More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

So, DCP, do you actually believe that the majority of posters here think you're making tons of money in your apologetics?

No. I suspect that even Scratch himself has quietly abandoned his suggestion that I receive something in the mid-six-figures from the Church. (Who knows what poor antishock8 thinks?)

But that has long not been the issue.

I believe that the comment of mine you're referring to was in regards to the total sum you have received for all aspects of your apologetic career, including book royalties, portions of your salary which cover apologetic-related activity, per diems for trips, costs of trips, etc., etc. Of course, at the time I was only speculating and freely admitted that. Gee, you're not trying to distort what I said, are you? No... It couldn't be. You, who complain so vociferously about being "misrepresented" would never, ever do such a thing!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Whether you reckon my apologetic income at mid-six-figures annually or over the course of my career makes little difference, really.

It's false and ridiculous in either case.

[_harmony]

Whether you reckon my apologetic income at mid-six-figures annually or over the course of my career makes little difference, really.

It's false and ridiculous in either case.

With every trip at about $3000-5000 each, over the course of a 30-35 year career?... Someone might like to get a calculator, instead of an abacus. Because that's only 3 trips a year times 35 years. That could easily add up to half a million or more.

[_antishock8]

LOL. I'll bet, in his heart of hearts, that even Scratch is just a bit embarrassed by poor antishock8's overenthusiastic support.

Calling somebody "Mr. Potato Head" over and over again probably isn't a very powerful argument even in Scratchworld.

What say you, Scratch? As you like to put it, a simple Yes or No will do. Do you approve of poor antishock8's approach?

I know you probably don't want to alienate any of your (very) small group of disciples, but really . . . It's pretty juvenile, don't you agree?

And shouldn't you send him and Rollo Tomasi the memo about how maybe I'm an innocent victim of the master forger, Bill Hamblin?

I'm sorry, but Mr. Potato Head's pot is calling Poor Antishock's kettle black? That's marvelous.

*yawn* Still waiting for the 2nd Watson Letter to make its miraculous appearance on the thread. Perhaps an angel from the Lord, a strapping angel at that for Senor Cabeza de Papa mounted upon a tapir, took the letter to Hill Cumorah #2 and was deposited in the Celestial Library, next to certain tumbaga plates written by Jews in Reformed Egyptian.

-------------------------------

by the way, I reiterate my proposition. I think Mr. Peterson should excuse himself from practicing Mormon apologetics for a year. No admin, either. No management. No involvement, whatsoever. I would love for him to prove, once and for all, that he is paid to be a professor of ME studies, and not an apologist. Let's see how that flies...

[_The Nehor]

by the way, I reiterate my proposition. I think Mr. Peterson should excuse himself from practicing Mormon apologetics for a year. No admin, either. No management. No involvement, whatsoever. I would love for him to prove, once and for all, that he is paid to be a professor of ME studies, and not an apologist. Let's see how that flies...

I would lose respect for him if he did. Anyone who would follow the whims of an internet poster that thinks they are a liar and use them as a guide on how to live their life is a loser.

[_beastie]

It appears on the MAD thread that the idea that "anti-mormons" are saying apologists are paid "fabulously, top-dollars" was actually started by Rommelator, who appears to be a believer attributing this to "anti Mormons":

There is a long standing claim by anti-Mormons that Mormon apologists are paid top dollar by the LDS brass to "cover up" the "problems" with the Church. Critics often contend, for example, that FARMS is secretly being paid by the Church for their material. Daniel C. Peterson, a teacher at BYU who has done a lot of work with FARMS and participates on this board, has also been accused of being dishonest about how involved the Church gets with FARMS. He has also been accused of being paid untold amounts of $$ by the General Authorities for his material.

Thus, it is something of an inside joke on this board that Dan is being paid fabulously by Temple Sqaure for his apologetic material and is very sneaky and dishonest about it all. I am sure he can explain it better than I can, but that is the jist of it.

His post talks repeatedly about how anti-mormons misrepresent Mormonism.

Hyrum Page challenged him with:

Really? Of all of the anti-Mormon material I have seen, I haven't seen much speculation on the high salaries the LDS brass pay to "cover up" the "problems" with the Church.

Rommelator claimed, without any evidence:

It is usually floating around with the other flotsam on ex-Mormon message boards. I think that even some anti-Mormons in print (John Ankerberg I think, but don't hold me to that) have made similar claims.

And then Hamblin weighs in:

The idea that I am somehow getting rich as an apologist is ludicrous; more than ludicrous, it's stupid and crazy. It is sheer fantasy. I lose money by writing apologetic articles through the secondary costs of the money I could have earned if I had been writing something on non-LDS topics.

Good grief, the whole idea is idiotic. And that's my final word on the topic.

Wade and Hamblin continue chatting about the sheer idiocy of the posters on this thread.

But tell me - where did any critic on this thread declare a belief that apologists are getting rich from apologia?

It's possible an isolated critic may have loosely suggested that (depending on how one defines "wad of cash", I suppose), but in general critics have been pretty clear: no one is saying that apologists are well paid.

