Worthwhile Apologists on MDB.

[_Trevor]

I don't know if he would style himself as an apologist, but I think Consiglieri does a good job.

That's a good question. Consiglieri seems to be at odds with many of the apologists out there, but I know he has expressed admiration for LDS apologetics. My guess is that he likes inspiring and exciting scholarship, but he is not so much for the polemics.

[_Ray A]

Strawman. That would be a scientific hypothesis which I have not claimed. Mine is more like a working hypothesis. Feel free to test it though. You have the empirical evidence, you have the doctrine. How do they conflict? The more decades pass (nearly two now) without conflicting only strengthens the notion that LDS doctrine and science don't conflict.

It's not hard to understand why Dawkins refuses to debate creationists (Gould didn't either).

Enjoy your Celestial fantasies.

[_Ray A]

... Change like the wind panderers. ...

Reminds me of someone ...

That line was actually written with you in mind. We will henceforth see who the real "change like the wind panderers" are. Given how much your Church has back-pedalled, dodged and denied, you’re skating on thin ice. Apart from the fact that you’re an absolute ratbag of an apologist, I hope your daughter is doing well.

[_Ray A]

My opinion hasn't changed. The apologists who post here aren't worth the skin off a fart. Daniel Peterson, having withdrawn after failing to impose his curelom ego on posters here, is still away with the pixies lecturing potential dupes on the "historicity" of the Book of Mormon, in spite of the fact that a prominent ex-Mormon (by force) scholar has clearly and unambiguously shown that the Book of Mormon falls into the category of pseudepigrapha (and many other non-Mormon scholars, none the less than Charlesworth himself).

When will honesty finally bite them on the butt?

[_bcspace]

Strawman. That would be a scientific hypothesis which I have not claimed. Mine is more like a working hypothesis. Feel free to test it though. You have the empirical evidence, you have the doctrine. How do they conflict? The more decades pass (nearly two now) without conflicting only strengthens the notion that LDS doctrine and science don't conflict.

It's not hard to understand why Dawkins refuses to debate creationists (Gould didn't either).

Enjoy your Celestial fantasies.

Yet I am not a creationist. And so your invective falls flat once again.

[_Ray A]

Yet I am not a creationist. And so your invective falls flat once again.

You are an obscurantist, or in other words, an apologist. When you finally start dealing with facts, and credible higher criticism of fictional texts, give me a buzz, but don't wake me up with false alarms and more obscurantism.

[_bcspace]

Yet I am not a creationist. And so your invective falls flat once again.

You are an obscurantist, or in other words, an apologist.

Is that from some sort of outback thesaurus?

When you finally start dealing with facts, and credible higher criticism of fictional texts, give me a buzz, but don't wake me up with false alarms and more obscurantism.

Feel free to list any facts I have ignored. You'll probably need some evidence that what you list are indeed facts.

[_Simon Belmont]

Here is my count so far: 0

That which you hate so much, you created, Ray.

[_Ray A]

Feel free to list any facts I have ignored. You'll probably need some evidence that what you list are indeed facts.

I have previously listed them, ad nauseam, and not even the MI has sufficiently dealt with them. The Maxwell Smart apologists keep redefining straightforward terms, and shifting the goal posts. But here's a simple test for you: name me one credible biblical scholar who takes the Book of Mormon seriously as history. It clearly falls into apocryphal works, but the admission of that will never come.

When apologists finally cull more whistle-blowers like Kent Jackson, and finally start to accept the reality, and start telling the truth, then we may say that they have finally adopted "respectable apologetics". Until then, Mopologetics is a better term.

Your problem is you'll defend, defend, defend, just for the sake of defending. It's clear you're only here to put up superficial props to hold up the fast crumbling structure of Mopologetics, in all its various forms, not just the MI breed.

[_Willy Law]

I haven't seen any apologist lose an argument on this board. Most have left because of personal attacks.

Of course you haven't. Apologists are notorious for disappearing when they are faced with uncomfortable questions that they do not want to answer.

How would someone win or lose an argument anyway?
All the underlying facts are, just that, facts. How do you argue a fact?
All there is to argue is one person's conclusion that they have taken from those facts.
With that in mind, would it be safe to say that they only way an apologist could ever "lose" an argument would be for him to reverse his conclusion?r

Simple example would be the 1st Vision.
You cannot argue the facts which are:
-There are multiple versions given
-Few if any of the early church leaders or members knew about it
You can take a different conclusions from those facts than I can but how could you ever win or lose an argument about the first vision?

Another example would be section 132. You cannot win or lose an argument with me about section 132. I believe those are not the words of Jesus Christ, you have stated that you believe they are. How can you win that argument unless I were to change my position and decide that I now believe that Jesus is for marrying 10 virgins and destroying women for not accepting it?
Your problem, why me is that you are myopic and lack empathy for those with differing opinions. No big deal, it is pretty common around here.