charity wrote:
That's what I said. Sheessh. If the astronomer charts the position of the stars and publishes that, he is an astronomer. Then if he takes that research, and applies it to the phases of life, then he becomes an astrologer.
It's actually not quite that. If an astronomer has so much of the inclination of comparing star charts to phases of his life, if he's even going down the path, without having yet made the determination that the connections are true ones, he's still practicing pseudoscience. To get an advanced degree, for instance, you not only have to do the dissertation, but you have to have the topic of the dissertation approved, right? No one would ever approve the topic of looking for Egypt in the Book of Mormon. Even absent any flat-out declared victories, it's still apologetics, or pseudoscience.
degrees etc weren't typically in religion, which only gives you a job paid for by churches. I don't think a degree from a divinity school is going to get you a job as a lawyer or doctor or management consultent, etc.
well, yeah. they are taking a big risk by going that route.
So let the anti-Mormon ministries preach and teach their own faith, gather people to their churches, get everyone to be a whatever-ite and then there wouldn't be any Mormons. But it is a different thing to preach "Don't be a Mormon" than it is to preach "Be A Methodist." Can you see that?
Not really, I can't see it. See, the anti-Mormon ministries teach two things, 1) don't be Mormon 2) Accept Jesus as your savior and get saved. Their ultimate goal is to convert you to their religion. There are no Christian ministries I've ever seen simply teach against Mormonism and that's that, as you wrongly claim.
And you point is what? We should give a medal to a guy who could have been a really good used car salesman, but he decided to be an anti-Mormon instead?
The point is simply that his choice likely wasn't for the "easy money", just as the 3k at issue here doesn't reflect big spoils that alone would drive someone to be a Mormon apologist out of monetary greed. As Peterson pointed out, for a professor taking this up, one has to calculate the opportunity cost of not teaching spring classes. And I'm pointing out that likewise, a career dedicated to saving Mormons by somone who has the charisma and drive to get paid for it, has given up other money-making possibilities. These kind of people could have made decent money in the corporate world.
Again, somebody was willing to pay Bob Betts to destroy. Someone was willing to pay the expenses of 36 other people to protect and defend. I see that as a huge difference.
At least we've made some progress, you've conceded the 12 (3k X 12 positions = 36) are being paid. You were unwilling to admit that before. I think that Bob Betts is being paid to save Mormons, to get them to know Jesus as their personal savior. Part of that process, in their view, requires rejecting Mormonism first. Just like renewing a property requires that one first destroy parts of or the entire existing structure. But defending and destroying themselves shouldn't be so closely allied with value judgements. It depends on what you're destroying, and what you're defending.
But you still have not answered exaclty how FARMS or the MI is a "money-making" organization. What product is produced for purchase? Where are the profits distributed to
The products are books and stronger testimonies. What products of Bob Betts make money? The hopeful outcome of Mormons getting saved in the love of Jesus doesn't provide direct cash flow. The money to either ofthese ends comes from those willing to fund them for it. The hoped returns from the production side are indirect and hard to calculate.