Gadianton wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2026 9:38 pm
Marcus wrote:wherein he knows his truth-pretzeling is so obvious that it guarantees he will get talked about?
I'd say absolutely. This is more fishing to keep the flame of controversy burning. I seem to recall there was a famous architect fond of boasting he'd never worked a day in his life. Well, clearly he had. That's all he did was work. But if you do what you love, then some feel it doesn't count as "work". In that situation, one could say they get "paid to play." I find it enviable. I wish I was good enough at the things I like to do during my spare time that it afforded me the means to do such things in style and with peace of focus.
If what a person loves to do is travel, eat, stay in nice accommodations, socialize with friends and important people, and get buttered up by acolytes, then money or "payment" is nothing but a intermediary mechanism to the final goal and hardly worth mentioning. For some, money is an end in itself, but for most people, it's a means to an end, as is the case here. Whether the final good was delivered directly or first passes through currency hardly matters.
There should be no problem here. If a person likes getting out into the world and dining while creating transparent propaganda and doing speaking events that don't require much preparation, then so be it. All the better, I would think. I don't like travelling that much but I'm sure I might do something similar myself if I had the chance. No judgment from me at all.
The problem might be a matter of self-judgment. Most would boast of their "paid to play" lifestyle. What gives? Well, the problem seems to be that the propaganda one is "comped" for contains central themes about lifestyles. For instance, the Book of Mormon says quite a lot about preachers who "speak smooth things" unto the people -- tell them what they want to hear. And resources allotted to propping up lifestyles for such people. The narrative holds these as wicked people. In contrast are those who must sacrifice. They must do things they don't want to do, like Alma or Amulek, speak things that people don't want to hear. Suffer material hardships and persecution. King Mosiah, though a king, labored with his own hands along with his people.
And so, by the narrative of the Book of Mormon, if there are people who spend their days communicating religious ideas to the public, you can pick out the good ones by their sacrifice, and the bad ones by their easy circumstances. If a Book of Mormon character is "paid to play" in the capacity of defending religion, then such character is trading in false religion and lies. We might object and say the Book of Mormon is impractical. You don't need to convince me. Even the brethren seem to allow loopholes. For instance, Steve Young was told not to go on a mission because he could do more for the Church as a football star. In this rare case, the teacher of righteousness gets paid to play and is under no condemnation. I mean, the Book of Mormon understands comparative advantage, right? If a person has a gift for smooth speaking and motivates people to righteousness then why not allow the preaching to be done by the low-cost producer? Why force such a person to go on a normal mission that requires drudgery, financing one's own way, and persecution?
It makes total sense to me, please don't shoot the messenger, I'm just pointing out that the Book of Mormon says otherwise, and if your smooth speaking enables your lifestyle of leisure, specifically in terms of travelling and speaking, then your only option is to be an anti-Christ.
I would think there would be a massive incentive to control the narrative about one's activities. Presenting them as real sacrifice and resulting in real persecution rather than a "paid to play" bonanza. Otherwise one cuts off the branch upon which he was sitting. Yeah, that's the fundamental tension, but like I said, one way out is for a person to deflect from the tension and point to Steve Young and the truths of David Ricardo. If one's conscience forbids that route, I suppose that is a mark of character that counts for something that I can respect. It does result in lots of back-and-forth like this, however.
