Are the Apologists 'Set Apart' by the Brethren?

[_Gadianton]

Trevor,

Do you think it's possible that some of the apologists have prayed about how to undermine Meldrum?

[_Trevor]

Trevor,

Do you think it's possible that some of the apologists have prayed about how to undermine Meldrum?

Possible? Of course. And it is also possible that they have not.

[_harmony]

Both Meldrum and the apologists are motivated by similar things, but Meldrum does not have the Church backing that some of the apologists who disagree with him have. I would think that Meldrum is likely to either change his tune or leave.

Do you think he will be given the choice to leave voluntarily or be booted, if he doesn't get in line with the apologists? His sources are always official, aren't they, unlike the apologists, who make things up as they go along a lot of the time.

[_Trevor]

Do you think he will be given the choice to leave voluntarily or be booted, if he doesn't get in line with the apologists? His sources are always official, aren't they, unlike the apologists, who make things up as they go along a lot of the time.

Well, he always has a choice when it comes to submitting to authority, no?

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, if they work at BYU, I'd agree. But I think the stickler point is... are they blessed and set apart as apologists? And I don't think you've proved they are... or even that they might be.

Yeah, I never said apologists were, only that religion professors were at the time I was attending BYU. Frankly, I think it little matters whether apologists are set apart or not. They are on the errand of God, and it is a slothful and unwise servant who has to be commanded in all things, etc...

That's true, but I think it's important to remember the chain of authority that exists in Mormonism. While the apologists might not have been commanded in *ALL* things, I do very much think that there was some kind of ecclesiastical sanction involved in all of this. Perhaps, even, the sort of sanction inherent in a blessing, or in being set apart as paid Church apologists.

[_Trevor]

That's true, but I think it's important to remember the chain of authority that exists in Mormonism. While the apologists might not have been commanded in *ALL* things, I do very much think that there was some kind of ecclesiastical sanction involved in all of this. Perhaps, even, the sort of sanction inherent in a blessing, or in being set apart as paid Church apologists.

The "sanction" given was bringing in FARMS as part of Brigham Young University. An actual setting apart is hardly necessary. Besides, apologia is not the same as teaching Religion courses.

*edit*

If you really want to go after the apologists, why not start phatty-l to coordinate your secret efforts?

[_Mister Scratch]

That's true, but I think it's important to remember the chain of authority that exists in Mormonism. While the apologists might not have been commanded in *ALL* things, I do very much think that there was some kind of ecclesiastical sanction involved in all of this. Perhaps, even, the sort of sanction inherent in a blessing, or in being set apart as paid Church apologists.

The "sanction" given was bringing in FARMS as part of Brigham Young University. An actual setting apart is hardly necessary. Besides, apologia is not the same as teaching Religion courses.

Hmm. Maybe. Though I would imagine that many of the apologists feel like they are "instructing" the legions of boneheaded Chapel Mormons.

*edit*

If you really want to go after the apologists, why not start phatty-l to coordinate your secret efforts?

No, Trevor. I will never stoop to that level of gang-style tactics. I prefer to leave that kind of chicanery to the Mopologists.

[_Jason Bourne]

by the way: you did read Trevor's post, right? Chalk up another point in favor of me, my friend. I think that you should concede that there is a very strong possibility that the apologists are blessed and/or set apart by the Brethren.

It is certainly plausible sure. So perhaps my initial reaction was too strong. But really, I doubt it is a call or they are set apart at all. I see no reason at all. And if they are what difference does it make. It seems to me that you are trying once again to make it seem conspiratorial. YOu know, they get paid copious amounts of money, are doing all what you view as mean and nasty under the direction of the brethren and now they are set apart which of course would help your case the brethren are in on all this. Personally if they are not they ought to be. Defending the faith seems to be a mandate in both the Bible and LDS canon.

So sure, maybe they are set apart. But we have no evidence. Just conjecture.

[_harmony]

Hmm. Maybe. Though I would imagine that many of the apologists feel like they are "instructing" the legions of boneheaded Chapel Mormons.

Surely that is the task of the Brethren?

[_Dr. Shades]

Personally, I rather think the (lack of) evidence points to them not being set apart by the Brethren.

If they had been set apart thusly, wouldn't that be an "ace-in-the-hole" in their inevitable crusade against Meldrum? Wouldn't they immediately win over legions of the faithful with the one sentence, "We at the Maxwell Institute have been set apart by the Brethren to conduct apologetics, but Meldrum has not?"