So yeah. I can totally believe that Dan defended Kevin's place in apologetics at the time.
I can't. He was instrumental in marginalizing me even when I was an apologist.
The thing is, Mormons will act like they really care about you if they think there is a chance you'll come back. If it seems like there is no longer a chance of that happening, well, good riddance.
A couple of years ago there was an article called "Why Don't People like Mormons?" or something to that effect. This was one of the main reasons why. Ed Ashment sent out an email responding to this article and I think he hits on several points that ring true for many of us:
A friend sent me an anonymous essay that provides an answer to why people don't like Mormons. It's an interesting read, and I found much to agree with, some to disagree with, and a little that wasn't addressed. First, here is the well-written essay, so you know what is at issue:
Agreements. It's astronomically rare that Mormons are genuine friends with non-Mormons and in many cases, even with other Mormons. After all, too much (i.e., 'eternal life') is at stake, and believing Mormons are focused on climbing up the LDS institution's version of Jacob's ladder to get into the Celestial Kingdom. When 'friendship' is extended to lapsed and to non Mormons, it's purposeful; i.e., it's to (re-)convert them. If they resist, Mormons on the ladder have no time for them. Mormon 'friendship' isn't, therefore, genuine.
The equation of Mormon fellowshipping to Amway recruitment is apt.
Mormons' testimonies about being members of the True church, while everyone else lives in various shades of darkness, result in Mormons coming across as arrogant; even though they perceive themselves as being humble followers of Christ a double-think phenomenon common to adherents of all three 'book' religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).
Mormon missionaries can be spotted from a mile away, they do look dorky, and anyone who has experienced their humbly aggressive manner avoids them almost like the plague.
Disagreements. A universal religion, to be applicable to everyone, either must force its adherents to fit Procrustes' bed, or it must stand for nothing. Christianity, during its colorful history, has employed both approaches.
The essay's author opts for 'stand for nothing': 'Our religion is a religion of unconditional love, without judgment, for all mankind'. The apostle Paul in spades.
Hmph. Life has taught virtually everyone that 'If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas'. Accordingly, I won't lie down with dogs. I won't consort with the likes of Ted Bundy, Mark Hoffman, the Lafferty brothers, politicians, &c. I won't love them unconditionally, without judgement. That's a job for their parents and their parents' god(s).
They're evil men who have made their beds and can sleep in them. I choose to consort with upstanding people who are curious about life, the world, and the universe. ('Birds of a feather flock together.') I certainly judge/discriminate.
I love my own offspring more than I love the offspring of others, and I love my kin's offspring more than I love the offspring of someone who lives, say, in the heart of Africa. My love is therefore conditional.
Mormons have every right in the world to choose and discriminate every bit as much as the essayist, who, ironically, finds Mormons lacking (i.e., judges them) for not being universalists. I applaud Mormons for taking stands. But they can't have it all: they can't take a controversial stand and rue the fact that others don't like them for it. They have to have the sand/grit/mettle to face the consequences of their decisions, as the Amish do. Mormons are a bit too fixated on 'the World' not to be 'of' it.
Omissions. Mormonism encourages a one-track mind; accordingly, as mentioned, Mormons are obsessed with climbing the Church's version of Jacob's ladder. Convinced and determined to remain convinced that they are possessed of the Truth, Mormons are unable to discuss differences of opinion about life's big issues; rather, they can only proclaim institutionally-approved dogma. For, as long as they're aware of only their tradition, they're safely on the ladder; but once they learn details about conflicting Truths from other traditions, their own Truth can be reduced to being merely one among many, which can raise doubts in their minds. (See Hammer, Claiming Knowledge [Brill 2001], 493.) Bigoted Mormons are a natural result.
In a related vein, Mormons are inveterate and compulsive navel gazers. Rarely do they investigate anything with the gusto they devote to Mormonism. Accordingly, unless they're monologuing about the Truth (or sometimes, the falsity) of Mormonism, conversations with Mormons generally are shallow and short. Mormons are boring.
The Big Question. How are Mormons, thus described, any different from committed Baptists, left and right wing political idealogues, &c.?