57 replies to this topic

[DBMormon]

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney.  I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics.  If you listen to this interview.  You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed.  Which does not do anything other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin.  I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense.   Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position.  Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism.  The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense.  While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time.  It has to be perfect to win.  

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively.   I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this.  Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

Edited by DBMormon, 06 August 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[wenglund]

DBMormon, on 06 August 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney.  I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics.  If you listen to this interview.  You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed.  Which does not do anything other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin.  I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense.   Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position.  Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism.  The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense.  While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time.  It has to be perfect to win.  

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively.   I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this.  Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

You evidently have a different view than I do as to what is weak or strong--likely a function of our different perspectives. I think you have it exactly backwards.

When people go on the attack against other people's faith, particularly when their attacks become the prevailing aspect of their ministries, this suggest to me that they lack the strength of conviction in the positive persuasive power of their own beliefs, and need to cut others down to their size in order to compete. That we LDS tend to confine ourselves to preaching the positive message of the restored gospel and defending the faith, is a testament to the strength of our position.

Besides, for we believing LDS it isn't about us humans winning debates with our fellow humans, but about spreading the good news and providing room for faith and letting the Spirit work its way. In short, the LDS strength is in the Spirit, and not in our debate skills. This is why we have such great confidence in sending out our young, naive men and women to declare our message.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

DBMormon, on 06 August 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

I think the more one can go purely on the offensive as Christ did (which is to use no defense at all), the better. But to play fair and abide by standards of academics and debate, going on the defense is inevitably an acommodation the apologists must make, and skillfully.

[DBMormon]

Take a listen to Hale's MP3 I included the link for.  Then if you don't mind, tell me what your feelings are of his approach and how it reflects on him and the church.  To me it is a better way to discredit the non-sense of 99% of anti-Mormonism rather then debate them in a way that plays right into their hands.  

For example mormonstories.org's framework - Not at all saying Dehlin does anything wrong.  In fact many of his episodes are on my MP3 player and listened to more then once.  It is just that his approach is to put Mormonism on the defense and that approach is what draws away many who are susceptible simply because of the approach itself seems more convincing.  

Would it be a different story if John did a podcast where he defended his beliefs or a stance of complete dis-belief against the evidences of the church?  rather then the interviewee defending the church against criticism?

Edited by DBMormon, 06 August 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[wenglund]

DBMormon, on 06 August 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Take a listen to Hale's MP3 I included the link for.  Then if you don't mind, tell me what your feelings are of his approach and how it reflects on him and the church.  To me it is a better way to discredit the non-sense of 99% of anti-Mormonism rather then debate them in a way that plays right into their hands.  

For example mormonstories.org's framework - Not at all saying Dehlin does anything wrong.  In fact many of his episodes are on my MP3 player and listened to more then once.  It is just that his approach is to put Mormonism on the defense and that approach is what draws away many who are susceptible simply because of the approach itself seems more convincing.  

Would it be a different story if John did a podcast where he defended his beliefs or a stance of complete dis-belief against the evidences of the church?  rather then the interviewee defending the church against criticism?

I have been well acquainted with Van's work for more than a decade, and I have even called into his show on occasion. I have found him to be very articulate and persuasive at times. And, while I am fine with what he does, including the specific instance you mentioned, I was speaking to an over-all approach. Evidently, what I said didn't register with you, and so I don't see any point in belaboring my perspective. If you think things will go better for the Church by you attacking the faith of others, then by all means have at it. For me, I have learned over multiple decades doing apologetics that faith in the gospel Church comes by pointing people to Christ and letting the Spirit do its work, and not by tearing the faith of other down. So, that is the approach I will take. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

wenglund,

you obviously miss what I am saying as well, my friend.  I am not suggesting one spend anytime tearing down the faith of others.  But rather showing the observers that the methods critics use have holes in them, that it is also difficult to defend against the evidences of the church as well as to defend against it's challenges.  

on a personal note - you still seem cautious of me.  you speak of

Quote

If you think things will go better for the Church by you attacking the faith of others, then by all means have at it. For me, I have learned over multiple decades doing apologetics that faith in the gospel Church comes by pointing people to Christ and letting the Spirit do its work, and not by tearing the faith of other down. So, that is the approach I will take.

and while I perhaps am taking tone from comments of which there isn't any, I wish you would do more entreating with brotherly kindness and gentle persuasion as you seem very abrupt in your comments to me.

