The death of the Mormon Apologist - RIP 1832-2015

[_KevinSim]

lostindc, i hear what you are saying. the apologists (i never considered kevin to be one, by the way) have left all the venues where they do not control the conversation. that isn't unique to the apologists though. the bloggernacle started doing that a long time ago. m* and bcc, among others strictly protected the conversations and deleted comments and banned posters. fair was very quick to do the same. mad too. they were able to grow and thrive by hosting very narrow bands of thought and conversation.

i think Facebook and their little blogs and communities give the apologists what they need and want, which is - the center of attention wherever they write or opine. it is a model that works, especially among Mormons. and especially among exmormons where participants are actually looking for a new leader to at be the center of their s***.

i also do not think this means the death of the apologist. they are busier and more opinionated than ever. they just restrict their comments to areas that do not tolerate scrutiny.

So I'm not an apologist because I don't restrict my "comments to areas that do not tolerate scrutiny"? I think I'll take that as a compliment!

[_Sethbag]

The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't true either, and they're not on the verge of collapse. For that matter, there's all sorts of churches out there peddling BS that are likewise not on the verge of collapse, despite the sanitizing light of truth as we've been able to ascertain it over the last couple hundred years.

Where do we get this idea that since the church isn't true, it must be doomed? What history bears this out?

I do think the church will change, and probably shrink somewhat, but for most of the same reasons the other churches continue to exist despite teaching falsehoods, it's not going away anytime soon.

[_Chap]

The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't true either, and they're not on the verge of collapse. For that matter, there's all sorts of churches out there peddling BS that are likewise not on the verge of collapse, despite the sanitizing light of truth as we've been able to ascertain it over the last couple hundred years.

Where do we get this idea that since the church isn't true, it must be doomed? What history bears this out?

I do think the church will change, and probably shrink somewhat, but for most of the same reasons the other churches continue to exist despite teaching falsehoods, it's not going away anytime soon.

Yup. It's not just churches that have discovered that the question people usually ask first is not 'Is this true', but 'Do I like the feeling I get when I tell myself that this is true?'

And if the answer is 'Yes', most people stop there. They don't even want to hear anything that might raise a doubt. It works for MLM, Madoff-style investment schemes with implausibly high returns, and a lot else besides.

[_RockSlider]

I suspect that the withdrawal from these types of fora has been encouraged by church leadership, who probably didn't like what they were seeing or hearing about how defenders of the faith were coping. Of course none of them will ever admit it's because that they've been dealt a losing hand of cards. But I think that is the harsh reality obvious to everyone outside that precious bubble.

You had me until the last paragraph. I doubt church leadership cares what happens on the forums, and it would never occur to them that there are any problems with the defense of the faith, other than the message not getting out clearly enough (and people not relying on their faith enough).

Rather there was instruction from above or not ... I think the interesting thing is that instead of what beastie points out was their first reasons for leaving (too bitter), the reasons were now replaced with a more high and mighty, we are too good for the Trailer Park, it is polluting our souls type of reasoning. This appeared to be a MAD spearheaded/organized effect by a few to encourage all to leave.

we are just not worthy!

[_Nightlion]

The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't true either, and they're not on the verge of collapse. For that matter, there's all sorts of churches out there peddling BS that are likewise not on the verge of collapse, despite the sanitizing light of truth as we've been able to ascertain it over the last couple hundred years.

Where do we get this idea that since the church isn't true, it must be doomed? What history bears this out?

I do think the church will change, and probably shrink somewhat, but for most of the same reasons the other churches continue to exist despite teaching falsehoods, it's not going away anytime soon.

This is what I was thinking and would have posted the same until I read it here.

The LDS Church has officially been a lost and fallen husk of the Restoration for a generation or more, the same now as The Church of Christ and whatever it is that the old Reorganized LDS Church calls itself today. The conflict has withdrawn in a cunning attempt to bore this board out of existence. Without conflict there is no drama and no drama means no excitement and no excitement means boredom.

Makes me wonder why a few articulate cockatrices want to offend me the heck out of here. I'm 'bout all the conflict you got.

ETA: Maybe them snakes are secret agents of the KILL THE TRAILER PARK COMMITTEE. They need all the drama out of here and the sooner the better......for who?

I do not think it DCP's plan. He still allows me to post comments on his Facebook. Some are real snappers too.

[_sock puppet]

Apologetics cannot withstand the sanitizing sunlight of the Information Age, as accelerated by the Internet, nor the accompanying questions and counter arguments.

I welcome "the sanitizing sunlight of the Information Age." There's very little about what that sunlight has revealed that I have ever bothered to dispute; instead I simply disagree that that kind of stuff has a significant effect on whether or not people should believe in God as described by the LDS Church.

Kevin,

I think your defending tools are not classical apologetic ones. You do not dress your arguments up in publications that look like they are serious scholarly, academic journals to give an air of having passed real peer-review scrutiny.

If you detach your god from the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, then what is left of god "as described by the LDS Church" that is not a confused being and otherwise run of the mill Christian dogma? The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are laughable in light of what they and the LDS Church proclaim them to be. The god "as described by the LDS Church" as evidenced, say, by the D&C seems to be very, very confused entity.

[Guest]

The bottom line is the mopologists are heretics. They're advancing a different gospel than that of an official Church narrative (see: BCSpace's definition for 'official').

I'm surprised it had taken this long for the Church to put a stop to it. Those chosen disciples of Christ smart businessmen at the top can see a hostile takeover soft coup d'etat when it's happening.

If you don't think the ziggurat debacle was the beginning of the end for those guys, then you're not paying attention.

I mean if this doesn't put the fear of James Strang into you then I don't know what does:



- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I think Facebook and their little blogs and communities give the apologists what they need and want, which is - the center of attention wherever they write or opine. it is a model that works, especially among Mormons. and especially among exmormons where participants are actually looking for a new leader to at be the center of their s***.

i also do not think this means the death of the apologist. they are busier and more opinionated than ever. they just restrict their comments to areas that do not tolerate scrutiny. this site is unique in that it does not immediately ban or edit comments. if you look at movements in the exmormons or venues where the apologists play, they do not look like this place.

I agree with this thought. There are those who prefer a niche market of ideas over the public forums. From all sides, and well outside of Mormonism. It's one of those things about the internet that it enables people who prefer spending their time with other people of like minds (meaning pretty much everyone) to be really selective in just how narrowly they define "likeminded". You have to be a perversely disagreeable arse to prefer it otherwise I guess. Or so I've heard.

[_cwald]

The best this forum can do is claim is Kevinsim and Tobin as LDS inc APOLOGIST?


JHC!

Point well taken lostindc.

Mak, maybe an apologist...but KS and Tobin....blahahaha. That is some funny crap man. ...

Serious question boys.... when was the last time either of you attended the temple?

[_cwald]

PS.... sorry kevinSim, that you are even being discussed in the same post as Tobin. ... but that is where this thread has gone. ...