Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It

[Nofear]

Many years ago some evangelicals wrote a provocative article: "Losing Battle & Not Knowing It"
https://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/losing-battle-not-knowing-it-carl-mosser-paul-owens-1997/

The basic thesis was that LDS apologetics and scholarship was dismantling many evangelical arguments against Mormonism. This Ward Radio episode reviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VpPzGH2Wg the state of things 29 years later.

Gemini generated summary: 

Quote

This video from Ward Radio's YouTube Channel, titled "Evangelical Anti-Mormons STILL Losing the Battle with Mormons... After A 29 Year Old Warning!", examines the ongoing intellectual and apologetic dialogue between Evangelical Christians and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

The discussion centers around a well-known paper originally presented by Evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen titled "Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It".

Core Themes & Key Takeaways

• The 29-Year-Old Warning: The hosts revisit the paper's original premise, which cautioned the Evangelical community that Latter-day Saint scholars were producing rigorous, peer-reviewed, and well-researched theological defenses that Evangelicals were largely ignoring or unprepared to address.

• Evangelical Misconceptions: The episode discusses how Evangelical counter-cult ministries historically dismissed Latter-day Saint theology as simplistic, failing to recognize the depth and academic rigor of LDS scholarship (such as work emerging from FARMS/BYU).

• Critique of Popular Apologetics: The hosts evaluate common anti-Mormon literature and responses (including works by figures like James White), arguing that many of these materials rely on outdated arguments, sensationalism, or straw-man representations rather than substantive engagement.

• The Persistence of Outdated Material: A key point of discussion is how Evangelical publishers have continued to circulate decades-old criticisms that LDS scholars had already addressed, reflecting an unheeded call within Evangelical scholarship to elevate their academic standards.

• Modern-Day Assessment: Looking at the landscape today, the hosts conclude that Mosser and Owen's warnings remain relevant, arguing that modern Evangelical engagement with Latter-day Saint apologetics still suffers from many of the same blind spots identified nearly three decades ago.

An fun example of just that thing was when Jacob Hansen met with several evangelicals and showed they simply couldn't understand his argument with rejoinders, "You just don't believe the Bible!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQuRx_7mf0k

You can find many other examples of diminishing returns of LDS contrary arguments: the decreasing number of anachronisms, archeology, apocryphal texts, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Many years ago some evangelicals wrote a provocative article: "Losing Battle & Not Knowing It"
https://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/losing-battle-not-knowing-it-carl-mosser-paul-owens-1997/

The basic thesis was that LDS apologetics and scholarship was dismantling many evangelical arguments against Mormonism. This Ward Radio episode reviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VpPzGH2Wg the state of things 29 years later.

Gemini generated summary: 

 

An fun example of just that thing was when Jacob Hansen met with several evangelicals and showed they simply couldn't understand his argument with rejoinders, "You just don't believe the Bible!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQuRx_7mf0k

You can find many other examples of diminishing returns of LDS contrary arguments: the decreasing number of anachronisms, archeology, apocryphal texts, etc.

Thoughts?

 

My thoughts are that there are plenty of blindspots to go around. As an Evangelical I am not unprepared; nor do I ignore our differences. I choose rather to engage in hotcakes with bacon well done. They bring more people together than all the apologetics in the world.  As an Evangelical I don't deny the LDS the fullness of their relationship with Christ. I might simply suggest that in denying the fullness of my participation in the Holy Spirit you have the blind spot which is generated by your apologista and doctrine. You may not even get to know me prior to assuring me that I cannot possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit as a non- LDS Christian. As some LDS have told me "It's nothing personal!" Ha, talk about a blind spot! Best wishes to you anyway!

 

[The Nehor]

I think it is more that 90%+ of their arguments against Mormonism work equally well as criticisms of their own faith.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think it is more that 90%+ of their arguments against Mormonism work equally well as criticisms of their own faith.

So we are all equal opportunity criticizers! That sounds to me like something @The Nehor would enjoy!

[Anakin7]

My Brother In Christ Jesus D. Charles Pyle and I met Carl Mosser many years ago, from memory he was Christlike and Charitable while visiting with us.

[BlipBlap]

19 hours ago, Nofear said:

Many years ago some evangelicals wrote a provocative article: "Losing Battle & Not Knowing It"
https://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/losing-battle-not-knowing-it-carl-mosser-paul-owens-1997/

The basic thesis was that LDS apologetics and scholarship was dismantling many evangelical arguments against Mormonism. This Ward Radio episode reviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VpPzGH2Wg the state of things 29 years later.

