William Schryver, on 28 June 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:
Right ... because, as almost everyone knows, the Church in our day, almost miraculously, has managed to avoid the presence among the Saints of calculating apostates, such as were seen among the Nephites and during the earlier periods of modern Church history.
It is comforting to know that, as the second coming draws ever nearer, at least we won't have to worry about apostate elements among us seeking to corrupt the doctrine of the restoration and erode the faith of the Saints. In the immortal words of Forrest Gump: "One less thing ..."
Will, I know you won't concede a jot or tittle to me, and you never have. You and I will be long in the dust before the second coming occurs, anyway. As I keep repeating over, and over, and over: I can be very concerned about people who seek to "erode the faith of the Saints" and still disagree with the way you and others have tried to prevent such erosion by chest-puffing. I can be dedicated to helping people increase faith and also claim there are better ways to do so than some of the ways we've seen in the past.
Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to apologetics. I am not opposed to apologetics. I am not opposed to apologetics. I disagree with the approach and style of various pieces of apologia. But I am not opposed to apologetics.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
Will, I know you won't concede a jot or tittle to me, and you never have.
I am mystified by the meaning of this statement. I don't recall ever having debated anything with you at any time, let alone resisted the concession of a "jot or tittle."
Quote
You and I will be long in the dust before the second coming occurs, anyway.
Really?
I had no idea you have had revealed to you the time and date of said event.
Quote
As I keep repeating over, and over, and over: I can be very concerned about people who seek to "erode the faith of the Saints" and still disagree with the way you and others have tried to prevent such erosion by chest-puffing.
"Chest-puffing?"
I'm also mystified by the meaning of this statement, but I think I will note (as I'm sure Ben would also) that it appears to constitute a very clear example of polemics.
At any rate, I am not conscious of where I or these unnamed "others" have engaged in what you are labeling "chest-puffing." Who are these "others" and where might we locate examples of where they and I have done this horrid "chest-puffing" to which you refer?
Quote
I can be dedicated to helping people increase faith and also claim there are better ways to do so than some of the ways we've seen in the past.
Another polemical statement, but one which leaves the reader still wondering what you mean by "the ways we've seen in the past."
What "ways" are these, and where might we be able to examine typical examples?
Just to be clear: I'm not opposed to apologetics. I am not opposed to apologetics. I am not opposed to apologetics. I disagree with the approach and style of various pieces of apologia. But I am not opposed to apologetics.
Has anyone suggested otherwise? To whom are you making this overtly emphasized statement? Certainly not to me, since I have not, to my knowledge, suggested anything to the contrary.
Edited by William Schryver, 28 June 2012 - 01:14 PM.
I can personally speak for this. I emailed Gregory Smith on numerous occasions during my faith issues and he was awesome to me. Didn't judge, just gave the information to help me along in my journey. Wonderful volunteers at FAIR, I needed them at that time in my life. And I threw some doozies out there for them. They maintained a Christlike demeanor towards me and didn't balk at some crazy stuff I might have had questions about. Albeit, as much as I love their honesty, it may harm some or has harmed some that are tender in their testimonies, that weren't raised with alot of the early history of the church, like me.
I appreciate this comment very much. Would have made an observation about the last sentence similar to what Ben said, but since he did it so well I don't have to.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
I agree, though I believe that doing so at the right time and in the right places is also critical. Given the relatively narrow objective of Sunday lessons, I am not sure that is the appropriate time and place, but I believe venues like this, and FAIR and FARMS/MI, may well be.
FAIR thinks one of the best times to do it is when someone is asking.....so we've set things up so that not only is the info on our website but we offer a one on one (or half a dozen at times as we choose to answer as we see fit and often several jump in to help at once) to cover the need for personal interaction as well.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
I wish I could be like so many strong LDS members out there. It makes me question the testimony that I once had.
This is one of those wishes that is possible to fulfill (unlike some wishes about becoming more like others such as "I wish I was as tall as....").
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Not even trying to defend Dehlin. Just trying to round out my understanding of him.
And I'm not trying to attack him. A good example of his latest ad hom attack is in his UVU address. He regularly accuses others of being biased (without addressing any points of his disagreement at all).
http://www.mormondia...ohn-dehlin-lou/, is all the work I'm willing to do since his attacks can be found just about anywhere although he also has a practice of saying unfortunate things and then removing it from his own sites. In just one post we find the following ad hom against an individual....
verbally assaulted me
threatening me
attempting to tie me to the death of a missionary
slandered
old school, disingenuous, ad hominem-style apologetics a la Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgley (he managed to viciously attack both apologetics and two men in this one sentence.)
