Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug
What I want to know if why he is so ignorant of pro-Church arguments and facts. Doesn't even bother.
He also admires the New Atheists. Even SU thinks the New Atheist arguments are sophomoric. They make crappy pop arguments.
He claimed that people who know the most about Mormon history don't find the narrative credible. Matt Bowman (PhD American Religious History Georgetown, in my ward) told me this isn't true.
|
If he weren't so quoted in pop news circles, he would be worthless. And there are legitimate questions, even questions that can challenge one's faith, but Dehlin doesn't get it, because he lacks the work ethic and intellectual curiosity to evaluate the merits of claims to ascertain which groups are lost as well, i.e., the Tanners.