The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2008

[_Trevor]

Fun post, Scratch. A few comments:

Daniel Peterson-We should all heartily thank Dr. Peterson for dropping by now and then. I had a great deal of fun indulging in various antics this year, and I have learned a great deal from watching him in action. Thanks, Dr. Peterson. It has been great fun.

Having said that, I think the discovery of some kind of figures to associate with LDS apologetic efforts was a genuine find. And, it seems to me that there was a bit of hyperbole in the claim that apologists don't earn a thin dime for their efforts. On the other hand, this news is really neither shocking nor scandalous. It is informative. I am glad to have a little more information, but there isn't much to be made out of it in reality. So the LDS apologetic effort is no longer just a couple of enthusiasts operating out of their basement. Now we know that well.

There is one item that I would put on my top ten list: the discovery that LOaP is a bright guy with some really good ideas. When he first came over to MDB, I thought he was really annoying. It seems he was exhibiting his disdain for many of the critics here through little jabs. Now that time is past, and I have found someone I would much rather discuss Mormonism with than just about any other apologist out there. There have been a couple of times when I have wandered over to his blog, and I have generally been impressed with his comments and ideas. With the ranks of quality apologists growing ever thinner over here, we should treasure this guy.

On a sadder note, I regret the departure of some of our female participants. I have enjoyed discussing Mormonism with them. It saddens me that some people preferred risky amatory pursuits through PMs to the open discussion here. It does not surprise me that in some cases the people whose input I often could do without seem to be the very same folk who couldn't control their behavior. Such is human nature. We have such a difficult time keeping it in bounds. And the old adage holds true, a couple of rotten apples can spoil the bushel.

I am forever in beastie's debt for blowing the snow job on the Massacre at Mountain Meadows wide open. I was suspicious and I saw problems. Now I am persuaded that the project was tainted by a desire to exonerate the Mormon Church's leadership and indirectly blame the victims. In my eyes, it was a shameful enterprise. Thanks also to Dwight Frye for the link to Ron Huggins' excellent review. Huggins nailed it. His larger picture concerning the history of violence in LDS culture is exactly the context the MMM needed but did not receive in the Turley book.

I think there is a common theme in the apologetics 'revelations' and the whitewash of Mountain Meadows: the corrupting influence of a demand for the appearance of perfection. One of the great ironies about the whole thing is that most critics inadvertently feed the problem. It is a vicious cycle. People demand that anything bearing the "God" label live up to the perfection claimed for God. My own disappointment with Mormonism was initially fueled by the same impulse.

And we all seem to think that we know best what it is that this perfection should look like. The LDS Church responds to the demand, which it knows cannot be met in reality, with an image of perfection and lots of good intentions to become that perfection. The critics respond by castigating them for their concern with manufacturing and maintaining the image of perfection. And the apologists respond by redefining perfection so that the criticisms are hopefully blunted. The demand, after all, is somewhat unfair.

In the end, however, it all comes down to what an individual is willing to accept as being true and worthwhile. Most reasonable apologists and critics will understand and admit that the Mormon Church cannot help but be flawed by its very human elements. The reasonable apologist sees enough of the Divine in the picture to work with, while the critics, for various reasons, do not. I think that it is fair to criticize even the reasonable critics for being uncharitable at times and unreasonable in their expectations.

More later...

[_Yoda]

This would therefore seem to mark the end of Dr. Shades's "free speech" experiment, leading some to wonder if MDB will one day come to resemble the old ZLMB.

I don't think it is the end of "free speech". The "new" moderation is a one month experiment..and it is based upon what the majority of the board wanted to see happen.

At the end of the month, this new moderation will be evaluated by all members. By majority vote, either the new moderation will continue, or things will revert back to Shades' original rules.

"The will of the people" will decide the final outcome for the board.

[_Runtu]

Somehow, my being occasionally irritated by an unhinged yokel doesn't quite seem worthy of anyone's top ten list, except perhaps the top ten most pathetic and absurd events of 2008.