Gemini generated summary: 

 

An fun example of just that thing was when Jacob Hansen met with several evangelicals and showed they simply couldn't understand his argument with rejoinders, "You just don't believe the Bible!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQuRx_7mf0k

You can find many other examples of diminishing returns of LDS contrary arguments: the decreasing number of anachronisms, archeology, apocryphal texts, etc.

Thoughts?

 

Bad apologetics is essentially a built-in feature for a lot of the evangelical side of the Protestant group.  It's a movement built more or less on "Catholics bad" and, at least to me, seems to be a religion for people who either want as little engagement as possible with theology or who are masochistic.  It has mass appeal because of the general lack of commitment and is attractive to people who want easy money (vocational pastors).  "Jesus Jesus Jesus, Bible Bible Bible.  Why yes, I do accept all major credit cards."

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Bad apologetics is essentially a built-in feature for a lot of the evangelical side of the Protestant group.  It's a movement built more or less on "Catholics bad" and, at least to me, seems to be a religion for people who either want as little engagement as possible with theology or who are masochistic.  It has mass appeal because of the general lack of commitment and is attractive to people who want easy money (vocational pastors).  "Jesus Jesus Jesus, Bible Bible Bible.  Why yes, I do accept all major credit cards."

Well Congratulations! I have been on this forum for around nine years now. I have never given anyone's post (that I remember) a down vote. Now I can't say that anymore! 

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, Nofear said:

Many years ago some evangelicals wrote a provocative article: "Losing Battle & Not Knowing It"
https://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/losing-battle-not-knowing-it-carl-mosser-paul-owens-1997/

The basic thesis was that LDS apologetics and scholarship was dismantling many evangelical arguments against Mormonism. This Ward Radio episode reviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VpPzGH2Wg the state of things 29 years later.

Gemini generated summary: 

 

An fun example of just that thing was when Jacob Hansen met with several evangelicals and showed they simply couldn't understand his argument with rejoinders, "You just don't believe the Bible!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQuRx_7mf0k

You can find many other examples of diminishing returns of LDS contrary arguments: the decreasing number of anachronisms, archeology, apocryphal texts, etc.

Thoughts?

 

In my first response, I did so from a rather light-hearted, personal perspective. Let me simply add that I think the article you quote is spot-on. It was written twenty years or so ago and I think things have improved since then. I only would add my perspective that I hinted at before, that the blind spots, generalizing and normalizing are equally to be found among both groups. I claim to be able to say that because I have lived most of my life watching Evangelicalism evolve and I actually taught a few sessions of Old Testament study in a Mormon ward adult Sunday School (Gospel Doctrine class) as a non-member. The desire and thirst to understand the Bible was as great or perhaps even greater than when we moved on to the other LDS scriptures (which I did not teach)! At 77 years of age I no longer have the quest for confrontation that I had as a sixteen year old. Today (as I write this) I am aware of a greater sense of sadness about the tropes, straw men, and fallacious debates that are often had among our two groups (especially conservative traditional members of the LDS church and Fundamentalists (who I still rigorously maintain need to be understood by my LDs friends as distinct from Evanglicals. My personal experience is that there is pretty equal reluctance to budge from what is sometimes spuriously described as doctrine on both sides. That is why I enjoy hanging around this forum. All that noise is quite muted here. Sometimes I wish some of us could get together for hotcakes and bacon; something that in my experience might really bring us together (spoken maple syrup in cheek)!

[BlipBlap]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Well Congratulations! I have been on this forum for around nine years now. I have never given anyone's post (that I remember) a down vote. Now I can't say that anymore! 

Which is fine and all, but it doesn't really do much to refute the point I made.  All you have to do is look at CARM, the MRM, Youtube channels like "God Loves Mormons" or "Hello Saints", or just go out and talk to the rabble from groups like the Apologia Church who hang outside our church buildings and temples (mostly in Utah) to try to "witness" to us.  Even the linked article states much of what I said, just less bluntly.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

Which is fine and all, but it doesn't really do much to refute the point I made.  All you have to do is look at CARM, the MRM, Youtube channels like "God Loves Mormons" or "Hello Saints", or just go out and talk to the rabble from groups like the Apologia Church who hang outside our church buildings and temples (mostly in Utah) to try to "witness" to us.  Even the linked article states much of what I said, just less bluntly.

If you had made a point, I would not have downgraded your post (not you). Likes and dislikes are valuable currency in this forum. You are both generalizing and normalizing in your posts. Those are two of the five precursors to human conflict. They rarely, if ever, bring about understanding or dialogue. This is a dialogue forum. I haven't seen a desire in your few posts for much dialogue. Your statements are sweeping and written with certitude. Neither is the stuff of dialogue and consensus building. Methinks you are conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, two very distinct and often mad-at-each-other communities within conservative and middle-of-the-road non-LDS Christianity. Conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is kind of like conflating LeBaron and Kingdom of God Mormonism with LDS Mormonism here where I live. BTW, it surprises me that you are opposed to "witnessing." So are you equally opposed when LDS missionaries "witness?" Take care. 

[BlipBlap]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If you had made a point, I would not have downgraded your post (not you). Likes and dislikes are valuable currency in this forum. You are both generalizing and normalizing in your posts. Those are two of the five precursors to human conflict. They rarely, if ever, bring about understanding or dialogue. This is a dialogue forum. I haven't seen a desire in your few posts for much dialogue. Your statements are sweeping and written with certitude. Neither is the stuff of dialogue and consensus building. Methinks you are conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, two very distinct and often mad-at-each-other communities within conservative and middle-of-the-road non-LDS Christianity. Conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is kind of like conflating LeBaron and Kingdom of God Mormonism with LDS Mormonism here where I live. BTW, it surprises me that you are opposed to "witnessing." So are you equally opposed when LDS missionaries "witness?" Take care. 

I did make a point though, that being that evangelical Protestantism requires very little out of its adherents, hence its popularity.  This in turn leads to what is essentially a big head, and so when they try to play the apologetics game armed with little more than "muh faith" and "muh inerrant Bible", they get trounced.  Some of them don't even attempt to address arguments and just use formal debates as their "Hey look I have a Mormon audience so I can crap on them to their faces" time.

While Kelly Powers isn't a good example of someone knowledgeable, he has a decently large following on his Youtube channel.  About two months ago, he had a debate with Robert Boylan of the Scriptural Mormonism blog:

During this, you can see that Powers spends most of his time doing anything but addressing the topic of the debate.  It's lazy, weak, and only serves as more support for the article's premise.

Am I "conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals"?  How am I doing so?  What is the official difference between the two?  Does one even exist considering both groups seem to reject the idea of magisterium (hence the sola scriptura concept)?

As for "likes and dislikes being valuable currency", speak for yourself on that matter.  Internet points get you nowhere and popularity is not a measure of correctness.  Were that the case, we'd all be in trouble.

Strictly speaking, LDS missionaries don't go hanging outside other churches just to harass their members.  Trying to equate these two is more evidence of bad faith on your part.

[Navidad]

If you are unaware that the Evangelical movement split off from Fundamentalism in the 1940s and that the differences have expanded ever since, then you are not as informed about non-LDS Christians as you think. Fundamentalists are often or more often witnessing to Evangelicals as they are to the LDS. They think we have apostasized from the truth, so perhaps we (Evangelicals) are even worse than the LDS. The Evangelical community broadens in incremental ways, especially within theological distinctions. I am a "wideness on God's mercy" Evangelical. That makes me center left in the Evangelical community. I have been to Temple Square many times, but never once to witness. I, in fact would be far more likely to chastise my Fundamentalist friends that to my LDS friends. Cherry picking websites and youtube posts is not a particularly good way to make a point. Anyway, I don't think you are of a mind to dialogue with either me or your more moderated brothers and sisters here from the LDS community. BTW strickly thinking, I have never seen an Evangelical witnessing at Temple Square or at a pageant. Many Fundamentalists, yes, but never an Evangelical. But, best wishes anyway. 

Edited Friday at 04:00 PM by Navidad

[Navidad]

I don't think I like the metaphors of "losing" and "battle." But that is how a lot of folks on all sides look at it. I this situation I love the principal slogan of the Moravian Church:  “In essentials, unity; in non‑essentials, liberty; and in all things, love.”  In the words of the song, "And the world would be a better place for you, for me. Just you wait and see!"

[juliann]

On 8/21/2026 at 11:27 AM, Navidad said:

I don't think I like the metaphors of "losing" and "battle." But that is how a lot of folks on all sides look at it. I this situation I love the principal slogan of the Moravian Church:  “In essentials, unity; in non‑essentials, liberty; and in all things, love.”  In the words of the song, "And the world would be a better place for you, for me. Just you wait and see!"

When that article was written, it was a battle. And they were losing, as evidenced by the disappearance of rabid Evangelicals who stalked us on every LDS site created. (Rabid EVs are a breed unto themselves, not reflective of the entire group.)

Mosser and Owen used to post on the old FAIR board. Mosser tended more toward the caricaturing of Mormonism than Owen....who eventually converted to an Orthodox religion.

 

On 8/20/2026 at 2:39 PM, The Nehor said:

I think it is more that 90%+ of their arguments against Mormonism work equally well as criticisms of their own faith.

It wasn't so fun for them when we started critiquing their beliefs...and it was very easy to do, even using their own scholars. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

rabid Evangelicals

I anticipate Navidad pointing out these are technically Fundamentalists even if our experience is they called themselves Evangelicals.   

If I understand correctly Evangelical is more a broad category rather than a set of beliefs or a movement.  One could be an Evangelical Catholic.

So perhaps I need to start thinking of them as Evangelical Fundamentalists rather than Fundamentalist Evangelicals.  That way I include the label they typically chose for themselves while being accurate (hopefully).
 

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[Navidad]

You know me too well. There are those who consider there to be a single continuum from Fundamentalist to Mainstream - meaning conservative to progressive or liberal within non-LDS Christianity. This view is made without regard to specific denominational affiliation. It is a continuum, something like a normal curve. Others, including me believe they (Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Mainstream) represent three very different movements with different and specific characteristics, history, and orthopraxy in addition to orthodoxies. In my thinking the Mainstream was the original - mainstream Christianity in the USA specifically we might say. Then Fundamentalism arose to counter what had become the Mainstream social gospel at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. It became a distinct movement with specific characteristics and again was regardless of denomination or affiliation. Then in the 1940s, there arose a third, mostly USA-based movement known as Evangelicalism. It arose in reaction to Fundamentalism with its own unique orthopraxies and orthodoxies. Over the eighty or so years of the existence of the Evangelical movement, it has widened to become what is often deemed a “large tent” movement. Very simplistically, it is often said that ask an Evangelical what they believe and they will tell you what they are "for." Ask a Fundamentalist what they believe, and they will tell you what they are "against." This is overly simplistic, but at the same time somewhat broadly effective. Today, in one form or another, the Mainstreamers are characterized by what has become known as the "social gospel." Ask them what they believe, and they will discuss social justice and other "causes." They might be conservative theologically (rarely) or liberal theologically )more common). There are denominations that fall broadly within each of the three, but always with exceptions. Then of course, there are distinctions within each of the three groups, expanding the complexity. Inspite of the complexity it is pretty easy to determine to which your are speaking after about five minutes of conversation. 

This is moderately comparable to the movements that exist within Mormonism. They may have been formalized by the creation of a new type of Mormonism. They may also be characterized by orthopraxy within each Mormon group. By and large, when I go to a MHA meeting, I am meeting with a different form of Mormonism than when I attend a ward in Chihuahua, or a ward in rural Utah. Same church; different positions on a conservative to progressive continuum. I happen to believe I have friends who are Evangelical Mormons, and certainly there are Fundamentalist (not in the plural marriage meaning) Mormons, and there is a nascent Mormon Mainstream movement with a focus on social justice, and diversity, such as the Global branch of MHA. Since I live in Chihuahua, I have gone to meetings of the Global branch of MHA and I feel like a rank conservative. Then I hold a meeting here that is a family reunion with a group from Vernal, Utah and I feel like a progressive. So it is with Presbyterians (especially), Methodists (who have recently split into formalized groups representing all three (Fund - Evan - Main). In some sense, I see all three represented here in Latin American Catholicism. as well.   

Then we get back to the challenge of how do I identify and that being a valid indication of anything. That is where it gets very complicated, especially within the growing non-denominational movement within American Protestantism. When I was a boy, I went to an IFCA church; my dad pastored it. IFCA stands for Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America. That was our denomination; our orthopraxy and orthodoxy were clearly Mennonite. In the fifties it was also a way of separating ourselves from the new Evangelical movement and the traditional Mainstreamers. Now the IFCA type grouping is on the decline. It is not "cool" anymore to be Fundamentalist as it was in the fifties. Why? Because much damage has been done to folks in the name of Fundamentalism. So today, it is rare to walk up to someone and say, "Hi . . . are you a Fundamentalist?" They are more than likely to say, "No, I am independent, unaffiliated, or Evangelical" than they are to acknowledge their Fundamentalism, even though their very reasons for entering into a conversation with you may reveal their Fundamentalist tendency. Ok.  . . . . . . Writing too much. I hope this helps. Blessings on all: Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Mainstreamers, and none of the abovers. Navidad
 

Edited 1 hour ago by Navidad

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, juliann said:

It wasn't so fun for them when we started critiquing their beliefs...and it was very easy to do, even using their own scholars. 

There is certainly nothing wrong with critiquing someone's beliefs. That is often fun. Where we err is when we walk down the slippery slope to symbolic violence: Ranking, Generalizing, NormalizIng, Onlying, and Othering. Those are, in my experience, precursors to much of human conflict and all of the many forms of violence.