Mopologetics is warfare

[_brade]

It seems to me that the most respected thinkers in "apologetics" such as Bushman and Givens are more than willing to discuss what they see as the "hard" issues. Even Dr. Peterson seems willing to acknowledge their existence if asked.

Also, having met with Givens a few times in the last 2-3 years, I don't detect this militant anti-anti-mormonism.

[_Kishkumen]

It seems to me that the most respected thinkers in "apologetics" such as Bushman and Givens are more than willing to discuss what they see as the "hard" issues. Even Dr. Peterson seems willing to acknowledge their existence if asked.

True.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It seems to me that the most respected thinkers in "apologetics" such as Bushman and Givens are more than willing to discuss what they see as the "hard" issues. Even Dr. Peterson seems willing to acknowledge their existence if asked.

Where has he done this? I've heard Dan say things like, "Of course there are problems in the Church," etc., but this is rather different than what the OP is getting at, in my opinion. I.e., there is quite a big difference between acknowledging that problems exist vs. identifying what those problems actually are. I'd be extremely interested to see where he legitimately identifies a discrete, specific problem and dissects the reasons why it's "problematic" in his eyes. I honestly don't think he has ever done this publicly, and I'm quite certain that this is/was a strategic move--rather like his firm refusal to discuss Adam-God in public. He doesn't want a critic to be able to quote him as having said that BY taught false doctrine.

If anything, DCP seems to embrace precisely the kind of never-ending-warfare attitude expressed here by the increasingly insane mfbukowski. He's probably done more than any other single person to help perpetuate this attitude, in fact.

Really, though, I think there is another dimension to Bukowski's explanation, just as Kishkumen said. While dear old M.F. wants to blame only the critics for his refusal to offer up honest criticism of the Church, the truth is that he likely fears attacks from his fellow Latter-day Saints--e.g., Will "Opie Rockwell" Schryver.

[Guest]

-

[_moksha]

Get to it NOW.

I for one, am ready to grab my musket and join you defenders, as long as we get to wear those napoleonic Nauvoo Legion hats. Once more into the breach and let's make up as much ammo as we can fire!

[_Drifting]

I posted that just for you.

I just love being famous. A hearty thanks to you and all my other fans over here. Can you find the quote I made about the Trailer Park Sports bar?

I expect that to get full coverage and at least another thread all for itself over here.

Get to it NOW.

Isn't it interesting that your response to DaddyG wasn't "I don't have any issues with the Church" or "I only have one issue with the Church".

Instead you said:

I would never post any issues I may have with the church (lower case 'c' for Church - how disrespectful) much less the "greatest" one.

This response indictaes to me that you have several issues with the Church - you could imply from this that the war in which you are waging is an internal one. Good luck with that and remember, we are here for you in the Great and Spacious POW Camp if you self capture...

[_beastie]

Wow. And to think that I used to give MF credit for being willing to at least attempt to grapple serious issues. This exchange with brade has altered my opinion:

Brade:

I have two questions:

1. As far as you have learnt what are the best arguments available from the opposition?

MF

I honestly have not encountered any that, in my opinion, have any substance or relevance other than misunderstanding. I think that my world view works perfectly for me, and explains every argument I have ever seen- again, for me. That is not because I am cocky or arrogant (though perhaps I am) but because I had a philosophical framework already in place that, in my opinion, fit the LDS pov perfectly, even before I found (was lead to) the church.

What a load of crock.

I truly think an honest defender of the faith must admit that there are some very good arguments against the church, even if, in the end, they reject them.

That MF is incapable of such an admission is telling. He's just playing some sort of game.

[_Fifth Columnist]

I never gave MF as much credit as you did beastie. I always thought he was full of crap when he would come over here and try to bowl us over with his superior knowledge of philosophy. He knows that game is up so now he is reduced to posting the kind of tripe he posted above.

[_Kishkumen]

One example, to be fair to DCP, is in the Mormon Stories interview where I was actually quite impressed that when asked he said that he didn't like the current policy with weddings in the Church.

That family can't go into the Temple, but if they have a civil marriage first then they have to wait a year to go to the Temple. He even mentioned the fact that in countries outside the US this policy doesn't exist and that it hurts people with non-member families when there's no need. I doubt that is the "greatest problem" with the LDS Church, but at least he was willing to state the fact that it is unnecessarily harmful to non-member families and that's extended to ex-member family as well. I'll admit it's not a doctrinal issue and arguably isn't one of the "hard" issues.

It is, however, an issue that often comes up when members discuss their disillusionment. It sort of sticks out as an obvious source of bad feelings. Speaking for myself, the fact that my own father could not attend my wedding was a blow for both of us. In our case, because of the rift that already existed in my family because of a divorce, that exclusion was especially painful.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where has he done this? I've heard Dan say things like, "Of course there are problems in the Church," etc., but this is rather different than what the OP is getting at, in my opinion. I.e., there is quite a big difference between acknowledging that problems exist vs. identifying what those problems actually are. I'd be extremely interested to see where he legitimately identifies a discrete, specific problem and dissects the reasons why it's "problematic" in his eyes. I honestly don't think he has ever done this publicly, and I'm quite certain that this is/was a strategic move--rather like his firm refusal to discuss Adam-God in public. He doesn't want a critic to be able to quote him as having said that BY taught false doctrine.

If anything, DCP seems to embrace precisely the kind of never-ending-warfare attitude expressed here by the increasingly insane mfbukowski. He's probably done more than any other single person to help perpetuate this attitude, in fact.

Really, though, I think there is another dimension to Bukowski's explanation, just as Kishkumen said. While dear old M.F. wants to blame only the critics for his refusal to offer up honest criticism of the Church, the truth is that he likely fears attacks from his fellow Latter-day Saints--e.g., Will "Opie Rockwell" Schryver.

One example, to be fair to DCP, is in the Mormon Stories interview where I was actually quite impressed that when asked he said that he didn't like the current policy with weddings in the Church.

That family can't go into the Temple, but if they have a civil marriage first then they have to wait a year to go to the Temple. He even mentioned the fact that in countries outside the US this policy doesn't exist and that it hurts people with non-member families when there's no need. I doubt that is the "greatest problem" with the LDS Church, but at least he was willing to state the fact that it is unnecessarily harmful to non-member families and that's extended to ex-member family as well. I'll admit it's not a doctrinal issue and arguably isn't one of the "hard" issues.

Yeah--that's what I was getting at, though you're right that he was remarkably (though cunningly, in my opinion) forthright in that interview. And I'm willing to bet that, privately, he's got a whole, big long list of stuff that he thinks is more substantial.