Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

[_The Nehor]

What's your evidence that they haven't been set apart?

There is no proof that would satisfy you. You assume apologists lie as easily as they breathe. I suppose in-depth video evidence of apologists from birth to grave might suffice but I'm pretty sure it's unavailable.

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that you're 400 pounds and live in your mom's basement but it's still a random guess much like yours. I can't disprove either.

[_The Nehor]

A dangerous line of inquiry here, my friend. If this is so, then do they pray about other things too? For instance, missionaries tract, and pray about areas to knock on doors. So, would an ordained apologist perhaps pray about what critics to skewer? Who to launch campaigns against?

I thought I had a rich fantasy life.

[_John Larsen]

Nope. Not true.

I suppose that speculation, however, passes for evidence so it must be true.

Mormon Studies is a legitimate field of study as well as Islamic Studies, Jewish Studies, Queer Studies, African-American Studies and the like. Those who toil in these areas apply what professional or amateurish skills they may possess to publish. There is no "setting apart" and whether they "pray" over what they do is no more significant than professional football players praying together before the game.

I was once set apart as the ward unplanned party planner committee member. It is not a far stretch to say that they have also been set apart.

[_The Dude]

No, I don't think DCP, Hamblin, and other apologists are praying for spiritual confirmation in their apologetic efforts. I think they treat it as an extension of their scholarly, intellectual pursuits, and less as an extension of their spiritual lives. Likewise, I doubt very many readers are praying for spiritual confirmation of apologetic works. Apologetics is the arm of the flesh. The troubling thing, I suppose, is when members find the "arm of the flesh" working where the gospel fails.

[_Mister Scratch]

pray specifically about Mopologetic issues---the DNA issue, for example? Personally, I assume that they do. Why wouldn't they?

A dangerous line of inquiry here, my friend. If this is so, then do they pray about other things too? For instance, missionaries tract, and pray about areas to knock on doors. So, would an ordained apologist perhaps pray about what critics to skewer? Who to launch campaigns against?

Huh. That is a very provocative notion. I had not envisioned it quite that way, though. I think that we need to remember that these guys are very gifted sophists. Thus, I would imagine them kneeling down, and praying along the lines of, "Dear Father in Heaven, please tell me that what I'm doing is right." That's all the the apologist in question would need to say. If he then received a burning in the bosom, then he'd know that his plan to edit and publish a character assassination against, oh, I don't know---Metcalfe or Quinn, say---was winkingly approved of by HF.

[_Mister Scratch]

No, I don't think DCP, Hamblin, and other apologists are praying for spiritual confirmation in their apologetic efforts. I think they treat it as an extension of their scholarly, intellectual pursuits, and less as an extension of their spiritual lives. Likewise, I doubt very many readers are praying for spiritual confirmation of apologetic works. Apologetics is the arm of the flesh. The troubling thing, I suppose, is when members find the "arm of the flesh" working where the gospel fails.

Do you think they were "set apart" in some sense?

[_The Dude]

Do you think they were "set apart" in some sense?

Not in the usual sense and I don't know what else you mean.

[_Inconceivable]

No, I don't think DCP, Hamblin, and other apologists are praying for spiritual confirmation in their apologetic efforts. I think they treat it as an extension of their scholarly, intellectual pursuits, and less as an extension of their spiritual lives. Likewise, I doubt very many readers are praying for spiritual confirmation of apologetic works. Apologetics is the arm of the flesh. The troubling thing, I suppose, is when members find the "arm of the flesh" working where the gospel fails.

Dude,

I think you're more on track here. Everything I can recall that I ever read from FARMS et al. was entirely cerebral in nature. There is very little reference (if any) to spirituality or personal connections beyond the veil. In my opinion, I think that they consider spirituality foolishness - inferior to their own intellectual prowess.

This comes from the book they have little inclination to read:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:28 - 29)

I believe they are in the attitude of attempting to compensate for their severed line of faith/belief between themselves and their Mormon God:

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:42)

Perhaps there is a portion of envy or jealousy they posit towards those with simple faith that speak of things spiritual. Things they are incapable of comprehending.

I don't think they pray about much, unless it is to be heard of men.

[_Inconceivable]

In my opinion, apologists have a tendency to despise the counsels of their God. They love to debate and cast doubt upon the veracity of the words of their prophets.

This generally typifies the philosophy of modern day apologetics (and it most certainly is a philosophy, not a religeon because I see no spirituallity in it):

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

(New Testament | 2 Timothy 4:3 - 4)

[_The Nehor]

First their work was overly spiritualized and they were set apart for their work by high spiritual authority and now they're anti-spiritual bigots, cripples with no real spiritual backing.

Will you crackpots make up your mind as to which extreme evil you're going to accuse people of? Are they guilty of priestcraft or apostasy?