189 replies to this topic

[CASteinman]

I have just read a post that says (paraphrase)

There is a problem with the tone of Mormon apologetics or at least some Mormon Apologetics.  One individual and a band of his thrall are said to be the source of this issue with tone.

Questions:
1.  What is meant by "tone" in an argument?
2.  What is the tone of Mormon Apologetics generally and of any apologists in particular?
3.  Why is this tone a problem or not a problem?
4.  Who is the judge of such things?
5.  Is there legitimate and valid room for variations in tone?
6.  Are tone critics raising an invalid point - given Jesus' "tone" in his disputations on earth?
7. It is said that we must be nice.  Which is to say we must be perceived as being nice.  What is the role of niceness in apologetics?

Edited by CASteinman, 30 June 2012 - 07:55 AM.

[robuchan]

Let's back up and make it real simple.  If my wife tells me she thinks I've been being harsh or mean with her recently, what should I do?  Listen to her, try to understand, maybe even admit some fault, maybe even try to make a change.  Or should I attempt to prove her wrong, belittling her in the process?

[CASteinman]

robuchan, on 30 June 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Let's back up and make it real simple.  If my wife tells me she thinks I've been being harsh or mean with her recently, what should I do?  Listen to her, try to understand, maybe even admit some fault, maybe even try to make a change.  Or should I attempt to prove her wrong, belittling her in the process?

Apologetics is not about two people in a marriage. Apologetics is the defense of the faith against attackers.  

So weird to make that into a marriage situation.   God bless you if that's the way things are!

Edited by CASteinman, 30 June 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[robuchan]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Apologetics is not about two people in a marriage. Apologetics is the defense of the faith against attackers.  

So weird to make that into a marriage situation.   God bless you if that's the way things are!

I guess we can apply it to marriages and employment situations where the LDS church can fire you.

[CASteinman]

robuchan, on 30 June 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

I guess we can apply it to marriages and employment situations where the LDS church can fire you.

You would have to explain it to me.  I don't see it.  Don't know how to convey it in a smiley but I am laughing.

[William Schryver]

In my judgment, the "tone" of Mormon apologetics has always been quite agreeable.  It has always come across to me as: confident, masculine, meticulous, honest, authoritative, and assured.

I would hate to see it ever become anything else.

Edited by William Schryver, 30 June 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[CASteinman]

Fifth Columnist, on 30 June 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Brent Metcalfe tried to post the following on Bill Hamblin's blog, but Hamblin wouldn't allow it. I think it shows the tone problems with conventional Mormon apologetics.

How does that relate to the tone of Mormon Apologetics?

[bluebell]

robuchan, on 30 June 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

I guess we can apply it to marriages and employment situations where the LDS church can fire you.

This makes no sense.

You're example with your wife seemed to imply that the only honorable thing to do when accused of being 'harsh' is to acknowledge the truth of it and change.  By using that example to speak about the tone of mormon apologetics, you have basically said that when mormon apologetics are accused of being too harsh, the only honorable thing to do in that situation as well is to acknowledge the truth of it and change.

Now, by adding in being fired by an LDS employer to the analogy you seem to be stating that if a former employee accuses you of firing them wrongly, the only honorable thing to do is to acknowledge they are right as well.

The glaringly obvious issue with your analogies is that there is no reason, in mormon apologetics (or in cases of employment) that an accusation of being harsh should be assumed to be automatically true or to imply that it would be wrong and 'belittling' to the accusor to deny them.

This is why your analogy with your wife, or with being fired, makes no sense.

[CASteinman]

William Schryver, on 30 June 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

In my judgment, the "tone" of Mormon apologetics has always been quite agreeable.  It has always come across to me as: confident, masculine, meticulous, honest, and assured.

I would hate to see it ever become anything else.

Hmm.. thinking of alternatives.  uncertain, effeminate, careless, lying, and doubting.   Hmmm.. now why would those be bad traits for apologetics?  

[bluebell]

William Schryver, on 30 June 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

In my judgment, the "tone" of Mormon apologetics has always been quite agreeable.  It has always come across to me as: confident, masculine, meticulous, honest, authoritative, and assured.

I would hate to see it ever become anything else.

Why would you hate to see mormon apologetics be anything else but masculine?

[Olavarria]

William Schryver, on 30 June 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

confident, masculine, meticulous, honest, authoritative, and assured.

Silly Willy, don't you know that's bad nowadays?  In order to be agreeable you need to be soft and effeminate or else you aren't nice.