We are brothers from another mother, don't you forget it.
XXOXOOXOX

[supersnail]

I view apologetics as poking holes in reasons for disbelief. Faith isn't based mainly on apologetics.

To the extent that apologetics is done, maybe there could be more emphasis on some areas and less on other areas. Scientific apologetics has validity, but has the potential to mislead people about the relationship between science and religion and cause problems.

[William Schryver]

DBMormon, on 06 August 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney.  I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weiak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics.  If you listen to this interview.  You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed.  Which does not do anytohing other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin.  I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense.   Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position.  Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism.  The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense.  While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time.  It has to be perfect to win.  

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively.   I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this.  Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

Apologetics is, by its very nature, a response to a pre-existing criticism.  Therefore it is fundamentally a defensive posture.  That said, it can be executed in such a way that critics are placed in the position of having to defend their weak arguments.

Edited by William Schryver, 06 August 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[supersnail]

DBMormon, on 06 August 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I posted part of this in another thread plus some other thoughts.

I was listening to Van Hale's interview today that he had some time ago with Shawn McCraney.  I spoke in a thread at one time about how the church seems weak at times because it is always on the defense when it comes to criticism and apoligetics.  If you listen to this interview.  You will see Van Hale understands it, and by putting McCraney on his heels and turning the tables and making him defend his position, he takes him to the woodshed.  Which does not do anything other then show that defending a position, even a true and strong position is very difficult and appears very weak at times to a listener.

I think at the recent panel discussion that Scott Gordon appeared weaker in strength of argument then John Dehlin.  I think Many apoligetics appear weak in some of their positions simply because they are on defense.   Once we learn that our position is stronger when we are on offense we appear in much better position.  Listen to 20 minutes of the Van Hale interview beggining at 6 minutes:00 seconds.

http://mormonmisc.po...rmon-vs-mormon/

If every evangelical and any other critic were put on defense we would find listeners to any debate finding more strength in the LDS position without even really discussing the LDS position.

An analogy is US defense of terrorism.  The terrorist while weaker in technology and numbers only has to succed once to display mjor weaknesses in the US defense.  While stronger the US has to be win and and be perfect in it's defense each and every time.  It has to be perfect to win.  

In regards to putting others on defense: Anti's play on this framework constantly and very effectively.   I wish more of Latter-Day Saints who have faith crisis would recognize this.  Debates and discussions take on very different tones and give very different impressions based on whether one is defending a position or criticizing a position and many times has much less to do with the strength of a position and much more to do with whether one is on offense or defense.

McCraney, like others, builds Strawmen and Hale erased them before McCraney could even begin to have his way with them.

What do you think about the nature of apoligetics and perhaps trying to gear it more towards an offensive approach?

Some criticisms of Mormonism are philosophically naive, logically fallacious, methodologically flawed and even scientifically illiterate, and this has been revealed in the course of what you are calling "defensive" apologetics. So I'm not sure what an "offensive" apologetics would specifically entail. I don't think you are suggesting focusing on individual critics of Mormonism or publicly tarring the doctrines of other denominations, but then I don't get what offensive apologetics would look like. Having critics of Mormonism call into a show would not get rid of the need for basically defensive argument.

Edited by supersnail, 06 August 2012 - 09:53 PM.

