The surest sign that a Mormon apologist is losing a position is when they start saying, “that was never official doctrine”. It is being used so frequently, that intellectual honesty requires the apologist to recognize that greater understanding is being brought to Mormons by those labeled anti-Mormon. Also, the argument itself demonstrates that the leadership has been entirely unable to keep incorrect doctrine, speculation, legends, etc. from running rampant in the Mormon Church and Internet apologists are more effective at setting the doctrine straight than the divinely inspired leadership.
Since opposition to Mormon beliefs is the apologist’s definition of anti-Mormon, this naturally begs the question, what are Mormon beliefs? But here we immediately run into difficulties. This FAIR response (link) gives no definition of Mormon truth claims or doctrine except for:
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Given that neither Grant Palmer or the Tanners are in opposition to the above, then they could not be consider anti-Mormon according to the previously given definition.
Here is FAIR’s response to critic’s complaints regarding changing doctrine (link). In the response (or should we say concession) We see the apologist not deny that the doctrine is constantly changing, but instead ignore the negative aspects the critics point out and instead try to explain why this is a good thing. I pointed out previously, FAIR rarely answers the critics.
Since opposition to Mormon beliefs is the apologist’s definition of anti-Mormon, this naturally begs the question, what are Mormon beliefs? But here we immediately run into difficulties. This FAIR response (link) gives no definition of Mormon truth claims or doctrine except for:
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Given that neither Grant Palmer or the Tanners are in opposition to the above, then they could not be consider anti-Mormon according to the previously given definition.
Here is FAIR’s response to critic’s complaints regarding changing doctrine (link). In the response (or should we say concession) We see the apologist not deny that the doctrine is constantly changing, but instead ignore the negative aspects the critics point out and instead try to explain why this is a good thing. I pointed out previously, FAIR rarely answers the critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment