Tone Of Mormon Apologetics

[zerinus]

This is interesting. When I try to look at a situation to analyze I try to look at the whole picture, seeing both sides of the issue. When I look at both Mormon apologetics and criticism (a very broad term given the full scope this covers), I get a completely different impression from your review above. Beginning with Howe and going all the way to...I can't recall the fellows name, but just insert any of the recent publishers. The criticism is deceitful, lying, and sensationalized. I have yet to read a single book of criticism that approaches LDS teachings honestly.

Conversely, when I review what is looked at as LDS apologetics I find a range of styles. Some are straight forward and honest. Some I have found the product of exasperation and frustration for needing to respond to the same lies that Mr. Howe produced so many decades ago, but this is definitely a small minority of all that has been written.

Given the type of allegations that are bandied about against LDS apologetics, it seems people would prefer that LDS just shut up and let those who really know discuss their church's beliefs and history. The only ones who really know the full story are either ex-Mormons, Evangelicals, or the purely uniformed and wanting to sell a book (think Krakauer).

No, when taken in context and with a full story, I will take LDS apologetics anytime over its counterpart.

I think that the "critics" have a bigger problem than that. Their problem is that their "criticisms," when combined with the responses of LDS apologists, actually helps to sell Mormonism better! That is because their "criticisms" are often so shoddy, shabby, amateurish, superficial, and manifestly deceitful that when placed side by side with Mormon apologetics, it makes Mormonism definitely an attractive proposition.

Edited July 1, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

Have you overlooked John chapter 8?

No, I was actually thinking of these examples. I see no defensiveness nor defense in His conversation. He side-stepped accusation rather than defend (Verse 59 is exemplary of His approach). He stated truth and spiritual fact. He did not defend the light, but brought it forth and an assertive, self-assured manner.

He did not defend the qoman, He told her to repent. He did not argue with, but He convicted his accusers.

He always referred to the Father in His appeals to His accusers to understand the truth, and verses 27 and 43 show that He left their conclusions up to them.

I take the rest of the chapter to be a declaration, not a defense, of who He is and of His mission.

Not once did He try to defend Himself on their terms, or using what they would accept as evidence.

[CV75]

Is this something you want to discuss or did you just want to make your opinion known? Because I think there are times that in the context of his day and the types of discourse done then and the way people thought, he did indeed defend his doctrine.

Yes, I would like to discuss and hope to continue to read and post on this thread.

[CV75]

Jesus himself, while he did sometimes use a "nice" tone also used tones, mortal, pre mortal, and post mortal, that today would raise a hue and cry of meaness and cruelty. Some things that Jesus said would even cause him to be banned from this board. Thus if we really believe that Jesus is our Exemplar, then restricting one's "tone" to niceness in most or all cases is unChristlike.

I agree, and I hope this was reflected in my posts. But despite His methods, He did not defend what is already plainly manifest, but served as the conduit of all light coming to God's children in this world (D&C 93:5, 31).

I think apologetic discipline requires defensive techniques. But just becuase Christ did not use them does not mean apologists should not, or that apologetics is not a worthwile or effective means of correcting error.

[CASteinman]

No, I was actually thinking of these examples. I see no defensiveness nor defense in His conversation. He side-stepped accusation rather than defend (Verse 59 is exemplary of His approach). He stated truth and spiritual fact. He did not defend the light, but brought it forth and an assertive, self-assured manner.

He did not defend the qoman, He told her to repent. He did not argue with, but He convicted his accusers.

He always referred to the Father in His appeals to His accusers to understand the truth, and verses 27 and 43 show that He left their conclusions up to them.

I take the rest of the chapter to be a declaration, not a defense, of who He is and of His mission.

Not once did He try to defend Himself on their terms, or using what they would accept as evidence.

I was talking about tone. Do you not detect a harsh tone?

I think he did defend his positions. But we do not see it because we are used to the Greek thinking styles and he is using Jewish thinking styles.

You can find his apologetics in the Bible when he was under attack. Sometimes, but not always he would couch it in terms of the Old Testament .. and ask "Have you not read...?"

Edited July 1, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Yes, I would like to discuss and hope to continue to read and post on this thread.

OK.. I will try to produce a list of instances when Jesus defended himself or his teachings against accusers and attackers.

But it might be a better subject for a new thread. Is that OK with you?

Edited July 1, 2012 by CASteinman

[CV75]

I was talking about tone. Do you not detect a harsh tone?

I think he did defend his positions. But we do not see it because we are used to the Greek thinking styles and he is using Jewish thinking styles.

I do not know how to describe His tone. I would surmise it came across differently to different people, and He had the skill and spiritual power to simultaneously convey His message in many ways to many hearers so they would take away what He needed. The woman would have had a different experience with and perception of Him than the Pharisees did, for example. But I wouldn't call it a "defensive tone." He may have been "sharp" in His articulation (as in D&C 121:43), but that doesn't necessarily account for tone.

