his remuneration.

I would be interested in seeing his answer to this simple question: "Do you, or have you ever, received payment of any kind from your Mopologetic endeavors?"

As Dr. Shades noted above, it has been a long-standing, well-accepted "truth" that no LDS apologist gets money for their work. In fact, the denials on this have been noticeably strenuous.

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

[
The only thing I see that they probably get paid for is royalties on books which really makes sense.

Which means, I'm afraid, that DCP lied to Infymus and others about "getting paid" to do Mopologetics.



I doubt that Peterson had royalties in mind. Most likely he was referring to the work he does at FARMS or his speaking engagements. All authors get royalties for books.

Oh and yes the stipned thing, but that came about after DCP made his claim that you so desperately want to shatter. I see no other evidence of getting any pay here.

Does it seem reasonable to assume that the top LDS apologists receive remuneration of some kind for writing many articles for FARMS Review, or for editing that journal? Or for running FARMS, organizing conferences, etc.?


No it does not seem reasonable at all.

Why do I take issue? Because frankly your glee to take and small chance to smear DCP and others associated with him is sickening.

How is it a "smear" to overturn a longstanding and rather dishonest apologetic myth?


Oh please. Don't play coy.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Jason Bourne wrote:
[
The only thing I see that they probably get paid for is royalties on books which really makes sense.

Which means, I'm afraid, that DCP lied to Infymus and others about "getting paid" to do Mopologetics.



I doubt that Peterson had royalties in mind. Most likely he was referring to the work he does at FARMS or his speaking engagements. All authors get royalties for books.


Jason,

The "story" all along has been that Mopologists do not get any payment whatsoever for their work. This is the myth which has---and was---perpetuated by DCP in the items I quoted from the SHIELDS website. Are you really trying to tell me that DCP "accidentally" slipped up and wrote the wrong thing? Come on now, Jason. You and I both know how careful The Good Professor is with his words. It's transparently obvious that he wanted to continue to perpetuate the myth that Mopologists are these noble "warriors for God" who don't accept any money for what they do. But, as you admit, this "myth" isn't exactly the truth.

Oh and yes the stipned thing, but that came about after DCP made his claim that you so desperately want to shatter. I see no other evidence of getting any pay here.

Does it seem reasonable to assume that the top LDS apologists receive remuneration of some kind for writing many articles for FARMS Review, or for editing that journal? Or for running FARMS, organizing conferences, etc.?


No it does not seem reasonable at all.


Huh? How do you figure? Moreover, as others on the thread have pointed out, DCP is getting paid a salary from BYU....despite the fact that the bulk of his work seems to be apologetics-related. I'd bet that he gets payment of some kind to do apologetics.

Why do I take issue? Because frankly your glee to take and small chance to smear DCP and others associated with him is sickening.

How is it a "smear" to overturn a longstanding and rather dishonest apologetic myth?


Oh please. Don't play coy.


Sorry, Jason, but I fail to see what is a "smear" in this thread.

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 14176
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

Post by Chap »

Nevo wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:The description of this year's seminar def. made it sound like an "apologetic venture," as it seems to be focusing on figuring out ways to spin the negative/disconcerting aspects of Joseph Smith's life. Further, as Chap noted---quibbling about where the money comes from is really beside the point, imo. As you'll see in my OP and in other places in this thread, DCP has claimed that he receives "nothing" from apologetics, though that's been pretty clearly debunked.

I can see why this year's seminar might sound like an "apologetic venture" since one of its aims is to persuade Latter-day Saints who have "adversely affected" by criticisms of Joseph Smith that "the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith." At the same time, the seminar represents an implicit rejection of much of the current apologetic material on Joseph Smith. Instead of downplaying or dismissing critics' arguments, the seminar will review the critical evidence to see if it can shed new light on Joseph Smith's "cultural situation and mission." In other words, it is "faith seeking understanding," not a defense of the faith at all costs.

