Being given big wads of cash (as Gadianton claims), and jet-setting around the world with $15,000.00 per year of paid vacation (as harmony suggests) is so totally different from being paid fabulous, top-dollar sums . . .
Trying to salvage the MAD strawman, eh?
Actually, what gad and harmony suggested is
quite different than being paid top-dollar, fabulous sums. Gad can speak for himself (from his thread):
Thanks Scratch. Several points need to be made. Clearly, raking in a "wad of cash" isn't the same thing as becoming filthy rich. As you suggest, a few hundred dollars or more in smaller denominations qualifies as a "wad". It would be a misrepresentation to use that terminology for tens of thousands which would require a briefcase. Further, Dr. Hamblin was clear that his payment is in line with the pay one receives in other scholarly venues. This really tells it all. Consider this, I have a fulltime job, and I also do consulting work on the side. I would love to make a thousand dollars an hour for side projects, but my skills do not have that kind of market value. What I do for side work pays about the same as what I make at my day job. So while apologetics may not make one rich, niether does a day job as a professor of history, and side work that pays at the same rate that one makes in their other academic pursuits is a pretty smooth gig. Especially when one has the added bonuses of prestiege and doctrinal invention. Certainly more money can be made in finance banking than in contract IT work or apologetics, but neither I nor the apologists have the requisite skillset or likely even interest to pursue that option. We make money at the things we like to do, and can do.
In regards to Harmony's comment, yes, having one's travel expenses covered (once a year? twice a year? three times a year?) is different than making "top-dollar". Does this really have to be explained? Moreover, I doubt Harmony is saying you go to "the Bahamas". She's saying that if the church supported group that funds trips for you for apologetic purposes spends several thousand dollars a trip (which would be a given for almost ANY trip, except next door, given air fare and hotel expenses), that adds up to a tidy sum, over your career. Notice the difference between what she said and your statement:
Harmony:
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.
DCP:
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.
A travel stipend is not exactly an "income", but it does add up to well over six figures. Even if the church supported group funds 3,000 dollars for one trip a year, over a thirty-five year period, that adds up to over 100,000 dollars.
These are all significant details that you, and your followers, have ignored in their rantings about "rich apologists". You are just doing what you normally do, however. You cherry-pick statements from isolated exmormons, take them out of context, ignore all the other comments that explicitly disagree with what you insinuate the cherry-picked statements mean, present that to your followers with the insinuation that this is an accurate reflection of what the majority of posters are saying on "the other board", and then allow the natural conclusions follow. The result is a silly strawman which your followers than whoop and holler about as they light it on fire. YEEHAW, the anti-mormons say apologists are gittin' rich!! Someone hand me a match!!!
This is the same thing you do with RFM when you cull your 'worst of the worst' quotes. It's a slight of hand trick that you've practiced for years. The best part is that you usually just insinuate and allow your enthusiastic followers (who normally have not read the material on the other boards) build the strawman for you, which gives you plausible deniability on top of it. Perfect.
Here's what critics are saying - the church supports and (apparently indirectly) funds apologetics. This is true. This has been established beyond doubt, by your own words and by clear evidence. Here's what the critics are NOT saying - the apologists are gittin' rich!!!
Apologia is poorly paid. Every time this topic has come up, I've seen several critics (including myself) assert this. I've also seen critics assert that apologists clearly aren't doing this for the money. But those statements, predictably, are ignored by you in your report to your enthusiastic followers.
I've also seen it asserted, each time this comes up, that there's really nothing wrong with the church supporting and funding apologetics. The only reason this is even an "issue" is because of the way you react to it. As I stated before, I think it's because the church has made such a big deal, in the past, about a non-paid ministry, that each time something like this leaks out, there is a predictable reaction of strawman construction and denial.
But hey, since the temple film has changed, pretty soon no one will even remember that the church used to insinuate ministers of other faiths were doing it for the money offered by satan. Then you won't even have to deny anything, just act like it's expected, above-board, and no big deal. Mormons (like all human beings) have very short memories, and that will work to your advantage.