DCP makes this board

[_Gadianton]

LoP,

Maybe you could help me out with something. We know that there are no academic venues for Mormon apologetics to take place in. In other words, there are no journals or conferences where Mormonism is debated in such a way that say, the next ideas in chemistry are discussed among those who are for and against are. At best, there is Dialogue. Apologists also apparently, do not post on "bottom feeder" sites such as this, where there is risk of hearing an opposing view. It would seem then, that the only option apologists have is their private lists, their TBM blogs, conferences of their own construct where pretty much, only apologists are allowed to speak, and publications like the Review which very strictly only present a narrow breed of Internet Mormon ideas without any kind of outside criticism available. It might be true that the apologists might read "anti-Mormon" books, any book that references the church which isn't explicitely apologetic, but they only respond to these by taking pot shots from behind a tree. It would seem apologetics is basically an unscholarly and uncritical sunday school class. Is that how it appears to you too?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I also tend to agree with harmony that some folks on your list are barely apologists.

With all due respect: (a) If Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Matt Roper, Kent Brown, Louis Midgley, David Paulsen, John Gee, etc., aren't apologists, then the word has been drained of discernible meaning. (b) Unless I'm much mistaken, harmony is largely if not entirely unfamiliar with the work of most of the people I've named. (c) If you want to grant the title of "apologist" to essentially any believing Mormon who ever speaks up in defense of the Church, then, once again, the vast majority of them (they must surely number in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions) do not post on message boards.

The internet is the media of the present and the future. If these folks really do want to be counted among LDS apologists who really are apologists for the LDS church, then they'd best be showing up on websites like MDB.

This message board, with its regular readership in the low dozens, is scarcely "the media of the present and the future."

And you're wrong to assume that the people I mentioned, because they don't post on this message board, are absent from the internet. The FARMS Review alone averages roughly 60,000 distinct hits monthly. FAIR is essentially an internet operation. In less than an hour, I'll be giving a little public lecture that, I expect, will shortly be posted somewhere on the web.

LoP,We know that there are no academic venues for Mormon apologetics to take place in.

You don't count Oxford University Press or Columbia University Press?

Apologists also apparently, do not post on "bottom feeder" sites such as this, where there is risk of hearing an opposing view. It would seem then, that the only option apologists have is their private lists, their TBM blogs, conferences of their own construct where pretty much, only apologists are allowed to speak, and publications like the Review which very strictly only present a narrow breed of Internet Mormon ideas without any kind of outside criticism available. It might be true that the apologists might read "anti-Mormon" books, any book that references the church which isn't explicitely apologetic, but they only respond to these by taking pot shots from behind a tree. It would seem apologetics is basically an unscholarly and uncritical sunday school class. Is that how it appears to you too?

There is, and has long been, a vigorous conversation going on between defenders of the Church and their critics. It goes on between books (e.g., between Blood of the Prophets and Massacre at Mountain Meadows, between Richard Anderson and Roger Anderson and Dan Vogel, etc.), between authors of books and authors of book reviews, between articles in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and Dialogue and BYU Studies and Sunstone, between the Maxwell Institute and Signature Books, between speakers and respondents at the Mormon History Association, between speakers at the Sunstone symposium and the FAIR conference, and so on and so forth.

It's simply silly to pretend that this isn't so, or to pretend, if one is unaware of it, that one has any standing to comment on the state of the conversation.

[_Trevor]

With all due respect: (a) If Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Matt Roper, Kent Brown, Louis Midgley, David Paulsen, John Gee, etc., aren't apologists, then the word has been drained of discernible meaning. (b) Unless I'm much mistaken, harmony is largely if not entirely unfamiliar with the work of most of the people I've named. (c) If you want to grant the title of "apologist" to essentially any believing Mormon who ever speaks up in defense of the Church, then, once again, the vast majority of them (they must surely number in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions) do not post on message boards.

I suppose that the difference between us on this is that I do not consider anyone who has ever spoken up in defense of the church an apologist by vocation or avocation. I consider them people who have defended their faith on occasion. And, I agree with you that harmony is largely unfamiliar with these people's work.

