Light and Truth Letter: Decline of Mopologetics

[Kishkumen]

After listening to some of RFM’s critiques of the Light and Truth Letter, I have to say that I am finding the quality of LDS apologetics to be in decline. Between this and Ward Radio, it seems like the new generation of apologists is more about their dude-bro “vibes” than the quality or persuasiveness of their arguments. As long as they frame something as a “win,” then I suppose there are a load of LDS chumps willing to believe it or at least back them on it?

[drumdude]

If the popularity of Trump is any indicator, the lack of quality might be a feature rather than a bug.

[Kishkumen]

If the popularity of Trump is any indicator, the lack of quality might be a feature rather than a bug.

Excellent observation.

[Gadianton]

I haven't seen any of them, are they mini-Rogans?

[Dr. Shades]

After listening to some of RFM’s critiques of the Light and Truth Letter, . . .

I feel like I should know more about this "Light and Truth Letter." Will you please introduce it to us?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I couldn't agree more. Every single Mopologist argument I've ever looked at completely falls apart at some point. It's such a dishonest and harmful endeavor. Anyone remember the Jenkins v. Hamblin debate?

Daniel McClellan had the following to say about the dishonesty of apologetics in general:

"Apologetics treats the data as an obstacle to be overcome. And it so commonly results in "not impossible" stacked on "not impossible" stacked on "not impossible" stacked on "not impossible". Is it probable? Of course not. Is it plausible? Of course not. Is it impossible? Ehhhh. They've got the tiniest little sliver of "not impossible", and that's all they need. Because the goal is not to show that it's probable or even that it's plausible—the goal is just to show that it's not physically impossible; therefore, there is the tiniest little glimmer of validity to the belief."

https://youtu.be/7oB6UrrFn6c?t=2924

[I Have Questions]

I couldn't agree more. Every single Mopologist argument I've ever looked at completely falls apart at some point. It's such a dishonest and harmful endeavor. Anyone remember the Jenkins v. Hamblin debate?

Daniel McClellan had the following to say about the dishonesty of apologetics in general:

"Apologetics treats the data as an obstacle to be overcome. And it so commonly results in "not impossible" stacked on "not impossible" stacked on "not impossible" stacked on "not impossible". Is it probable? Of course not. Is it plausible? Of course not. Is it impossible? Ehhhh. They've got the tiniest little sliver of "not impossible", and that's all they need. Because the goal is not to show that it's probable or even that it's plausible—the goal is just to show that it's not physically impossible; therefore, there is the tiniest little glimmer of validity to the belief."

https://youtu.be/7oB6UrrFn6c?t=2924

At least Kerry is telling the truth about how Apologists ignore the accepted methods of actual scholarship in order to invent their narratives. That he said it out loud suggests he's not the sharpest knife in the mopologetic drawer.

[Moksha]

It makes sense that the Capybaras would lead the way, followed by the crazed Apologists, with the Tapirs right behind to handle the weightier and more intellectual issues. This is the same pecking order the Nephites used to pull their steel chariots.

[Kishkumen]

After listening to some of RFM’s critiques of the Light and Truth Letter, . . .

I feel like I should know more about this "Light and Truth Letter." Will you please introduce it to us?

https://www.lightandtruthletter.org/

It is a response to the CES letter from a guy who claims to have lost and regained his faith.

[Dr. Shades]

I feel like I should know more about this "Light and Truth Letter." Will you please introduce it to us?

https://www.lightandtruthletter.org/

It is a response to the CES letter from a guy who claims to have lost and regained his faith.

Thank you very much.

After listening to some of RFM’s critiques of the Light and Truth Letter, . . .

As a reminder, Universal Rule #6 of this message board reads,

"Cross-posting" from other message boards is allowed. Feel free. If you do this--or if you just mention content hosted at another site--always provide a link to that content so people can find out just what it is you're talking about.

To that end, and for the benefit of your readers, here's the link to "RFM's critiques" of which you spoke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUXpWVpYyBA