DiscussMormonism.com

I was looking at John Dehlin's site due to a thread in the CK, and found his thoughts on apologetics, which I found interesting:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=112

Last week I was counseling a friend who had left the LDS church. As he recounted to me his story, it was interesting to note that apologetics (FAIR and FARMS in particular) were a precursor to his leaving the church–and a strong source for his abiding anger/resentment, and resistance to returning.

I probably get at least 2-3 emails a week from folks who have left the church–and I’m surprised at how many of these people not only delved into apologetics before they left–but also look back upon their experience w/ apologetics in almost disgust. Is it possible that the general approach/effect of arch-apologists like Dan Peterson and Louis Midgley–is actually NEGATIVE with respect to helping people retain their faith in the LDS Church? I am sure that they get short-term emails expressing gratitude for what they’ve done–so I’m speaking more in the medium-long term.

Recent postings by Lou Midgley and Dan Peterson in the bloggernacle are benign examples of what I mean. If you want the full banana….check out the FAIR Message Boards. Blech. Yuck. I almost feel dirty linking to that post.

I have had some VERY good experiences with a few apologists (John Lynch and Greg Kearny being 2 very important exceptions–these strike me as really sincere, thoughtful, kind-hearted men), and I know that there are others, but overall, I continue to be saddened by how often, when I engage in, or observe an apologist conversation, I end up feeling sick and disappointed. For me, the reasons include:

* The tendency to attack, denigrate and even mock the individual who disagrees with their view of the world.
* The tendency towards anger, hatred, sarcasm, and mean-spiritedness.
* The general unwillingness to express things like, “That’s a valid concern.” or “Yep…that’s a tough one.”
* The apparent willingess to defend at all costs…sometimes with little trace of a desire to remain objective.
* The tactic of avoiding the overall “mosaic” of an issue, by delving into obscure details and justifications.
* In summation, a lack of credibility in the eyes of many of they honest, open, sincere, thoughtful folk I interact with.

Now….one thing that I will openly acknowledge is that many/most anti-Mormons act the same way–which is also very, very disappointing. I will also acknowledge that I am grossly generalizing to a large degree–which is also very dangerous.

Still–these 2 poles testify to me as to why a forum like Sunstone must be supported. Neither of these sides (apologists or anti-LDS) are considered fair, balanced and credible by most of the sincere, humble, good-natured, intelligent folks that I continually interact with on the Internet–and I know for a fact that Sunstone (under Dan Wotherspoon) is working very, very hard to remain a more neutral, credible source for exploring and resolving LDS issues, in the house of faith. Sunstone may have stepped over a line or two years ago–but I find them (along w/ Dialogue) to be the rare voices of faithful objectivity and reason in an otherwise arena of shrill, hateful, negative voices.

Sorry for the rant. Please tell me if you disagree. Do apologists represent their cause well, and are they effective?

So Dehlin, who remains faithful LDS, is saying the same thing many posters here, and at other boards like RFM say: the tactics of FARM and MAD are actually, in the long-run, damaging to the church.

beastie wrote:I was looking at John Dehlin's site due to a thread in the CK, and found his thoughts on apologetics, which I found interesting

There are many intelligent Mormons who are not as outspoken as John, but who feel the same way about LDS apologetics. I am glad, however, that John used his modest podium to this end. If he had not, people might not realize that such Mormons exist.

After listening to his "other heroes" podcast (linked in moksha's thread in the CK), I have come to the conclusion that dehlin is trying to be his own kind of hero, as well - someone who is willing to stand up and protest.

There's something else to consider. It's entirely possible that for every member who actually delves into the issues and is disgusted by the FARMS/FAIR tactics, another ten members are reassured that "smart people" have already thought about the issues and find nothing to worry about. There's really no way for us to evaluate the overall effect, and it may well be net positive for the church.

I personally found FARMS apologetics to be a big boost in my turning away from the church. Their attempts to dismiss the Book of Abraham fiasco, and their attempts to justify or excuse away Joseph Smith's rampant adultery showed me as plain as day that the best the church had to offer was purely and simply crap. It was obvious to me that they were willing to defend literally anything that made Joseph look bad, even if it were actually true. It was a partisan attitude, not an attitude of wanting to find truth.

I like Dehlin's use of the word "mosaic". It's like the way I've been describing my thoughts about the "big picture", or "bird's eye view" of the issues. They delve into minutiae trying to make a show of disputing some fact or other, and yet the entire big picture view is one of Joseph Smith making stuff up, using "revelation" for his own personal gain in leading the church, giving his followers what they wanted at various times and so forth. Zelph anyone? Book of Abraham anyone?

A very good amount of the gumption I found within myself to break through the shell of testimony and admit to myself that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham I found after recognizing that the FARMS/Nibley apologetics on the subject simply couldn't cut it. They were obviously attempts at defending of the indefensible. And it was the very same thing about FARMS information about Joseph's womanizing. I think, if I had to pick out one thing that stood out, it was a FARMS review of "In Sacred Loneliness".

On the other hand, people in the church who don't really want to engage the nasty bits of Joseph Smith's history can just point to DCP and FARMS and say hey, these guys have PhDs, they've already looked into all that, and there's no problem. They then feel safe to shut their minds down and put their shoulder back to the wheel.

