Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Ray A]

Huh. Do you really think that's it, Ray? If so, then that would definitely be a tacit admission of "weakness" in the Church....

I read John Delhin's comments on FLAK, and he was in his own way trying to being people back into the Church, or stay in the church, but not using the adversarial approach which we see in aggressive ad hom apologetics. One reason he mentioned retiring Mormon Stories was because he found more people were actually leaving than being retained or brought back, ironically because he was telling them the truth about Mormon history, etc., without spin, hoping to avoid the trap of "apologetic spin", because that is what makes many members, and ex-members angry. And more so, the fervent denial that there is any spin.

Exmos loved Dehlin, because he told them the truth, and that's what they want, then they'll make their own decisions. He feared he was unwittingly causing too many to leave, and that was only one reason he gave, so he retired Mormon Stories. He felt he was putting in too much work for little rewards.

If Dehlin can't do it, how are the more aggressive apologists going to do it? They will only make it worse. So of course there's recognition that many are leaving, and something needs to be done. And it has been recognised for a long time.

[_Dwight Frye]

I read John Delhin's comments on FLAK....

Ray, would you mind providing a link to Bro. Dehlin's comments (or perhaps the name of the thread on FLAK)? I'd be really interested in reading what he had to say about retiring Mormon Stories. Thank you kindly!

[_Ray A]

I read John Delhin's comments on FLAK....

Ray, would you mind providing a link to Bro. Dehlin's comments (or perhaps the name of the thread on FLAK)? I'd be really interested in reading what he had to say about retiring Mormon Stories. Thank you kindly!

Here you go, Dwight: Mormon Stories Retired. (Dehlin comes late to thread.)

[Guest]

Some interesting observations here. Would you say, Bond, that number 1 could be lumped in with "Argument Addicts"? Further, might your number 2 fit into the "Failed Mormon" category? We need to remember that a lot of the female MAD posters feel resentful about their "2nd Class" status (in a sense, they have "failed" to hold the priesthood, right?), and that they harbor a bit of a feminist steak. I'm sure we all remember that classic thread in which Calmoriah was talking about how she wanted to be able to pass the sacrament (or something like that). Thus, participating in Mopologetics can help some of them feel more useful. So, I guess what you have identified is a gender-specific subset within the "Failed Mormon" category.

I'd say that each individual must be taken on a case by case basis. You might get into generalities like you've done in your OP, but ultimately looking at the individual is the final straw. Some people may be hybrids, or may slip into one roll or another depending on their position in life or disposition.

Also I often wonder what type of person a person would be if they were say atheist rather than Mormon. How would being brought up in say a secular world effect a life long Mormon? Would a jerk who happens to be Mormon still be a jerk if they weren't brought up Mormon? These sorts of things make me wonder. I think some of it is innate character traits, but some of it has to be conditioning. It's that whole nature/nurture thing I guess.

I think the "failed Mormon" category should have a subgrouping called "women Mormons". They haven't failed at all, they were unlucky enough to be born into an inherently unjust system and have to swim upriver their whole lives. a.k.a. as SOL Mormons along with Gay Mormons.

[_Trevor]

SOL Mormons

That would be a great category name.

[Guest]

(1) If X is true, why would X need defending?

It doesn't. If it did, the church would train missionaries in apologetics, in how to organize list serves to launch smear campaigns, in how to flaunt "horse-bone" evidence, in how to spot a chiasmus. in how to "high-five" each other after making rude comments about critics. clearly, the church thinks that truth propogates just fine without apologetic "defenses". With just bearing testimony and using the usual emotional and social predatory tactics.

Anyway, you tell me CK -- 1 out of every X converts to Christianity makes their decision based on a rigorous study of Christian apologetics.

[_Trevor]

Given the bizarre exchange I have had with Trevor on this thread, and now this, it is evident to me that I have entered the Twilight Zone. [Cue up Rod Sterling Intro and music]

You nailed it. Kudos!

[_wenglund]

I have long felt that Dehlin's heart was in the right place and that he had the very best of intentions. It is just that he, like those who may have fallen away because of him, just don't get it.

They have conveniently wrapped all this loss of faith in the noble banner of "telling the truth", when in reality it was about fixating on trivialities and gospel irrelevancies to people's own unwitting detriment.

Dehlin and others got caught up in the fever of obscure things like Joseph's polygamous relations or DNA and the Book of Mormon and so forth, which essentially has no bearing on whether the restored gospel of Christ is the way to salvation and exaltation or not. Instead, these issues are unwitting distractions to what truely is important, and completely mis the intents and purpose of the Church--which is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him in love and joy.

It's like walking away from the very best made and most proven car on earth (at least in terms of what it is designed to do) after learning that the founding president of the car company was sealed to more than one woman, and then going on to claim that this loss of faith in the car was because of "the truth". I mean...come on folks. Get a grip.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The bottom-line question I have regarding the OP, is what value might we derive from investigating and debating Scratch's theory in terms of improving the quality of our lives, making us better people, and securing for ourselves an abundance of joy and love?

Or, is this just about frivolous amusement?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

I'm sorry, CK, but I think that vastly oversimplifies what's actually going on. For example, how can we honestly say that Bill Hamblin's anti-Semitic tirade on RfM was indicative of his "desire to defend and argue for what [he] believes actually to be true"? What about DCP's Quinn gossipmongering, or his attack piece on Signature Books? What about Dr. Midgley's verbal harassment of Sandra Tanner? Are these examples simply about "the desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true"? No, of course not. Also, your suggestion overlooks a very basic question: if something is "true," why would it need any "defense"---particularly the kind of "defense" that exemplifies LDS apologetics?

I'm just curious, but is it possible to have a thread without mentioning DCP and Quinn??

And, for what it's worth, I strongly disagree with your assessment that Hamblins "anti-Semitic tirade" was anti-Semitic. A tirade, yes, but he was simply illustrating how offensive it would be if we were to use "Kike" instead of "Mormon". Apparently it worked.