In a recent issue of the Journal of American History, Richard Bushman reflected on the decades-old tensions in the LDS academic community between the "apologists" (BYU Religion faculty) and the "historians" (Smith Institute) vis-à-vis Joseph Smith:

The apologists wonder why the historians do not spring to the defense of the faith when Joseph Smith comes under attack. The apologists want to war with the critics; the historians ask them out to lunch. . . . The apologists insist that the historians fail to understand what is at stake. The historians for their part question the apologists' polemical writing and special pleading. They think the apologists repel readers with their bellicose style and unwillingness to yield points. Though assembled on the same campus at Brigham Young University and acknowledging each other as brothers and sisters in the gospel, they live in different worlds.

- Richard Lyman Bushman, "A Response to Jan Shipps," Journal of American History 94 (September 2007): 518-19.

While Bushman wishes the "historians" would engage Joseph Smith more directly (noting their tendency "to bypass the early history" in order to "avoid strain between keeping the peace with non-Mormons and showing their colors as believers"), he certainly doesn't advocate that they become "apologists." I think the summer seminar is his attempt to find a middle ground.

But if you still want to call that "apologetics" then so be it.



This is what it says at http://farms.BYU.edu/sumsem.html

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

The annual Joseph Smith summer seminar, sponsored by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship, will take as its theme in 2008 "Joseph Smith and His Critics." The theme has been chosen in response to the growing number of critical attacks in books and on the web. Many Latter-day Saints have been affected adversely by these criticisms, and the materials supplied by our apologetic institutions have not always met their needs.

The purpose of the seminar is to bring together a dozen experienced LDS scholars to review the arguments on both sides of a number of these issues and formulate replies that serve inquirers more satisfactorily. The emphasis will be less on providing answers to every question than on putting the adverse evidence in a new light. Our aim is to persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith. In fact, negative information can sometimes illuminate his cultural situation and mission.


I cannot see that there is any room for doubt that the aim of this seminar is anything else than to generate apologetic material.

Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.

Mark you, this is by normal standards a pretty last-ditch attempt at apologetics. The best that these scholars can hope for seems to be to "persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith". The Internet is clearly biting deep into the territory occupied by thinking TBMs who are prepared to look at possibly adverse evidence. Of course, that will still leave an awful lot of LDS completely unaffected ...

Nevo
God
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Post by Nevo »

Chap wrote:Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.

Richard Bushman is a practitioner of "faithful history," which is not the same thing as apologetics--at least not of the FARMS/FAIR variety. I am not alone in making this distinction. Michael Quinn never applies the term "apologist" to Bushman in his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Instead, he calls him a "conservative revisionist"--a label Quinn uses to describe himself as well (p. xvii). Of course, if you're the sort of person who thinks of Quinn as an apologist, then this is a distinction without much of a difference.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Nevo wrote:
Chap wrote:Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.

Richard Bushman is a practitioner of "faithful history," which is not the same thing as apologetics--at least not of the FARMS/FAIR variety. I am not alone in making this distinction. Michael Quinn never applies the term "apologist" to Bushman in his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Instead, he calls him a "conservative revisionist"--a label Quinn uses to describe himself as well (p. xvii). Of course, if you're the sort of person who thinks of Quinn as an apologist, then this is a distinction without much of a difference.


I don't consider Bushman to be an "apologist," per se, but I def. agree with Chap that this upcoming seminar is, without question an "apologetic venture."

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 14176
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

Post by Chap »

Nevo wrote:
Chap wrote:Nevo says that this meeting "might sound like an "apologetic venture"", and if we want to take it that way "so be it". Yes it might. Because that is precisely what it is. The two paragraphs above leave no other possibility open. Nevo's rhetoric is a futile attempt to weaken that fact.

