Right. And next Coggins will try to argue that BYU is not actually "the Church." What I think is more interesting, in any case, is that the Lord's Church would need a paid apologetics at all.
No. Since BYU is the Church, what you should really be arguing is not professors who teach there, on any subject, should be paid at all. The fact remains, apologists are not paid to do apologetic work. Fifty bucks? Come on Scratch, no one does the work of serious research and publication for that. Now, tell us all about the charity work of Brent Metcalfe and D. Quinn...
Pose, pose, pose.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Do you receive a salary? (no)
Do you get paid? (yes)
One doesn't have to receive a salary in order to get paid. DCP has admitted that apologists get paid, he admitted it in black and white. Scratch is right, 100% here.
The next question becomes, who pays the apologists? This is a gray area. Apparently private donars have something to do with it. But then, the MI and BYU resources, having been paid for by the church, are shared infrastructure. The church is therefore donating to the apologetic effort. And all the payments no doubt come from staunch Mormons. I mean, c'mon, by the logic used in the denial here, a protostant minister could argue he isn't paid by his church because his payment derives from donations from the members.
Finally, there is a gray area on salary. There is yet an open question as to whether Peterson's salary has derived from apologetics implicitly.
However, I see the greater question as the direction of the church in this matter. My opinion is that Dr. Peterson has done the equivelant of a startup venture. I believe him that BYU has historically discouraged "apologetics". So much of it is so bad. I believe him when he says he's weathered the storm and succeeded where others failed. And I believe him that payments are on the rise. I believe that his projects are increasingly of interest to the church, and it's just a matter if the financial advisors evaluating the worth to the church on the whole.
Look at it this way: Is anyone going to tell me that given a serious market study of apologetics, that if it were found Peterson's ventures were of considerable worth either in retaining members or generating tithe-paying converts, that it wouldn't begin heavily funding the MI?
Gad, put on your thinking cap for a second and leave your festering hatred and bigotry aside for that same second and think logically. DCP has said he does not bet paid for his apologetic work. Apologists receive a token crumb of fifty or a hundred bucks. This is not "pay". No one is going to do serious intellectual work for less than minimum wage a few times during the year.
In other words, apologists do not do apologetic intellectual work for fifty or a hundred bucks now and then. They do it because they want to do it, not for a few dollars that would just pay for the family to eat out one time and see a movie.
Get real please, and then both you and Scratch can cut with this purely contrived argument.
Thanks
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy wrote:Gad, put on your thinking cap for a second and leave your festering hatred and bigotry aside for that same second and think logically. DCP has said he does not bet paid for his apologetic work. Apologists receive a token crumb of fifty or a hundred bucks. This is not "pay". No one is going to do serious intellectual work for less than minimum wage a few times during the year.
In other words, apologists do not do apologetic intellectual work for fifty or a hundred bucks now and then. They do it because they want to do it, not for a few dollars that would just pay for the family to eat out one time and see a movie.
Get real please, and then both you and Scratch can cut with this purely contrived argument.
Thanks
But they do get paid money for doing apologetic work, no?
You may argue that this is not their main motivation for doing it. But that is a separate point from the fact that they do get paid.
But they do get paid money for doing apologetic work, no?
You may argue that this is not their main motivation for doing it. But that is a separate point from the fact that they do get paid.
No, they do not. They receive a tiny payment because they did something, but they do not get paid to do it. Big difference. Getting paid to do something implies it would not be done otherwise, or that the payment is the impetus for the work to be done.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
But they do get paid money for doing apologetic work, no?
You may argue that this is not their main motivation for doing it. But that is a separate point from the fact that they do get paid.
No, they do not. They receive a tiny payment because they did something, but they do not get paid to do it. Big difference. Getting paid to do something implies it would not be done otherwise, or that the payment is the impetus for the work to be done.
So what's wrong with saying they get paid money for doing apologetic work?
Canucklehead wrote:Mods: should this thread be moved to Telestial?
No, because Droopy included an analysis of Dr. Peterson's words in order to arrive at possibilities.
(In the future, please bring all questions about forum applicability to our attention via PM and not via the board itself. Thank you.)
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Did you include your apologetic writings in your continuing status dossier?
Traditionally, professors do not get paid directly for writing articles. It is, however, usually necessary for them to publish articles to get tenure. Although BYU does not grant tenure, thus making it easier for them to fire professors, they do grant continuing status, which is awarded to those professors who meet certain criteria, among which research and writing are important. If Church university faculty are given consideration for apologetic writing, on the grounds that such publications count as scholarly work, then they are in a sense paid to write it. Granted, a professor could get continuing status without writing apologetics, of course, but those who got continuing status partly for apologetic efforts arguably benefited as much as any other professor whose research and writing counts toward tenure. It is, in other words, part of the job for which they are paid.
Having said this, I have no personal knowledge of a BYU professor being granted continuing status based in whole or partly on apologetic publications or related duties (e.g., editing the FARMS Review). Naturally, if activities related to apologetics figured in no way in the issue of granting continuing status, then those professors who do these things truly haven't been paid anything more than a nominal amount for their apologetic work.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Trevor wrote: Although BYU does not grant tenure, thus making it easier for them to fire professors, they do grant continuing status, which is awarded to those professors who meet certain criteria, among which research and writing are important. If Church university faculty are given consideration for apologetic writing, on the grounds that such publications count as scholarly work, then they are in a sense paid to write it.
Reasearch to retain one's job is just part of the job description and this is like any other component of the job. Apologetics in lieu of sholastic pursuits should be thought of in the same manner. Apologetics as a hobby should not.