Cicero wrote:Maybe, but the hotheads obviously aren't going away. I was initially surprised at how easily these guys were ignoring the fact that GAs (at least at Pres. Samuelson's level) were involved in DCP's dismissal . . . until I remembered how easily apologists ignore all kinds of statements from prior GAs that don't fit their world view. Maybe their smugness arises from the fact that they know all too well that they are better at mental gymnastics than anyone else out there.
It seems to me that they believe themselves to be more loyal to the Gospel and the LDS Church than some of the GAs are. That's my take on it, anyway.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
If you have it, you don't have to talk about it. If you have to talk about it, you don't have it. Some things are just like that.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Bryce Haymond wrote:They even go so far as to determinedly conclude that it is Mormon apologetics, in fact, that is having a negative influence on the Church, which you’ll notice is completely backwards from its true meaning and purpose. Indeed, they are saying that the defenders are now essentially those doing the damage, which is almost comical in its twistedness.
I agree. It is comical. What's even more comical is how un-self-aware apologists can be about it.
Completely baffling. Haymond acts as if by simply pointing out that a negative impact on the church is completely backwards from the true meaning and purpose of apologetics, he has effectively disproven than any such negative impact can exist. Because human endeavors always result in their intended effects, I suppose? There is no such thing as an unintended consequence?
This is like arguing that there's no way that Prohibition could have exacerbated the societal ills surrounding alcohol, because that's completely backwards from the law's true meaning and purpose!
Sophocles wrote:Haymond acts as if by simply pointing out that a negative impact on the church is completely backwards from the true meaning and purpose of apologetics, he has effectively disproven than any such negative impact can exist. Because human endeavors always result in their intended effects, I suppose? There is no such thing as an unintended consequence?
This is like arguing that there's no way that Prohibition could have exacerbated the societal ills surrounding alcohol, because that's completely backwards from the law's true meaning and purpose!
Can I convince you to put that into a reply on Haymond's blog post?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
