Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Ok CK, since you've clarified that Mormons must be doing apologetics because they hope to acheive some kind of result, what results do you have in mind?

I'm going with prestige.

[_Sethbag]

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.

Dehlin was a self-admitted poor historian. His material certainly reflects that.

Out of curiosity, do you think it's possible for normal people to talk about Mormonism, or must one have a PhD in historiography in order to be qualified to utter a peep?

It's not my understanding that John Dehlin ever claimed to be creating works of historiography - rather, he was talking about issues in Mormonism, interviewing other Mormons and apostates, etc.

[_cksalmon]

Ok CK, since you've clarified that Mormons must be doing apologetics because they hope to acheive some kind of result, what results do you have in mind?

Gad--

I spoke for myself, not LDS defenders. I specifically stated:

I certainly can't speak for LDS defenders in that regard.

And, what I said of myself is precisely the opposite of what you mistakenly believe I've clarified in the affirmative anent LDS defenders.

To be honest, I haven't the foggiest how you got the idea that I suggested "that Mormons must be doing apologetics because they hope to acheive some kind of result."

What, specifically, caused you to draw that conclusion?

cks

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Out of curiosity, do you think it's possible for normal people to talk about Mormonism,

Yes.

or must one have a PhD in historiography in order to be qualified to utter a peep?

First, I don't think having a PhD makes one not a "normal" person. Further, no. There are some excellent historians who do not have a PhD.

It's not my understanding that John Dehlin ever claimed to be creating works of historiography - rather, he was talking about issues in Mormonism, interviewing other Mormons and apostates, etc.

Yes. And he self-admittedly did not have a solid grasp of some of the LDS historical topics he asked about, and especially those he compiled into a powerpoint presentation.

[_Sethbag]

I'm puzzled. John's stuff was mostly interviews with people on all sides of the Mormon fence. I don't think John ever made any attempts to be a historian, even a poor one. What are you referring to?

Most notably his presentation on why Mormons should stay in the Church.

I agree, that's pretty much just making it up as he goes along, because as we all know, there's really no good intellectual reason to stay in the church - just emotional or social ones. ;-)

[_Trevor]

I agree, that's pretty much just making it up as he goes along, because as we all know, there's really no good intellectual reason to stay in the church - just emotional or social ones. ;-)

What I don't understand is why that can't be enough.

[_Ray A]

What I don't understand is why that can't be enough.

It probably is for a large number of Mormons who think that apologetics has something to do with NASA.

[_Trevor]

It probably is for a large number of Mormons who think that apologetics has something to do with NASA.

They may be better off anyway.

[_Ray A]

They may be better off anyway.

Reminds me of a Texan here in our area who used to bear testimony with lines like, "when I read that cotton-pickin' book, I got a witness..."

[_Trevor]

Reminds me of a Texan here in our area who used to bear testimony with lines like, "when I read that cotton-pickin' book, I got a witness..."

I guess his version said "white and delightsome."