What have you learned from apologists?

[_Kishkumen]

Man, that's a depressing list.

And yet pretty damn accurate.

Sigh.

[_degaston]

When I saw them make a 180 degree turn on what SWK taught about the Lamanites in the 1970s I knew that the only way back to becoming a TBM again was if I got some official answers from the official pipeline on the Book of Mormon historicity issues. I went to see my bishop, then my SP, and I offfered to keep an open mind to whatever came down official channels. Then once April conference came and went without any real guidance I Had planned to suspend my strict adherence and to choose some other path as it was obvious that I had been listening to the wrong hymn all these years if there was any hope for a life of integrity in Mormonism. The choir and congregation will now sing "We thank thee o God for the apologists" after which the great DCP shall address us. Well nothing personal against DCP or any of the apologists but I just don't have a testimony that they're the only ones on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys, including the gifts of prophecy and truth. Kimball's words on the Lamanites is something that will never be wiped away from Mormonism legacy no matter how hard the apologists try. Their efforts to this end are futile as are so many other pursuits they pursue. I don't think the apologists really see how much damage they do to the cause of Mormonism with all their unofficial blabber.

[_Rambo]

5. Louis Midgely's vitriolic attack on RfM and ex-Mormons in general was a restrained and reasonable commentary, whereas my silly top ten list was "bigoted vomitus" worthy of a Grand Wizard or Gauleiter.

What does this mean?

Chris Smith is a career anti-Mormon whose hatred of the church can be traced to his being dumped by a Mormon girl when he was a teenager.

She wasn't worth it anyways. You would've had to be Mormon!

1. Angels, prophets, and apostles cannot be trusted to teach us about church history or truth-claims. God has in these latter days brought forth apologists to do so.

[/quote]
Awesome!


These are great Runtu. The thing is you would have had to been here a while to understand this list.

[_why me]

What have I learned from apologists? That everything has opposites and that critics of the LDS church do not have a monopoly on 'truth'. And that was a valuable lesson for me as I searched the web a few years ago and discovered sites that have been founded by exmormons and critics who wrote from a position of their own truth to lead Mormons astray.

[_why me]

When I saw them make a 180 degree turn on what SWK taught about the Lamanites in the 1970s I knew that the only way back to becoming a TBM again was if I got some official answers from the official pipeline on the Book of Mormon historicity issues. I went to see my bishop, then my SP, and I offfered to keep an open mind to whatever came down official channels. .

Did you really expect your bishop to show evidence that the Book of Mormon was true? Did you expect a gold tablet or a sign in a rock? All religion is faith based. Even exmos who no longer believe have faith in their new belief system but not on evidence but on what they hope.

[_why me]

Man, that's a depressing list.

And a list that doesn't have much to do with apologetics. Apologetics is quite simple: 1) to defend the faith against naysayers. It isn't to prove the faith true at all. No one can do that through evidence as no one can prove the existence of god through evidence. 2) Apologetics are made of people who are not perfect. When done within the realms of the internet, things can get hairy and problematic. But this occurs on all apolgetic sites where one is dealing with screen names. 3) It is far easier to be critical than to defend. There is nothing easier than to use a screen name and attack and bash the opponent. Critics do this quite often. The LDS do it less. But it does happen. 4) Internet apologetics are not about arguing facts but it is about arguing hypothetical illustrations and false interpretations with critics. It is certainly not easy and the defender is always at a disadvantage.

[_madeleine]

- a person speaking at Mormon general conference can be ignored because they're just giving their opinions

[_why me]

- a person speaking at Mormon general conference can be ignored because they're just giving their opinions

This is not true. For example, much that was said at the last general conference was pretty good. However, one can ignore the advice that was given. No problem. We all have free agency and free will.

[_madeleine]

- a person speaking at Mormon general conference can be ignored because they're just giving their opinions

This is not true. For example, much that was said at the last general conference was pretty good. However, one can ignore the advice that was given. No problem. We all have free agency and free will.

I'm sure that is what you believe, and I have no quarrel with what you believe or don't believe. However, I'm not so sure that Mormon apologists 25, 50 or 100 years from now will agree with you.

[_why me]

I'm sure that is what you believe, and I have no quarrel with what you believe or don't believe. However, I'm not so sure that Mormon apologists 25, 50 or 100 years from now will agree with you.

Here is what an apologist would say: general conference is a forum where church leaders give counsel to the membership. This counsel can be followed or ignored. If you read the counsel given at the last general conference there would be much that you would agree with. The advice and counsel was very good. For example, this summary:

http://www.LDS.org/study/prophets-speak ... e?lang=eng

What would you disagree with? Was the counsel good? Do we all have to follow it because the GA said it?

Apologists would defend the counsel in that talk if it were challenged. Most of the LDS church is about how to do life now to gain the presence of god in eternity.