Lawyers and LDS Apologists

[Linked]

In a discussion with my semi-apologist friend and my brother we were talking about my brother's view that no one in the church has anything to gain, so he believes that for the most part mormons are genuine in their belief, all the way up to the prophet. I actually agree with that, but brought up the GA's $100k+ stipend to show that there isn't 'nothing' to gain. My brother is TBM and avoids the details like he is supposed to, so he had no idea. My friend said that for those guys $100k is really a step down, and nothing to be concerned with. Also, that the amount isn't really known, and that they don't all get that. I said that we don't know that, because they are not open about it. But it really bothered me that he essentially destroyed the impact of my comments by providing reasonable doubt that they are profiting from their GA-ness.

I've posted before on the idea that the search for truth for mormons is more like a lawyer's search for evidence to help their case than a scientist's search for evidence to disprove their hypothesis. This is especially evident in apologetics. It seems that one of the main tools for apologists is to provide a believer with enough reasonable doubt to enable them to maintain their testimony. This only works if one is already strongly convinced of their beliefs since there is enough reasonable doubt about everything religious to believe whatever you want. It's basically a defense against evidence that goes against how you see the world, allowing one to maintain their confirmation bias.

"If you can't prove JS had sex with those women you must acquit!" I'm still waiting for his version of "If I Did It" where he says how he would have gotten a harem.

[Enoch Witty]

My friend said that for those guys $100k is really a step down

Sure, because these 80- and 90-year-old men would definitely still be working in their corporate jobs, and definitely don't have savings/retirement funds from said corporate jobs?

Boyd Packer worked for the church his whole life and lived on a $2.5 million estate when he died. Step down indeed.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

There are other perks than just a 120k stipend. Think about all the ghost written books sold in deseret book they likely profit from. Church owned recreational properties for family to use, free church school tuition for their grandkids. Name credibility for getting kids and grandkids good jobs based on connection and nepotism. It's all gravy except for the "do administrative work until you die" part.

[MerrieMiss]

I had this conversation with my husband. He was reasonably bothered by the stipends and used the "it's a step down" rationale, although it did not set well with him while there are so many other reasons it is problematic:

• Jesus chose apostles who left their professions. He didn't tell them they could make a reasonable/comparable living as followers of chirst

• Jesus told a follower to sell all he had and follow him

• Nowhere is there a record that Jesus was preaching while making a comparable living to a carpenter

• King Benjamin worked for his own support and was not supported by the people

• These GAs have retirement from the great jobs they left and would no longer be working

• Why aren't people from more humble backgrounds chosen to be apostles?

• What about tuition for their children at church schools that are funded by tithing dollars? (that one is BIG on my husband's shelf)

• Why are GAs paid, but the church doesn't have janitors?

• Where does paying church leadership stop? Apostles, seventies, mission president? We don't know, there isn't any transparency.

• If there isn't anything to hide, why not be transparent?

• Why has the church always said leaders don't get paid? Try an lds.org search for "paid ministry" and see what is there.

The thing is, it isn't just about the stipend. Real questioning leads you to ask other questions. Apologetics seem to want the questioning process to stop before a person goes that far. I agree with you. The apologetics give enough room to be okay with something; to have reasonable doubt. And they worked for me, up to a point. But it seemed that suddenly I was having to rely on reasonable doubt regarding too many things. And when I looked at it from an outsider's perspective, would I give any other organization this much of a break? Or just mormonism, because I happened to be born into it?

[Linked]

The thing is, it isn't just about the stipend. Real questioning leads you to ask other questions. Apologetics seem to want the questioning process to stop before a person goes that far. I agree with you. The apologetics give enough room to be okay with something; to have reasonable doubt. And they worked for me, up to a point. But it seemed that suddenly I was having to rely on reasonable doubt regarding too many things. And when I looked at it from an outsider's perspective, would I give any other organization this much of a break? Or just mormonism, because I happened to be born into it?

Great insight. This is what bothered me by my friend's response. My brother was starting to take a dip into the real questions, and my friend threw him a life boat so he could avoid it.

I think the question about whether I would give any other organization a break goes along with the idea that I would never join the church if I wasn't born into it, or that I would find the incessant marketing spin and white washing done in the church disgusting from another church or company. Those weighed heavy on my shelf.

[2bizE]

The fact that GAs receive money doesn't really bother me. I think it should also be given to the men and women in the stakes and wards. What grinds me most though is that if I work many hours per week to provide for my family, and I am expected to pay tithing. The GAs on the other hand receive money to provide for their families, but they do not pay tithing. Something is broken with this.

[Corsair]

The response to the stipend is protective. If an apostle was wealthy before becoming an apostle then $120K is a "step down" and his humility is commendable. If an apostle was not wealthy then it's stipend for doing the Lord's work and we don't have any way to judge the amount or know that this is a common amount. Either reaction is designed to leave the LDS leadership looking like humble, hardworking saints.

Apologetics will continue to change as much as LDS presentation of their doctrine changes. But the biggest way we can change is to ignore their claims until they fully accept the burden of proof and make it clear why the LDS church should be a compelling influence in our lives. Their claims about priesthood authority and the necessity of LDS ordinances are held beyond question. But they have not shouldered the burden of proof. It's worth simply accepting that many Mormons are going to always believe, but we don't have to find their arguments persuasive until they actually are.

[20/20hind]

A step down? I don't really think so. Packer was An employee for the church educational system. We all know they don't make much at all.

But he was able to own a over million dollar home and land. Mm wonder where he got that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mormoninsi ... -home/amp/