Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_charity]

So, are you therefore admitting that LDS apologetics' purpose is to save faltering members' testimonies? Y/N?

No. Unlike Kevin, who wants to blame other people for his loss of faith, I think every one is responsible for their own spiritual choices. Apologists don't go out to "save" anything. They are there, in case someone makes the choice to believe rather that disbelieve. I keep saying that I believe Terrl Given's statement that there is plenty of evidence either way for a person either to believe or disbelieve. And it is a matter of the individual person which way they go. I think aplogetics is there for the person to reach out to on his/her own initiative. But the apologeticist does not actively go out seeking on his/her own.

But probably for me, the most important thing I get out of the fray is that I don't leave a falsehood standing unopposed. It irks me that someone can smugly think that he has takena potshot at the Church and no one shot back. Just the same way I can become livid if someone cuts me off on the freeway. It isn't the fact that I will arrive at my destination 1.5 seconds later. It is that that person thought he had more right to that space than I did and arrogantly assumed that he was more deserving. Not on my watch.

Interesting. So, would it be fair to say, then, that the most important purpose of Mopologetics is simply to throw counterpunches? Y/N?

No. I see it more as blocking punches. I don't see apologetics as trying to destroy or injure anyone or anything. The whole strategy is protection. Apologetics is not trying to destroy any other church, any individual's faith or belief. It is only a defensive action. There is no apologetics unless someone makes a charge against the Church. Otherwise, apologeticist are quiet.

[_antishock8]

Apologists don't go out to "save" anything. They are there, in case someone makes the choice to believe rather that disbelieve.

Facts be damned.

[_charity]

Apologists don't go out to "save" anything. They are there, in case someone makes the choice to believe rather that disbelieve.

Facts be damned.

Belief is never a matter of "facts." It is a matter of faith.

[_Coggins7]

Actually my departure is a testament to the intolerance of you and your ilk. You're the reason for my departure, not the critics. I never started participating or affiliating with the critics on other forums until after I left FAIR. That is a documented fact.

An adult takes responsibility for his own actions Dartagnon. These are the words of a whining rationalizer seeking to externalize and shift responsibility for his choices from himself to scapegoats. The choice, the purpose, the reasons, and the true motivations for your leaving of the Lord's Church are yours and yours alone. You own them.

You may actually be able to reconsider your departure from the Church at some future time once you're out of the terrible twos.

[_dartagnan]

Unlike Kevin, who wants to blame other people for his loss of faith, I think every one is responsible for their own spiritual choices.

Earth to stupid. I never blamed anyone for my "loss of faith." I left FAIR because of people like you, that's true. But FAIR and faith are not synonymous, even if you think they are. Since that time I have gradually lost my faith in Mormonism as the institution claimed to be, but I do hold to certain truths that I believe it teaches.

Apologists don't go out to "save" anything. They are there, in case someone makes the choice to believe rather that disbelieve.

Apologists are the last line of defense for Mormons who begin to use their brains and abandon the myth of "spiritual" confirmations. They are there to act as prosecuting lawyers (and in many cases, that is their profession!) against victims of intellectual terrorism, and fabricate a facade to ensure the struggling member that the struggle is his or her own fault, and to insist there are always valid explanations for the controversial issues, even if they can't explain them yet. Explanations are always placed on the eternal backburner while the apologist tries to muster some sense of plausibility for the ton of strange Mormon beliefs and troubling aspects of Mormon history.

[_antishock8]

Apologists don't go out to "save" anything. They are there, in case someone makes the choice to believe rather that disbelieve.

Facts be damned.

Belief is never a matter of "facts." It is a matter of faith.

Then you can understand why your claim to "truth" is challenged when you reject facts? I'm sure you do. At least you're honest about your faith. That's refreshing.

[_the road to hana]

But the apologeticist does not actively go out seeking on his/her own. . .

. . . Otherwise, apologeticist are quiet.

I hate to be the one to correct you here, but it might be helpful for you to know that the word is actually apologist.

You seem to have a somewhat skewed view of what apologetics entails in the broader perspective as the term has been used throughout the centuries. You might want to enlarge your own understanding by reading up on apologetic history.

[_Coggins7]

Earth to stupid. I never blamed anyone for my "loss of faith." I left FAIR because of people like you, that's true. But FAIR and faith are not synonymous, even if you think they are. Since that time I have gradually lost my faith in Mormonism as the institution claimed to be, but I do hold to certain truths that I believe it teaches.

Apologists are the last line of defense for Mormons who begin to use their brains and abandon the myth of "spiritual" confirmations.

And you actually believe, Kevin, that we do not see this smug rationalization for the statutory rape of your conscience that this really is? You really think we do not see your continual irrational hostility, baiting, and pretense to scholarly substance as the teflon intellectualism that it belies?

They are there to act as prosecuting lawyers (and in many cases, that is their profession!) against victims of intellectual terrorism, and fabricate a facade to ensure the struggling member that the struggle is his or her own fault, and to insist there are always valid explanations for the controversial issues, even if they can't explain them yet.

"Intellectual terrorism"? My my, how overwrought the rhetoric can be when his cage is being cleaned with a high pressure hose. Charity really has the proverbial dander up here. I wonder why?

Explanations are always placed on the eternal backburner while the apologist tries to muster some sense of plausibility for the ton of strange Mormon beliefs and troubling aspects of Mormon history.

The entire universe is, for the most part, still a great mystery. The farther we go, the more we know how little we know. No serious apologists I'm aware of are claiming answers for all problems of church doctrine or history. Quite the contrary. The strange irony is, the insistence of "proof" of all Gospel claims in the here and now obviates the need for faith in the Lord Jesus Christ...the first principle of the Gospel.

But perhaps that is the point?

[_dartagnan]

Yea, the fact that you and charity are your only fans you two have for one another, is telling in itself.

Neither of you are adequately experienced to discuss anythiing of intellectual substance.

Aren't you the guy who claimed we knew nothing about the Book of Abraham, and then ran over to MADB under a different name to get help from the apologists?

Thought so.

[Guest]

Earth to stupid. I never blamed anyone for my "loss of faith." I left FAIR because of people like you, that's true. But FAIR and faith are not synonymous, even if you think they are. Since that time I have gradually lost my faith in Mormonism as the institution claimed to be, but I do hold to certain truths that I believe it teaches.

I'm glad to hear you are not completely immune to the truth.

Apologists don't go out to "save" anything. They are there, in case someone makes the choice to believe rather that disbelieve.

Apologists are the last line of defense for Mormons who begin to use their brains and abandon the myth of "spiritual" confirmations. They are there to act as prosecuting lawyers (and in many cases, that is their profession!) against victims of intellectual terrorism, and fabricate a facade to ensure the struggling member that the struggle is his or her own fault, and to insist there are always valid explanations for the controversial issues, even if they can't explain them yet. Explanations are always placed on the eternal backburner while the apologist tries to muster some sense of plausibility for the ton of strange Mormon beliefs and troubling aspects of Mormon history.

As I said, once a person's doubts take on the confrontational aspect, there is no arguing with them.