[DBMormon]

it is to take apart the reasoning and methods they use to show others that if their methods are aopplied to other facets, it tears down any other faith under the same premise.  It is to make them show their true colors.  McCraney looked silly talking to Hale and anyone listening who had half a mind whould have seen right through every argument McCraney made

Edited by DBMormon, 07 August 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[zerinus]

I intensely dislike the use of the word apologetics because it is one of the most misused, abused, misunderstood, and misapplied word in contemporary religion. Almost anything nowadays seems to pass off as "apologetics". The word originally had a narrow and clear definition. It meant defending the Christian religion (intellectually) against intellectual criticism by unbelievers. That was the limit of its meaning. Nowadays almost any kind expository writing on religion is called apologetics. A lot of the stuff that is published by LDS and non-LDS under the guise of apologetics is not genuine apologetics in the classic meaning of the term. Anti-Mormons publish unprovoked hateful literature against Mormonism and call it apologetics, while Mormons publish expository material on Mormonism with no apologetic intent or value and call it apologetics.

There is still another side to this story. A lot of the criticisms and attacks that is launched against the Church are not strictly intellectual in nature, and therefore do not require an "apologetics" approach. A proper "apologetics" response in those situations would be inappropriate and ineffective. In those situations often either incorrectly an "apologetics" response is given when it shouldn't have been; or else the right response is given and wrongly called "apologetics," when in fact it wasn't and shouldn't have been called such. The repeated accusation that Mormons are not Christians for example, or that Jesus is not the brother of Satan etc.--in spite of all the explanations that have been given (which they are fully aware of) is no longer an "intellectual" attack, and therefore does not require an "apologetics" response. Such a response would be ineffective and might even be counterproductive. It requires a different kind of response which cannot and should not logically be called apologetics.

Edited by zerinus, 07 August 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Tacenda]

I haven't watched his show much lately but happened to be home and turned on McCraney's show, a repeat of last Tuesday night's show and I might be derailing a bit, so I apologise if I am.  But he brought up so many scriptures in the BOM that are so true to what the bible teaches about the nature of Christ and even showed several scriptures that we are to worship Jesus, unlike what we are taught now to worship only the Father and go through Jesus to get to the Father.

Another issue that was brought up is "hell".  And how we don't believe in a place like it.  He brought up several scriptures to counteract that in the BOM.

As I've mentioned at another time before, I bought a copy of the BOM 1830 version and in it is clearly a Christian aspect that Jesus is God incarnate.  I don't have the time but will in the future provide references for all of this.

Just curious what your thoughts are.  By the way, he brought up the fact that LDS missionaries use the BOM to hook people, since it is so like the bible, and then once they get hooked they then get the doctrines of the church found in the BOA and D&C, etc.

One more thing, it seems very clear to me that Joseph Smith evolved so much over time.  Now if the BOM is from God.  Why would He change it so much?

Edited by Tacenda, 07 August 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[calmoriah]

Tacenda, on 07 August 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

One more thing, it seems very clear to me that Joseph Smith evolved so much over time.  Now if the BOM is from God.  Why would He change it so much?

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

What do you mean by "so much"?

add-on:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes

http://www.fairlds.o...nd-mormons-book

Edited by calmoriah, 07 August 2012 - 12:50 PM.

[Tacenda]

calmoriah, on 07 August 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

http://www.fairlds.o...-book-of-mormon

What do you mean by "so much"?

add-on:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes

http://www.fairlds.o...nd-mormons-book

So much, is the change of the belief to worship the Father and not Jesus.  Change the existence of "hell".  Change the BOM to reflect that Jesus is not God incarnate. Some things I didn't mention, polygamy being abominable in the eyes of God to having the D&C 132 commandment.  

I'm not picking any fight.  I guess I've stepped back again to try and see why we don't do as the BOM says to do, if we hold it up to be the most correct book on earth.  That's all.

Edited by Tacenda, 07 August 2012 - 02:18 PM.

[Tacenda]

And to add to what I said above, Joseph Smith had questions and sought after answers, what's wrong with LDS continuing that tradition?  I feel by my bringing up these issues I'm going to get knocked down.  I really tried to keep an even keel.  But I'm bringing this to the experts, because it helps, and if you are what you say you are doing, defending, then I'm giving you practice.

