DiscussMormonism.com

Over on Doctor Scratch's "SHIELDS launches an attack on Some Schmo" thread, Stan Barker, top SHIELDS guru, is quoted thusly:

The funny thing is, that while many members of the LDS Church don’t know enough about Church history or doctrine, those who do know considerably more than any critic I have ever encountered during the past 40+ years.

Here Barker repeats a standard twofold Mopologetic error: First, he mistakes Internet Mormonism for "true Mormonism;" second, he mistakenly equates rejection of Internet Mormonism with failure to understand it.

Indeed, the reality is that most never open their ears to hear what we really believe rather than what some critic says we believe.

It's almost sad to see Barker repeating the same Mopologetic fallacies that were en vogue a full 10 years ago. Usually, in cases like this, the critic is (quite correctly) saying what Chapel Mormons believe. The "what we really believe" part is merely him, once again, mistaking Internet Mormonism for "true Mormonism."

How many educated people has the above quoted writer met who can HONESTLY say that they have a full grasp of true LDS theology?

I daresay that when he says "full grasp of true LDS theology," what he really means is "full grasp of Internet Mormon theology." In his mind, if only people would understand Internet Mormonism, they'd line up around the block to be baptized.

To re-emphasize a prior point, Barker utterly fails to realize that people often reject Internet Mormonism precisely BECAUSE they understand it, not because they merely don't understand it.

Stan, if you're reading this, please bring yourself up to speed. You're only embarrassing yourself.

.

Dr. Shades wrote:Here Barker repeats a standard twofold Mopologetic error: First, he mistakes Internet Mormonism for "true Mormonism;" second, he mistakenly equates rejection of Internet Mormonism with failure to understand it.

I think his problem is that he has focused too much attention on Christian anti-Mormons who have never been LDS. These folks usually don't know a whole lot about Mormonism, even some of the best of them know comparatively little. It is the former Mormons whom he greatly underestimates in his statement.

Kishkumen wrote:I think his problem is that he has focused too much attention on Christian anti-Mormons who have never been LDS. These folks usually don't know a whole lot about Mormonism, even some of the best of them know comparatively little. It is the former Mormons whom he greatly underestimates in his statement.

If so, then that makes Barker appear at least twice as ignorant and foolish as he originally did: How is it possible to mistake Some Schmo with a Christian anti-Mormon who has never been LDS?

In all honesty Dr. Shades, I think that Bro. B. is out of step with the senior apologists here. I agree that they all make the error of assuming people must first understand Internet Mormonism before rejecting it. But, I don't think the senior apologists hold the bar as high as Bro. B does. Where Bro. B. apparently thinks scholars would accept it if they understood it, the seniors wouldn't dare hold such a position, it would be politcal suicide for them. The FARMS elite I think are happy enough for educated people to respect Mormonism as a serious, scholarly religion.

Dr. Shades wrote:

The funny thing is, that while many members of the LDS Church don’t know enough about Church history or doctrine, those who do know considerably more than any critic I have ever encountered during the past 40+ years.

Maybe it's the diet of mopologetic manna that's depleting his brain of necessary vitamins and minerals.

One only need spend a few hours on LDS Mormon Forums to realise how patently false this is. That's where posters ask questions like "Who is B.H.Roberts?" And newbies sometimes ask, "Who is Hugh Nibley?" Like the two missionaries who visited me several weeks ago.

This Barker is up the wrong tree.

This is called rhetoric, Shades. It's not meant to be taken seriously by anyone but the yes-man club. There's an unwritten pact between Barker and his LDS readers that even though all of them know what he's saying isn't true, they'll all just sort of overlook that fact and laugh about it together as if it were Gospel.

(Sort of like what they do with their religion.)

CaliforniaKid wrote:This is called rhetoric, Shades. It's not meant to be taken seriously by anyone but the yes-man club. There's an unwritten pact between Barker and his LDS readers that even though all of them know what he's saying isn't true, they'll all just sort of overlook that fact and laugh about it together as if it were Gospel.

(Sort of like what they do with their religion.)

And here he we have an example of a never-Mo who actually does know quite a bit about Mormonism.