The soul FARMS saves may not be...

[_Kishkumen]

A well known soul:

Peterson quotes St. Augustine’s "Crede, ut intelligas"—"Believe, so that you may understand." In other words, enter my paradigm to understand reality from the perspective of my paradigm, which says nothing about the truth of the paradigm. It’s simply circular reasoning and gibberish. Why does he quote a book the historicity of which is at question? Apologists almost always win in fiction. But when they don’t, it’s explained away as sophistry.

“One of the recurring themes of the Book of Mormon in depicting prominent opponents of the prophets is their eloquence, their ability to influence and even manipulate others by the power of their language.” Translation: When apologists think they are winning a debate, it’s because God has given them power to confound their enemies. But when apologists are losing the debate, it’s because their enemies use sophistry and eloquence. There’s no winning with apologists, especially when they get to quote from their own playbook from within their own paradigm.

[_Kishkumen]

A little reminiscing:

When I was an apologist, I liked to quote Tertullian: "Credo, quia absurdum est" (I believe, because it is absurd).

Just had to add more Latin.

[_Kishkumen]

This person really struggled:

Dan Peterson...gosh that guy hurt me so bad as I discovered the truth, and every time I read or see anything with him attached it opens the wound. A grown adult knowingly willing to say and do anything to protect an institution regardless of truth and the impact on people. I've found lots of forgiveness but Dan sure keeps making that difficult in his case.

[Guest]

Kish--

Where are these quotes coming from?

I think they were in response to this article
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7655 ... hites.html

But it appears DN have removed them since Kish grabbed them. I can't find them in the comments. Several of them were landed a bit too squarely.

But you're still quoting Kish. Where do they come from??

[_Kishkumen]

This one deserves special attention as one of the fairest responses I have seen to date:

Peterson is a bright scholar, I have met him and I I have learned much from the Maxwell Institute and shared that knowledge in theological discussions with others who are not LDS. But this is disturbing how he makes vague implications and labels folks as out to destroy the church... he was more of scholar years ago, now seems to be quite the judgmental apologist.

[_Kishkumen]

A tale retold on a ten thousand tongues:

I turned to fair and farms because I KNEW they would have the answers and they were the best apologetics the church has! Sadly all they do is spin and spin and never really get around to answering your question, they even admit the truth but twist it to try to make it not so damning!

[Guest]

If you think people don't believe the LDS Church supports its apologists:

...the apologists in general are quietly funded by the Church, but because the Church doesn't comment or make a stand on a lot of issues, the apologists are the scapegoats if things go bad.

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe more work on reconciliation is in order:

‎"... we need models of understanding Mormonism within the context of history and religion that allow for a healthy and mature approach to religion--that maximizes benefit whether or not you choose to remain affiliated with the Church." Touche, *****! DCP delivered a cowardly low blow. He is not a "model of understanding" that facilitates religious health, maturity or maximum benefit. Apologetic's, ultimately, are not about non-zero-sum logic. DCP said what he believed was right. Yes, that one hurt. Hang in there everyone!

[_Kishkumen]

Another good brother and his family found no help:

When my family went through our crises of faith the most damage was done by apologist answers to tough issues that seemed evasive at best and dishonest at worst.

[_Kishkumen]

More bulls-eyes:

Gotta love the passive aggressive approach

Hey, but I am sure this is wrong, eh? Just pure hatred.