Paid Apologetics?

[Five Solas]

I’m not saying it’s paid well or that anyone got rich—but doesn’t the statement below by Dr. Hamblin completely undo the argument that “mopologists” working at BYU do their apologetics without consideration/compensation? Although it appears not to have been highly valued (less than “cost of living” pay increases) by certain BYU administrators—it certainly seems to have been taken into account.

My department told me today in essence that both my editorial work with Interpreter, and publications with Interpreter will not be considered serious scholarship. They explicitly advised me to publish in other venues. (This has been, by the way, the consistent policy of both my department and college for a quarter of a century. I have consistently been told essentially the same thing about not publishing with FARMS by every administrator. The fact that I’ve published with FARMS in the past has directly led to delayed promotion and sub-cost of living pay raises.) I am tired of receiving poor evaluations on my scholarship because publishing with FARMS and now Interpreter is considered unscholarly by BYU.

Am I reading too much into it? Guessing I’m not alone wondering here.

--Erik

___________________________________________

And thems the breaks for we designer fakes

We need to concentrate on more then meets the eye

And thems the breaks for we designer fakes

But it's you I take 'cause you’re the truth not I

--Placebo, “

”

[webbles]

I understood that to mean that he wasn't being paid for apologetic work. Instead, he was being penalized because he was writing apologetic work.

[Daniel Peterson]

Faculty are evaluated in three main areas at BYU (and, presumably, elsewhere): teaching, scholarship, and citizenship.

Professor Hamblin teaches a full load of ordinary classes, as other BYU-employed "mopologists" (your insulting word) do and have done:

Current Classes:

• Hist 201. World History to AD 1500
  
  
• Hist 238. Ancient Near East To 330 BC
  
  

Classes Taught:

• Hist 201: World History to AD 1500
  
  
• Hist 238: Ancient Near East to 330 BC
  
  
• Hist 239: Classical Near East, 330 BC to AD 640
  
  
• Hist 240: Islamic Middle East (AD 600 - 1800)
  
  
• Hist 332R. Scandinavian History
  
  
• Hist 335: The Crusades
  
  
• Hist 390. Special Topics in History
  
  
• Hist 398R: Arab Conquests
  
  
• Hist 398R: Ancient Warfare to 500 BC
  
  
• Hist 398R: Campaigns of Alexander the Great
  
  
• Hist 398R: Muhammad and the Qur'an
  
  
• Hist 398R: Celestial Ascent
  
  
• Hist 490: Senior Seminar on Premodern Military:
  
  

I don't know precisely what his "citizenship" obligations are within his department, his college, and the University as a whole. Presumably, they're typical. I heard him mention the other day, for example, that he was awash in reading scores of student essays for some sort of Department of History awards competition. This obviously comes on top of his normal class preparation, course grading, and lecturing.

The remaining category is scholarship. Standards and performance goals in this area are a little difficult to quantity very neatly. How many articles equal a book? Is a big book worth 1.46 times as much as a regular book? Does a small book that transforms its field count as much as a normal-sized book that achieves a fairly ordinary reception? Or does it count the same as a large book? Does being elected president of the International Society for Residual Trivia count as a scholarly achievement, or merely as "citizenship" (i.e., as the equivalent of chairing the Department's Fall Social Refreshments Committee)? What if one professor writes an average of 5.227 forgettable articles each year, while another professor takes 3.924 years to produce a single -- but revolutionary -- article?

Professor Hamblin has produced quite a bit, in terms of research and publication, including a well-received single-volume history of the world to 1648 AD (published by HarperCollins, in New York), a volume entitled Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History (Routledge, London), and Solomon's Temple: Myth and History (Thames and Hudson, London). It would be rather odd and misleading to say that BYU has paid him for any of these books, or for any of the articles he's done, the conference sessions he's chaired or in which he's presented, etc. Yet the University does indeed expect him to be active.

Likewise, the University has never paid him for his Mormon-related work. The only question is, does it count, in any degree, as indicative of scholarly activity, or should it be given the same academic status as mowing one's lawn, brushing one's teeth (which is also expected of academic faculty), and watching reality television?

Different deans and department chairmen have answered such questions differently, and they continue to do so.

[Five Solas]

"mopologists" (your insulting word)

Please accept my apology. I put it in quotes as it's not my word. But in hindsight, I regret using it at all. Appreciate your taking time to respond, Dr. Peterson.

