DiscussMormonism.com

The Mormon apologetic prophet, GBH, was willing to toss out the teachings that God was once like mankind now is (the significant doctrinal teaching of JSJr at his last GC, April 1844) on Larry King Live.

NAMIRS and Sorenson are willing to toss out the long held position of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is situate in upstate New York, on the flimsiest of excuses--an unsigned fax from FP office staffer Carla Ogden, quoting a compendium put together at BYU (Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

Gone are the days that the American Indians are the descendants of the Book of Mormon Lamanites. No more current Lamanite Nation.

Gone are the claims that the BoAbr was linguistically translated from the papyrus and the KEP are the proof of it (now that it is obvious that the KEP proves it was not a linguistic translation).

Gone is the facade that diverted attention from the real facts that JSJr was looking at a little stone, face down into the crown of a hat in 'translating' the Book of Mormon. (Thanks, Trey Parker!)

Etc, etc, etc.

Now, Mormon apopologists (of any level), please do tell us what your 'closer looks' will next debunk that is currently being taught in the correlated manuals coming out of the COB or in the official introductions, etc. Maybe you could fathom for us different horizons, namely, what you expect to debunk in the next 10 years, in the next 20 years, and in the next 30 years, respectively.

If you are offended by the question or not willing to share with us your future plans, perhaps you could give us a listing of those aspects of Mormon teachings you claim presently will never be debunked, those 'eternal truths'. (You might want to vet each one out as not being falsifiable per any forensic techniques that mankind has currently at its disposal and those potential ones that science is yet working on developing, just to try to make your list impervious to the ravages of human innovation in the future.)


We're waiting. Curious minds want to know.

ETA: expanded the abbreviation 'mopologist' to Mormon apologist, per Simon's request.

As you are so fond of pointing out, you might not get accurate answers given your loaded statements.

For example, can you precisely define "mopologist?" It's not a real word, but more of a cultural construct of Internet anti-Mormonism, and as such the definition might vary wildly from one critic to the next.

Secondly, the answers to your questions can be found on the FAIR and MI websites. Unless, of course, you're just looking for high fives, in which case carry on: the majority of posters here are more than happy to give you such accolades.

Simon Belmont wrote:
For example, can you precisely define "mopologist?" It's not a real word, but more of a cultural construct of Internet anti-Mormonism, and as such the definition might vary wildly from one critic to the next.

Whereas "Internet anti-Mormonism" is a real term, with a precise definition, that does not vary from one proponent of the Church to the next.

Secondly, the answers to your questions can be found on the FAIR and MI websites.

That's right. Regarding the question posed in the OP, many examples of gainsaying or dismissing LDS teachings can be found on those websites.

Simon Belmont wrote:As you are so fond of pointing out, you might not get accurate answers given your loaded statements.

For example, can you precisely define "mopologist?" It's not a real word, but more of a cultural construct of Internet anti-Mormonism, and as such the definition might vary wildly from one critic to the next.

Secondly, the answers to your questions can be found on the FAIR and MI websites. Unless, of course, you're just looking for high fives, in which case carry on: the majority of posters here are more than happy to give you such accolades.

Simon, would you be so kind as to oblige my request for you to give me URL's to the specific pages of the FAIR site that answer my specific queries?

Simon Belmont wrote:As you are so fond of pointing out, you might not get accurate answers given your loaded statements.

For example, can you precisely define "mopologist?" It's not a real word, but more of a cultural construct of Internet anti-Mormonism, and as such the definition might vary wildly from one critic to the next.

Simon, I use 'mopologist' like others on MDB do, as a shorthand reference for 'Mormon apologist', which in turn means when I use either the shorthand or the phrase to be one who makes a defense, in speech or writing, of Mormon ideas or teachings against logical, scientific and other scholarly analysis or criticisms. Please note, my use of this term and phrase should be compared and distinguished from those I refer to as TBMs (true believing Mormons) or TBLDS (true believing Latter-day Saints), who simply rely upon and stand on their faith and beliefs in Mormon teachings in the face of such analysis or criticisms rather than try to demonstrate a congruence between those Mormon teachings and the points of such analysis and criticism.

I do not categorize and then refer to a person exclusively from the other category. For example, if you post a response to an analysis or criticism that is merely an assertion of your faith/belief, I might refer to you re such post as a TBM. If another of your posts tries to pound the square peg of Mormon teachings into the round hole of secular knowledge, I will likely refer to you in that regard as a Mormon apologist, or simply a mopologist.

Also, please do not assume that my definition for and uses of the word and phrase are shared by anyone else.

By the way, what is your standard for a word being real or not? Mine is simply that the intended readers know or reasonably should know what is being referred to by me when I use the 'string of alphabetic letters' in the context that I do. Have you not understood from all your time posting on MDB what the string of letters "mopologist" is in reference to?

Simon Belmont wrote:
For example, can you precisely define "mopologist?" It's not a real word, but more of a cultural construct of Internet anti-Mormonism, and as such the definition might vary wildly from one critic to the next.

But ... it's in a dictionary. So it must be real, mustn't it?

(I wonder how Belmont thinks that words get into dictionaries?)

Virtually every critcism of the Church has been explained, debunked, or rendered valueless by Mormon Apologetics in the intellectualy honest sense. All that remains is to repeat ourselves ad infinitum in response to the same old chestnuts until you guys can come up with something new and unrecycled.

bcspace wrote:Virtually every critcism of the Church has been explained, debunked, or rendered valueless by Mormon Apologetics in the intellectualy honest sense.

Oh, that sense. No True Mopologetics would ever get itself debunked, of course ...

bcspace wrote:All that remains is to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

We noticed.

[Edited to clean up quotes]

I think the two next Mopologetic traumas will be how to explain how the Church was never against same sex marriages and how the Church always intended giving the women the Priestesshood.


Seperately, and in response to bcspaces contribution.
Has Mopologetics done a good good job of assuaging the difficult, thorny, contentious items of Mormon history and doctrinal u turns?
What might be a good measure of their effectiveness - inactivity rates, convert retention, resignations?

Bcspace, which metric would best reflect the 'success' achieved by the comprehensive battle by Mopologists?

There's nothing left.

All they have is Argue by Assertion, and that's it.

That's it.

There's nothing left, other than it simply makes people feel good to be a part of something different.

And I'm ok with that. I'm ok with my kids belonging to a nice little club. As long as my kids keep an open mind I'm ok with Mormons essentially saying, "Hey, we don't know everything, but we're trying to navigate this crazy world, but in the mean time would you like a plate of cookies?"

The other Mormons who profess to know everything based off the demonstrably false ideas of a con man and his adherents... Phew... I have serious issues with their "cult-lite" ideas.

V/R
DRCMC4ME