Why-isnt-everybody-persuaded-part-one?

[hauslern]

The latest by Danp titled Why-isn't-everybody-persuaded-part-one" Is there any compelling evidence that the LDS view is correct" Two threads one on the MAD board and the other here about Smith's interpretations on the facsimiles and trying to decide what "repurposing" meant. Has it been a fruitful discussion? Maybe put McGuire and Shulem in a room together. If the church dumped the facsimiles would it matter to the average TBM?

[drumdude]

Dan sets up a false dichotomy between compelling evidence for and compelling evidence against Mormonism.

The null hypothesis is Mormonism’s truth claims are false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And that is why 99 percent of the world population is not Mormon. The evidence is not only not compelling, it’s not persuasive.

[Res Ipsa]

On that last question, I have no idea. I've been out of Mormonism too long.

I think that it's important to note that the purpose of apologetics is defense of the faith. If what you are interested in is evaluating the central truth claim of the COJCOLDS -- that it is the restoration of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ -- then apologetics is of no use to you. Apologetics starts with the answer to that question as a given and then argues that it's possible that their central truth claims are actually true. That's all they need to defend the faith against attack. Their actual function is to keep the faithful from being persuaded by evidence that the central truth claims are false. And it's not really that difficult to argue that their claims are possibly true when they have an omnipotent (or quasi-omnipotent) God in their corner.

Apologetics has nothing to do with seeking truth. It has everything to do with defending something already believed to be true.

[Philo Sofee]

On that last question, I have no idea. I've been out of Mormonism too long.

I think that it's important to note that the purpose of apologetics is defense of the faith. If what you are interested in is evaluating the central truth claim of the COJCOLDS -- that it is the restoration of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ -- then apologetics is of no use to you. Apologetics starts with the answer to that question as a given and then argues that it's possible that their central truth claims are actually true. That's all they need to defend the faith against attack. Their actual function is to keep the faithful from being persuaded by evidence that the central truth claims are false. And it's not really that difficult to argue that their claims are possibly true when they have an omnipotent (or quasi-omnipotent) God in their corner.

Apologetics has nothing to do with seeking truth. It has everything to do with defending something already believed to be true.

This is quite deeply profound Res! Thanks for articulating it so well amigo