Thinking caps needed-apologists of note?

[_kairos]

For you who have been following and often engaging the Mopologists for some time, are there any who deserve respect for their logic, analysis, civility ,scholarship and the desire to find the "truth ' about Mormonism- its founding, its history, its doctrine/theology?

Personally, I think only BH Roberts fits that criteria- no one else comes to mind!

Any candidates on your list?

Thanx
k

[_Mormon Think]

Not sure I would define him as a mopologist but how about Richard Bushman. He is liked by both faithful and critic and is pretty darn honest in his writings.

Bill

[_candygal]

Not sure I would define him as a mopologist but how about Richard Bushman. He is liked by both faithful and critic and is pretty darn honest in his writings.

Bill

There you go...Bushman.

[_Stem]

For you who have been following and often engaging the Mopologists for some time, are there any who deserve respect for their logic, analysis, civility ,scholarship and the desire to find the "truth ' about Mormonism- its founding, its history, its doctrine/theology?

Personally, I think only BH Roberts fits that criteria- no one else comes to mind!

Any candidates on your list?

Thanx
k

I've read all of Teryl Givens books over the years, except his newest one. I've enjoyed him and his wife. I hear some traditionalists don't care much for him and think he's trying to lead people away from the top 15 or something. But I think with any LDS thinker you'll get some of that.

[_kairos]

In response to BH Roberts finding a major difficulty with "horses" in the Book of Mormon time frame, Talmage told Roberts and the brethen - " Well if the Book of Mormon states there were horses, then by golly there were horses". He had to answer that way or his whole Mormon world would probably collapse around him.

We know apologists often layer so much BS around a "difficulty " they are trying to resolve,like horses, that the searching Saint is often confused in all the "maybe, could be, chance,cannot rule it out phrases that the searching Saint will just toss the difficulty in to the Black Box or put it on the shelf it seems to me.

But for now who if any among apologists tackle difficulties head on and admit inability to answer a tough question? And do it with scholarship and civility- by the way Bushman seems to be a nice guy but i am not sure he has ever addressed Book of Mormon evidence difficulties that the FARMERS tackled.

My limited reading of Givens is that he is more about soothing the pain of doubt in the membership.

k

[_moksha]

... logic, analysis, civility, scholarship and the desire to find the "truth ' about Mormonism...

Seems like David Bokovoy used to fit that description. The quest for finding the truth takes its toll.

[_Doctor Scratch]

For you who have been following and often engaging the Mopologists for some time, are there any who deserve respect for their logic, analysis, civility ,scholarship and the desire to find the "truth ' about Mormonism- its founding, its history, its doctrine/theology?

Personally, I think only BH Roberts fits that criteria- no one else comes to mind!

Any candidates on your list?

Thanx
k

Hi there, kairos.

I think you may have your terminology mixed up a bit. An LDS apologist includes pretty much anyone who speaks up on behalf of Mormonism, and so, yes, that would include everyone from Louis Midgley, Matt Roper, and Bill Hamblin, to Teryl Givens, Richard Bushman, David Bokovoy, and Kevin Barney.

Mopologists, on the other hand, are a different breed: they are defined by their lack of ethics, viciousness, and dishonesty. In this category you find people like Dan Peterson, John Gee, and Greg Smith. I understand how people can get confused by the crossover, but I think that the distinction between the two groups is important.

As to your actual question (and assuming that you really did mean *Mo*pologists), then the answer is: No, there's nobody. The Mopologists--by definition--are the opposite of what you're describing.

[_Philo Sofee]

I personally would go with Kevin Barney and David Bokovoy. Barney intrigues me because he is so gosh damn well read, and KNOWS the problems, and KNOWS they are fatal problems to testimony, yet he remains. Almost teeters on hypocrisy, but he is not hypocritical like so many of the Mopes are. Neither is Bokovoy.