The death of the Mormon Apologist - RIP 1832-2015

[_lostindc]

I have noticed the lack of presence of LDS apologists on this board and similar venues where the playing field is even and the apologist is not given the upper hand with the ability to delete or freeze comments/posts or the comforting support of overzealous moderation.

Have all the LDS apologists folded up shop and ran for the safety of venues where the narrative is completely controlled? Will we ever see a DCP, Bill Schryver, some other guy from BYU I forget his name but he talks about the Book of Mormon geography similar to the way one may discuss Hogwarts and he also hates gay people, Bokovoy (yes he is still an apologist), and others?

I am afraid LDS apologists no longer feel they're capable of defending the Church in these realms. I am afraid the OMIDs have all but given up attempting to answer the difficult questions.

RIP to Mormon Apologists, gone but not forgotten (well, probably forgotten by pretty much everyone but the regulars on this board). Either way, RIP Mormon Apologists.

[_sock puppet]

Apologetics cannot withstand the sanitizing sunlight of the Information Age, as accelerated by the Internet, nor the accompanying questions and counter arguments. Even comments left online at Deseret News have OMIDs on the run. There are less and less places for mushrooms to grow these days.

[_lostindc]

I am extra concerned. Just a handful of years ago you could find DCP darting for this forum and similar forums when an apologist rebuttal was needed. The OMIDs would take the damn ball and run. I miss that courage. No courage anymore.

[_beastie]

This has been a long time coming. Once again, I invoke the history of Zion's Lighthouse Message board. The original impetus for that was to provide a fairly, "blind" moderating system between Mormons and critics as a reaction to the perceived bias of the Tanner's board. At first, the board was mainly populated with LDS defender of the faith and evangelicals from the Tanner's board. LDS defenders of the faith thrived in this environment. They seemed to feel really good about what they were doing. There was serious discussion but also flame throwing. But as time passed, more secular exmormon critics came on board. Gradually, the frustration of defenders of the faith grew. Now the flame throwing was intolerable, the personal attacks unacceptable. (how quickly they forgot they didn't mind it in the early days when their primary antagonists were EVS) They fled the board for the safe haven of the openly biased MAD or FAIR board.

Critics pointed out that it appeared that the defenders of the faith just couldn't stand the heat in the kitchen when the other cooks were secular exmormon critics, unencumbered by having to justify untenable Biblical beliefs. Critics pointed out that the frustration was likely caused not by the bad manners of critics (because there were always bad manners), but by the fact that they didn't feel the warm and fuzzy sensation of winning battles. They were left with too many wounds, too many battles in which the absolutely best they could hope for was some sort of draw. But defenders have always insisted it was just the bad manners of the critics that forced them to flee the board. (by the way, these were the same defenders who, by and large, either supported Pahoran's posting style or were silent in the face of it)

So yes, I find the conclucion inevitable that the real problem was that they didn't feel as good as these discussions because they weren't winning them handily anymore. Their arguments often looked weak, their attacks personal.

I suspect that the withdrawal from these types of fora has been encouraged by church leadership, who probably didn't like what they were seeing or hearing about how defenders of the faith were coping. Of course none of them will ever admit it's because that they've been dealt a losing hand of cards. But I think that is the harsh reality obvious to everyone outside that precious bubble.

[_cinepro]

I suspect that the withdrawal from these types of fora has been encouraged by church leadership, who probably didn't like what they were seeing or hearing about how defenders of the faith were coping. Of course none of them will ever admit it's because that they've been dealt a losing hand of cards. But I think that is the harsh reality obvious to everyone outside that precious bubble.

You had me until the last paragraph. I doubt church leadership cares what happens on the forums, and it would never occur to them that there are any problems with the defense of the faith, other than the message not getting out clearly enough (and people not relying on their faith enough).

[_Fence Sitter]

You had me until the last paragraph. I doubt church leadership cares what happens on the forums, and it would never occur to them that there are any problems with the defense of the faith, other than the message not getting out clearly enough (and people not relying on their faith enough).

I think the essays are evidence that church leadership realizes there are problems with the defense of the faith caused by the internet/social networking.

[_DarkHelmet]

"The truth will withstand scrutiny, but a lie, no matter how skillfully crafted, will wilt and wither under the intense heat of an inspection"

Ironically, this quote comes from a Christian Minister named Rod Parsley. I'm sure his religious views don't stand up to intense scrutiny, but it's still a good quote.

[_Zadok]

You had me until the last paragraph. I doubt church leadership cares what happens on the forums, and it would never occur to them that there are any problems with the defense of the faith, other than the message not getting out clearly enough (and people not relying on their faith enough).

I agree with you that leadership thinks the message isn't being presented often enough, loud enough, or convincing enough. But I disagree that they don't care. I think the resignations, and disaffections have definitely caught your attention. Perhaps they didn't care in the beginning because they thought their ship was unsinkable, but they care now!

[_beastie]

You had me until the last paragraph. I doubt church leadership cares what happens on the forums, and it would never occur to them that there are any problems with the defense of the faith, other than the message not getting out clearly enough (and people not relying on their faith enough).

I don't agree. I think the change of FARMS/ MI is evidence that church leadership, to some degree, is aware of these issues. I'm not saying that ALL the brethren are aware of it, but I think it's likely that a few are.

[_KevinSim]

I have noticed the lack of presence of LDS apologists on this board and similar venues where the playing field is even and the apologist is not given the upper hand with the ability to delete or freeze comments/posts or the comforting support of overzealous moderation.

Have all the LDS apologists folded up shop and ran for the safety of venues where the narrative is completely controlled?

Lostindc, do I count as an LDS apologist? I haven't "folded up shop" or run for the mentioned safety. I don't frequent this forum all the time, because I've got other activities that take up a lot of my time, but I always come back eventually.

I am afraid LDS apologists no longer feel they're capable of defending the Church in these realms.

I certainly feel "capable of defending the Church in these realms."

I am afraid the OMIDs have all but given up attempting to answer the difficult questions.

I guess I'm not aware of any difficult question I've ever shied away from. There is a point past which I will not talk about the content of the LDS temple ceremony, past and present, but other than that I think I talk about anything having to do with the LDS Church.