[_harmony]

I also tend to agree with harmony that some folks on your list are barely apologists.

With all due respect: (a) If Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Matt Roper, Kent Brown, Louis Midgley, David Paulsen, John Gee, etc., aren't apologists, then the word has been drained of discernible meaning.

Then they'd best be getting themselves on the internet, in blogs or on message boards, because that's where the battle's being fought. And they'd best be polite about it, because that's the direction we've heard from the GC pulpit lately. God's hammering on spiteful, mean-spirited apologists, in case you missed that talk. He likes civil discourse, not that I find that surprising. I'm sure someone will link that particular talk, should you need a reference.

(b) Unless I'm much mistaken, harmony is largely if not entirely unfamiliar with the work of most of the people I've named.

You've been wrong before. I suppose it's possible for you to be wrong again. Please don't make assumptions based on information for which you have no foundation.

I repeat: engaging the critics of the LDS church won't happen at conferences for the faithful or semi-faithful, in Sunday School, in books few if anyone buys or reads. Engaging the critics of the LDS church takes place in large part on the internet, played out in public on forums like MDB (not necessarily only MDB) where people can read at their leisure, learn at their own rate, and ponder at will.

Do you think 60,000 hits a month is impressive? I'm assuming you have no idea how many hits FLAK gets, or any of the other DAMU sites? Because I think 60,000 is paltry in comparison to some of the most active DAMU, ex-, and/or anti-LDS sites. I'm sure someone will give some current stats for some of the more active LDS-related sites.

You can talk about conferences and books and authors until the cows come home, but that won't change the current and future face of apologetics.

Bring your arguments here (or to FLAK or to any of the other sites, although you may be summarily banned; this appears to one of a very few sites that allow both sides to have their say), or wait until someone else does. It all ends up here, whether you want it to or not.

[_Ray A]

Do you think 60,000 hits a month is impressive? I'm assuming you have no idea how many hits FLAK gets, or any of the other DAMU sites? Because I think 60,000 is paltry in comparison to some of the most active DAMU, ex-, and/or anti-LDS sites. I'm sure someone will give some current stats for some of the more active LDS-related sites.

RFM gets 170,000+ hits per day. When my brother had a website going on near death experiences, he was getting about 20,000 per day.

[_harmony]

Thanks, Ray! I knew I could count on you.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Most default trackers, in my opinion, count page loads, so the large number of hits this site receives is vastly jacked up by new page loads.

My solo blog gets about 150 hits a day.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Marketleap shows MAD board as having twice as great a presence on the internet as RFM. (this site was considerably lower than that.)

[_wenglund]

In a way, Harmony may be correct about message boards, such as this, being major battle grounds, though I believe she is mistaken about these boards being the rightful place for apologetics.

As I see it, the steely blade of academics and the strategic and logical thrust of apologia, are of little using in slicing through the emotive fog of rancor, prejudice, whining, complaining, mockery, denegration, and so for that too often are the weapon of choice for places such as this.

If I am not mistaken, I believe this is the point that Dr. Peterson has been making, thought it seems lost on some.

What may work better under such battle conditions is the warm sunlight of human kindness and the fresh air breeze of common sense.

It may also help to seed the clouds and fog of trite criticisms with charged particles of cognitive behavior therapy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

In a way, Harmony may be correct about message boards, such as this, being major battle grounds, though I believe she is mistaken about these boards being the rightful place for apologetics.

As I see it, the steely blade of academics and the strategic and logical thrust of apologia, are of little using in slicing through the emotive fog of rancor, prejudice, whining, complaining, mockery, denegration, and so for that too often are the weapon of choice for places such as this.

If I am not mistaken, I believe this is the point that Dr. Peterson has been making, thought it seems lost on some.

What may work better under such battle conditions is the warm sunlight of human kindness and the fresh air breeze of common sense.

It may also help to seed the clouds and fog of trite criticisms with charged particles of cognitive behavior therapy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Heh, I've never associated apologetics with warm sunlight, fresh air, or common sense. Rather than being the steely blade of academics, apologetics is usually an obscuring fog.