DiscussMormonism.com

kairos wrote:or will the failure come bottoms up- a friend or neighbor loses faith, tells another sibling or friend who comes to disbelief and it goes viral?

A few months back my ward's choir director got up in fast and testimony meeting and said that her sister had stopped believing in the divine inspiration of the LDS Church. She thought it was kind of sad. I think there are a lot of people like this choir director, whose sibling or some close relative leaves, but who herself/himself stays strong in the faith.

kairos wrote:i'm also waiting on holland or oaks or equivalent to convert to evangelicalism as a starter on the slippery slope.

Why in the world would Oaks or Holland or an equivalent convert to Evangelicalism? Evangelicalism has far more problems than Mormonism ever had.

KevinSim wrote:Whereas I don't know "the church and their leaders are frauds," and I don't know that the "Book of Mormon is fiction." Just thought I'd make that distinction for everybody to see.

Your reluctance to shed the double negatives is what makes you so likeable.

Lucy Harris wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Whereas I don't know "the church and their leaders are frauds," and I don't know that the "Book of Mormon is fiction." Just thought I'd make that distinction for everybody to see.

Your reluctance to shed the double negatives is what makes you so likeable.

Thanks, Lucy! Glad to hear it.

honorentheos wrote:Hi Kish,

I'm curious what your thoughts are on Symmachus' point regarding the influence of media choice (i.e. - authoring books compared with "Meridian, Deseret News, blogs, the Interpreter, and Facebook") on whether or not we actually see true apologetic defense of the faith in any concerted and substantial way with some exceptions?

Greetings, honorentheos:

Symmachus has raised some interesting questions. Certainly technology has changed the playing field and the defense of Mormonism has taken many new and interesting forms. I am not convinced that apologetics is to be equated with writing books and articles. Apologetics can include a wide array of activities that involve the defense of faith. Unfortunately, we are conditioned by our history engaging with a certain kind of apologist and his work to see it much like the blindfolded guru who holds his part of the elephant and defines it only partially. I would submit that a more sweeping vista on the history of apologetics would help us greatly here.

KevinSim wrote:

DarkHelmet wrote:Tobin's not an apologist. He knows the church and their leaders are frauds, the Book of Mormon is fiction, etc. and has said it many times. He's more like Nightlion. He claims to have the real truth that both the church and it's critics are missing.

Whereas I don't know "the church and their leaders are frauds," and I don't know that the "Book of Mormon is fiction." Just thought I'd make that distinction for everybody to see.

I've actually not made that distinction either. I believe the LDS Church is a man-made organization and the LDS leaders are misguided. And I don't know the Book of Mormon is fiction. However, I maintain, unless and until there is some evidence that it isn't (such as the return of the gold plates), that is most likely.

Kishkumen wrote:

honorentheos wrote:Hi Kish,

I'm curious what your thoughts are on Symmachus' point regarding the influence of media choice (i.e. - authoring books compared with "Meridian, Deseret News, blogs, the Interpreter, and Facebook") on whether or not we actually see true apologetic defense of the faith in any concerted and substantial way with some exceptions?

Greetings, honorentheos:

Symmachus has raised some interesting questions. Certainly technology has changed the playing field and the defense of Mormonism has taken many new and interesting forms. I am not convinced that apologetics is to be equated with writing books and articles. Apologetics can include a wide array of activities that involve the defense of faith. Unfortunately, we are conditioned by our history engaging with a certain kind of apologist and his work to see it much like the blindfolded guru who holds his part of the elephant and defines it only partially. I would submit that a more sweeping vista on the history of apologetics would help us greatly here.

Hi Kish,

It's above my pay grade to attempt to recreate a timeline of Mormon apologetics and it's criticism to the present, but it would be interesting to see if it is either available somewhere or could be fleshed out.

My initiation in the discovery process I think many now-former LDS go through began around the same time there was considerable buzz over the editors of The New Mormon Challenge acknowledging the legitimacy of Mormon apologetics by evangelical scholars and, more titillating to Mormons who cared, their presentation calling the Christian anti-cult ministries to arms with the declaration that evangelicals were actually losing the fight. (link here to the 1997 presentation) Recalling it, I went back to see what they had felt were the substantial works that informed their opinion and, in reviewing it, would say a start to such a timeline could begin with their footnotes. At the least, it makes for an interesting snap-shot in time.

