What have you learned from apologists?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Words have no meaning, and they can be arbitrarily stripped of their commonly held definitions and given anti-intuitive apologetic narratives.

For example:

Horse.

- VRDRC

[_Kishkumen]

What have I learned from apologists? That everything has opposites and that critics of the LDS church do not have a monopoly on 'truth'.

In other words, you have learned precisely nothing but how to construct a shoddy and indefensible straw man argument. You show me one place where some group called "The Critics of Mormonism" have claimed that they have a monopoly on truth (hint: you won't find such a thing), and I'll show you Ezra Taft Benson's claim regarding truth and the prophets, which comes rather close.

There is really no comparison.

And that was a valuable lesson for me as I searched the web a few years ago and discovered sites that have been founded by exmormons and critics who wrote from a position of their own truth to lead Mormons astray.

It is a shame that the current wave of apologetics is so incredibly crappy. If it were up to the task, then lame-o criticisms of Mormonism wouldn't be nearly as effective.

[_Buffalo]

A quote from Samuel Johnson (one of my favorites).

Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy.

I've learned that apologists are more often trying to bolster their own beliefs rather than convince others. It's an effort to stave off their own doubts. Apologists are one step from apostates.

Apologists ARE apostates. They're just apostates who think the church is true. But they're all highly heterodox.

[_stemelbow]

10. People who don't study church history and doctrine from outside sources are lazy and intransigent, whereas those who do and decide the church isn't true are guilty of pride and not following the brethren.
9. It's fine to call me evil, a wolf in sheep's clothing, fake, phony, Satanic, and a lying anti-Mormon, but it is wrong to suggest that apologists tone down the hostility.
8. Apologetic theories continue to be valid after they have been debunked, and therefore it is fitting and proper to continue referring people to them.
7. When the Book of Mormon refers to swords that are stained with blood, that is a literal description of wooden swords, but its discussions of steel and smelting are not to be taken literally.
6. Church publications are doctrine, unless an apologist disagrees with their content.
5. Louis Midgely's vitriolic attack on RfM and ex-Mormons in general was a restrained and reasonable commentary, whereas my silly top ten list was "bigoted vomitus" worthy of a Grand Wizard or Gauleiter.
4. The simplest explanation for an alleged ancient record loaded with anachronisms and implausibilities is the involvement of angels and seer stones.
3. Will Schryver is a brilliant man interested only in proclaiming the truth, whereas Chris Smith is a career anti-Mormon whose hatred of the church can be traced to his being dumped by a Mormon girl when he was a teenager.
2. Knowledge of Egyptology is essential in forming a correct opinion on the Book of Abraham, unless you're that evil hack Robert Ritner.
1. Angels, prophets, and apostles cannot be trusted to teach us about church history or truth-claims. God has in these latter days brought forth apologists to do so.

Kind of interesting that many of your items could easily switch apologist with critics from MD. Just as interesting that no one seems to get that.

[_Rambo]

Kind of interesting that many of your items could easily switch apologist with critics from MD. Just as interesting that no one seems to get that.

Which ones stem?

[_Jason Bourne]

10. People who don't study church history and doctrine from outside sources are lazy and intransigent, whereas those who do and decide the church isn't true are guilty of pride and not following the brethren.

8. Apologetic theories continue to be valid after they have been debunked, and therefore it is fitting and proper to continue referring people to them.

7. When the Book of Mormon refers to swords that are stained with blood, that is a literal description of wooden swords, but its discussions of steel and smelting are not to be taken literally.

6. Church publications are doctrine, unless an apologist disagrees with their content.


1. Angels, prophets, and apostles cannot be trusted to teach us about church history or truth-claims. God has in these latter days brought forth apologists to do so.

My personal favorites.

[_Runtu]

Kind of interesting that many of your items could easily switch apologist with critics from MD. Just as interesting that no one seems to get that.

Oh, sure, you could switch them. I guess that makes me a hypocrite, right? That seems to be your point. Fair enough.

[_Buffalo]

When I saw them make a 180 degree turn on what SWK taught about the Lamanites in the 1970s I knew that the only way back to becoming a TBM again was if I got some official answers from the official pipeline on the Book of Mormon historicity issues. I went to see my bishop, then my SP, and I offfered to keep an open mind to whatever came down official channels. .

Did you really expect your bishop to show evidence that the Book of Mormon was true? Did you expect a gold tablet or a sign in a rock? All religion is faith based. Even exmos who no longer believe have faith in their new belief system but not on evidence but on what they hope.

Other religious have the advantage of being based largely upon historical people. Mormonism, along with Scientology, has a disadvantage there.

[_sock puppet]

10. People who don't study church history and doctrine from outside sources are lazy and intransigent, whereas those who do and decide the church isn't true are guilty of pride and not following the brethren.
9. It's fine to call me evil, a wolf in sheep's clothing, fake, phony, Satanic, and a lying anti-Mormon, but it is wrong to suggest that apologists tone down the hostility.
8. Apologetic theories continue to be valid after they have been debunked, and therefore it is fitting and proper to continue referring people to them.
7. When the Book of Mormon refers to swords that are stained with blood, that is a literal description of wooden swords, but its discussions of steel and smelting are not to be taken literally.
6. Church publications are doctrine, unless an apologist disagrees with their content.
5. Louis Midgely's vitriolic attack on RfM and ex-Mormons in general was a restrained and reasonable commentary, whereas my silly top ten list was "bigoted vomitus" worthy of a Grand Wizard or Gauleiter.
4. The simplest explanation for an alleged ancient record loaded with anachronisms and implausibilities is the involvement of angels and seer stones.
3. Will Schryver is a brilliant man interested only in proclaiming the truth, whereas Chris Smith is a career anti-Mormon whose hatred of the church can be traced to his being dumped by a Mormon girl when he was a teenager.
2. Knowledge of Egyptology is essential in forming a correct opinion on the Book of Abraham, unless you're that evil hack Robert Ritner.
1. Angels, prophets, and apostles cannot be trusted to teach us about church history or truth-claims. God has in these latter days brought forth apologists to do so.

Kind of interesting that many of your items could easily switch apologist with critics from MD. Just as interesting that no one seems to get that.

Just you, stem, with your superior powers of perception. Did your bosom burn when you thought of it?

[_madeleine]

This counsel can be followed or ignored.

I've never heard of LDS leaders giving a counsel that says their counsel can be ignored. Mormon apologists would say this, sure, and that is what I said I learned from Mormon apologists.