As a former Mormon and sometime critic of the LDS Church I would like to take this time to note that I don't give a flying fig if or how much Daniel Peterson or anyone else is paid by the LDS Church to engage in apologetics.
If anything, my friend, DCP is underpaid for his efforts. I'm sure he'll be happy to hear me say that. I DO care how much he gets paid, and I don't think he makes enough. However, he DOES get paid. And his salary seems in part to reflect his efforts as an apologist.
Laborers are worthy of their hire. If there were some evidence of egregious exploitation or misuse of Church funds, a la Robert Tilton or Jim Bakker, or some such--it might be a whipping-boy. Otherwise,
Given how utterly thrifty the GA's are -- and keep in mind these are men who will bring a hospital to its knees for a quick profit -- I don't think we need to worry about apologists getting overpaid anytime soon. It is rather, the apologists themselves who seem to have a problem admitting they get paid at all. Perhaps that might be because of their accusations toward "paid ministry" and "paid anti-mormons" that they feel guilty if they are compensated. See the apologetic tape series, "They Lie in Wait To Deceive" for a good example of how apologists condemn critics for getting paid. So, I personally believe for this reason, they have a tough time accepting the $$$ they've gleaned form their apologetics.
ADDENDUM: before someone metaphorically slaps me like a little girl I will add that I understand that Dr. Peterson et. al. have NOT been paid directly by the Church. I understand that what few monies have exchanged hands have been paltry and actually constitute a net loss given their capacity for using their talents in more-lucrative pursuits.
Interesting how a critic so quickly buys into the apologetic "opportunity-cost" argument. Most of us could make far more money in life if all we ever did was think about, and work towards money-making goals. The fact that any of us do what interests us must mean we're altruists, right? You can do what you like to do and still go shopping, and that's the great thing about professional apologetics.
I don't care if they WERE paid by the Church. I wouldn't care how much they were being paid--if they in fact were being paid.
But that's not true. Earlier you stated clearly that beyond a certain threshold, they'd be expoloiting the church, and that you'd have a problem with that. So yes, per you, you care how much they get paid.
I don't care if they were making a good and comfortable living while soliciting donations via a non-profit 501-c-3 religious institute. So long as they were making their money in a reaonably ethical manner--I JUST DON'T CARE.
I don't think any of us care that the apologists make a comfortable living from defending the church. Again, it seems it's the apologists themselves who care, whose moral compass is shaped by the matra of "no paid ministry". So to them, the fact that they cashed out at all seems to mean they were unethical. Certianly, they believe this of any minister or critic who recieves a payment.