Anyway, I'm curious what the outlines of the sweeping vista of the current state of apologetics might look like? Personally, I don't think the vitriol and contempt have subsided as many participants from all sides have moved deeper and deeper into niche venues. Rather the opposite. My anecdotal observation is the contempt that serves as the foundation for the aggression and challenge remains well fueled and burning hotter than ever for being consolidated and insulated. When it fans up into visible flames, it's not because it is heating up. It's just exposed. There are, of course, counter examples on both sides, and I think most could agree they are characterized best by their general respect for either an opposing view or their field with the natural need to accept questioning and challenge as part of the process of growth and progress. But in some ways I read in Symmachus' critique overall there is a watering down of both criticism and apologetic due to the penchant to favor easier formats with less probability of substantial challenge anticipating or requiring informed rebuttal. I think we see that even if the vista of defense (and criticism for that matter) has widened it has lost some of it's capacity to force dialog and adaptation in favor of developing and putting ever finer points on esoterica. I'm sure it's part of the cycle of things.

Tobin wrote:

KevinSim wrote:Whereas I don't know "the church and their leaders are frauds," and I don't know that the "Book of Mormon is fiction." Just thought I'd make that distinction for everybody to see.

I've actually not made that distinction either. I believe the LDS Church is a man-made organization and the LDS leaders are misguided. And I don't know the Book of Mormon is fiction. However, I maintain, unless and until there is some evidence that it isn't (such as the return of the gold plates), that is most likely.

Tobin, just out of curiosity, do you believe there is a God? If so, what do you believe about that God?

ldsfaqs wrote:but you all are old news. We've debunked you many times.

LOL. I love the confidence. It reminds me of the Black Knight sketch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. But you're in denial if you think these topics are old news that have been debunked many times. Most of the topics are old, that's for sure, but if they were debunked they wouldn't continue to drive people out of the church, as they have from the beginning, and continue today. If these issues have been debunked many times as you say, it wouldn't be such a growing concern for the brethren, with increasing talks and articles on doubts and doctrinal questions, and emphasis on ignoring your doubts, doubting your doubts, suppressing your doubts, putting your doubts on a shelf, etc. and just believing through faith. And why would they take the effort to write the church essays, an unnecessary risk to bring issues to light that have already been thoroughly debunked by people like you.

KevinSim wrote:

Tobin wrote:I've actually not made that distinction either. I believe the LDS Church is a man-made organization and the LDS leaders are misguided. And I don't know the Book of Mormon is fiction. However, I maintain, unless and until there is some evidence that it isn't (such as the return of the gold plates), that is most likely.

Tobin, just out of curiosity, do you believe there is a God? If so, what do you believe about that God?

I don't believe in a white-haired magical father figure called God. Instead, I believe God, actually the gods, were once like us millions if not billions of years ago. But they have evolved and advanced, traveled the stars and visited here (likely long ago). It is these advanced beings that mankind (because we are so primitive) are mistaking for magical beings called God and angels. I believe the truth of the matter is that they monitor us, interfere with us from time-to-time to help us advance, but otherwise leave us to our own devices. When we have reached a certain point in our development they will introduce us to all the other advanced civilizations that likely surround us, but we are unaware of because of how primitive and savage we still are. That is what Christians mistake as the millennium.

Tobin wrote:When we have reached a certain point in our development they will introduce us to all the other advanced civilizations that likely surround us, but we are unaware of because of how primitive and savage we still are. That is what Christians mistake as the millennium.

Maybe I've missed this before, or perhaps it's a new development. Either way, given there is a clear line between apocalyptic Jewish beliefs around the 2nd temple period, their occupation by gentile nations with resulting redemption mythology, and Christian reimagining of the redemption by God of His Chosen People I think you've stepped onto much thinner ice with this evolution in Tobinism. It's going to be interesting to see your thinking on how aliens injected this idea to have it reimagined first by the Jewish people as a belief that their chosen status was still effectual and would be honored by God in fiery glory, then by Christians for more or less similar reasons but without the underlying nationalism. I hope it's entertaining at least.