--Erik

[Emerson]

Does being elected president of the International Society for Residual Trivia count as a scholarly achievement, or merely as "citizenship" (i.e., as the equivalent of chairing the Department's Fall Social Refreshments Committee)?

My two biggest academic goals!

[Sky]

My department told me today in essence that both my editorial work with Interpreter, and publications with Interpreter will not be considered serious scholarship. They explicitly advised me to publish in other venues. (This has been, by the way, the consistent policy of both my department and college for a quarter of a century. I have consistently been told essentially the same thing about not publishing with FARMS by every administrator. The fact that I’ve published with FARMS in the past has directly led to delayed promotion and sub-cost of living pay raises.) I am tired of receiving poor evaluations on my scholarship because publishing with FARMS and now Interpreter is considered unscholarly by BYU.

Seems rather harsh and strange coming from a university owned by the LDS Church, doesn't it? I must be missing something somewhere.

[nealr]

I’m not saying it’s paid well or that anyone got rich—but doesn’t the statement below by Dr. Hamblin completely undo the argument that “mopologists” working at BYU do their apologetics without consideration/compensation? Although it appears not to have been highly valued (less than “cost of living” pay increases) by certain BYU administrators—it certainly seems to have been taken into account.

Am I reading too much into it? Guessing I’m not alone wondering?

I think, properly read, he is sayingapologetics costed him money. Instead of getting the standard cost of living raise that nearly everyone gets annually, he was getting less. Instead of getting promations when he deserved them (or felt he deserved them), he was overlooked. He is attributing the loss, not the gain, to his apologetic activities.

[Robert F. Smith]

Seems rather harsh and strange coming from a university owned by the LDS Church, doesn't it? I must be missing something somewhere.

There does seem to be something out of synch here, though I'm also a bit mystified that defense of the faith is now out of favor. Back in the day, FARMS could do no wrong (and President Hinckley and Elder Maxwell had such nice things to say about FARMS). Now, even to speak kindly about FARMS or apologetics is gauche at best.

As to the question about compensation, please know that the BYU professors who wrote books, articles, updates, and who delivered apologetic lectures for FARMS never received compensation for their work -- they always plowed the profits right back into FARMS. Their expenses might have been paid to attend academic conferences (AAR, SBL, etc.), but that is de rigueur within the academic community. There may be people out there who profit from the apologetic business, some even employed full-time to defend their particular brand of "christianity" (and to attack others), but I know few such people.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Daniel Peterson]

BYU is an upwardly mobile school. It has aspirations. And one of the ways that a school advances its reputation is via faculty research and publications.

Whatever their quality may or may not be, in-house publications -- that is, publications aimed at the Mormon community -- do relatively little to advance BYU's reputation in the world at large. They're not read beyond the membership of the Church and a small handful of "Mormon-watchers."

I'm not at all unsympathetic to these aspirations. One of the things that I'm most proud of regarding my own career at BYU is my launch of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, which has, I think it's safe to say, considerably enhanced BYU's reputation (which was, previously, nonexistent) among those, worldwide, who concern themselves with pre-modern Islam, ancient and medieval philosophy, the history of medieval science and medicine, Islamic philosophy and theology, and similar fields.

The trouble is that faculty members have finite time and energy, so that effort given to X is effort no longer available to devote to Y. Doing Mormon studies almost inevitably cuts into what might simply be lumped together and called "non-Mormon studies." I don't blame a department chairman for finding that situation worthy of discussion, but I do worry that, if Mormon studies are effectively altogether penalized by certain administrators at BYU, such studies will languish at the Church's flagship university, which seems distinctly odd and which will then effectively cede the entire field to people at Claremont, Durham, Virginia, Utah State, UVU, and etc. And we may or may not always appreciate what those people do, but, if we've turned the field over to them, we'll have no grounds for complaint.

[blackstrap]

Methinks Hugh Nibley's comment about robes at a commencement gets more and more apt each year.Those at BYU who have apparently listened to the Siren's call for respect through appeasement should be given the Roman general's chariot aid who whispers " fame is fleeting"

[mfbukowski]

I’m not saying it’s paid well or that anyone got rich—but doesn’t the statement below by Dr. Hamblin completely undo the argument that “mopologists” working at BYU do their apologetics without consideration/compensation? Although it appears not to have been highly valued (less than “cost of living” pay increases) by certain BYU administrators—it certainly seems to have been taken into account.

