Page 1 of 18

DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:04 am
by Markk
I just cut and pasted a comment on Dan's blog. The last time I tried to have a conversation with him he cut me off so he could have the last word. I am just curious if he will allow my comment. I honestly do not think he understand that things have changed in the past 25 years of so, especially post Essays and podcasts.
DCP wrote...I can’t count the number of conversations about my own religious beliefs that I’ve had with others, especially with often quite exercised evangelical Protestants, in which they’ve said to me “You believe x!” and I’ve responded not only that, no, I don’t believe x but that, in fact, I’m unaware of anybody in my church who believes x. To which the challenger then responds “But that’s what your church teaches!” To which I’ve replied that, in all of my (now) many decades as a member and a missionary and a teacher and a writer and a sometime leader for my church, and as a long-time resident of Utah and a long-time professor of my church’s flagship university, I’ve never taught or been taught x as Church doctrine.” “Well, that’s still what your church believes!” answers the challenger. And, sometimes, if the challenger is especially well-equipped, he or (very occasionally) she will present me with a decontextualized supporting quotation from Journal of Discourses 14:234 or from an obscure 1950s book by a long forgotten member of the First Council of Seventy or a onetime Institute teacher that seems to endorse x. Seldom if ever, by the way, a passage that the challenger discovered on his or her own via serious research. Instead, it’s typically one that he or she came across while skimming through an anti-Mormon website.
Such as? What is ironic, that those "anti Mormon" web sites these days, more often than not, quote history that the church now concedes on LDS .org, or even the interpreter or FAIR.... etc.

How about those that were born and raised in the church, and those that served missions and held callings, in which they taught teachings that the church now concedes as being false or can me shown clearly false with a simple google search? Like the Stone in the Hat, or Joseph actually has sex with many of his wives. How about facsimile 3 and Josephs clear inability to translate Egyptian? Or maybe Lucy Walkers sad existence as a wife of Joseph Smith.

Dan, I would love to see you expound on just what those "exercised evangelical Protestants," who are "skimming through" teachings and doctrines of CoJCoLdS past teachings are today.

Dan, it is 2024, things have changed, big time. The debates have evolved from "Adieu" and the KJV only arguments we used to have 25 -30 years ago. The narrative is today, as Bushman asserted, is a narrative that can't survive today.

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:05 am
by Gadianton
He's living in your mind Markk, you just can't let it go.

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:22 am
by Markk
Gadianton wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:05 am
He's living in your mind Markk, you just can't let it go.
Lol that one got to you ha Gad's. LoL....

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:45 am
by drumdude
I’m thoroughly unimpressed by the new crop of apologists, if what they’re doing can be considered “living in the future.”

I’m thinking of apologists like Travis Anderson, and Bobby Boylan. Apparently their childish debates with clueless evangelicals on YouTube are popular with missionaries in the field. If that’s the future, the Mormon church is in serious trouble!

I don’t really blame Dan for resting on his laurels. The new Mormon apologists must similarly disappoint him.

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:58 am
by Markk
drumdude wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:45 am
I’m thoroughly unimpressed by the new crop of apologists, if what they’re doing can be considered “living in the future.”

I’m thinking of apologists like Travis Anderson, and Bobby Boylan. Apparently their childish debates with clueless evangelicals on YouTube are popular with missionaries in the field. If that’s the future, the Mormon church is in serious trouble!

I don’t really blame Dan for resting on his laurels. The new Mormon apologists must similarly disappoint him.
My assertion is that his laurels are old, tired, and pretty much debunked. What he wrote is not even relevant given these days. Dan won't even engage anymore unless he own the narrative on his blog.

I have no idea who the two are you mentioned above, LoL, maybe I am the out dated one...but thanks, I will google them.

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 4:32 am
by Kishkumen
In my view, Mormon apologetics have lost, and Orthodox Christianity has the best case.

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 5:52 am
by Philo Sofee
Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2024 4:32 am
In my view, Mormon apologetics have lost, and Orthodox Christianity has the best case.
With the caveat that no Orthodoxy anywhere has ever arrived at the truth, I would agree here.......maybe not even an established Christianity as a formal religion per se. Is there such a thing as "spiritual Christianity"? Heck I dunno........ formal religions in my mind have lost the war, but has spirituality? I'm mulling it over.........

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:15 am
by I Have Questions
Markk wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2024 3:04 am
I just cut and pasted a comment on Dan's blog. The last time I tried to have a conversation with him he cut me off so he could have the last word. I am just curious if he will allow my comment. I honestly do not think he understand that things have changed in the past 25 years of so, especially post Essays and podcasts.
DCP wrote...I can’t count the number of conversations about my own religious beliefs that I’ve had with others, especially with often quite exercised evangelical Protestants, in which they’ve said to me “You believe x!” and I’ve responded not only that, no, I don’t believe x but that, in fact, I’m unaware of anybody in my church who believes x. To which the challenger then responds “But that’s what your church teaches!” To which I’ve replied that, in all of my (now) many decades as a member and a missionary and a teacher and a writer and a sometime leader for my church, and as a long-time resident of Utah and a long-time professor of my church’s flagship university, I’ve never taught or been taught x as Church doctrine.” “Well, that’s still what your church believes!” answers the challenger. And, sometimes, if the challenger is especially well-equipped, he or (very occasionally) she will present me with a decontextualized supporting quotation from Journal of Discourses 14:234 or from an obscure 1950s book by a long forgotten member of the First Council of Seventy or a onetime Institute teacher that seems to endorse x. Seldom if ever, by the way, a passage that the challenger discovered on his or her own via serious research. Instead, it’s typically one that he or she came across while skimming through an anti-Mormon website.
Where is Dan having these conversations? It’s not in his blog comments, it’s not on a discussion board. So where?

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:16 am
by Moksha
Why hasn't Dr. Peterson taken the Shulem Challenge? Would LDS apologetics prove insufficient for that task?

Re: DCP, living in the past.

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2024 12:13 pm
by Kishkumen
Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2024 5:52 am
Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2024 4:32 am
In my view, Mormon apologetics have lost, and Orthodox Christianity has the best case.
With the caveat that no Orthodoxy anywhere has ever arrived at the truth, I would agree here.......maybe not even an established Christianity as a formal religion per se. Is there such a thing as "spiritual Christianity"? Heck I dunno........ formal religions in my mind have lost the war, but has spirituality? I'm mulling it over.........
I am talking purely in terms of being the original Christianity. I am someone who believes that Jesus did not start a church, and that there really was no Christian (proto-)orthodoxy of any kind until the second century CE.