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

[_Mike Reed]

I'm with Dan on this one.

Did YOU ever get any money from FAIR when you were a member, Kevin? I sure didn't. I didn't get anything for the book review that I wrote for FARMS either. So what's the deal Dan? I want my paycheck!!

[_Gadianton]

Hi Mike,

I'm concerned that you don't understand the apologetic business model very well. May I ask what kind of advanced degrees you hold? I hope I never implied that the church wishes to fund apologetics universally. In fact, part of my argument has been that it's the very existence of widespread apologetics which may put pressure on the Church to fund its own institution. Consider, the inner circle of FARMS are real, working academics and have access to BYU's extensive resources. Granted, they often write outside of their narrow specialty, but they are by far the closest thing to giving apologetics the veneer of academic credibility.

FAIR on the other hand, is one of the reasons why the church might need to pay for apologetics. FAIR is composed almost entirely of loose canons, weekend warriors, and wannabes. And their official website, MAD, is primarily the stomping ground of one of the most uneducated and embarrassing groups of church defenders I've ever witnessed. With all these loose cannons out there, and with the church's recent gag order on GA's, the church's image as a respectable institution is seriously at risk. It really needs a professional group of defenders with the requisite backgrounds the rest of the world can look to for credible information on Mormon issues. Part of the church's funding then, aims to cleanup the messes the amateurs make.

But to attract the bigger names requires some spending. Professional academics need to shop too, and that's why a serious apologetic arm will be paid. Do you see how that works? Just because the church is willing to pay for apologetics, doesn't mean it's willing to pay *everyone* for it, quite the contrary! Those who would make approximately *0* for their papers in the academic world will likely be paid not a penny for their apologetics.

But to get a Dr. Hamblin who makes money on the side writing real academic papers, the church will have to cough up an honorarium and hope to snag an article from him during the slow times of his regular business. This pay might be slightly less than his usual fee, but that's primarily because he's still writing outside his specialty. He's receiving his fair market value. Now consider the 12 historians who are participating I believe, as I write this, for the Joseph Smith summer seminar at BYU. They are real academics who are participating in apologetics right in their own fields, american history. It's no surprise then that they're cleaning up the bases with a big 3,000$ check for their services. The same is true for Gee, who must be paid a full salary for his specialized apologetic efforts. As the years unfold and the "fundraiser" reels in more backing, the level of narrow specialties will line up better with the articles produced.

Please, an institution that can be milked by every Tom, Dick, and Harry the church is not. The church is led by seasoned, sly, hardnosed, and cheap businessmen who will gut a hospital for a quick profit. They aren't going to be mailing checks to the weekend warriors over at FAIR/MAD.

[_Maxrep]

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?

The difference, in my view, is that workday participation on apologetic forums represents ones employer making a far more significant financial contribution to this cause than say, a $200 check every few years to an apologist for published work.

As far as breaks are concerned, do you mean to create a picture where church employed apologists who post at work, only do so while they are eating a sack lunch? Is that how you really see them?

Some individuals receive an hourly wage while at work, while others are paid a yearly salary. Even salaried employees have an idea of what their average work week is like, and have calculated their approximate hourly worth. Once an individual has received approval, directly or implied, that defending the church while at work is kosher, then the time spent participating on such forums at work, is time they are being paid to do apologetics. Their paycheck will not make the distinction; $1500 for teaching at BYU + $300 for hours spent with MAD forum participation this week, but apologetics may be finding a back door way of morphing itself into the job description so to speak.

Anyone else see it this way?

[_Yoda]

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.

Is this in dispute? I believe that Dr. Peterson has stated on several occasions that he gets paid for his apologetic work. He has emphasized that it isn't a lot of money, but to my knowledge, he has not disputed the fact that he gets paid something.

I really don't understand why anyone is shocked that the Church is paying for this. BYU is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

What I do find rather deceitful, is the Church's statement that we do not have a paid clergy. Although we do not have LOCAL paid clergy (our teachers, music people, bishops, etc. are not paid), members of the 12 and the 70 do receive a stipend for their services.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with this, but it would be nice if the Church was a little more open about it.

[_Mike Reed]

Hi Mike,

I'm concerned that you don't understand the apologetic business model very well. May I ask what kind of advanced degrees you hold? I hope I never implied that the church wishes to fund apologetics universally. In fact, part of my argument has been that it's the very existence of widespread apologetics which may put pressure on the Church to fund its own institution. Consider, the inner circle of FARMS are real, working academics and have access to BYU's extensive resources. Granted, they often write outside of their narrow specialty, but they are by far the closest thing to giving apologetics the veneer of academic credibility.

FAIR on the other hand, is one of the reasons why the church might need to pay for apologetics. FAIR is composed almost entirely of loose canons, weekend warriors, and wannabes. And their official website, MAD, is primarily the stomping ground of one of the most uneducated and embarrassing groups of church defenders I've ever witnessed. With all these loose cannons out there, and with the church's recent gag order on GA's, the church's image as a respectable institution is seriously at risk. It really needs a professional group of defenders with the requisite backgrounds the rest of the world can look to for credible information on Mormon issues. Part of the church's funding then, aims to cleanup the messes the amateurs make.

But to attract the bigger names requires some spending. Professional academics need to shop too, and that's why a serious apologetic arm will be paid. Do you see how that works? Just because the church is willing to pay for apologetics, doesn't mean it's willing to pay *everyone* for it, quite the contrary! Those who would make approximately *0* for their papers in the academic world will likely be paid not a penny for their apologetics.

But to get a Dr. Hamblin who makes money on the side writing real academic papers, the church will have to cough up an honorarium and hope to snag an article from him during the slow times of his regular business. This pay might be slightly less than his usual fee, but that's primarily because he's still writing outside his specialty. He's receiving his fair market value. Now consider the 12 historians who are participating I believe, as I write this, for the Joseph Smith summer seminar at BYU. They are real academics who are participating in apologetics right in their own fields, american history. It's no surprise then that they're cleaning up the bases with a big 3,000$ check for their services. The same is true for Gee, who must be paid a full salary for his specialized apologetic efforts. As the years unfold and the "fundraiser" reels in more backing, the level of narrow specialties will line up better with the articles produced.

Please, an institution that can be milked by every Tom, Dick, and Harry the church is not. The church is led by seasoned, sly, hardnosed, and cheap businessmen who will gut a hospital for a quick profit. They aren't going to be mailing checks to the weekend warriors over at FAIR/MAD.

Since I thought it was obvious that I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, I am a bit taken back by your serious (and seemingly condescending) response. Relax.

And as for my advanced degree?: I've got a metaPHD in Chill-ology.

[_Gadianton]

Well Mike, my post was condescending. But it had to be, unfortunately. The truth about the apologetic money flows needs to be documented. Now, while you are calling me on my serious tone and demanding that I relax, I wonder what you think about Dr. William "Honorarium" Hamblin's post which rather directly condemned me for being a moron, a liar, and not able to comprehend English? Now Mike, do you think he might need to relax? I'm just curious. Before I take your requests of me too seriously, I'd like to get a good baseline on what you feel is over-the-top seriousness.

Anyway, this is a serious matter and not all just fun and games. I've noticed that some apologists, for instance Kerry Shirts, seem more concerned about the "good time" than about the truth. For others, well, you can't exactly rule out the enticements of the almighty dollar.

[_Mike Reed]

Well Mike, my post was condescending. But it had to be, unfortunately. The truth about the apologetic money flows needs to be documented. Now, while you are calling me on my serious tone and demanding that I relax, I wonder what you think about Dr. William "Honorarium" Hamblin's post which rather directly condemned me for being a moron, a liar, and not able to comprehend English? Now Mike, do you think he might need to relax? I'm just curious. Before I take your requests of me too seriously, I'd like to get a good baseline on what you feel is over-the-top seriousness.

Anyway, this is a serious matter and not all just fun and games. I've noticed that some apologists, for instance Kerry Shirts, seem more concerned about the "good time" than about the truth. For others, well, you can't exactly rule out the enticements of the almighty dollar.

Yes. I think he should relax too.

Deep breaths....

[_Mister Scratch]

Please, an institution that can be milked by every Tom, Dick, and Harry the church is not. The church is led by seasoned, sly, hardnosed, and cheap businessmen who will gut a hospital for a quick profit. They aren't going to be mailing checks to the weekend warriors over at FAIR/MAD.

This is an important point. We need to bear in mind that the Church, as an institution, hates, and I mean *HATES* to dole out money for anything. Think about it: this is a church that requires families of 19-year-old young men to totally finance their own missions, this on top of the normal expenses (tithing; fast offerings) incurred by the average member. So, what makes you think that the Church would pay out for apologetics? Wouldn't it make more sense for the Brethren to issue apologetic "callings," as they do with normal Church appointments and positions? (Whether or not there is an actual laying-on of hands is another matter entirely....) But, no: they don't do that. If they did that, it would serve as a clear signal that, in fact, the Church has and needs officially-sanctioned apologists.

So, bearing all of that in mind, it is really very, very astonishing that *ANY* money manages to make it into the pockets of apologists---even if it is a relatively piddling "wad of bills" such as $200. Given the Brethren's frugality, it truly is stunning that they would divert funds---and "fundraisers"---over to this cause.

[_Dr. Shades]

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.

Is this in dispute?

According to RockHeaded, it is.