Bryce Haymond wrote:
They even go so far as to determinedly conclude that it is Mormon apologetics, in fact, that is having a negative influence on the Church, which you’ll notice is completely backwards from its true meaning and purpose. Indeed, they are saying that the defenders are now essentially those doing the damage, which is almost comical in its twistedness.
I agree. It is comical. What's even more comical is how un-self-aware apologists can be about it.
Completely baffling. Haymond acts as if by simply pointing out that a negative impact on the church is completely backwards from the true meaning and purpose of apologetics, he has effectively disproven than any such negative impact can exist. Because human endeavors always result in their intended effects, I suppose? There is no such thing as an unintended consequence?
This is like arguing that there's no way that Prohibition could have exacerbated the societal ills surrounding alcohol, because that's completely backwards from the law's true meaning and purpose!