Gadianton wrote:Ray, I believe that every man should prosper according to his genius, and conquer according to his strength. If the apologists prove their worth to the church in monetary terms, then who am I to question the invisible hand of a market economy? I think if the church wants quality, and I use the term loosely, it will need to pay.
Love the allusion! Personally, I'd like to see them earn more. How many full time employees does it take to prove that continental drift occurred in one year? If that's what the members want, let them have it. They are paying for this through their own pockets. Why kick up a stink about "pseudo-archeology" if it keeps the faithful, faithful? It's their money, it's what they want to hear. What, do you expect them to pay to be disillusioned?
Each time this has come up, I've been curious as to what motivated the apologists' strong, defensive reaction. They immediately go into strawman mode: ie, apologists aren't getting rich. Clue: no one said they were. But why the need to go directly into ridicule and strawman??? in my opinion, this has to be it - apologists have criticized EV "anti-mormons" for making money off of their endeavors. I can't imagine apologists are deluded enough to pretend that the EV anti-mormons are making a LOT of money - they criticize that they make ANY money and that they solicit donations.
And all along, they knew they were guilty of the exact same thing. They make some money - not a lot - and they, with the support of the actual LDS church engage in fundraisers to support their endeavors.
When people engage in harsh criticism of others for a behavior that they, themselves, also engage in, they usually experience a certain amount of insecurity and anxiety due to the fact that they could be exposed as hypocrites. This inner insecurity and anxiety results in the strong and immediate over-reaction. (by the way, the MAD thread is unpinned, and no one ever correct the strawman over there, the defenders of the faith can feel smug that they ridiculed the idea that apologists are getting rich......apologists can sleep well at night knowing their smoke and mirrors were successful with the faithful, once again)
in my opinion, the case is closed on this particular mystery. Although Scratch does engage in hyperbole to make his point, his point has, indeed, been well made. Some apologists do make a very small amount of money from their apologia, and the church indirectly funds the production of apologia, and some people are employed full time to support that production.
What's really ironic about all this is that critics don't really care that this is the case, and actually believe apologists should be paid for their efforts. But that's an inconvenient truth for the MADdites.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
This is an important breakthrough. I hope everyone has a chance to read your post here. It seems like the apologists want to have their cake and eat it to. On the one hand, if you read the MI's history of FARMS, you'd think they delight in poverty and their own "mom and pop" production. Then you read this, and they want to make fun of critics for their lack of sophistication. They're probably hooting it up right now tht the EV's can't even afford a high-priced fundraiser like they can. But stop the press, because as soon as Midgley gets a whiff of a potential wealthy donar to the UTLM, he's thrown into the heat of rage and drags matt down to the bookstore to confront Sandra about her moral corruption.
There can be no doubt now though, as you suggest, that the apologists are more guilty of wedding their opperation to Mammon than the critics are. They've really hung themselves here! And astounding find, Mr. Scratch.
So do you, and Scratch, still believe that apologists "should be paid more"? Or even at all?
I just want to reiterate that a few of them ARE being paid, and being paid well by the Mormon church, via BYU. Their professorships are clearly aimed at apologetics when you look at their body of work. That being said, I think it's great that they're getting paid to do a difficult and demeaning job.
Love the allusion! Personally, I'd like to see them earn more. How many full time employees does it take to prove that continental drift occurred in one year? If that's what the members want, let them have it. They are paying for this through their own pockets. Why kick up a stink about "pseudo-archeology" if it keeps the faithful, faithful? It's their money, it's what they want to hear. What, do you expect them to pay to be disillusioned?
The problem is that there are people who are looking for reliable information about the topic, and not just looking to have their faith affirmed through massaged and dubious information. Perhaps they should know better than to look to church apologists for reliable, objective information, but unless the individual has studied the topic a bit on his/her own, he/she really has no way of knowing just how UNreliable the information they're being given is.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
One thing I'd like more information on is the activities of this "fundraiser." Based on Prof. P.'s remarks, it seems that there are three types of "assignations" that take place when the "fundraiser" comes a'knockin':
---Large, group gatherings, such as firesides
---Smaller gatherings of a dozen or so people
---One-on-one meetings with super-wealthy LDS
I would be very interested in learning what happens at these "meetings." For example, what does the "fundraiser" say? It has been suggested elsewhere that "veiled threats" are used to milk money from these people. Does the "fundraiser" change his/her tactics depending on the size and scope of the gathering? Is any mention ever made of the "anti-Mormon threat", and the need to counteract it with better apologetic firepower?
Mister Scratch wrote:I would be very interested in learning what happens at these "meetings." For example, what does the "fundraiser" say? It has been suggested elsewhere that "veiled threats" are used to milk money from these people.
Those super-wealthy LDS guys should demand a spot in the 1st Quorum of 70 in exchange for their generous donations.
Quid pro quo.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Mister Scratch wrote:I would be very interested in learning what happens at these "meetings." For example, what does the "fundraiser" say? It has been suggested elsewhere that "veiled threats" are used to milk money from these people.
Those super-wealthy LDS guys should demand a spot in the 1st Quorum of 70 in exchange for their generous donations.
Quid pro quo.
Well, one might argue that their "compensation" is that, in a small way, they get to influence the way Mormonism is understood and interpreted---i.e., the apologists' way. And, since we have established that Mopologists play a significant role in determining doctrine, this is no small matter.
Mister Scratch wrote:I would be very interested in learning what happens at these "meetings." For example, what does the "fundraiser" say? It has been suggested elsewhere that "veiled threats" are used to milk money from these people.
Those super-wealthy LDS guys should demand a spot in the 1st Quorum of 70 in exchange for their generous donations.
Quid pro quo.
What makes you think they haven't? Or conversely, what makes you think they'd want it?