moksha wrote:Ray, I can glance over there and see worthwhile apologists. Is this a case of concentrating on some rat droppings instead of seeing the barrel full of apples? Here are some criteria I would use in distinguishing the worthwhile ones:
1. Friendly and caring 2. Willing to see the whole picture 3. Able to admit mistakes, shortcomings and failures when they have occurred 4. Seeking to make Church a better experience for all concerned 5. Absolutely no "Lying for the Lord"
There are those who easily fall within that framework. Asbestosman is an excellent example.
Mudcat wrote:I don't know if he would style himself as an apologist, but I think Consiglieri does a good job.
Certainly there are a number of apologists that do a good job of representing their position to the readers of debates/discussion.
Consiglieri seems more concerned directly about the person he is in debate/discussion with and actually tries to compel them towards an agreement. That is when is not to busy pissing them off or something and he does a fine job of playing the crowd.
Regardless, I think when pressed Consig does best the job of presenting his position in a manner that actually might cause a change on the part of the adversarial party. He actually seems to be going for a win and that always impressed me.
Though certainly there a number of others who are more knowledgeable apologists and great debaters, I would say that when it gets down to brass tacks, Consig is the best "tactical" apologist on the board.
Thews wrote:To be like you Yahoo Bot, all one needs to do is become a proficient liar... like you. You spout lies and then hide for a week or two, but your lies won't go away. Please give me a CFR to the evidence you claimed as "impossible to ignore" regarding the historicity in Mormonism. Or you could choose one of the following as is your typical tactic:
1) Claim you've already answered the question (which you haven't) and go to great lengths to explain how, instead of just answering it.
2) Claim you're not interested in reading through your past posts where you lied, but failing to claim you aren't guilty.
3) Post a few "LOL" responses to your own retorts avoiding the question asked.
4) Playing the sympathy card in the hopes you'll garnish sympathy from apologists.
Bob can't help it, Thews. He's an attorney by trade. ;-)
moksha wrote:The most active LDS apologists on this board right now seem to be Simon, Bcspace, Ttribe. Gazelem and Droopy seem to be dropping off. There are so many I miss. DCP and Wade made this a hopping place. I liked Will Schryver too when he wasn't being a potty mouth. The more unreasonable apologists are here, the more lively this place becomes.
While in real life I am sure these defenders of the pretend are nice guys, I cannot take any of them serious nor can Igive them props for defending their pretend beliefs.
thews wrote:1) Claim you've already answered the question (which you haven't) and go to great lengths to explain how, instead of just answering it.
2) Claim you're not interested in reading through your past posts where you lied, but failing to claim you aren't guilty.
3) Post a few "LOL" responses to your own retorts avoiding the question asked.
I don't even know what "LOL" stands for. I don't use internet jargen. :highfive:
I'm willing to engage you in debate my friend, but please point to the specific post where you think I've lied to you.
As far as Book of Mormon evidence is concerned, I've never said there is specific evidence for the Book of Mormon. You've confused me for somebody else. I have referred to "paralel" evidence, which others have described as "circumstantial" (a term I don't think which fits).
The list of paralel is two lengthy for me to even recall, but I've sumarized a few in the past. Why would I do so again since you ignored my first attempt? Start a new thread and lets' do it.