Dangerous critics and safe critics at MDB

[Alf'Omega]

I wonder if there is any such thing as a dangerous apologist.

I would love to know what the critics here think.

Well, occasionally, the odd apologist says something fairly sensible. There's no question about that. Sometimes, I'm even impressed.

But it never threatens my conclusion that the church is false. The thing is, critics don't need to "maintain" disbelief. The evidence leads us there naturally. The same can't be said for belief. It's difficult to believe for several compelling reasons, and that's why apologists have a job, and why Mormons are constantly bearing their testimonies. It takes conditioning to believe things that go against common sense and reason.

So no, there aren't any dangerous apologists (if danger in this context means "threatening to give me a conviction that the church is true").

The most dangerous religious person I've probably ever met is a coworker of mine. I love him. He's such a great guy. I keep telling him that he is one of those rare people that gives religion a good name. Sometimes, I'm tempted to accept his invitations to church functions just because I like him so much. I haven't succumb yet to his tempting ways, but he's good... tough to resist.



___

[_Droopy]

I wonder if there is any such thing as a dangerous apologist.

Only those who believe in blood atonement, or the modern variant, "harassment unto suicide."

Yet another example of that for which the Church need little concern itself.

[_Scottie]

Get behind me Satan! You married a Mormon girl after you stopped believing. You're obviously just trying to make me think you don't hate Mormons, but I know better! You're a wiley one, you are.

Not only that, but I *gasp* went to church with her once!!! My deception is almost complete!

[_Droopy]

Well, occasionally, the odd apologist says something fairly sensible. There's no question about that. Sometimes, I'm even impressed.

But it never threatens my conclusion that the church is false. The thing is, critics don't need to "maintain" disbelief. The evidence leads us there naturally. The same can't be said for belief. It's difficult to believe for several compelling reasons, and that's why apologists have a job, and why Mormons are constantly bearing their testimonies. It takes conditioning to believe things that go against common sense and reason.

So no, there aren't any dangerous apologists (if danger in this context means "threatening to give me a conviction that the church is true").

The most dangerous religious person I've probably ever met is a coworker of mine. I love him. He's such a great guy. I keep telling him that he is one of those rare people that gives religion a good name. Sometimes, I'm tempted to accept his invitations to church functions just because I like him so much. I haven't succumb yet to his tempting ways, but he's good... tough to resist.

As usual for Schmo, just another "move along, nothing to see here" moment.

Schmo, in fact, is a walking definition of the term "bigot".

Few intellectually and psychologically mature LDS, no matter how weak or unsure in their own faith, would pay much, if any attention to him

Asbestosman's theory is holding up quite well, so far.

[_Scottie]

I would love to know what the critics here think.

Will has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner of anyone that he suspects is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Using his spiritual radar, he will uncover these less-than-faithful members and publicly out them as the apostates that they are.

[_asbestosman]

I think Schmo had a good reply.

The most dangerous religious person I've probably ever met is a coworker of mine. I love him. He's such a great guy. I keep telling him that he is one of those rare people that gives religion a good name. Sometimes, I'm tempted to accept his invitations to church functions just because I like him so much. I haven't succumb yet to his tempting ways, but he's good... tough to resist.

I wonder just how I'd have to change to be more like him. I also wonder if it's something innate like some kind of talent.

[_Droopy]

I would love to know what the critics here think.

Will has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner of anyone that he suspects is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Sounds as if Will and I will now have to settle this in a steel cage death match, as there can only be one self appointed judge of the good, the bad, and the apostate in apologetic Mormondom.

I'm grateful you apprised my that Will has attempted to jump rank on me here.

[_asbestosman]

I would love to know what the critics here think.

Will has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner of anyone that he suspects is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Using his spiritual radar, he will uncover these less-than-faithful members and publicly out them as the apostates that they are.

So in the context of my question, you're saying that Will is a "safe" apologits who keeps critics out (and maybe drives the faithful out too)? I was asking more along the lines of a "dangerous" apologist who would help bring critics into the church.

[_asbestosman]

I'm grateful you apprised my that Will has attempted to jump rank on me here.

I think you're still safe for now. After all, the newspaper article quoted you, not Will. However, while you're at it, you may wish to keep an eye on Bcspace as well.

[_Some Schmo]

Few intellectually and psychologically mature LDS, no matter how weak or unsure in their own faith, would pay much, if any attention to him.

Thanks for the compliment, Droops (and of course, for paying attention to me... I guess you don't consider yourself on that list. I understand.)