Is Apologetics incompatible with Intellectual Honesty?

[_Kevin Graham]

Is Apologetics incompatible with Intellectual Honesty?

Not LDS apologetics. But most criticism of the LDS Church is. Same trash bin as political liberalism.

This assertion is easily refuted by pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of Book of Abraham apologetics. The history of Book of Abraham apologetics is riddled with too many incidents of blatant dishonesty on the part of the Church and the apologists.

John Gee's deceptions about the KEP were subsequently refuted by the intellectual honesty of those who became critics. Of course, once you know the truth, you instantly become a "critic" of the falsehood. But people like Metcalfe, Ashment, me, etc were those who believe in this stuff until we became intellectual honest with ourselves.

And if you want to absolutely destroy the credibility of your fringy political persuasions, then please by all means, keep associating them with the intellectual bankruptcy of Mormon apologetics. From tapirs to ciphers, the enterprise is a laughing stock to those who bother to read the nonsense it entails.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Darn. Wish I had thought of sniping the open DCP account.

[_Buffalo]

Well, that didn't last long. Welcome back!

[_Yahoo Bot]

don't you ever tire of the same swan song? Can't you find some original meanness?

Lets list em...

Thinly or poorly read
anonymous hypocrite or even just plan anonymous, oh and coward too
degenerate apostate

Am I missing something?

This may seem like the old swan song to you. I'm not being mean. I'm pointing out the weakness of the argument. If you have the courage to state your mind, use your name.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, practice of apologetics can be intellectually honest, just like practice of science can be intellectually dishonest. It's all in how you approach the matter.

Part of the problem is that Mormon apologetics is almost uniformly bad.

I think this broad brushing is unfair. Some LDS Apologetics is quite good. And at least two bright EV Scholars a number of years ago would not agree with your broad brush comment.

A huge chunk of Christian apologetics is too.

Yes indeed.

But that doesn't mean the enterprise as a whole is necessarily bad. The problem for the Mormon/ex-Mormon is that they only tend to see the crap.

Ok

They naturally see the bad Mormon apologetics.

Again I think you are unfair here.

But, for whatever reason, Mormons tend to only see the bad Christian stuff as well. I think this is because the problem areas where Mormonism and Christianity tend to overlap tend to be populated by quack Christians shoveling the same BS as the Mopologists.

Because as you note there is a lot of really bad Christian apologetic and probably volume wise more than LDS because more are out there doing it.

[_Daniel C Peterson]

don't you ever tire of the same swan song? Can't you find some original meanness?

Lets list em...

Thinly or poorly read
anonymous hypocrite or even just plan anonymous, oh and coward too
degenerate apostate

Am I missing something?

This may seem like the old swan song to you. I'm not being mean. I'm pointing out the weakness of the argument. If you have the courage to state your mind, use your name.

Since when is making ad hominem attacks pointing out the weakness of the argument? Go ahead and squirm.

[_Kevin Graham]

I guess we're supposed to believe this is the real "Dan"!

Not buying it.

And Crockett, you "pointed out" no such thing. All you did was assert, as you are wont to do.

[_Jason Bourne]

This may seem like the old swan song to you. I'm not being mean. I'm pointing out the weakness of the argument. If you have the courage to state your mind, use your name.

I actually have considered revealing myself but the better part of prudence restrains me for many, many reasons. Look at what it did for you in the past. And whether one is anonymous or not has little bearing on the strength of the argument.

Also I once again note you are now a cowardly anonymous poster to many here. Do you really think every one here knows who you are?

[_Buffalo]

Double post... what is wrong with this website!

Okay, fooled me at first. Not anymore. :o

[_Kevin Graham]

Some LDS Apologetics is quite good. And at least two bright EV Scholars a number of years ago would not agree with your broad brush comment.

I'm curious Jason, do you have an example of "good" LDS apologetics?

If you're referring to Owen and Mosser, their point had more to do with the laziness of Evangelical criticisms than it had to do with anything else. It certainly had nothing to do with the strength of the Mormon arguments. The only reason he made the "losing and not knowing it" remark, wasn't because he felt LDS apologetics presented good arguments. The point was that Evangelicals were not bothering to engage them. They'd dismiss them out of hand which made the lot of them look foolish.