Derail posts are/pictures being removed.

[William Schryver]

Oh, man ... all my funny posts are getting deleted as fast as I can post them.

This board just doesn't have a sense of humor anymore ...

Not only that, but I was trying to make a very serious point here.

<sigh>

Edited by William Schryver, 30 June 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[bluebell]

Olavarria, on 30 June 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Silly Willy, don't you know that's bad nowadays?  In order to be agreeable you need to be soft and effeminate or else you aren't nice.

My question has nothing to do with being nice (if a man can't be nice and masculine at the same time, then he's not a man worth anything).

I just thought it was a really odd word to use as a compliment when speaking about apologetics--kind of like saying that all good russian literature is 'masculine' or its not good.

It's an odd compliment, as if the word itself denotes some wonderful quality that can't exist outside of 'masculinity,' and that's why i asked for further clarification.

Edited by bluebell, 30 June 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[William Schryver]

bluebell, on 30 June 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

My question has nothing to do with being nice (if a man can't be nice and masculine at the same time, then he's not a man worth anything).

I just thought it was a really odd word to use as a compliment when speaking about apologetics--kind of like saying that all good russian literature is 'masculine' or its not good.

It's an odd compliment, as if the word itself denotes some wonderful quality that can't exist outside of 'masculinity,' and that's why i asked for further clarification.

As I wrote above in my post that was deleted, women can definitely do masculine apologetics.


ETA: In other words, I believe you've misunderstood my meaning and reasoning behind using the adjective "masculine".

Edited by William Schryver, 30 June 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[Mariner]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

I have just read a post that says (paraphrase)

There is a problem with the tone of Mormon apologetics or at least some Mormon Apologetics.  One individual and a band of his thrall are said to be the source of this issue with tone.

Questions:
1.  What is meant by "tone" in an argument?
2.  What is the tone of Mormon Apologetics generally and of any apologists in particular?
3.  Why is this tone a problem or not a problem?
4.  Who is the judge of such things?
5.  Is there legitimate and valid room for variations in tone?
6.  Are tone critics raising an invalid point - given Jesus' "tone" in his disputations on earth?
7. It is said that we must be nice.  Which is to say we must be perceived as being nice.  What is the role of niceness in apologetics?

While the tone of much of Mormon Apologetics is discourteous and annoying, the real problem with Mormon apologetics is not tone, but content.  Some of the stuff that Mormon apologists come up with is just plain embarrassing. One can only hope that those setting the new course NAMIRS will be able filter out some of the silliness and steer Mormon apologetics so as to be more in line with accepted academic norms in both content and tone.

[bluebell]

William Schryver, on 30 June 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

ETA: In other words, I believe you've misunderstood my meaning and reasoning behind using the adjective "masculine".

That's why i asked for your definition of what 'masculine apologetics' was--so i could understand what your meaning and reasoning were.

So, now's a great time to explain.  What exactly is 'masculine apologetics'?  

[CASteinman]

Mariner, on 30 June 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

While the tone of much of Mormon Apologetics is discourteous and annoying, the real problem with Mormon apologetics is not tone, but content.  Some of the stuff that Mormon apologists come up with is just plain embarrassing. One can only hope that those setting the new course NAMIRS will be able filter out some of the silliness and steer Mormon apologetics so as to be more in line with accepted academic norms in both content and tone.

When you say "silly" and "embarassing" do you mean that you feel silly and embarrassed?  Or do you mean that it is objectively and intrinsically silly and embarrassing? If the former, why is your internal sense of things better than, say, mine?   If the latter, what is your objective standard of "silly" and what is your objective standard of "embarrassing"?   Do you have a reasonable sample of example apologetics from NAMIRS that is silly and embarrassing?

[Fifth Columnist]

CASteinman, on 30 June 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

How does that relate to the tone of Mormon Apologetics?

The same tone is used in Mormon Apologetics.

Edited by Fifth Columnist, 30 June 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Hayds]

Vocal apologist vs. vocal apostates.  They remind me of Republican and Democrat politicians going back and forth.  Both are set in their ways and truly fail to understand each other's points of view, or even acknowledge the point other than to shoot it down.  Then, they both run back to their collective and high five each other on their awesomeness all the while failing to realize that the greater population views them both as braying mules and pays them no mind.

Edited by Hayds, 30 June 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Bit]

To answer the question of the OP, I think it's important to ask another question first: What is the "tone" of most anti-Mormonism?

Apologetics has always been a response to attacks. It doesn't exist independently of criticisms.