[supersnail]

Tacenda: I'm not sure where to start. It's not clear even in the KJV that Jesus is to be worshiped in the full sense of the word or that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father. I'm not sure what you meant exactly by "what the bible teaches about the nature of Christ," but your argument seems to rest on a false premise. I don't think you would call it an argument yourself. Much of what you're saying is undeveloped and does not call for an extended apologetic response. Also, the issues you're raising have already been addressed, including the general issue of changes between editions.

I am an investigator with no better access to Google than you have. Nobody is keeping anything hidden from me.

Incidentally, I "got hooked" by reading certain D&C sections first, before the BoM, and that was without any LDS person suggesting that I do so. I didn't find the D&C to be alienating. I guess the reason for the emphasis on the BoM has to do with the seemingly more mundane D&C sections that may not engage the attention of newcomers.

[calmoriah]

supersnail, on 07 August 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Incidentally, I "got hooked" by reading certain D&C sections first, before the BoM, and that was without any LDS person suggesting that I do so. I didn't find the D&C to be alienating. I guess the reason for the emphasis on the BoM has to do with the seemingly more mundane D&C sections that may not engage the attention of newcomers.

I find your tale fascinating...how long have you been studying LDS beliefs?  If I didn't know better, I would have thought you at least a long time convert you are so spot on.  I haven't read all your posts, but don't remember seeing one I disagreed in the description of a belief.

Edited by calmoriah, 07 August 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[supersnail]

calmoriah, on 07 August 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I find your tale fascinating...how long have you been studying LDS beliefs?  If I didn't know better, I would have thought you at least a long time convert you are so spot on.  I haven't read all your posts, but don't remember seeing one I disagreed in the description of a belief.

I have been studying LDS beliefs for more than two years now and have not been baptized. Am in a bit of a unusual situation at the moment that does not make meeting with missionaries impossible, but I would have to be very proactive about it. I seem to learn best by studying independently, but that is only to a point, so I enjoy posting here and find it useful for clarifying my own thoughts. I mentioned recently that I used to be an atheist, and feel it's important to dispose of all that, and deal with critiques of Mormonism, now instead of at some future point. I have what might be considered a strong intellectual witness and realize there's more to belief than that, but it's good to know I'm not too far off the track as far as these things go!

I once defended the degrees of glory doctrine when I was at the canteen and someone had brought it up as if to ridicule Mormonism without knowing that I knew about it. I have to admit I got a kick out of their reaction after I clarified I wasn't LDS.

Edited by supersnail, 07 August 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[calmoriah]

supersnail, on 07 August 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

I have to admit I got a kick out of their reaction after I clarified I wasn't LDS.

I bet.

[Tacenda]

supersnail, on 07 August 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

I have been studying LDS beliefs for more than two years now and have not been baptized. Am in a bit of a unusual situation at the moment that does not make meeting with missionaries impossible, but I would have to be very proactive about it. I seem to learn best by studying independently, but that is only to a point, so I enjoy posting here and find it useful for clarifying my own thoughts. I mentioned recently that I used to be an atheist, and feel it's important to dispose of all that, and deal with critiques of Mormonism, now instead of at some future point. I have what might be considered a strong intellectual witness and realize there's more to belief than that, but it's good to know I'm not too far off the track as far as these things go!

I once defended the degrees of heaven doctrine when I was at the canteen and someone had brought it up as if to ridicule Mormonism without knowing that I knew about it. I have to admit I got a kick out of their reaction after I clarified I wasn't LDS.

I'm glad I could help you defend mormonism intellectually.  I look forward to more posts and may even try to read some past  posts on other threads.

But I still have the question of why we don't go by the original BoM, as in worship Jesus, because he was God in the original BoM, why wouldn't polygamy still be abominable as in the original BoM and why is there no longer a "hell" as in the original BoM.

Edited by Tacenda, 07 August 2012 - 08:27 PM.