By asserting truth and condemning sin and false accusers, I think He effectively skipped the defense stage altogether.

[CV75]

OK.. I will try to produce a list of instances when Jesus defended himself or his teachings against accusers and attackers.

That is fine, but please filter them so that there can be no argument that they were justifications for His defense and not proclamations of truth.

[CASteinman]

I do not know how to describe His tone. I would surmise it came across differently to different people, and He had the skill and spiritual power to simultaneously convey His message in many ways to many hearers so they would take away what He needed. The woman would have had a different experience with and perception of Him than the Pharisees did, for example. But I wouldn't call it a "defensive tone." He may have been "sharp" in His articulation (as in D&C 121:43), but that doesn't necessarily account for tone.

By asserting truth and condemning sin and false accusers, I think He effectively skipped the defense stage altogether.

Counter attack is a form of defense. He said that they were children of the devil. There is no way that came across as anything but a vicious attack on them, their holiness and their authority. I don't want to get too far away from issues of tone in this thread, but I will just point out how this came about.

Jesus testified about himself. "I am the Light".

He is attacked: "Your testimony about yourself is not valid because you testify of yourself and alone"

Jesus now defends: "Even if what you say -- that it is just my testimony alone -- it would still be valid. But what you say is not true. My Father also testifies".

They attack back: "Sure... where is your Father then to testify?"

Jesus now turns to ad hominem, polemic attack as a defense: "You do not know me. You do not know my Father. You will die in your sins because you are from below and refuse to believe me"

They respond: "Who the heck are you?"

He says: "I am exactly what I have been telling you I am."

This is the end of THAT attack and apology but now there is a new one.

Jesus asserts to His believers: "Believe in Me and I will set you Free"

Attackers: "We are Abraham's descendants and already free -- you cannot free those who are already free"

Jesus defends his position:"Everyone who sins is not free -- is in bondage".

He then goes on another ad hominem, polemical attack: You would understand this if you were not followers of your father. But you are followers of your father and seek to kill me.

It is interesting to see that when Jesus goes on the attack, his accusers turn to defend: "We are not evil, we are descendants of Abraham and have one Father who is God".

But Jesus does not let up: If you were Abraham's descendants, you would accept me. But you are of your father .. an evil murder... and you will do what your father does.

This entire conversation fits the concept of attack and defense.

[CASteinman]

That is fine, but please filter them so that there can be no argument that they were justifications for His defense and not proclamations of truth.

Why.should I limit these quotes in a way that apologists do not necessarily limit themselves to?

Edited July 1, 2012 by CASteinman

[Nemesis]

First Victim! Anyone else willing to take a hit for mdb?

Nemesis

[bluebell]

Jesus himself, while he did sometimes use a "nice" tone also used tones, mortal, pre mortal, and post mortal, that today would raise a hue and cry of meaness and cruelty. Some things that Jesus said would even cause him to be banned from this board. Thus if we really believe that Jesus is our Exemplar, then restricting one's "tone" to niceness in most or all cases is unChristlike.

Most of the time, i really don't think the 'tone' is the problem. Usually it's what's causing the tone--

The need to be right.

Self Righteousness.

Pride.

Wanting to hurt the other person's feelings.

Wanting to 'win'.

Unrighteous judgements.

Regardless of whether or not our tone matches one Christ may have used in the past, if any unrighteous desire or emotion is behind the tone that we are using, we are in the wrong and need to repent.

There is no way to claim to be exemplifying Christ in our tone, if we are not also exemplifying Him in our desires and feelings.

[CV75]

Why.should I limit these quotes in a way that apologists do not necessarily limit themselves to?

I'm asking that you filter the examples you use to show that Christ is clearly in danger of being destabilized and overthrown by His enemies, and so resorts to validating and justifying Himself to them. Otherwise they are not good examples of Him defending Himself.

His positioning in the battle between the doctrines of good and evil begins with Isaiah 8: 14-15, "...he shall be for a sanctuary [to the faithful]; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to [the unfaithful]." So my posiiton is that He doesn't defend Himself.

He does defend His people, and shows them how to defend themselves in this world, but He has no need to defend Himself, and neither will those that become one with Him.

Testifying, teaching, clarifying, reminding and explaining who He is does not constitute a defense in a situation where none can really harm Him--see for example His exchange with Pontius Pilate (“Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above…”--John 19:11)."

[CV75]

Counter attack is a form of defense.

But not for Christ, who needs no defense.

[CASteinman]

I'm asking that you filter the examples you use to show that Christ is clearly in danger of being destabilized and overthrown by His enemies, and so resorts to validating and justifying Himself to them. Otherwise they are not good examples of Him defending Himself.

This is a nonsensical requirement. Apologists do not do what they do because Christ is in Danger and Christ defended his statements even when He was not in danger.