Richard Bushman is a practitioner of "faithful history," which is not the same thing as apologetics--at least not of the FARMS/FAIR variety. I am not alone in making this distinction. Michael Quinn never applies the term "apologist" to Bushman in his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Instead, he calls him a "conservative revisionist"--a label Quinn uses to describe himself as well (p. xvii). Of course, if you're the sort of person who thinks of Quinn as an apologist, then this is a distinction without much of a difference.


I am talking about whether the seminar is an apologetic effort or not. That is germane to this thread, since people are paid for attending it. You do not seem to want to deny that it is an apologetic effort

However in your post, you seem to be addressing a different point, about what we are to think of Richard Bushman. I have expressed no opinion on this, nor do I wish to.

Nevo
God
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Post by Nevo »

Chap wrote:I am talking about whether the seminar is an apologetic effort or not. That is germane to this thread, since people are paid for attending it. You do not seem to want to deny that it is an apologetic effort

However in your post, you seem to be addressing a different point, about what we are to think of Richard Bushman. I have expressed no opinion on this, nor do I wish to.

Bushman has been directing the Joseph Smith summer seminar for a decade. It's his project. It has been doing the same thing for the past ten years: researching the cultural context of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. It will be doing the same thing again this year. But now that it's being sponsored by the (apologist) Maxwell Institute rather than the (New Mormon history) Smith Institute it has transmogrified into an "apologetic venture" plain and simple. Got it.

Well, I guess we'll find out in a few months, won't we?

User avatar
Chap
God
Posts: 14176
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am

Post by Chap »

Nevo wrote:
Chap wrote:I am talking about whether the seminar is an apologetic effort or not. That is germane to this thread, since people are paid for attending it. You do not seem to want to deny that it is an apologetic effort

However in your post, you seem to be addressing a different point, about what we are to think of Richard Bushman. I have expressed no opinion on this, nor do I wish to.

Bushman has been directing the Joseph Smith summer seminar for a decade. It's his project. It has been doing the same thing for the past ten years: researching the cultural context of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. It will be doing the same thing again this year. But now that it's being sponsored by the (apologist) Maxwell Institute rather than the (New Mormon history) Smith Institute it has transmogrified into an "apologetic venture" plain and simple. Got it.

Well, I guess we'll find out in a few months, won't we?


I don't care if the seminar is directed by the Pilsbury Dough Boy, and sponsored by Colonel Saunders, to be frank.

There is a seminar planned.

There is an invitation to people to participate in the seminar, which tells people what the seminar is going to try to do, which is this:

The annual Joseph Smith summer seminar, sponsored by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship, will take as its theme in 2008 "Joseph Smith and His Critics." The theme has been chosen in response to the growing number of critical attacks in books and on the web. Many Latter-day Saints have been affected adversely by these criticisms, and the materials supplied by our apologetic institutions have not always met their needs.

The purpose of the seminar is to bring together a dozen experienced LDS scholars to review the arguments on both sides of a number of these issues and formulate replies that serve inquirers more satisfactorily. The emphasis will be less on providing answers to every question than on putting the adverse evidence in a new light. Our aim is to persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith. In fact, negative information can sometimes illuminate his cultural situation and mission.


And you are telling me that, in the light of the clear statement of the "aim" of the seminar, which is to "persuade readers that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith", people will not be going to this seminar expecting to take part in an apologetic project?

I don't see why you think it is worth so much effort to deny this obvious point, or, rather, not so much to deny it as to attempt to suggest that, in the course of time, other non-apologetic dimensions of this meeting may be revealed.

Wait, maybe this is getting interesting: are you hinting that seminars like this are habitually advertised in terms which suggest that they are apologetic activities, because that is the only way they can get sponsored and get permission to be held at BYU - whereas in reality they are actual, real, no-holds-barred historical investigations? In other words, the sort of meeting that might look at the evidence, and then report regretfully to the Brethren that:

"Well, our aim was to see if in response to the growing number of critical attacks in books and on the web, we could persuade LDS readers who have been affected adversely by these criticisms that the facts do not compel them to discard Joseph Smith. We got together a a dozen experienced LDS scholars to review the arguments on both sides of a number of these issues. But in the end we found that it couldn't be done. On any reasonable and non-testimony based view of the historical evidence, the facts do compel them to discard Joseph Smith."