[_The Nehor]

Somehow, my being occasionally irritated by an unhinged yokel doesn't quite seem worthy of anyone's top ten list, except perhaps the top ten most pathetic and absurd events of 2008.

I find your title more accurate.

[_antishock8]

I would like to second Trevor's remarks reference MMM. That was a HUGE thread, and the thorough debunking of the myths surrounding it by Beastie should make your top 10. Kerry Shirts and a handheld camera? Ah. No. Beastie and MMM? Definitely.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

By all means. .
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &sk=t&sd=a

Gratzi

Do you know what page your review is on?

[_KimberlyAnn]

As is the case every year, the top story in Mopologetics is its failure to effectively defend Mormonism.

Mormon apologists must be translating their arguments from faulty seerstones because the retention rate of new members of their church is dismal.

I wonder how many people have been baptized into the Mormon church due to their efforts or how many questioning members have retained their belief as a direct result of their apologetics?

In the end, as with most things, results are what count. I'm not half as intelligent as most Mormon apologists, including the amateurs, yet I have assisted in the writing of eighteen resignations this year. None of those resignations were in my own family. And several of those resigning had children under the age of eight who didn't require written resignations. All of the adult members whom I assisted in writing resignations had access to Mormon apologetic material, because I provided it. I emailed them links. Whether they read them or not, I do not know. I do know when I was questioning my Mormon faith, I ravenously searched apologetic material for something to save my testimony, but to no avail. I believe that is the case with many people.

Again, in the end, it's a numbers game. More and more people are finding out the truth that Mormonism is false. The dam has broken and Mormon apologetic attempts to repair it are failing because defending a lie is always a losing proposition. When it comes to the Mormon numbers game, truth can claim scoreboard.

I plan to continue exposing the falsity of Mormonism as long as I am able.

Looking forward to another fruitful year in 2009,

KA

[_Runtu]

As is the case every year, the top story in Mopologetics is its failure to effectively defend Mormonism.
...

Again, in the end, it's a numbers game. More and more people are finding out the truth that Mormonism is false. The dam has broken and Mormon apologetic attempts to repair it are failing because defending a lie is always a losing proposition. When it comes to the Mormon numbers game, truth can claim scoreboard.

I plan to continue exposing the falsity of Mormonism as long as I am able.

Looking forward to another fruitful year in 2009,

KA

You evil apostate, you! ;)

I guess I've just had more of a passive approach in that I will answer people's questions about why I left (and I've done what you have in steering them to critical and apologetic arguments), but I've never felt the need to actively work against the church (though, obviously, some people think otherwise of me).

But I agree with you that the apologists will always be at a disadvantage because they have to argue for that which is not true.

[_Jason Bourne]

Fun post, Scratch. A few comments:.....

And we all seem to think that we know best what it is that this perfection should look like. The LDS Church responds to the demand, which it knows cannot be met in reality, with an image of perfection and lots of good intentions to become that perfection. The critics respond by castigating them for their concern with manufacturing and maintaining the image of perfection. And the apologists respond by redefining perfection so that the criticisms are hopefully blunted. The demand, after all, is somewhat unfair.

In the end, however, it all comes down to what an individual is willing to accept as being true and worthwhile. Most reasonable apologists and critics will understand and admit that the Mormon Church cannot help but be flawed by its very human elements. The reasonable apologist sees enough of the Divine in the picture to work with, while the critics, for various reasons, do not. I think that it is fair to criticize even the reasonable critics for being uncharitable at times and unreasonable in their expectations.

More later...

A worthy and well thought out post Trevor. Kudos to you.

[_Mister Scratch]

Purely for the record, in case anybody actually concerned with the truth happens upon this thread:

Every allegation involving me (or of which I have direct knowledge) in the list above is either false or substantially distorted and misleading.

With best wishes,

Dan Peterson

So, you are claiming that it is not true that you've been paid for Mopologetics? Or that there was a fire at College Terrace? Or that you fired up a thread entitled, "See My Ward on Television!"? Or that you "outed" GoodK? None of those things---according to you---is true?