My department told me today in essence that both my editorial work with Interpreter, and publications with Interpreter will not be considered serious scholarship. They explicitly advised me to publish in other venues. (This has been, by the way, the consistent policy of both my department and college for a quarter of a century. I have consistently been told essentially the same thing about not publishing with FARMS by every administrator. The fact that I’ve published with FARMS in the past has directly led to delayed promotion and sub-cost of living pay raises.) I am tired of receiving poor evaluations on my scholarship because publishing with FARMS and now Interpreter is considered unscholarly by BYU.

Am I reading too much into it? Guessing I’m not alone wondering here.

--Erik

___________________________________________

And thems the breaks for we designer fakes

We need to concentrate on more then meets the eye

And thems the breaks for we designer fakes

But it's you I take 'cause you’re the truth not I

--Placebo, “

”

Don't know where you got this.

What your quote says is that he made LESS money for writing apologetics. Read it again.

[Storm Rider]

If apologetics are not done by our scholars, then who is supposed to be doing the work of apologetics? I am trying to reach an understanding of what the objectives are at BYU? I also make the assumption that the overall feeling or support, to whatever degree, proffered apologetics by BYU professors comes from the Brethren. I do feel that apologetics has a definite, needed role in the life of a religious organization. Are we as an organization preferring not to produce professional apologetics or is it something else? This is all a bit confusing for me.

[Sky]

If apologetics are not done by our scholars, then who is supposed to be doing the work of apologetics? I am trying to reach an understanding of what the objectives are at BYU? I also make the assumption that the overall feeling or support, to whatever degree, proffered apologetics by BYU professors comes from the Brethren. I do feel that apologetics has a definite, needed role in the life of a religious organization. Are we as an organization preferring not to produce professional apologetics or is it something else? This is all a bit confusing for me.

Agreed.

As has been mentioned, Elder Maxwell, for one, was an enthusiastic supporter of the apologetic cause. He didn't think the critics should be given a free pass for "uncontested slam-dunks." He also didn't seem to make a differentiation between apologetics and scholarship.

Let us be articulate for while our defense of the kingdom may not stir all hearers, the absence of thoughtful response may cause fledglings among the faithful to falter. What we assert may not be accepted, but unasserted convictions soon become deserted convictions.

And this quote by President Hinckley:

[FARMS] began modestly many years ago and represents the efforts of sincere and dedicated scholars. It has grown to provide strong support and defense of the Church on a professional basis. This has had important salutary effects both in addressing the Church’s critics and in bolstering members who might be wavering. Today FARMS has risen to a high stature and has won credibility and recognition for its work both inside and outside the LDS community. I wish to express my strong congratulations and appreciation for those who started this effort and who have shepherded it to this point. I see a bright future for this effort now through the University.

How are we honoring their memory by these recent turns of unfortunate events?

In our increasingly secular society, with skepticism of religious belief running rampant, we need more apologetics, not less.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Sky

[powerservice]

If apologetics are not done by our scholars, then who is supposed to be doing the work of apologetics? I am trying to reach an understanding of what the objectives are at BYU? I also make the assumption that the overall feeling or support, to whatever degree, proffered apologetics by BYU professors comes from the Brethren. I do feel that apologetics has a definite, needed role in the life of a religious organization. Are we as an organization preferring not to produce professional apologetics or is it something else? This is all a bit confusing for me.

Not all professional apologetics are done by university professors.

Not all professional apologetics are of the type sometimes referred to as "FARMS" style.

MI will continue to do professional apologetics directed by Dr. Gerald Bradford who is supervised by Emeritus General Authority Cecil Samuelson who reports to the BYU Board of Trustees Chaired by our prophet, assisted by his 2 able Councilors and filled out with divinely called Apostles, who are also prophets, and Auxilary Presidents.

The Church has a fine PR department managed by a sitting General Authority and further supervised by Apostles whose callings are also that of prophets.

The Church has fine Curriculum and Correlation Departments. Many on their staffs have Ph.D.'s. They are both managed by sitting General Authorities. Also further supervised by Apostles who are also prophets.

The Church has a wonderful Church Education System, the Commissioner of which is a sitting General Authority and reports to the Church Board of Education, as already mentioned, chaired by our Prophet and assisted by his Counselors and further staffed by Apostles who are prophets and by divinely called Auxilary Presidents.

The Church is headed by Jesus Christ who speaks to his prophet.

