148 replies to this topic

[the narrator]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 August 2010 - 03:41 PM, said:

Here's a hypothetical for narrator.

Suppose a friend or family member approaches you and says "I am beginning to have doubts about my testimony. There are things from the history of the Church which I never knew about, but which concern me. For example, my friend said that Joseph Smith stole the temple endowment from freemasonry. I was told the endowment was revealed by God, and now I am really having some confusing doubts."

What would you do, Loyd? Would you say, "well your problem is that you are using 'reason' to assess the claims of the gospel. I think what you need is more faith. If you just have faith and pray about it it will be OK." Would you say something else? What would you do?

I would say: Yes, Joseph Smith used Masonic rites to develop his endowment ceremony. If they want to ask more questions, I'd give them more answers: No, I don't think they are based on actually ancient rituals. Yes, I find them beautiful and meaningful nonetheless. No, I don't think they are magically efficacious. Yes, I believe that God uses them to bind us into communities to build the Kingdom of God, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

Ironically, Google is so fast that at least one of those 199 is referring to this very thread.

Regardless of what Google says, I was referring to FPL's to refer to those faith promoting stories which are cognitively dishonest from the beginning, such as those engineered by Paul H. Dunn. While they are less common than those generated by gossip (FPRs), they are nonetheless used to support and build faith.

But they are ticking time bombs. Thus, I exclude them from my frame of reference in talking about apologetics that builds and sustains faith.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lamanite, on 10 August 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

It's been more than one year since I mentioned a physical beating or an automatic weapon in a post!

And that count resets today, dang it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

I would say: Yes, Joseph Smith used Masonic rites to develop his endowment ceremony. If they want to ask more questions, I'd give them more answers: No, I don't think they are based on actually ancient rituals. Yes, I find them beautiful and meaningful nonetheless. No, I don't think they are magically efficacious. Yes, I believe that God uses them to bind us into communities to build the Kingdom of God, etc.

And the with that hypothetical the member is now strengthed and they choose to stay in the church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

I would say: Yes, Joseph Smith used Masonic rites to develop his endowment ceremony. If they want to ask more questions, I'd give them more answers: No, I don't think they are based on actually ancient rituals. Yes, I find them beautiful and meaningful nonetheless. No, I don't think they are magically efficacious. Yes, I believe that God uses them to bind us into communities to build the Kingdom of God, etc.

Sounds "reasonable."

Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 10 August 2010 - 03:54 PM.

[the narrator]

ttribe, on 10 August 2010 - 03:41 PM, said:

So, in your mind, what is the appropriate response to address our critics?

Depends on the criticism. Sometimes the proper response is: Yes, you are right. Sometimes the proper response is to point out poor argumentation (which could be equally done by a non-believer). Sometimes the response is "I don't know." Other times the only response is: Perhaps, but it doesn't matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 August 2010 - 03:54 PM, said:

Sounds "reasonable."

And apologetic (in the older sense of the term).

[ttribe]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 03:54 PM, said:

Depends on the criticism. Sometimes the proper response is: Yes, you are right. Sometimes the proper response is to point out poor argumentation (which could be equally done by a non-believer). Sometimes the response is "I don't know." Other times the only response is: Perhaps, but it doesn't matter.

And that, to you, doesn't fall under the umbrella of "apologetics"? I mean, someone would certainly need to do some sort of scholarly work to determine what's "right" and what we do and don't know, correct?

[the narrator]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 August 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

I don't think it takes boldness to admit that, really. It takes much more boldness (and effort) to actually confront specific examples and provide a corrective or better way. Otherwise we're just complaining from the peanut gallery or ivory tower, wherever we feel most comfy.

Fine. Then I said it in cowardice. Who cares how I said it.

I believe that they've all engaged at bad apologetics at times. I document some cases in my paper.

Can I not state my own beliefs, or must I document everything?

[the narrator]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 10 August 2010 - 03:53 PM, said:

And the with that hypothetical the member is now strengthed and they choose to stay in the church.

Or maybe they decided that it wasn't what they thought they had signed up for and leave.