You are basically doing this: "I insist that you Speak only in the Holy Pure Adamic tongue otherwise your words are corrupt." By that you declare all words invalid in the same way you declare all apologetics invalid and even dismiss Jesus when He did it.

Edited July 1, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

But not for Christ, who needs no defense.

And yet, Christ counter attacked.

That should give you a hint about something. Namely its not about Christ being in need or Christ being in danger.

[why me]

I hadn't read this post yet when I made my previous post. But, obviously, I agree with whyme's observation.

There is, of course, something more to it. What I find truly amazing is just how many critics are calling for members to have cult personalities where all emotion is squashed for a christlike demeanor. They become parrots in calling church members out if they show aggression in their posts. I think that it is actually very aggressive to tell church members to tone it down and be more christlike. What this also signifies.is that for the critic christ behaved in a cult like manner---showing no emotion in speech just words that sound nice with a very mystic tone without emotion.

When I think of early church members, Joseph Smith, the Whitmers, Sidney Rigdon, Emma, oliver cowdery etc, I see no squashed emotions. But I do see passionate people who got angry, showed other emotions and were very human in doing so.

[why me]

And yet, Christ counter attacked.

We actually know very little about christ. His 33 years is squashed within a handful of pages. He certainly said and did more than what is in the bible. I see christ as acting like a human being. I am sure that he smiled, laughed, cried, had sadness and joy, showed love to people and diaappointment to. I don't think that he was a subdues human being, a man without emotion. For his mom and dad, his childhood was basically normal and he was a normal child who showed certain gifts of intelligence.

[Calm]

One does not have to be aggressive to not be cultish. One doesn't even have to be assertive to avoid becoming just another clone.

However, insisting that one way of response (totally mildmannered or nonoffensive or however it is chosen to limit how to perceive/define how Christ interacted with others) is most appropriate does seem to me to be condemning individuality and emphasizing conformity, which is honestly a little strange when it comes from individuals who preach about having courage and intellectual integrity and being one's authentic self and not being limited, etc.

Edited July 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

This is a nonsensical requirement. Apologists do not do what they do because Christ is in Danger and Christ defended his statements even when He was not in danger.

You are basically doing this: "I insist that you Speak only in the Holy Pure Adamic tongue otherwise your words are corrupt." By that you declare all words invalid in the same way you declare all apologetics invalid and even dismiss Jesus when He did it.

LOL--I'll have to pass on this post. You can practice with this sort of dialogue with someone else.

[CV75]

And yet, Christ counter attacked.

That should give you a hint about something. Namely its not about Christ being in need or Christ being in danger.

Counterattacking is not always the same as defending. You seem to acknowledge Christ was not in need or danger--so there was no need of defense.

Counterattack can be a form of defense against an attacking enemy in order to regain lost ground or prevent further attack, but Christ never gave up or lost any ground, and wasn't threatended with such.

It can be an attack intended to counter the opponent's advantage in another arena (actually making it an offensive technique), but I don’t see any example of this, as Christ’s enemies never had an advantage against Him in any of His objectives in accomplishing His mission.

Response is not defense. He may have responded to an attack with an attack of His own, but this does not make His attack a defensive maneuver.

So apologists may attack and counterattack and still not defend (as Christ did), or they may counterattack or otherwise defend in ways that Christ did not (or did not have to).

[wenglund]

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.

I believe this uncharitable sentiment is easily countered by reasonable people thoughtfully reading the apologetic material for themselves. It may even strike the fair-minded reader as "projection" on the accuser's part--the comments of those mistakenly stereotyping LDS apologetics as silly, embarrassing, lacking in content, and repelling in tone, too often are, themselves, ironically silly, embarrassing, lacking in content, and repelling in tone, which may explain why many of them are posted anonymously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 1, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The style employed when "defending the truth" is absolutely key when delivering a constructive message. It's best received if it's not contentious. As a matter of fact, I see my father's more passive style (still, totally thorough) to be the most effective technique for confronting naysayers.

The passive approach may work well in some situations and with some people, and also backfire (reinforce and escalate bad behavior) in other situations and with other people--particularly those who view passiveness as a sign of weakness/vulnerability and lack of conviction. Wisdom, to me, would suggest using a varied approach, and to do what works best depending upon the situation and the people. This is why, as I mentioned before, that we find Christ at times interacting passively on occasion, and behaving rather aggressively on other occasions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

LOL--I'll have to pass on this post. You can practice with this sort of dialogue with someone else.

We are in agreement on that. You have moved the goalposts to the moon and said "kick the ball over them bar's why dontcha". I will pass as well.

[CASteinman]

You seem to acknowledge Christ was not in need or danger--so there was no need of defense.

And yet Christ defended and counter attacked. You seem to be accusing Christ of doing needless things -- even wrong things. You shall have to take that up with Him when you meet Him and explain his error.. how it was needless and should not have been done.