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

Post by **_RockHeaded** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:48 pm

When I read these threads it seems to me the critics are complaining because the apologists are getting some sort of compensation from the LDS Church. That would imply that the apologists are partly doing this for the compensation they receive. Isn't it then a little disingenuous for the critics to make statements that they do not understand why the apologists are taking exception to claims that they are doing it for the money?

These threads are stupid, and for the record if I were a member of the LDS Church and IF they took my tithes to pay DCP for the research he's done I'd say it was well worth it.

RockHeaded

Post by **_John Larsen** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:52 pm

RockHeaded wrote:When I read these threads it seems to me the critics are complaining because the apologists are getting some sort of compensation from the LDS Church. That would imply that the apologists are partly doing this for the compensation they receive. Isn't it then a little disingenuous for the critics to make statements that they do not understand why the apologists are taking exception to claims that they are doing it for the money?

These threads are stupid, and for the record if I were a member of the LDS Church and IF they took my tithes to pay DCP for the research he's done I'd say it was well worth it.

RockHeaded

It seems to me there are more critics complaining about these threads than participating. I think your dichotomy is unwarranted.

Post by **_Maxrep** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:49 pm

Perhaps I have missed where this has been discussed in the past, but the following is a question I have;

Do individuals like Daniel Peterson or Hamblin browse apologetic forums while at work? Do they post responses on these forums while on the job, or at least formulate responses which become posts after their day is complete? Lastly, are their employers aware that they may spend a portion of their workday engaged in these activities?

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:11 pm

The point of this thread is NOT to complain that apologists are getting paid. No one has any problem with apologists getting paid. In fact, we all seem to be of the universal opinion that they should get paid.

The point of this thread is to show that the common assumption that apologists do not ever get financially compensated for any of their apologetic work is false.

Post by **_RockHeaded** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:28 pm

Maxrep wrote:Perhaps I have missed where this has been discussed in the past, but the following is a question I have;

Do individuals like Daniel Peterson or Hamblin browse apologetic forums while at work? Do they post responses on these forums while on the job, or at least formulate responses which become posts after their day is complete? Lastly, are their employers aware that they may spend a portion of their workday engaged in these activities?

Does it make any difference? Plus, if they are on here while at work is it okay with you if they post on here while taking a break from work?

Post by **_Yong Xi** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:23 pm

Maxrep wrote:Perhaps I have missed where this has been discussed in the past, but the following is a question I have;

Do individuals like Daniel Peterson or Hamblin browse apologetic forums while at work? Do they post responses on these forums while on the job, or at least formulate responses which become posts after their day is complete? Lastly, are their employers aware that they may spend a portion of their workday engaged in these activities?

I care only if someone posts on this or other boards during working hours if their salary comes from tax dollars or a publicly held company that I own stock in (that is a large number since I own mutual funds). If someone works for a private enterprise while posting here during working hours, it doesn't affect me in the least. I could care less how much DCP or Hamblin post here or anywhere else or how much money they make. If I paid tithing or had children attending BYU, I might be more concerned.

I don't even consider DCP to be an apologist. He tends to merely run interference, use sophistry, grandstand and give colleagues high fives. DCP seldom takes positions on serious issues. It's really more about DCP and encouraging his possee that it is defending the Church.

Post by **_Gadianton** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:01 am

Dr. Hamblin has had quite a bit more to say on that thread since he decided he had nothing more to say on the matter. Now he's very sure it was exactly 200$ and he remembers exactly how and when he got paid. I'll bet he could even tell you the check numbers. Fascinating I think, how the human mind only needs a push in the right direction to fabricate a straight story and find the certainty it's looking for. Now if only that darned lost letter would turn up exactly where he'd like to find it...

Post by **_antishock8** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:23 pm

Gadianton wrote:Dr. Hamblin has had quite a bit more to say on that thread since he decided he had nothing more to say on the matter. Now he's very sure it was exactly 200$ and he remembers exactly how and when he got paid. I'll bet he could even tell you the check numbers. Fascinating I think, how the human mind only needs a push in the right direction to fabricate a straight story and find the certainty it's looking for. Now if only that darned lost letter would turn up exactly where he'd like to find it...

Color me shocked that yet another esteemed Mormon is a liar. Shocked I tells ya...

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:18 pm

Gadianton wrote:Dr. Hamblin has had quite a bit more to say on that thread since he decided he had nothing more to say on the matter. Now he's very sure it was exactly 200$ and he remembers exactly how and when he got paid. I'll bet he could even tell you the check numbers. Fascinating I think, how the human mind only needs a push in the right direction to fabricate a straight story and find the certainty it's looking for. Now if only that darned lost letter would turn up exactly where he'd like to find it...

Yes, you're quite right:

Bill Hamblin wrote:The couple of hundred dollars I received was paid by FARMS before it became part of BYU, and while it was funded entirely by independent donations. Since FARMS has become part of BYU, I have received nothing from FARMS. Zero. Zip. Nada. I have never received money from the Church or BYU for anything I have done with FARMS.

"Independent dontations"? What does that mean? Again, I have to wonder: Does this whole financial set-up in any way resemble the method by which the Church acquired Mark Hoffman's forgeries? I.e., "The Church" didn't "pay" for the forgeries, but, nonetheless, the forgeries wound up in the Church's possession? That really is (at least a part of) my point: the Church is somehow, somewhere, giving its nod of approval to the whole Mopologetic endeavor. And none of the apologists seems willing to admit it.

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Mister Scratch wrote: That really is (at least a part of) my point: the Church is somehow, somewhere, giving its nod of approval to the whole Mopologetic endeavor. And none of the apologists seems willing to admit it.

Of course, BYU professors who are vocal about the Church on the Net, are part of the church organizational system, they'd be fired if they weren't. So of course the Church, those at the top running it, approve.