Derailment from "The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2025"

[Shulem]

What I'm saying, however, is that mopologetics can be and at times is a vehicle that leads in certain directions off the path of discipleship. One can lose focus. That is all I'm saying.

I find that apologists are completely off base on everything they say about the Book of Abraham which is not particularly your favorite subject. I'm afraid that shelf has gotten terribly heavy for and you try not to think about it. Maybe it will all just go away and vanish?

Not if I can help it! I want your shelf to break.

[Gadianton]

The Church is all about Jesus Christ, not these guys you like to spit on.

This board is about all things Mormon, including Mormon apologists. I'm glad your off-topic comments were struck from the top ten as a derail. I was the one who reported it, by the way. And I reported it with smug self-righteousness.

Since your reckless comments were moved to a new thread, I can respond. The Church is not "all about" Jesus Christ. It NEVER was about Jesus Christ, in my opinion. It's also my opinion that making a church about "Jesus Christ" carries no bonus points, so this isn't a slight against it.

Just because a church claims to be about this or that doesn't really mean that's what it was about. "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" didn't even appear on the Book of Mormon until 1982, and only was a marketing ploy to compete with Evangelical Christianity.

The whole competition among Christians to out-Christ each other is vapid and ridiculous, and has led to a condition where you can nearly correlate shouting "Christ" the loudest with the worst behaviors.

[Whiskey]

The Church is not "all about" Jesus Christ. It NEVER was about Jesus Christ, in my opinion. It's also my opinion that making a church about "Jesus Christ" carries no bonus points, so this isn't a slight against it.

Correct. Gad is 100 percent correct here. All the way correct. No deviations, standard or otherwise, from correctness.

I don't think Ensign has a Jesus Christs per share factor in their algorithms, for example.

[Shulem]

"Another Testament of Jesus Christ" didn't even appear on the Book of Mormon until 1982, and only was a marketing ploy to compete with Evangelical Christianity.

Right.

It wasn't Joseph Smith's idea to add that title. Nor was it the Lord's in 1830 when the book was originally published. Church leaders in 1982 came up with the idea to add the title extension in order to compete with other Christian churches in hopes of gaining acceptance. It's nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

Oink! The Book of Mormon is garbage.

[Whiskey]

in order to compete with other Christian churches in hopes of gaining acceptance.

I have often wondered how much they wanted the religion to be accepted and how much they wanted the publication/book to be accepted. Oddly, those are distinct and unique wants, in my view.

[Marcus]

"Another Testament of Jesus Christ" didn't even appear on the Book of Mormon until 1982, and only was a marketing ploy to compete with Evangelical Christianity.

Right.

It wasn't Joseph Smith's idea to add that title. Nor was it the Lord's in 1830 when the book was originally published. Church leaders in 1982 came up with the idea to add the title extension in order to compete with other Christian churches in hopes of gaining acceptance. It's nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

Oink! The Book of Mormon is garbage.

Wow, I had forgotten that. Thanks for the background, Gad and Shulem.

[I Have Questions]

Just because a church claims to be about this or that doesn't really mean that's what it was about. "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" didn't even appear on the Book of Mormon until 1982, and only was a marketing ploy to compete with Evangelical Christianity.

My understanding is that it was a integral part of the Church’s attempt at offsetting “The God Makers”.