sock puppet wrote:Good point. If it were not for their NAMIRS fun and games demanding so much of their time, would DCP and Hamblin be assigned by BYU to teach more classes--without a proportional increase in pay? I quite imagine that they would. Or, if Arabic and Middle Eastern studies are no longer in demand, DCP might find himself looking for a new job at another university, if he wasn't filling the rest of his plate with crafting mopologetic missiles launched from NAMIRS.
I don't really care what BYU pays them to do. They would do what they do regardless of institutional support. They would lose sleep rather than forego the opportunity to defend Mormonism as they see fit. The LDS Church seems not to have a problem with it to the point that you see anything more than the occasional call for online civility from one apostle or some such. And let me be very clear, I have no desire to stick it to William Hamblin or Daniel Peterson. How they make their money or spend their free time is their business. I don't have to agree with their opinions or buy into their arguments, but I have almost no interest these days in how they are paid, for what they are paid, and what have you. In the end, it makes zero difference.
The LDS Church provides them support for what they do. I don't really think it matters all that much what form that support takes. The problem is that how the tithing funds of the LDS Church are used is a sensitive matter for both Church and member alike. So of course the apologists will bristle at the suggestion or accusation that they are paid to be apologists. At the same time, money comes from willing donors among the LDS and the Church provides some resources in support of the mission of the MI. But, from the apologists' point of view, they would happily visit a dingy office in an industrial zone to do what they do. They are passionate partisans who are fully invested on a personal level. To call them hired guns actually is an insult. It is not as if you could pay DCP or Hamblin to switch sides. They do what they do out of conviction.
When we call them paid apologists, as we have done, we may not fully realize why this is insulting. But it is to suggest that their personal integrity is bought and paid for. Whether we agree with what they believe or not, it is not accurate to say that they arrived where they did out of a desire for a paycheck. It is like saying that I became a Humanities professor for the cash. It is, indeed, much worse. We can passionately disagree with them and the rightness of their cause, and we can chuckle about the idea that they are still a poor little garage operation fighting the wealthy titans of the anti-Mormon industry, but they are not doing what they do to get wealthy. They do not sell themselves for money.
I do not think they would switch sides for money. But that does not undercut the fact that much of their time engaged in mopologetics is compensated via their BYU salaries.
sock puppet wrote:I do not think they would switch sides for money. But that does not undercut the fact that much of their time engaged in mopologetics is compensated via their BYU salaries.
Yeah, I don't really care. People pay tithing, and they know they have zero say in how it is used. All the details beyond that point count for nothing with me. The leaders have the authority, and they decide what to do with those funds. The people who pay do so because they believe God commanded them to do it. On theological grounds one might argue that the tithe-paying members have no standing to quibble about how their tithing is used. The Church denies others a glimpse into what they do precisely because they don't want anyone low on the totem pole calling their judgment into question.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:The Church denies others a glimpse into what they do precisely because they don't want anyone low on the totem pole calling their judgment into question.
And that, Kishkumen, probably sums up the essence of the Church today.
I agree with what you are writing, but am wondering what the meaning of a disaffected Mormon is if you don't mind? (I'm serious...as not sure of the terms of folks on here...not even sure what I would be considered as.) Thanks
lovedoggies wrote:I agree with what you are writing, but am wondering what the meaning of a disaffected Mormon is if you don't mind? (I'm serious...as not sure of the terms of folks on here...not even sure what I would be considered as.) Thanks
I think people use the phrase to describe those who are still formally members and still participate in church to varying degrees, but who have questions and doubts. It's a general phrase that could be applied to very different specific situations.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Why is it that people use Republicans as an example of partison behavior? I wish "Progressives" would use someone, say like, James Carville as an example of the behavior they themselves don't like.
Because Regressives are as hypocrital as they sound.