He also applies the label "bully" to others. There is, of course, the obvious element of in your face hypocrisy but first and foremost, his attacks are the very ad hominem he decries. Dehlin currently engages in a steady stream of more ad hominem than anyone he complains about. I don't know if he is simply not aware of the definition or does not think that the definition applies to his own words. It is unfortunate but I think it will continue because as Blair pointed out, opposition is needed for such movements to succeed. As I have responded to his posts here, I think if he would stop the trash talk and extend a hand to those he vilifies much of what he wants could be accomplished. He has never responded to me.
Edited by juliann, 28 June 2012 - 02:10 PM.
The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
William Schryver, on 28 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:
Another polemical statement, but one which leaves the reader still wondering what you mean by "the ways we've seen in the past."
I don't think LOAP is making "polemical" statements. He makes some good points.
The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
I don't think LOAP is making "polemical" statements. He makes some good points.
Your second sentence constitutes a non sequitur to the first.
In any event, there's no doubt whatsoever that the statements I cited are "polemical." That doesn't necessarily mean they're not "good points" or otherwise, of course. Nor does the fact that the statements are polemical in nature suggest that LoaP is a "polemicist" (generally speaking, I don't believe he is).
I think you would do well to read Ben's OP in this thread. Neither "apologetics" nor "polemics" are, per se, bad things, although both appear to have taken on negative connotations in the minds of a good many people these days.
At any rate, I would invite you to clarify what you mean when you say "He makes some good points." What are those "good points"?
Furthermore, since you appear to want to be an "apologist" for LoaP in the context of this thread, I would also invite you to answer the questions I posed to him in my previous post:
Quote
... I am not conscious of where I or these unnamed "others" have engaged in what you are labeling "chest-puffing." Who are these "others" and where might we locate examples of where they and I have done this horrid "chest-puffing" to which you refer?
And:
Quote
Another polemical statement, but one which leaves the reader still wondering what you mean by "the ways we've seen in the past."
What "ways" are these, and where might we be able to examine typical examples?
Edited by William Schryver, 28 June 2012 - 03:13 PM.
Will, it seems you've either forgotten things from the past or you're being obtuse. Either way, it doesn't seem like our exchange is advancing any further at this point. You want to flatten out the term "apologetics" to refer to the sheer defense of any particular viewpoint. That's fine. My observations on tone and method in this thread pertain to published reviews and articles dealing primarily with Mormon history, doctrine, policy, practice, culture, and belief, and these in the apologetic vein. Message board conversations like this one, in which I participate less and less, aren't my primary theater or object of concern in this discussion. If you want to deny that there has been any chest-puffing in published apologetics (or, in your extended scope, online message board conversations) then I'm not interested in going and digging up all the evidence to lay out for you.
"Go gather all the subjectively measured examples so I, from my own subjective vantage point, can disregard them one by one. Then I'll tie your efforts to the nefarious online meanderings of people at 'Shady Acres, imply that you're aiding and abetting apostates who make up a fifth column within the church, the tares which I can discern using my powers of discernment, etc."
Yes, we've already been through all of that. And I don't have the time or the interest to do that with you ever again. I take the position that there have, in fact, been uncharitable, snarky apologetic materials from FARMS and FAIR--two organizations which I also admire--for granted from my personal observation. (I also note that such materials do not comprise the totality or even majority of the output of those organizations.) Then I argue about implications from there. If you disagree with the grounds I'm starting from, that's your prerogative, but I'm not interested in starting the race from that line. Feel free, then, to entirely disregard my points.
juliann, on 28 June 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:
This article contains the key:
"To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula."
FAIR does this by answering questions privately and individually, person to person. FAIR is almost never given credit for this (nor do they seek that) and they are instead tarred with the usual "apologist" slurs.
No doubt, aside from the wiki I think the best work FAIR does is that one-on-one stuff I've witnessed (and even participated in) first-hand. The black-and-white "apologist=evil" thing Dehlin promotes is inaccurate, unkind, and ultimately unfair in my view. that is why apologists all the more need to pay such close attention to tone and approach. There will likely still be complaints, yes, but the idea is to improve the process over time regardless.
Quote
Dehlin has skillfully created what is amounting to a successful new movement and he deserves admiration for that accomplishment regardless of how one judges it. Even the NYTimes has highlighted him. One might argue over the content of a 100 page analysis of that movement, (if it hadn't been censored.) But to say that it does not merit a 100 page review seems highly defensive.... or at least curious.
Fairly stated, yes. Let me rephrase: it may very well merit it, yes, I actually do believe that. But considerations of the wisdom of such a response (based on a careful analysis of the possible fallout, verses other possible ways to respond to the phenomenon) indicates to me, personally and preliminarily, without having seen Smith's piece and only having heard aspects about it from those who have, that there are better ways to handle the situation. So we're talking doves and serpents.
Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 28 June 2012 - 03:38 PM.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
FAIR thinks one of the best times to do it is when someone is asking.....so we've set things up so that not only is the info on our website but we offer a one on one (or half a dozen at times as we choose to answer as we see fit and often several jump in to help at once) to cover the need for personal interaction as well.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
Will, it seems you've either forgotten things from the past or you're being obtuse. Either way, it doesn't seem like our exchange is advancing any further at this point.
