DiscussMormonism.com

Mopologists are among the most "anti" Mormons around, for they will deny truthfulness of certain matters in the wrongful assumption they are defending the faith when in fact they are harming it. Mopology is no different than any other apologetics and their homers for their home side.

The only "anti" anywhere in the world is the individual who is anti-truth and quite resentful of having his or her wrong ideas pointed out. On this forum, the more particular and evidenced the noting of wrong ideas correlates to the ever hardening of the heart of the mopologist.

How come you don't have any examples, at least none that apply to me? You must be making this up.

If and when you do, I will.

Curious, would you prefer them to say, "This issue is a matter of our faith no matter how you try and assail it", rather than giving tortuous explanations?

What I prefer is the approach of the honest broker: I care only about developing a factual grasp of the historical artifacts that create a logical narrative. Sure, I wish the mopologists would understand what the Catholicopolgists have generally come to understand: any human organization (even a Kingdom of God that is run by humans) is going to have some very, very sad events happen because the leaders are human. Look at Saul who is not killing who he had been commanded to kill while Samson is whaling away with a thighbone of an jackass; David the youth kills the right guy as a youth, does not kill the king when he gets the chance, and then sends a man to his death because he, now the king, wants the dude's wife. I mean, wow! I bet buncha guys want other guys women but they don't send their husbands or boyfriends off to Iraq or Afghanistan! Yeah, why can't the mopologists say "this is a matter of faith, and it's hammer time: you can't touch this." I do respect that, because if I realize that when I raise my hand and volunteer my faith walk involves believing (as I do) a dead man sat up in a tomb two thousand years ago, many of my buds are going to laugh their heads off. That's OK, you know. I can feel a bit sad for them, but I am not going to give torturous explanations.

Sure, I wish the mopologists would understand what the Catholicopolgists have generally come to understand: any human organization (even a Kingdom of God that is run by humans) is going to have some very, very sad events happen because the leaders are human.

A curious statement. "Mopologists" actually do understand this and mention it quite often but the critics can't seem to accept it. It's even built into the way the LDS Church handles doctrine as well as authority (D&C 107).

Two assertions and a reference. No presentation, discussion, and conclusion. Looks like apologetics to me.

Two assertions and a reference. No presentation, discussion, and conclusion. Looks like apologetics to me.

You started it by providing no references or examples for your assertion.

bcspace wrote:

Two assertions and a reference. No presentation, discussion, and conclusion. Looks like apologetics to me.

You started it by providing no references or examples for your assertion.

The continual fight by mopologists to excuse and exclude Young and Smith from any culpability in the MMM, for starters. Turley's work simply was unable to competently remove the liability from BY and GAS.

Under today's concept of command of reponsibility, developed to indict and convict and execute General Yamashita and General Homma in WWII, both fellows would have and should have been indicted for mass murder.

The continual fight by mopologists to excuse and exclude Young and Smith from any culpability in the MMM, for starters.

When you have actual evidence of culpability let us know. It is not enough that deep down in your soul you believe they are culpable and want evidence to come into being ex nihilo.