DiscussMormonism.com

Who are the top three?



I picked Peterson, Schryver, and Roper.

I voted for Pahoran.

Shouldn't the question say "Mopologists"? If we're referring to the whole range of LDS TBM "apologists," you'd wind up having to include people like Richard Bushman, Richard Turley, Terryl Givens, and D. Michael Quinn, I think. But as far as I can tell, it looks like you're referring more specifically to Mopologists---i.e., the people who have, in some way, shape, or form, contributed to or been involved in the viciously hostile mentality that has come to dominate LDS apologetics... I think it's important to make this distinction.

N.B. I don't mean to say/suggest that, e.g., David Bokovoy is a contributor to this "viciously hostile mentality," by the way. But his neck-deep involvement with the Mopologists makes him worthy of inclusion in this category. Bokovoy seems driven to uproot and change the very fabric of Mopologia, though, which is why I seem him as a kind of de facto leader in this new Mopologetic vanguard. Hodges and Ericson would seem to be rising stars as well, though they both have displayed a penchant for viciousness (nowhere near the levels of Peterson, Schryver, or Midgley, however).

MrStakhanovite wrote:I voted for Pahoran.

The question was not "Who is the Intercontinental Ballistic Mormon".

I will never understand why people think Plate is hostile or smearing.

I don't know who the Top TBM Apologist is but I do know which one is the most vulgar and I know who is in second place.

Without question,

why me



Peace,
Ceeboo

Peterson, Hamblin, and Hodges.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Shouldn't the question say "Mopologists"? If we're referring to the whole range of LDS TBM "apologists," you'd wind up having to include people like Richard Bushman, Richard Turley, Terryl Givens, and D. Michael Quinn, I think. But as far as I can tell, it looks like you're referring more specifically to Mopologists---i.e., the people who have, in some way, shape, or form, contributed to or been involved in the viciously hostile mentality that has come to dominate LDS apologetics... I think it's important to make this distinction.

In Jack's thread about Will Schryver's misogyny, Nomad essentially revealed that he views the hostility surrounding an apologist to be the defining characteristic of how successful s/he is as and apologist. In other words, Nomad thinks that pissing people off is the true mark of apologetic success.

Read this.

Nomad wrote:I’d say he’s definitely in the top 5 or higher of best LDS online apologists. I’d put DCP at the top, and Bill Hamblin somewhere in there along with Pahoran and Kevin Christensen and Will Schryver.

You can go to any ward in the Atlanta area and ask around about the names on the list provided above, and chances are most people will have heard of none of them. Seriously, try it out.

I've spoken with missionaries in various Brazilian stakes, as well as several stakes in the Atlanta and Orlando areas. About half are familiar with FAIR and/or FARMS, but probably half of that group could actually name apologists by name. They're more likely to own a book written by Darrick T. Evenson than they are to have heard of someone like Hamblin or Roper. Schryver's name wouldn't ring any bells at all. And this is among the missionaries, who are more likely to have read up on apologetics. Most members don't care about that stuff.

In my experience, the LDS folks who tend to delve into the apologetic arena are a very small minority, and they would be more familiar with names like Peterson and Ash, if any at all. Ash has an apologetic website up and running for something like a decade now. Dan Peterson has been speaking on apologetic matters for more than a decade, and he has had numerous publications as well as articles published in the Ensign.

Matthew Roper and Russel McGregor would only be known to the die hard FARMS fan (or forum poster), and you just don't see many of these folks outside Utah.

Will Schryver is an unknown across the board. He has never been published, and has only given one presentation at a conference mainly attended by the only people who already knew who he was. He is an uneducated middle-aged hack with nary a credential, and he has already alienated himself from some quality LDS scholars. So I don't expect the general LDS public to connect with him when they come across his petulant antics either. The more people know about Schryver, the more they want nothing to do with him. His only supporters are Wade Englund and his sock puppets.

Speaking of which, no one knows who the hell wade is either.