Don't did caught following a dead prophet or apostle, you know where that leads.

Don't let yourself be confused by garbage swirling around on the Internet.

Play your position by following your file leader that's where safety lies.

Don't steady the ark.

You and God's Church will do just fine.

[Daniel Peterson]

Don't let yourself be confused by garbage swirling around on the Internet.

Excellent counsel.

[emarkp]

Don't steady the ark.

You and God's Church will do just fine.

And apparently in a few years when my oldest is ready for college it won't be at BYU. But then it probably won't have the same name.

[powerservice]

Excellent counsel.

Ah, but how? That was the point of the post.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah, but how? That was the point of the post.

Seems clear to me: Don't be confused by garbage on the Internet.

Words to live by.

[powerservice]

Seems clear to me: Don't be confused by garbage on the Internet.

Words to live by.

I'd suggest by following the living Brethren.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd suggest by following the living Brethren.

Amen to that as well.

[Five Solas]

Don't know where you got this.

What your quote says is that he made LESS money for writing apologetics. Read it again.

Suppose you ignore your boss’s admonitions and you get a crappy raise (lower than cost of living, as Dr. Hamblin wrote). You are still being paid something for your work, even though it may be a good deal less than you think is fair.

It seems obvious enough BYU administrators considered Dr. Hamblin’s apologetic work a component his delivery—even though they weren’t happy with it. Otherwise what business would it have been of theirs?

Does this not make sense to you, mfbukowski? Perhaps you should read it again.

--Erik

[powerservice]

Suppose you ignore your boss’s admonitions and you get a crappy raise (lower than cost of living, as Dr. Hamblin wrote). You are still being paid something for your work, even though it may be a good deal less than you think is fair.

It seems obvious enough BYU administrators considered Dr. Hamblin’s apologetic work a component his delivery—even though they weren’t happy with it. Otherwise what business would it have been of theirs?

Does this not make sense to you, mfbukowski? Perhaps you should read it again.

--Erik

Dr. Hamblin has gotten himself in tune and in line and that should be the end of it.

[Glenn101]

Suppose you ignore your boss’s admonitions and you get a crappy raise (lower than cost of living, as Dr. Hamblin wrote). You are still being paid something for your work, even though it may be a good deal less than you think is fair.

It seems obvious enough BYU administrators considered Dr. Hamblin’s apologetic work a component his delivery—even though they weren’t happy with it. Otherwise what business would it have been of theirs?

Does this not make sense to you, mfbukowski? Perhaps you should read it again.

--Erik

This is what I understand from the information in Dr. Hamblin's announcemnet.

Dr. Hamblin was and is being paid for his work as a professor teaching Near Eastern History. His efforts with the Maxwell Institute as well as the Interpreter were on a purely volunteer basis. Those unpaid efforts were held in low esteem by some of his superiors which have led to some less favorable reviews and slow promotions.

Glenn

[Five Solas]

Dr. Hamblin has gotten himself in tune and in line and that should be the end of it.

You're missing the point entirely. We've heard more than a little over the years that BYU professors weren't being compensated for their apologetics work. And per Dr. Hamblin's post--that doesn't appear to have been entirely accurate. Apologetcs clearly wasn't worth as much (to BYU administorators) as other sorts of publishing--but it was in fact considered (and rewarded with sub-par raises).

Difficult to escape that conclusion. Seriously folks, am I the only one here?

--Erik

[Pahoran]

You're missing the point entirely. We've heard more than a little over the years that BYU professors weren't being compensated for their apologetics work. And per Dr. Hamblin's post--that doesn't appear to have been entirely accurate. Apologetcs clearly wasn't worth as much (to BYU administorators) as other sorts of publishing--but it was in fact considered (and rewarded with sub-par raises).

Difficult to escape that conclusion. Seriously folks, am I the only one here?

--Erik

Apparently you are.

There is no indication that Bill was being "compensated for [his] apologetics work." Rather, the issue was that he was being judged for the prestige (or otherwise) of his extracurricular activities.

Someone decided that publishing first with FARMS and then with the Interpreter Foundation didn't have the smart academic cachet they wanted to attach to the reputation of their college. There's no evidence from any source that any part of his salary was derived from publishing in those venues. The only really inescapable conclusion -- but one which you seem to have managed to escape anyhow -- is that if Bill had never published in those venues, without publishing a single word more elsewhere than he already did, he would have earned more.

Regards,

Pahoran