If that is what you are saying, I can only commend the courage of those heroic soon-to-be-ex'd-mormons who are setting up this subversive program in the very bosom of LDS-dom. Perhaps you are one of the organisers; perhaps you are even Richard Bushman himself?

But perhaps I am not reading you right, in which case please correct me.

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Post by Mister Scratch »

Nevo wrote:
Chap wrote:I am talking about whether the seminar is an apologetic effort or not. That is germane to this thread, since people are paid for attending it. You do not seem to want to deny that it is an apologetic effort

However in your post, you seem to be addressing a different point, about what we are to think of Richard Bushman. I have expressed no opinion on this, nor do I wish to.

Bushman has been directing the Joseph Smith summer seminar for a decade. It's his project. It has been doing the same thing for the past ten years: researching the cultural context of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. It will be doing the same thing again this year.


But that's not what the announcement says... If the seminar were devoted to exploring the history of criticism against Joseph Smith, then you might have a point. But, the announcement pretty clearly states that this is an apologetic venture, aimed at trying to prevent people from "discarding" Joseph Smith.

Nevo
God
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:05 am

Post by Nevo »

Chap wrote:Wait, maybe this is getting interesting: are you hinting that seminars like this are habitually advertised in terms which suggest that they are apologetic activities, because that is the only way they can get sponsored and get permission to be held at BYU - whereas in reality they are actual, real, no-holds-barred historical investigations?

I don't know how seminars like this are habitually advertised. But the summer seminar I was involved with (as a 25-year-old recent university graduate) did consist of "actual, real, no-holds-barred historical investigations." Of course, we were all active Latter-day Saints in good standing but we chose our own topics and nobody was censored. I presented a paper covering same ground as Dan Vogel's essay in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and basically agreed that the Book of Mormon was influenced by the nineteenth-century Universalism debate. John Welch objected to my conclusion (noting the chiasm in Alma 41:13-14)--and said so at the symposium--but the paper was still published with the others.

I don't expect any of this year's participants to take the side of Joseph Smith's critics, but I think their project to contextualize the criticisms against the Prophet will produce scholarship that is more accurately described as "revisionist" than "apologetic" per se.

GoodK

Post by GoodK »

Nevo wrote:I don't expect any of this year's participants to take the side of Joseph Smith's critics, but I think their project to contextualize the criticisms against the Prophet will produce scholarship that is more accurately described as "revisionist" than "apologetic" per se.


This really is comical...

Yes of course, and Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman...per se

Brackite
God
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Post by Brackite »

Here is Daniel C. P. Posts number on the MA&D Message Board, since this Discussion thread was created:

Krispy Kreme King

Group: Pundit
Posts: 6753
Joined: 1-April 04
Member No.: 407



Here is Daniel C. P. Posts number on the MA&D Message Board, right now:

Krispy Kreme King

Group: Pundit
Posts: 6805
Joined: 1-April 04
Member No.: 407



DCP has Posted at least 52 Messages on the MA&D Message Board, since this Discussion thread was created. I just wish that DCP will come here in this Discussion thread, and address this important issue himself. Please DCP, come in here, and Post at least one Message in this Discussion thread here.
Last edited by Brackite on Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter

User avatar
Bond...James Bond
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
Posts: 4627
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm

Post by Bond...James Bond »

Brackite wrote:Please DCP, come in here, and Post at least one Message in this Discussion thread here.


You really have to rub salt in the wound to draw the elusive DCP out of his den.

Bahk bahk bahk bahhhhak bahk bahk bahk! *Chicken wing movements*
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Why do we need Daniel when we have Nevo? The person we really need is Bushman.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Meadowchik and 25 guests