Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

[_Mister Scratch]

'tis true SilentKid. Leonard Arrington was Church Historian, and that is a church calling. Turley too. I found specific mention of Arrington being set apart.

No doubt it is fine for them to reveal this information since, as historians, they don't have to go toe-to-toe with critics. The apologists do, though, and they say some genuinely horrible things. Now that it has been settled that it is kosher to assume that the apologists have been blessed and/or set apart, we can proceed to the truly disquieting truth in all of this: the Brethren have sanctioned the various smear campaigns and character assassinations engaged in by FARMS. If the GAs are blessing and/or setting apart the apologists, then they are giving tacit approval for crap like "That Old Black Magic," Midgley's "Cash Nexus" piece, and DCP's appalling, "The Witchcraft Paradigm."

by the way: I think I am going to re-title this thread in order to make it more accurate.

[_Jason Bourne]

Feel free to explain why it's unreasonable to assume that the apologists have received blessings, and/or that they were set apart.

Feel free to cough up some real proof.

I already adduced LDS culture and ritual as evidence.

Well dear Mr. Holmes wanna be, I believe you failed to much more than speculate.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well dear Mr. Holmes wanna be, I believe you failed to much more than speculate.

I beg to differ, Jason. Think of it this way: Which is the more reasonable assumption---that the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record, with lots of proof in its favor? Or, that the apologists were set apart and/or blessed by one or more of the Brethren?

[_Trevor]

If I recall correctly, the Religion faculty at BYU are set apart. At least, they were when I was attending. Maybe the practice has changed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[_Jason Bourne]

I beg to differ, Jason. Think of it this way: Which is the more reasonable assumption---that the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record, with lots of proof in its favor? Or, that the apologists were set apart and/or blessed by one or more of the Brethren?

These two are interconnected exactly how?

[_Mister Scratch]

I beg to differ, Jason. Think of it this way: Which is the more reasonable assumption---that the Book of Mormon is a literal historical record, with lots of proof in its favor? Or, that the apologists were set apart and/or blessed by one or more of the Brethren?

These two are interconnected exactly how?

You are trying to dismiss what I've said based on your claim that I am just "speculating," right? Well, when it comes right down to it, which is more speculative---my observations, or belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon? The two things are "interconnected" insofar as they both rely upon evidence. It just so happens that my claims have more evidence than the Book of Mormon.

by the way: you did read Trevor's post, right? Chalk up another point in favor of me, my friend. I think that you should concede that there is a very strong possibility that the apologists are blessed and/or set apart by the Brethren.

[_harmony]

by the way: you did read Trevor's post, right? Chalk up another point in favor of me, my friend. I think that you should concede that there is a very strong possibility that the apologists are blessed and/or set apart by the Brethren.

Well, if they work at BYU, I'd agree. But I think the stickler point is... are they blessed and set apart as apologists? And I don't think you've proved they are... or even that they might be.

[_Trevor]

Well, if they work at BYU, I'd agree. But I think the stickler point is... are they blessed and set apart as apologists? And I don't think you've proved they are... or even that they might be.

Yeah, I never said apologists were, only that religion professors were at the time I was attending BYU. Frankly, I think it little matters whether apologists are set apart or not. They are on the errand of God, and it is a slothful and unwise servant who has to be commanded in all things, etc...

[_harmony]

They are on the errand of God, and it is a slothful and unwise servant who has to be commanded in all things, etc...

I'm sure Bro Meldrum feels the same way. Which doesn't sit real well with some of the MI crew, from what I've seen.

[_Trevor]

I'm sure Bro Meldrum feels the same way. Which doesn't sit real well with some of the MI crew, from what I've seen.

Probably so. And it will be interesting to see how this will all fall out in the end. Both Meldrum and the apologists are motivated by similar things, but Meldrum does not have the Church backing that some of the apologists who disagree with him have. I would think that Meldrum is likely to either change his tune or leave.