I think Dehlin's comments are fair. Interestingly I just listened to his interview with John Lynch. I thought is was pretty good and Lynch is ok if he really does apologetics like he says. But on one point I disagreed. Dehlin asked Lynch if anyone ever got involved in apologetics and then became disaffected. Lynch essentially said that in such cases they probably would have left anyway and that maybe they ran into a criticisms, looked to apologetics to help them, became involved in apologetics to maybe even an unhealthy degree and that it was a patch. Thus they were on their way out and apologetics kept them in the Church for a bit longer then they might have stayed.

I am surprised Dehlin did not challenge him on this given his comments in the OP of this thread.

I think that Lynch is wrong here. I look at Kevin Graham and knew him before and after so to speak on various other boards. He was an avid defender. I do not know why he got involved. But I think he became dissilusioned in part because of some of the issues Dehlin points to.


I think Runtu may have a similar experience.

Then I look at myself. I do not blame apologetics directly for where I am at but maybe in part. Let me explain.

Active all my adult life. Served in every capacity one can almost accept for a stake presidency. Love the Church, it defined me. Was always well read and even knew about many controversies. Had no plans to evolve into a more liberal Mormon. I could not have imagined doubting what I have built my whole life on. I even used to love to engage anti's some. But once I ran into an issue that I founf rather challenging and looked to help from FARMs publications and FAIR and other sources. Well without going into all the detail I was sort of surprised as I became a regular reader for FARMS Review, read many papers by many apologists I found myself thinking "Please address the issues and stop talking about the person who made the criticism." I saw a lot of that and it bothered me. I even became a hobby apologist and loved it.

Was it a patch because I wanted to leave anyway or would have? Maybe. But I think not. I loved the Church and still do. But it just seemed as more and more problems came up and as I delved more and more into so much of the history, with perhaps polygamy, Adam God and other 19th century teachings we wish were never taught, evolving temple endowment as well as it founding in secrecy and polygamy, evolving and now apprent devolving teachings about God and the Godhead, I just found it was not defensible.

I remember the horror I felt inside when a friend of mine who teaches religion for BYU said to me at a New Years Eve party after discussing the recent David O. McKay bio and RSR "If you are going to delve into LDS history you better have a strong testimony or it may blow you out of the Church." WOW I thought, that is just awful! And he was right. But what good is a subjective testimony in light of facts? Then I started to at least in my view see the twisting that I had accepted and even applied when engaging criticisms. I could do it no longer. The Church for me could never be the same.

Was this related to apologetics? Yes I think it was to a certain extent. Maybe not all. Maybe some would argue that I never had a solid testimony and was was easily tumbled. But if you knew me you would not say that. I have been a leader, stalwart, pillar, even known as a scriptorian, well read in LDS history, etc. The LDS Church has been so much a part of my life. So I do think apolgetics was tied to where I am at now. And now, I see how really bad some if it is.

beastie wrote:After listening to his "other heroes" podcast (linked in moksha's thread in the CK), I have come to the conclusion that dehlin is trying to be his own kind of hero, as well - someone who is willing to stand up and protest.

Dehlin is quickly becoming one of my LDS heroes.

beastie wrote:

Recent postings by Lou Midgley and Dan Peterson in the bloggernacle are benign examples of what I mean. If you want the full banana….check out the FAIR Message Boards. Blech. Yuck. I almost feel dirty linking to that post.

when was this written? Because the FAIR boards have been down for quite some time, haven't they?

Jason Bourne wrote:Active all my adult life. Served in every capacity one can almost accept for a stake presidency. Love the Church, it defined me. Was always well read and even knew about many controversies. Had no plans to evolve into a more liberal Mormon. I could not have imagined doubting what I have built my whole life on. I even used to love to engage anti's some. But once I ran into an issue that I founf rather challenging and looked to help from FARMs publications and FAIR and other sources. Well without going into all the detail I was sort of surprised as I became a regular reader for FARMS Review, read many papers by many apologists I found myself thinking "Please address the issues and stop talking about the person who made the criticism." I saw a lot of that and it bothered me.

I had no idea, Jason. Thanks for sharing all of that.

There is a tendency to attack the apologists, which I fully understand because of their asinine techniques. The problem however is the material they have to work with. Bottom line, the Church is not true.

This is apparent to anyone who has not had some sort of internal metaphysical experience to verify the Church on an individual level. Logic reason and science and the LDS faith just don't mix, no matter how polite you are.



John

John Larsen wrote:There is a tendency to attack the apologists, which I fully understand because of their asinine techniques. The problem however is the material they have to work with. Bottom line, the Church is not true.

That really is the problem. It's interesting to go back to the earliest criticisms of the Church, and the earliest rebuttals, to see how little things have changed. I put Ezra Booth in my signature line because this guy, who joined the Church as it barely got off the ground, sounded so familiar to me. Sounded like I was reading my own thoughts and feelings sometimes.

Now, apologists acknowledge how little criticisms of the Church have changed, but they attribute that to a failure of the critics. The truth is that the problems with Mormonism were there from the beginning, and there is no adequate defense of them.