"And That's My Final word..."

[_beastie]

Where are critics arguing that apologists are doing it all for the money?

This is another strawman constructed by DCP and Hamblin and the MADdites, and apparently it's successful enough that even some critics here believe that's the primary point.

So please, someone show me where critics are arguing that apologists are doing it all for the money.


As I read these threads, it always appears to me that the point is that the church supports and (albeit indirectly) funds apologia endeavors. And again, the only reason this is a big deal is because of how the apologists react to it.

[_truth dancer]

I'm not quite sure what the "debate" is about.

Seems everyone agrees that DCP and other apologists get some funds, albeit not much, from their apologetic work.

OK then... :-)

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I'm with Dan on this one.

I am too. I just don't see the evidence that Hamblin and DCP, and the others at BYU, are doing apologetics for the money. They may get some money in the course of doing apologetics, but they're not "doing it for the money", as it were.

Let me jump on the bandwagon -- I agree that apologists are not in it for the money.

[_antishock8]

Where has a critic, here at Mormon Discussions, said that Mr. Peterson or Mr. Hamblin, or ANY Mopologist is "in it for the money"? Where? The only ones to claim that are the gentlemen, and I use that term loosely, who are constructing a strawman and who refuse to back their claims up (also known as "lying").

The ironic thing is critics actually think the FARMS/MI Mopologists aren't recompensed properly. If anything, we think they SHOULD be paid MORE than what they've received.

[_Alter Idem]

Dr. Peterson,

I like you, and I have avoided personal commentary on you I think, almost entirely. I am not analyzing you here, I am analyzing Dr. Hamblin. And on my power-point post, I am not claiming anything toward you personally, this isn't personal with you, my friend, it's just business.

And by the way, my claims regarding Dr. Hamblin are as follows:

- he's received a wad of cash for apologetics, which is true.

He is the one who created his own strawman and then tries to argue against it. Nowhere have I argued he's in it all for the money. Here, I argue that his attempts at burning a strawman of his own creation simply fail.

I think I've been fairly charitable, considering he's called me a liar, a moron, and someone who can't understand basic english.

Gad, I think you need to face that you've been the victim of one of Mr. Scratch's "How to make mountains out of molehiles" posts. Bill Hamblin admitted to making "a few hundred dollars" which he wasn't even sure of the amount over YEARS. You turned it into "he received a wad of cash"...do you really think that's the same thing, because I think your description definintely changed the meaning and gave a wrong impression of what he said--which is why you got such a nasty response from him. No one gets rich off of apologetics, unless they write some bestseller book--and I haven't seen any so far. The church doesn't pay for anything that people will do for free.

[_Mercury]

Some of you folks seem simply desperate on this issue.

It's flatly untrue that we're in it for the money. The money's piddling, on the very rare occasions when there's any at all.

And it's not that our hopes to make tens of thousands simply failed to materialize. There's no prospect of such sums. There never has been.

Dan, its not your own profiteering that worries me. Its the profits earned by an organization that is more interested in retaining a source of income through your work. The torrent of individuals using the internet to discover things are not what they seem in mormonland and the pathetic pseudoacademic machinations you and others perform is my big concern.

Just admit that you are paid by BYU to perform apologetic efforts and be done with it.

[_The Dude]

As I read these threads, it always appears to me that the point is that the church supports and (albeit indirectly) funds apologia endeavors.

If that is the point then we should ask who is paying the honoraria. If it doesn't come from church owned accounts then this isn't evidence of interesting funding, just the usual academic honoraria everybody gets.

by the way, it is possible to turn down honoraria and there are plenty of situations where people turn down honoraria and aren't allowed to do consulting, for proprietary reasons. If I'm not mistaken, medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health are restricted from outside consulting and accepting honoraria. Apologists could do that if they wanted to avoid all appearance of conflict. This might seem hypersensitive but it wouldn't be totally unreasonable, in my opinion.

And again, the only reason this is a big deal is because of how the apologists react to it.

Yes, I see a lot of narcissism behind the reactions. Some people enjoy attention -- and this is largely harmless, so they turn on the drama and while away the hours in enjoyment. The only thing that would make it better for them is if they could get paid for the performance.

[_Mister Scratch]

Dr. Peterson,

I like you, and I have avoided personal commentary on you I think, almost entirely. I am not analyzing you here, I am analyzing Dr. Hamblin. And on my power-point post, I am not claiming anything toward you personally, this isn't personal with you, my friend, it's just business.

And by the way, my claims regarding Dr. Hamblin are as follows:

- he's received a wad of cash for apologetics, which is true.

He is the one who created his own strawman and then tries to argue against it. Nowhere have I argued he's in it all for the money. Here, I argue that his attempts at burning a strawman of his own creation simply fail.

I think I've been fairly charitable, considering he's called me a liar, a moron, and someone who can't understand basic english.

Gad, I think you need to face that you've been the victim of one of Mr. Scratch's "How to make mountains out of molehiles" posts. Bill Hamblin admitted to making "a few hundred dollars" which he wasn't even sure of the amount over YEARS.

(emphasis added)

An important point here: Hamblin cannot say with certainty that his payment was a "mere" $200. Instead, he says "I can't recall."

You turned it into "he received a wad of cash"...do you really think that's the same thing, because I think your description definintely changed the meaning and gave a wrong impression of what he said--which is why you got such a nasty response from him. No one gets rich off of apologetics, unless they write some bestseller book--and I haven't seen any so far. The church doesn't pay for anything that people will do for free.

No one has ever argued that anyone is getting "rich" off apologetics. We've simply intended to point out that people get paid, and that the Church is helping to fund apologia. As to your comment that the "church doesn't pay for anything that people will do for free," well, how does this apply to apologetics? It cannot, since the Church has utilized a professional, non-BYU fundraiser to help drum up funds for the Maxwell Institute. Maybe DCP & Hamblin & others would theoretically "do it for free," but the Church has shown that it is willing to toss them a financial bone while they are at it.

[_Sethbag]

Where are critics arguing that apologists are doing it all for the money?

Ok, well maybe I've missed the point, but I'm having a really hard time getting worked up for this topic whatever the point is. Sure, so in some roundabout ways, the church indirectly "funds", in a piddling way, apologetics.

Booooo!

There, I've said it. ;-)

ps: let's see, the church funds physics research, chemistry research, computer science research, business school teaching, law school teaching, everything that goes on at BYU, owns a lot of businesses, is putting up a new megamall in SLC, etc. Add to the billions spent on these endeavors a few hundred dollars every few years defending the faith. Again, I say: Booooooo!

[_guy sajer]

Where are critics arguing that apologists are doing it all for the money?

Ok, well maybe I've missed the point, but I'm having a really hard time getting worked up for this topic whatever the point is. Sure, so in some roundabout ways, the church indirectly "funds", in a piddling way, apologetics.

Booooo!

There, I've said it. ;-)

ps: let's see, the church funds physics research, chemistry research, computer science research, business school teaching, law school teaching, everything that goes on at BYU, owns a lot of businesses, is putting up a new megamall in SLC, etc. Add to the billions spent on these endeavors a few hundred dollars every few years defending the faith. Again, I say: Booooooo!

I agree. I vote that we let this topic die once and for all. It's making Jason Voorhees look like a slouch.