[LifeOnaPlate]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 03:57 PM, said:

Fine. Then I said it in cowardice. Who cares how I said it.

Who said it was cowardly?

Quote

I believe that they've all engaged at bad apologetics at times. I document some cases in my paper.

Like I said, it's more "bold" and takes more effort to actually respond to specifics.

Quote

Can I not state my own beliefs, or must I document everything?

You can do what you want, but you shouldn't shy away from constructive criticism. I thought you dig that sort of give and take anyway. If I'm being irritating just let me know!

[ttribe]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 August 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

If I'm being irritating just let me know!

Letting you know...oh wait, was that a general statement?

[the narrator]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 August 2010 - 03:54 PM, said:

Sounds "reasonable."

I know the emoticon is meant to minimize your jab, but given the fact that I have repeatedly stated that my beef is with apologetics that attempt to prove or defend a religious truth claim, your subtle straw man response seems to be an unnecessary attempt to spur or prod me further.

[the narrator]

ttribe, on 10 August 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

And that, to you, doesn't fall under the umbrella of "apologetics"? I mean, someone would certainly need to do some sort of scholarly work to determine what's "right" and what we do and don't know, correct?

No. By "apologetics" I have been referring to attempts to prove or defend religious claims.

[LifeOnaPlate]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 04:02 PM, said:

I know the emoticon is meant to minimize your jab, but given the fact that I have repeatedly stated that my beef is with apologetics that attempt to prove or defend a religious truth claim, your subtle straw man response seems to be an unnecessary attempt to spur or prod me further.

No, my point was that even you believe it is proper in certain circumstances to engage in "apologetics," as you yourself just described. The wink was only to point out the deliberateness of the pun, since we were talking about "reason" earlier. No jabs intended. I hope you don't take it personally. Message board conversations have the tendency to make tone sound like cardboard, or more aggressive than is intended, or more formal, or whatever else.

[ttribe]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

No. By "apologetics" I have been referring to attempts to prove or defend religious claims.

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the fundamental difference. You said:

"Depends on the criticism. Sometimes the proper response is: Yes, you are right. Sometimes the proper response is to point out poor argumentation (which could be equally done by a non-believer). Sometimes the response is "I don't know." Other times the only response is: Perhaps, but it doesn't matter."

It seems as though you are trying to draw some bright-line distinction between a defense which provides a simple yes/no response to a criticism and one which provides more detail, and perhaps rationale. Are you suggesting that more detail is "bad" apologetics?

Edited by ttribe, 10 August 2010 - 04:15 PM.

[the narrator]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 August 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

Who said it was cowardly?

I did.

Quote

Like I said, it's more "bold" and takes more effort to actually respond to specifics.

Actually, on these threads, it can take more boldness to just state one's belief and experience, knowing the inevitable comments complaining about no references being provided to substantiate one's own beliefs and criticism.

Quote

You can do what you want, but you shouldn't shy away from constructive criticism. I thought you dig that sort of give and take anyway. If I'm being irritating just let me know!

Perhaps I just didn't find it very constructive.


Responding to too many people at once on this thread is beginning to be a bit too much for me to handle. Time for me to bail out.

[ttribe]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 04:07 PM, said:

Responding to too many people at once on this thread is beginning to be a bit too much for me to handle. Time for me to bail out.

Sorry. That's my fault. I was last to the party, so I'll be first to leave. If LoaP or Scott think there is anything worthwhile in the line I was pursuing they are free to go ahead.

Edited by ttribe, 10 August 2010 - 04:14 PM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

the narrator, on 10 August 2010 - 04:07 PM, said:

Perhaps I just didn't find it very constructive.

Well, I'll work in the delivery/rationale for later if I get around to it. Peace.

[LifeOnaPlate]

ttribe, on 10 August 2010 - 04:09 PM, said:

Sorry. That's my fault. I was last to the part, so I'll be first to leave. If LoaP or Scott think there is anything worthwhile in the line I was pursuing they are free to go ahead.

I'm pretty much in line with what you're saying, that is, narrator is drawing distinctions that I don't think hold up well to scrutiny. But he's checking out for now so I'll leave it at that.