Polygamy justification?

[UtahDan]

I already tried that bait. He clearly isn't biting.

Everyone knows: I'm a hack.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Solon won the Best Gentile Cuffie. SU won a separate award for Most Beloved Apostate (not to be confused with the Most Beloved Prostate Cuffie held by PAC).

Oops. My bad.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Let's cut to the chase. Which one was it?

I was abusing my polygamous wife.

I already tried that bait. He clearly isn't biting.

You just missed it.

[Jarid in Cedar]

lol! They said that about you?!?!

Yeah, I have them fooled.

[SeattleUte]

I don't think you qualify as an apostate. I am going to start referring to you as a "hard-core less-active." (Not an official designation, just one I made up.)

I don't call you a jack Mormon. Kindly refer to my status vis-a-vis Mormonism as I have defined it.

[Rosebud]

New book by Brian C. Hales

This hardly belongs in this thread anymore... but fyi:

I just found out that Brian C. Hales has taken the baton from Compton and is working on a book that addresses the consummation of JS's plural marriages. He's a bit of an apologist but the book will likely be factually correct. It will be published next year.

[LA Ute]

He's a bit of an apologist but . . . .

Apologists are people too . . . .

[il Padrino Ute]

This hardly belongs in this thread anymore... but fyi:

I just found out that Brian C. Hales has taken the baton from Compton and is working on a book that addresses the consummation of JS's plural marriages. He's a bit of an apologist but the book will likely be factually correct. It will be published next year.

Wait for it....

[UtahDan]

This hardly belongs in this thread anymore... but fyi:

I just found out that Brian C. Hales has taken the baton from Compton and is working on a book that addresses the consummation of JS's plural marriages. He's a bit of an apologist but the book will likely be factually correct. It will be published next year.

Do you know whether it is an apologetic work so I know whether to skip it?

[Indy Coug]

Do you know whether it is an apologetic work so I know whether to skip it?

One thing I've learned is that apologists aren't honest, but unapologists are.

[UtahDan]

One thing I've learned is that apologists aren't honest, but unapologists are.

I don't think anyone with an agenda is objective, honest is something totally different. I don't imagine many people write knowing they are being dishonest. I think the closest you come to something worth reading is a Bushman who says "here is my bias, but I'm going to try to give it to you straight anyway."

When I am reading history or science or the like, I enjoy hearing arguments from the evidence, not simply selected evidence in support of the predetermined argument. Apologetics or "attack" materials are the latter and are not that interesting to me as a student of history. Apologetics have their place, but on this particular subject hold little interest for me.

[myboynoah]

I like the word "apostate" in the sense that it is piled onto me by many of my wife's family. I kind of wear it like a badge to remind me of the trail that lead me to this point.

For your second question, my name is still on the roles. The home teachers visit monthly. My wife has and always will be active. I have been the EQ's quarterly project on a routine basis over the last 10 years(we've lived in 5 wards over that time). It's laughable how many times the following phrase has been applied to me and my wife "She is such a sweet sister, and he is such a good honest person, I just can't see why he doesn't come to church." This is generally the sstatement that generates a few inquiries into "what my hang ups are and what questions can we help you with", but most of these well meaning elders don't really want to talk about these things when they ask.

For definition purpose, I thought apostate meant one that is a member but doesn't follow(had fallen away), and ex-member was the term for someone who had be removed from the rolls(by their choice or by church action).

Jeesh Jarid, you're not even on the no contact list. As far as labels go, sadly, I think we've got to go with "less active LDS Ute Fan," or "LALUF" for short.

[LA Ute]

As far as labels go, sadly, I think we've got to go with "less active LDS Ute Fan," or "LALUF" for short.

Some would call that redundant.

They would be wrong, of course.

[myboynoah]

Some would call that redundant.

They would be wrong, of course.

I find that SU is wrong about many things.

[LA Ute]

I don't think anyone with an agenda is objective, honest is something totally different. I don't imagine many people write knowing they are being dishonest. I think the closest you come to something worth reading is a Bushman who says "here is my bias, but I'm going to try to give it to you straight anyway."

When I am reading history or science or the like, I enjoy hearing arguments from the evidence, not simply selected evidence in support of the predetermined argument. Apologetics or "attack" materials are the latter and are not that interesting to me as a student of history. Apologetics have their place, but on this particular subject hold little interest for me.

From that great authoritiative source, Wikipedia:

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.[1] Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, rhetorical persuasion and other disciplines.

Seems to me there's nothing wrong with apologetics as long as the apologist's agenda is known - mand any decent apologist makes his point of view clear. (C.S. Lewis, e.g.) In the theological/philosophical sense, the views of apologists are very important and should not be discounted. As long as the apologist tells the truth, he/she can try to explain, defend, or put into context the truth, without losing credibility. I viewed Rough Stone Rolling as apologetic in nature.