DiscussMormonism.com

10. People who don't study church history and doctrine from outside sources are lazy and intransigent, whereas those who do and decide the church isn't true are guilty of pride and not following the brethren.
9. It's fine to call me evil, a wolf in sheep's clothing, fake, phony, Satanic, and a lying anti-Mormon, but it is wrong to suggest that apologists tone down the hostility.
8. Apologetic theories continue to be valid after they have been debunked, and therefore it is fitting and proper to continue referring people to them.
7. When the Book of Mormon refers to swords that are stained with blood, that is a literal description of wooden swords, but its discussions of steel and smelting are not to be taken literally.
6. Church publications are doctrine, unless an apologist disagrees with their content.
5. Louis Midgely's vitriolic attack on RfM and ex-Mormons in general was a restrained and reasonable commentary, whereas my silly top ten list was "bigoted vomitus" worthy of a Grand Wizard or Gauleiter.
4. The simplest explanation for an alleged ancient record loaded with anachronisms and implausibilities is the involvement of angels and seer stones.
3. Will Schryver is a brilliant man interested only in proclaiming the truth, whereas Chris Smith is a career anti-Mormon whose hatred of the church can be traced to his being dumped by a Mormon girl when he was a teenager.
2. Knowledge of Egyptology is essential in forming a correct opinion on the Book of Abraham, unless you're that evil hack Robert Ritner.
1. Angels, prophets, and apostles cannot be trusted to teach us about church history or truth-claims. God has in these latter days brought forth apologists to do so.

Those are all great, but my personal favorite is:

4. The simplest explanation for an alleged ancient record loaded with anachronisms and implausibilities is the involvement of angels and seer stones.

What have you learned from apologists?

That the church is not true.

What have you learned from apologists?

Oops! I haven't learned anything from them yet. Does this mean I do not have enough data to make an informed decision about whether the church is true or not?

Seriously, I really haven't spent any quality time discussing religion with any apologists. Did I miss anything?

A quote from Samuel Johnson (one of my favorites).

Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy.

I've learned that apologists are more often trying to bolster their own beliefs rather than convince others. It's an effort to stave off their own doubts. Apologists are one step from apostates.

Quasimodo wrote:I've learned that apologists are more often trying to bolster their own beliefs rather than convince others. It's an effort to stave off their own doubts. Apologists are one step from apostates.

I think that's what I was doing when I was an "apologist" on the a.r.m. and FAIR/MAD boards. I think I had the sort of mentality that drives the Mormon Scholars Testify thing: if smart people can make sense of things that don't make sense to me, then I can still believe.

Runtu wrote:

Quasimodo wrote:I've learned that apologists are more often trying to bolster their own beliefs rather than convince others. It's an effort to stave off their own doubts. Apologists are one step from apostates.

I think that's what I was doing when I was an "apologist" on the a.r.m. and FAIR/MAD boards. I think I had the sort of mentality that drives the Mormon Scholars Testify thing: if smart people can make sense of things that don't make sense to me, then I can still believe.

You are truly one of the smart people, Runtu. I guess you must have come to the conclusion that it's better to trust one's own intellect than to lean on the desperate explanations of others hoping to defray the obvious.

The apologists have taught me yet another way that the LDS Church can harm people. Rather than the sort of spiritual suffering that gets inflicted on people who discover the Church's lies of omission--i.e., those who lose the faith due to finding out all the upleasant history and doctrine--the apologists represent another kind of harm. They are walking examples of the ways that Mormonism can warp people into doing really awful things. The sheer callousness, sadism, viciousness, and dishonesty that you see among the hardened Mopologists really doesn't reflect very well on the Church at all.

I suppose you could offer up some counterargument about correlation vs. causation, but in this case I think that you see too many people clustered around this same activity to dismiss my basic point. It's why I often describe Mopologetics as a "rotten enterprise."

Brilliant and hilarious as usual, Runtu.

The wise course is to steer clear of this war altogether. I don't think it is healthy.

What I have learned from apologists:

1. that being a gentleman or a gentlewoman is optional.

2. that leaning unto my own understanding is my most healthy choice.

3. that no one stands between me and God, and if I'm gonna make it, I'll make it on my own.

4. that learned individuals are often wrong, really really wrong.

5. that there are resemblances to the pack mentality, especially when the pack turns on itself.

6. that some people can never admit they're wrong, even when not admitting they are wrong makes them really stupid.

7. that pride really is a deadly sin.

8. that following our leaders' counsel is optional.

9. that when I counseled my children to avoid all things BYU, I was inspired.

10. that money turns hearts to solid rock.

Man, that's a depressing list.