Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_antishock8]

The entire universe is, for the most part, still a great mystery. The farther we go, the more we know how little we know.

Really? I mean... Really??

[_Mister Scratch]

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 this doesn't make any sense, charity. What, at heart, is the difference between "trying to save faltering members' testimonies" and being "there for the person to reach out on his/her own initiative"? *Is* there any real difference? And, if so, what is it?

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.[/quote]

I'm not sure I follow you. Wouldn't "blocking" consist of merely "turning the other cheek," as Christ advised?

I don't see apologetics as trying to destroy or injure anyone or anything. The whole strategy is protection.

"Protection" of what? Fragile testimonies?

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.

What, in your view, is the difference between a "counterpunch" and a "defensive action"?

[_antishock8]

What, in your view, is the difference between a "counterpunch" and a "defensive action"?

She means your kung fu is weak, grasshoppah.

[_skippy the dead]

. . . for the statutory rape of your conscience . . .

You really say the most ridiculous things.

[_beastie]

I don't think he "requires" biased moderation, but it's obvious mods are always quick to intervene in his behalf. This is part of their way of "protecting high profile" posters. I do think DCP encourages that by constantly reminding everyone of how persecuted he is. Really, he brings it up with almost every post. Despite his protests otherwise, I suspect he's fairly thin-skinned.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't think he "requires" biased moderation, but it's obvious mods are always quick to intervene in his behalf. This is part of their way of "protecting high profile" posters. I do think DCP encourages that by constantly reminding everyone of how persecuted he is. Really, he brings it up with almost every post. Despite his protests otherwise, I suspect he's fairly thin-skinned.

Would you say there is strong evidence that he implicitly demands biased moderation? I.e., via his little temper tantrums and such? (Or, as you put it, his reminders of persecution?)

[_charity]

But this doesn't make any sense, charity. What, at heart, is the difference between "trying to save faltering members' testimonies" and being "there for the person to reach out on his/her own initiative"? *Is* there any real difference? And, if so, what is it?

There isn't a difference. If you assume "trying to save" is different from "being there" is different. It isn't.

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'm not sure I follow you. Wouldn't "blocking" consist of merely "turning the other cheek," as Christ advised? [/quote]

If the blows were aimed at the apologists personally. Then turning the other cheek is fine. But it is the Church that is being attacked, its leaders, doctrines. That deserves defending.

I don't see apologetics as trying to destroy or injure anyone or anything. The whole strategy is protection.

"Protection" of what? Fragile testimonies?

Protection of truth, of the reality of God, of the divinity the Savior, and of the institution of the Lord's Church, His doctrines.

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.

What, in your view, is the difference between a "counterpunch" and a "defensive action"?

This is getting way too technical. If someone tells a lie about you, you should tell the truth and set the record straight. You don't just stand there and let them spew their lies and don't do anything about it.

Okay?

[_beastie]

Would you say there is strong evidence that he implicitly demands biased moderation? I.e., via his little temper tantrums and such? (Or, as you put it, his reminders of persecution?)

Yes, I think there is strong evidence that he implicitly demands biased moderation, although I seriously doubt he recognizes it himself.

[_Coggins7]

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

My official fan club will have an official secret decoder ray ring out for Christmas...

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

Now you're beginning to sound like me. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

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?

No. I'm the guy who claimed to know the basics about the issues surrounding the history and criticism of the Book of Abraham but not the fine details, so I went to Satan's lair and asked other knowledgeable people there for some help in filling out my understanding of the issues involved.

Then there are people like you, who actually know nothing about the Book of Abraham, but may have a great deal of peripheral historical or sociological knowledge about tertiary issues of no relevance to what the text actually contains.

You fret, foam, and fume over the historical and sociological minutia of the Book of Abraham, but will not read the text as a text and simply let its concepts and ideas speak for themselves.

Sound and fury, signifying absolutely and utterly nothing.

[_Coggins7]

. . . for the statutory rape of your conscience . . .

You really say the most ridiculous things.

Personally, I kind of liked it.