Why I will never respond to Apologists

Mormons who formally resigned their Church membership when they discovered the truth number in the thousands, possibly tens, if not hundreds of thousands – and the number is growing.

As members of the Mormon Church, they were completely unaware of the truth behind the Church. When they discovered the truth, devastating and unwanted though that knowledge may have been, they had the integrity to face and deal with it and then to act upon it. They resigned Church membership in protest at the lies and deception, accepting the consequences of their actions in respect of damaged relationships between friends and family members and often the complete loss of a social life.

Apologists on the other hand, are faced daily with all the evidence of the hoax and the conspiracy, but they act as deluded puppets of their prophets, leaders and employers, with neither the courage nor integrity to accept and face the truth. Instead, they protect, rationalise and perpetuate all of the lies through constant manipulation and distortion of the facts, creating more and more nonsense in order to obfuscate the truth and keep members in a deluded state. They don’t even see that their own original testimony was based on a fundamentally flawed supplication, before they learned of the reality behind the superficial and constructed lies that constitute what is taken to the Lord in prayer by the faithful.

They just do not seem able to put their misplaced faith aside and face reality when facts override what they had faith in, in a given area. If there were say just one, or even two, aspects of the Church that were suspect and uncertain then there could be some understanding of a need for apologetics. However, every single aspect of the Mormon Church’s teachings today is provably integrated within a conspiracy to suppress the truth; manipulated to make it fit a preconceived but unsustainable position. Continued apologetic endeavours today prove nothing other than attempts to hide the truth and stem from a deep delusional state, embedded in the minds of those who participate in writing such material. Subconsciously, they must know the truth but rarely does an apologist ever consciously realise, face and accept the facts.

You cannot argue unassailable and proven points (and there are literally hundreds) with someone who cannot see the light because their faith in proven fiction supersedes all reason and also common sense. They know the truth and yet seem able to rationalise and accept that ‘lying for the Lord’ always was and still is, via their own manipulation, an honourable occupation in the Mormon Church. It is not. Any true God would condemn, not endorse such a thing. Shame on them; I will have nothing to do with them.

I have looked at one or two so-called critiques or reviews of other authors’ work by apologists who immediately attacked the messenger rather than simply face and deal with the evidence presented. In one review, the apologist stated the first thing that should be said was that the writer erroneously called his ‘Preface’ (which is written by an author) a ‘Foreword’ (which is written by someone else), to show that the writer was ignorant of correct procedure. He thus tried to undermine and discredit the author by any means possible before even considering what he actually had to say. This would be to convince any enquiring Mormon who may happen to read the critique, that the author of the work under review was not worthy of further consideration.

After putting down the author in every way possible, the apologist, in this instance, wrote a lengthy text which offered no tangible evidence in rebuttal whatsoever. It was just full of ‘faith promoting’ supposition with assertions that the writer was of course not directed by the spirit. Complaints of incorrect ‘understanding’ and ‘misrepresentation’ were not backed up with tangible facts or reliable evidence. The net result was the apologist only satisfied his own demands – and possibly those of his peers. No doubt a faithful Mormon reading the review with the preconceived notion that an apologist working with the spirit must be better placed to identify the truth than an apostate author would just accept the apologist’s position and not consider reading the actual material under review. That of course is the whole objective of an apologist but not the objective of a genuine critique. Apologists manipulate the truth in order to defend absolute lies rather than objectively evaluate good academic work and accept the truth.

I have seen the same derogatory approach taken regarding the academic status of some authors. Unless they have some kind of university degree, they are not worthy of consideration as authors of Mormon history. I fail to understand why such an attitude is taken when the author may have had a lifetime of experience in the Church and a good grasp of the truth for which an educational standard is hardly required. Apologists are academics and they promote their position as far above a lowly writer who has no such status. During my career, I was for a period, the Business Manager of an American International University, where I was responsible for everything except the faculty. Some of the faculty were highly intelligent and very interesting. Others however, clearly had no experience of life whatsoever. They had never left school… after completing their own education they immediately started teaching. Their experience was so limited that their education was of little help to them in understanding how to prepare others for life in a world they had never experienced.

Well, in case apologists do ever decide to critique my work, I have correctly called the preface the preface, and I hope I have managed to be accurate in all I have written. If not, then I hope the facts and evidence will be judged rather than me as a person. The English style of writing I have adopted is the ‘logical view’ rather than the ‘conventional view’ regarding punctuation and quotation marks – despite the American way being slightly different. I doubt American Mormon apologists have ever even been taught the difference, so if they criticise that it will just show they don’t understand English outside of the American style.

I wrote my work simply as Jim Whitefield, an ex Mormon who had accidentally stumbled across and felt obliged to expose the truth behind the Church. I did not choose to include my full name or any academic achievements, which I considered had nothing to do with my writing whatsoever. If I were not retired, no doubt my business cards would still contain at least some of the following, depending on my line of work: James I Whitefield MMS., MIIRSM., AIIM., MIMgt., MLIA., MCII., CGLI (Work Study, O&M)., Master Builder.

After six years of full time research and having published five academic standard, ‘Harvard System’ referenced books, several articles, and having obtained the requisite peer reviews, along with internationally lecturing on the subject of Mormonism, I qualify to apply for a doctorate from several universities, but that was never my aim. I chose not to do so, as my work has little to do with qualifications and everything to do with the truth behind the continued conspiracy to deceive members and investigators of the Mormon Church. I prefer to get on with retirement, so if apologists do decry me for not having a doctorate, it is not because I am not eligible to obtain one, it is simply because there is no point in bothering. I am after all – finally retired!

My work is done. The truth is established. 
Accept it or reject it; either way – it remains the truth.
Jim Whitefield