Top TBM Apologists

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

Who are the top 3 popular/influential TBM apologists?

 
Total votes: 0

_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Kishkumen »

stemelbow wrote:I see. NOw I know the tricks of the trade and I feel my own influence shall rise above that of all three fellows combined.

I have been so naïve. Now its time to reign supreme.


Now is the great day of your power.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Some Schmo »

A poll like this, to me, is like a poll on the best smelling pile of crap.

Sorry, but they're all just piles of crap. I don't have favorites.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _stemelbow »

Some Schmo wrote:A poll like this, to me, is like a poll on the best smelling pile of crap.

Sorry, but they're all just piles of crap. I don't have favorites.


That's more of the lovely prose we should expect from you and other MDB posters, Schmo. Thanks for the reminder. Its almost as if we forgot seeing how generally nice people have been lately--well except to Schryver and Schryver to others.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Nightlion wrote:I would have to defend the use of Mopologetics.

a·pol·o·get·ics
   [uh-pol-uh-jet-iks] Show IPA
–noun ( used with a singular verb )
the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of christianity.

Every sect of Christianity should have a separate designation. Since Christianity is not ONE it cannot be defended as ONE.

Now, if say, someone were to be in defense of the Christianity that came by way of the Restoration of the power of godliness, then there is only one guy capable and proven doing that.......ME! Yawn. Nobody cares.

So mopologists is aptly named because they are defending latter-day Mormonism. And I mean the latest version of Mormonism. The fallen version. The arrogance of the Gentiles version. Selling guided tours and books of fables Mormonism.


Well, Nightlion, by that logic every sect of Christianity should have a compound word associated with apologetics:

Roman Catholic: Cathpologetics
Baptist: Bapologetics
Presbyterian: Prespologetics
Episcopalian: Episcopologetics
Nightlionism: Apocalpologetics
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Some Schmo »

stemelbow wrote: That's more of the lovely prose we should expect from you and other MDB posters, Schmo. Thanks for the reminder. Its almost as if we forgot seeing how generally nice people have been lately--well except to Schryver and Schryver to others.

That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.

I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Some Schmo wrote:That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.

I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.



You're improving and you didn't even know it. You very nearly correctly spelled "Mormon" and you correctly used the word "apologetics" and did not use the made up "mopologetics."

There is hope for you yet.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Some Schmo »

Simon Belmont wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.

I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.

You're improving and you didn't even know it. You very nearly correctly spelled "Mormon" and you correctly used the word "apologetics" and did not use the made up "mopologetics."

There is hope for you yet.

"...nearly correctly spelled..."?

I never misspelled Mormon. An 'm' is an 'M' is an 'm'.

by the way, do you know what "mopologetics" means? If so, the word is functional. All words are made up; when they start to convey meaning to others, they are functional made up words.

"Flipicolalsee" is a made up word, and since it conveys no meaning to anyone else, it is not functional yet.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Kishkumen »

Some Schmo wrote:That was as nice as I could put it. When it comes to Mormon apologetics, it's impossible for me to be honest and nice at the same time.

I've never been one to look at BS mental contortionism favorably.


That comment is a real keeper.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Simon Belmont

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Some Schmo wrote:"...nearly correctly spelled..."?

I never misspelled Mormon. An 'm' is an 'M' is an 'm'.


A proper noun should be capitalized. Also, you used to place a strange period in the middle of the word. Just one more minor correction and you'll have it! Capitalize that M!

by the way, do you know what "mopologetics" means? If so, the word is functional. All words are made up; when they start to convey meaning to others, they are functional made up words.


No. Words evolve over time -- long periods of time.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Top TBM Apologists

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Juliann and other TBMs have appropriated the term "Mopologist." I don't understand why Simon has such a problem with it, apart from the fact that he apparently wants to lump the more vicious apologists in with the legit scholarly types, such as Bushman. I guess it's about getting Peterson, Midgley, et al. to ride on the coattails of these other guys?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply