As a former Mormon, I try to keep up with the latest developments in Mormon scholarship and the defense of their faith. As many have pointed out, their approach has changed significantly over the last few decades. For those who would like to know more about this shift, I commend to you a new series by James White, the first post of which is now on his blog: “Guessing About God: Mormonism’s Inability to Resist the Onslaught of Modernistic Skepticism (Part 1).”
Here is his introduction:
I was recently referred to a blog article by a young Mormon writer and scholar, Daniel McClellan. He seems like a bright, intelligent young man, though, sadly, he has clearly been influenced by the less-than-mature behavioral ticks of his mentors at BYU, men like Daniel C. Peterson and William Hamblin. We will note how this mars his otherwise interesting article below.
I would like to use Mr. McClellan’s discussion in two ways. First, I wish to use it as a lens through which to view the rapidly changing landscape within Mormonism. Secondly, I would like to respond to his claims and demonstrate that the current forms of Mormon apologetic are incoherent and self-referentially destructive (let alone just bad examples of apologetic argumentation in defense of Joseph Smith’s religion).
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