The supreme irony in this case of misrepresentation and strawmen is Wade's declaration:

This tells me that it is not the Church that has failed the good folks at Shadey's Inferno, but the public school system.

Would it suprise you to learn that one of the leading participants over there teaches reading comprehension in a public school?

Mind-boggling indeed

LOL!!!

Look, Wade, I'm sure you're reading this. If you read this thread and came away believing that the point is that apologists are getting rich from apologetics then you have, once again, demonstrated very poor reading comprehension. I'd offer to tutor you, but I don't work with adults.

And notice how it keeps getting repeated, now with a life of its own:

urroner

Because, to there are those who think the monosyllable word "No" is either non-existent in this discussion or it's because you have simply forgotten how to correctly spell the monosyllable words "Yes, I am paid by the Church big bucks." Dare I say the polysyllable word that these people have, "AGENDA?" No, I don't dare.

It's really funny, and very typical. The believers started their very own strawman, and then used that to declare the critics complete idiots.

Once again, for those who struggle: the point isn't that apologists are "getting rich" from apologetics. The point is that the church does fund apologetics - and (as the Watson letter and the recent change of the Book of Mormon intro demonstrates) - they listen to apologists.

Is this really a big deal??? I think the reason it seems like a big deal is due to how defensively apologists/believers are reacting to this. I believe the over-sensitivity has to do with the LDS church's pride on not paying its workers. Too many of us went through the temple during the time period in which satan was depicting convincing a minister to teach a false gospel for money to imagine that this wasn't a point of pride with LDS. Now they uniformly have to admit that GAs are paid salaries. Next it's that the church funds apologetics. No one is getting rich off of this, and people are doing it mostly out of sincere conviction.

So why the dramatic reactions, the need to create strawmen?? It's the wounded pride.

[_cksalmon]

So why the dramatic reactions, the need to create strawmen?? It's the wounded pride.

Poor Paul Ray!

He keeps asking, in his own overblown ways, if apologists get paid at all for apologetic work. He points out that he just can't get a straight answer from DCP, who sometimes says, "Yes, a piddling amount," and then, "Not at all."

That's okay for most folks there, but PR, bulldog-like, just won't let it go.

He wants an unequivocal, non-sarcastic, straightforward, yes-or-no answer. And he doesn't even care one way or the other, that I can tell. He just wants the 411.

He's now committed himself to the fairly-rare position that he isn't about to take DCP's word for anything that hasn't been revealed personally to him by God.

If I were doing a Budweiser "we-salute-you" commercial...

Meh.

Chris

[_beastie]

Yeah, ya gotta feel for Paul. Sure, he's pretty much a nut, but he IS a consistent nut, at least. And he doesn't appear to have a sycophantish gene in his body. So chalk up ONE person who hasn't been fooled by the strawman.

[_antishock8]

by the way, I reiterate my proposition. I think Mr. Peterson should excuse himself from practicing Mormon apologetics for a year. No admin, either. No management. No involvement, whatsoever. I would love for him to prove, once and for all, that he is paid to be a professor of ME studies, and not an apologist. Let's see how that flies...

I would lose respect for him if he did. Anyone who would follow the whims of an internet poster that thinks they are a liar and use them as a guide on how to live their life is a loser.

You would lose respect for him if he did work that he was *specifically hired to do by BYU? You would lose respect for someone if he stopped doing his hobby, and focused on his career? Oh, I know. Papas fritas has an amazing curriculum vitae FULL of things published in the Chicago Press! We have to believe him, I mean, it's his word, right? I mean... Who knows? *Maybe his curriculum vitae if full of apologetic material, so much so, that it would seem his primary purpose is to be a paid apologist.

But we'll never know because Mr. Peterson loves to blather on about nothing in particular, especially when a simple answer is required or proof is requested. Got that letter, yet? See? Where's the letter... Where are the plates... Where are the cities... Where... Where... Where...

Nehor. You've been duped. You don't require anything in particular except to be part of a team. Team Mormon. You defend the team even while conceding point after point. That's not only sad, but it's not normal. At least Islamists and dhimmis like Mr. Peterson have the power of conviction to support their shennanigans, but you... You don't even believe, except in belief itself. You think you see the Big Picture, but you have to ignore all the little stuff in order to get there. It's the little stuff that matters. There's a reason why your posts lack substance... Always. It's because your Mormonism has no substance. It has nothing except, "I'm a Mormon. This is what I believe." Introspection, my friend... Introspection.

[_Pokatator]

You have the text, and you have the testimony of people who claim to have held and read the letter. That's not nothing.

In fact, it's rather like those alleged moon rocks. You have the testimony of people who claim to have held and tested the rocks.

But can you trust them?

You have the text, and you have the testimony of people who claim to have held the Golden Plates. That's not nothing.

In fact, it's rather like those alleged 116 pages. You have the testimony of people who claim to have held the 116 pages.

But can you trust them?

How come everything in Mormonism is based on testimony, witnesses..... nothing is real? Everything is always missing. We never get the real stuff. Missing plates, missing 116 pages, missing papyrus, missing letters........missing honesty, missing fairness, missing revelation, missing anything that is good.