harmony wrote:Do the apologists think that if the fact that they get paid gets out to their public that somehow that dilutes their message? Or is it tied to the "no paid clergy" thing, which we all know is a crock? Or is it simply because if it's generally known that they are paid, then the expectation would be that their apologetics would actually have some substance, and they know they do not? Or is because they want to be seen as generous, to a group that is not known for its generosity outside of the mandated tithing? Or is it somehow tied to the idea that they, as apologists, are setting doctrine, not the prophet?
I think it's all of the above, Harmony. It *is* very strange that they are so uncomfortable about it being known that they receive remuneration for their activities. But, the fact is (given the reactions to these threads by the likes of LoaP and Coggins/Droopy) that they---i.e., the apologists---have wanted to perpetuate this myth, and many TBMs have wanted to believe it. I do very much think it is somewhat akin to the "no paid clergy" thing. They want to make it seem as if they are Noble Crusaders for the Lord's Work. They reality is that this is a snowballing monstrosity, and that they are employing professional fund-raisers to help feed The Beast. It really is kind of astonishing how careful they've been to "bury" the finances in such a way that it seems that they are not actually getting paid by the institutional Church. Although, as we all know, in a certain sense, they *are* getting paid by the LDS Church.
