Bushman on LDS apologetics: Find the truth about Mormonism

[_Polygamy-Porter]

From another thread reply by Z about Bushman:

http://www.deseretnews.com//article/705 ... rship.html

Bushman also described a new attitude toward Mormon apologetics, “not an aim to prove Mormonism true, but rather to find the truth about Mormonism.”

The coming “Age of Cultural Power” presupposes freedom of inquiry and an uninhibited search for the truth.

I thought the truth about Mormonism was already found?

Is Bushman willing to concede when his religion is found to be false or is he just saying that the search will continue until it is the truth (which supports his subjective feelings) is found?

[_jon]

I think this means that instead of spending time on the difficult things that TBM's have to 'put on the shelf' he is suggesting spending time on the things that can be easily accepted.

Kind of like diluting Mormonism so it appears less controversial to the masses.

[_zeezrom]

How would this sound coming from a young missionary?

"I know, brother Murphy, that if you pray and ask God, you can find truth in Mormonism."

[_DrW]

How would this sound coming from a young missionary?

"I know, brother Murphy, that if you pray and ask God, you can find truth in Mormonism."

It would sound funny. And it is a silly thing for a Church that proclaims that it has the truth, and is itself true, to be telling its members, let alone prospective converts.

Yet, a lot of the apologetics I have read lately seem to be taking this position, or something very close to it, on more and more of the tough issues.

Can the GA's be far behind?

[_harmony]

Can the GA's be far behind?

Of course. When was the last time they were in front?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can the GA's be far behind?

Of course. When was the last time they were in front?

I discussed one such issue in my column last week.

You don't know what the Brethren are doing, harmony. You just have a predictable hostile reflex toward them.

[_Buffalo]

You don't know what the Brethren are doing, harmony. You just have a predictable hostile reflex toward them.

Something that she has in common with them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Something that she has in common with them.

I've never seen any evidence that they have a hostile reflex toward themselves.

Buffalo. Please. For your own sake. Try to be at least minimally coherent.

[_Buffalo]

Something that she has in common with them.

I've never seen any evidence that they have a hostile reflex toward themselves.

Buffalo. Please. For your own sake. Try to be at least minimally coherent.

The "mildly concussed, intentionally obtuse" shtick has about run its course, hasn't it Dr. Peterson? Or do you still find it amusing? Personally I think it's a little lame, but maybe it's a generation thing.

In any case, it's quite clear that the brethren are stumbling around in the dark, and have no idea what they're doing. Guide them will, Dan-o. Guide them well. A geritochracy does not work well in the 21st century.

[_Some Schmo]

I've never seen any evidence that they have a hostile reflex toward themselves.

Buffalo. Please. For your own sake. Try to be at least minimally coherent.

The "mildly concussed, intentionally obtuse" shtick has about run its course, hasn't it Dr. Peterson? Or do you still find it amusing? Personally I think it's a little lame, but maybe it's a generation thing.

In any case, it's quite clear that the brethren are stumbling around in the dark, and have no idea what they're doing. Guide them will, Dan-o. Guide them well. A geritochracy does not work well in the 21st century.

That's apologetics for you. Focus not on the point (the part you actually bolded) and attack a strawman.

Oh, and then for flavor, pretend that the person you're quoting is incoherent, as opposed to the post you just made.

What a dumb ass. It would be funny if it weren't so appallingly stupid.