???
I have no idea what you're talking about Blair. Obtuse about what?
In any case, our "exchange" is awaiting your answer to the questions I posed. I suspect (just as with those to whom Bill and I made the challenge in my other thread) that you cannot provide examples of the allegations you have made.
Here are the questions, just in case you've forgotten them (or are being "obtuse"):
Quote
... I am not conscious of where I or these unnamed "others" have engaged in what you are labeling "chest-puffing." Who are these "others" and where might we locate examples of where they and I have done this horrid "chest-puffing" to which you refer?
And:
Quote
Another polemical statement, but one which leaves the reader still wondering what you mean by "the ways we've seen in the past."
What "ways" are these, and where might we be able to examine typical examples?
"Go gather all the subjectively measured examples so I, from my own subjective vantage point, can disregard them one by one. Then I'll tie your efforts to the nefarious online meanderings of people at 'Shady Acres, imply that you're aiding and abetting apostates who make up a fifth column within the church, the tares which I can discern using my powers of discernment, etc."
Yes, we've already been through all of that. And I don't have the time or the interest to do that with you ever again. Heck, your own misogynist, creepy, weird, anonymous posts on various message boards might serve as exhibit A if I was counting message boards in my view of "apologetics" in the present conversation, but I'm not doing that here. (Your own research was, after all, spiked due to reluctance to be associated with your online behavior.)
So I take the position that there have, in fact, been uncharitable, snarky apologetic materials from FARMS and FAIR--two organizations which I also admire--for granted from my personal observation. (I also note that such materials do not comprise the totality or even majority of the output of those organizations.) Then I argue about implications from there. If you disagree with the grounds I'm starting from, that's your prerogative, but I'm not interested in starting the race from that line. Feel free, then, to entirely disregard my points.
Take care.
Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 28 June 2012 - 03:42 PM.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
With all due respect, you appear to have done just that in this post. Again, I'm not necessarily in Dehlin's camp. I'm just calling it as I see it.
That is what I notice with the overused ad hom charge. You summarily dismissed my response to your request as an attack without ever once engaging the content. You asked for examples and I gave them to you as well as my opinion as to why it matters. Ironically, it has not ever been termed an attack if the lists are about apologists. There have been several threads that are. But so it goes. On to more interesting things....
The comment about the need for an oppositional group along with this request for examples of attacks, makes me wonder what happens when the necessary oppositional group shrinks. FARMS is out of the mix (although appeals are made to decades old articles). That seems to leave FAIR and random "apologists" who are left unnamed. So how will Dehlin maintain a robust oppositional group? Will the attacks and ad hom become more shrill as the well of ad hom from the shrinking groups run dry? Will these groups be replaced by a new oppositional group?
The usual personal brawls aside, we are watching the evolution of something new to Mormonism. It should be drawing significant attention as a model of above mentioned sociological theories if nothing else.
The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
No doubt, aside from the wiki I think the best work FAIR does is that one-on-one stuff I've witnessed (and even participated in) first-hand. The black-and-white "apologist=evil" thing Dehlin promotes is inaccurate, unkind, and ultimately unfair in my view. that is why apologists all the more need to pay such close attention to tone and approach. There will likely still be complaints, yes, but the idea is to improve the process over time regardless.
Exactly, which is what raised the question of what or who will fill the oppositional (evil) group position because that attention is happening.
The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
Exactly, which is what raised the question of what or who will fill the oppositional (evil) group position because that attention is happening.
My guess is DCP and others will continue their work elsewhere and provide some oppositional opportunity. Further, accurate or not, FAIR will continue to exist, so will continue to fill the needed role.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
PS- Juliann, Thanks to you my wife and I are now devoted "So You Think You Can Dance" viewers.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
I can personally speak for this. I emailed Gregory Smith on numerous occasions during my faith issues and he was awesome to me. Didn't judge, just gave the information to help me along in my journey. Wonderful volunteers at FAIR, I needed them at that time in my life. And I threw some doozies out there for them. They maintained a Christlike demeanor towards me and didn't balk at some crazy stuff I might have had questions about. Albeit, as much as I love their honesty, it may harm some or has harmed some that are tender in their testimonies, that weren't raised with alot of the early history of the church, like me.
Thank you for sharing this, BTW.
Edited by juliann, 28 June 2012 - 03:58 PM.
The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
PS- Juliann, Thanks to you my wife and I are now devoted "So You Think You Can Dance" viewers.
I don't mean to be insulting, but you guys are soooooo easy to brainwash.
The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.
~Dallin Oaks http://newsroom.lds....vard-law-school
I don't mean to be insulting, but you guys are soooooo easy to brainwash.
Mission accomplished.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition." -C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
0
This topic is locked
William Schryver, on 28 June 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:
