Jump to content

Ian Law

New Member
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ian Law

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void
  1. That's quite the mixed metaphor! However, it does not answer my question why CES cannot be in charge of overseeing apologetics materials and apologists report to the bishop or stake president as a calling.
  2. I am not stating every apologist should report directly to the First Presidency or even to the CES office. But certainly a structure for apologists can be put in place at the ward/branch or stake level. And CES could be put in charge of coordinating and publishing apologetics materials. This way the church could exercise much greater accountability from apologists and apologetics.
  3. I am sure the church would put careful thought and prayer into the name. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?
  4. I think one of the big problems here is that apologists seem to operate independently of the church. I could not imagine the church allowing or dismissing as "no big deal" with the acronym "TITS" if the videos were produced by CES insted of FM. And certainly I could not imagine apologists reposting and doubling down on violent and graphic videos against its critics if apologists were directly accountable to CES, the bishop, or the stake president for their calling. The big takeaway from these incidents is that the time has come for the church to exercise direct oversight over apologetics a
×
×
  • Create New...