No more uncontested slam dunks

[_Shulem]

I completely agree with your point about the Book of Abraham, Tobin. Paul O once did too. And I think there is room for a serious rethinking of apologetics.

Well, it is no more difficult to dismiss the chapters of the Book of Abraham as BS as it is the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. They are peas in a pod.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

I completely agree with your point about the Book of Abraham, Tobin. Paul O once did too. And I think there is room for a serious rethinking of apologetics.

Well, it is no more difficult to dismiss the chapters of the Book of Abraham as BS as it is the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. They are peas in a pod.

Paul O

Not really. The facsimiles that Abraham made no longer exist, just like what he wrote.

[_Sophocles]

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, No more uncontested slam dunks:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not offense: but whosoever shall raise up to dunk on thee, bump him a little that he might be awarded a free throw also.

40 And if any man will steal thy dribble, and take away the ball, let him have the lane also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to commit a foul, take credit for twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee for open jumpers, and from him that would drive do not attempt to draw a charge.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy teammate, and hate thine opponent.

44 But I say unto you, Love your opponents, applaud them that score points against you, assist them that guard you, and high-five them which flagrantly foul you, and taunt you after dunking on you.

[_Kishkumen]

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, No more uncontested slam dunks:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not offense: but whosoever shall raise up to dunk on thee, bump him a little that he might be awarded a free throw also.

40 And if any man will steal thy dribble, and take away the ball, let him have the lane also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to commit a foul, take credit for twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee for open jumpers, and from him that would drive do not attempt to draw a charge.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy teammate, and hate thine opponent.

44 But I say unto you, Love your opponents, applaud them that score points against you, assist them that guard you, and high-five them which flagrantly foul you, and taunt you after dunking on you.

Now you talk crazy talk.

[_sock puppet]

This whole discourse about slam dunks seems, I dunno, oblivious. The whole Book of Abraham thing is like, the greatest slam dunk I’ve ever seen against modern religion, right up there with Scientology and Jehovah Witnesses’ multiple failed predictions of the eschaton.

Yes, Stak, but the point is that you have to at least field a team. Even if they are backbenchers and guys on the edge of retirement, they still put up the appearance of some effort to do something.

Or instead of something, the LDS Church could instead return to being a faith-based religion.

All apologetics has done over the last 20 years+ is to shine a very bright light on Mormonism's dirty little historical beginnings. For every doubting member reeled back in, how many tithe payers have stopped?

Any organization has its critics. Maxwell didn't like it. He favored 'going proactive'. He had the protective cover of the modern administrator in Hinckley, who was willing to throw anything Mormon under the bus, including the King Follett Sermon, for acceptance. These two contributed mightily to the attention that the medium of the internet obliged, giving critics especial reason to dig out the dirt, organize it and make it available--easily available--to anyone with and ISP account and able to click a mouse.

Maybe it was Maxwell and Hinckley that BKP should have been admonishing to leave it alone.

[_Kishkumen]

Or instead of something, the LDS Church could instead return to being a faith-based religion.

Imagine that! I do think, however, that your standards are a little high for those of weak faith. The problem is that apologetics as currently conducted seems not to be working so well.

He had the protective cover of the modern administrator in Hinckley, who was willing to throw anything Mormon under the bus, including the King Follett Sermon, for acceptance. These two contributed mightily to the attention that the medium of the internet obliged, giving critics especial reason to dig out the dirt, organize it and make it available--easily available--to anyone with and ISP account and able to click a mouse.

Maybe it was Maxwell and Hinckley that BKP should have been admonishing to leave it alone.

LOL! Well, I was not impressed with Hinckley-era denials, as we have discussed before. I think we both feel that way.

[_Tobin]

It's somewhat of the right direction. A lot of nastiness has arisen in both the apologetics and shattering of the pristine image many members had of their history and historical leaders. As I've often stated, if Mormonism is true, it will be demonstrated by the gifts of the spirit being evident in the Church itself. Since these are rare to non-existent, I would argue there is a great deal wrong with how things are being run and conducted. Personally, I would prefer the leaders of the Church acknowledge they are not inspired and merely caretakers of the Church. That they will discontinue the procedure of promoting the oldest of the Quorum of 12 Apostles and instead ask the Lord who should lead them and promote whoever God clearly states should lead the Church. Until such a time, they should merely be caretakers and seek to serve the members and communities they are in with love and kindness and stop making pronouncements like they have any authority what-so-ever from God.

The problems in Mormondom are many though. There is a lot of bad stuff in there and it centers around doctrines about men becoming God, denial of women their rightful role as equal holders of the authority of God, and so on. The meetings are boring and silent as a tomb. The speakers often are uninspired. And the list goes on. Mormonism badly needs a reformation along Christian lines.

[_Darth J]

The use of this metaphor betrays a lot about Mopologist thinking. The fact that a Mopologist institution is named after Neal A. Maxwell says a lot, too. Mormons would really like to believe that Maxwell was some deep-thinking theologian, like he's some LDS analogue to St. Augustine. He wasn't. His deepest thoughts consisted of quote-mining C.S. Lewis. It's kind of like naming your university's English lit department after Stephenie Meyer.

"No more uncontested slam dunks" assumes that it is the unbelievers who need to be on offense. They need to score the points to disprove the truthfulness of the Church. That is, we're presupposing that the truth claims of the LDS Church have already made a prima facie case for themselves, and now the burden has shifted to the infidels to negate this established truth. So Mopologists, in this metaphor, don't have any obligation to score any points themselves---get their own slam dunks. They don't need to propose any reason why a rational person who is not already a believing Mormon would believe the truth claims of the Church. Mopologists just have to keep the infidels from scoring "points."

And that is why Moplogetics is predestined to fail for anyone who is not desperately grasping for straws to reconcile Mormonism with objective reality. To any reasonable observer who is not already invested in believing that the Church is true, the truth claims of the LDS Church fail spectacularly on their own. There is no need for an opposing team to make any slam dunks. As Sethbag has observed, not only is Mormonism not true, it is obviously not true. The LDS Church is a modern corporate reboot of Joseph Smith's frontier tall tales cum standard religious right dogma and prosperity gospel drivel. The Mopologist mentality that they are on defense, not offense, is how we get these ridiculous crank theories without any factual or intellectual bases being given to believe in said theories. (Of course, "theories" is an overly generous term. A theory is a proposition that can be tested. Contrived, ad hoc just so stories are not theories.)

[_lulu]

let's say you're a short fat guy with a funny mustache (nooo, I don't have anyone in particular in mind here)

say King James is jackin', ready to throw it down over your shiny bald head, not that your whiney ass presence means crap to him anyway.

only credible contest option here is to pull a pig sticker and use it.

but be careful of James feet, he still might just kick out your teeth on his way back down.

or you could just take up golf, or table tennis or maybe croquette. Crochet? Knitting?

[_Drifting]

The MI should embrace, encourage and facilitate the full, open and honest investigation of the history and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by members and non members alike.

DCP's apologetic activities were aimed at delivering the exact opposite of the above, suggested mission statement.

No more uncontested slam dunks should be removed from the MI's lexicon as it drives the wrong behaviours.