Does Apologetics Drive People Away From The Church?

[Sky]

John Dehlin/Mormonstories made this assertion here:

I believe that FAIR should not fear MormonThink. I believe that FAIR (and the church) should look at MormonThink as the tiger in "Life of Pi" -- as the "enemy" that keeps them alive and makes them stronger.

Please consider using MormonThink as a way to sharper your arguments. The issues won't go away...so use MormonThink to make your approaches stronger. Fearing MormonThink or trying to avoid/ignore/suppress it won't help anyone get stronger in faith. In my opinion, FAIR needs to become so good at what it does that MT becomes irrelevant.

Responding to the other question -- I believe that FAIR/M.I. deserve criticism until they change their tactics and renounce Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley-like approaches. My advice to FAIR/M.I. -- If it isn't charitable/Christlike/loving....step away from it. DP and LM's tactics are driving people away from the church. I promise you they are. It's hard feedback to hear...but it's true. That's why I made the criticisms of FAIR...because you are hurting yourselves with your associations to DP and LM (at least with regards to their tactics in the past). I think they're both good, smart, well-meaning men...just very, very flawed in their approaches to LDS apologetics. That was CLEAR feedback from our survey, and it's very, very common feedback with disaffected Mormon folks. When FAIR is associated with thuggish tactics....it's a clear sign that they do not have confidence in their own arguments....and it reflects poorly on an organization which claims to follow Christ.

My 2 cents.

With that, a few questions came to mind.

1) What has Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley said or written that some have found to be so harmful or offensive?

2) Why do certain critics of Mormonism seem to get to say whatever they want? If increasing the quality or respectfulness of the discourse is the desired outcome, shouldn't it come from both sides? Because I see more accusatory tones/uncharitableness/un-Christlike tactics coming from the critics than the other way around.

3) By saying that apologetics destroys faith or is un-Christlike, is this simply a tactic to silence or intimidate or attempt to make irrelevant your ideological opponents?

3) Has your experience with apologetics matched John's description above? Has the Maxwell Institute and FAIR been helpful or harmful to your testimony? What does the Maxwell Institute and FAIR do well, and what could be done to make them better?

4) These questions and inquiries apply to MormonThink, as well.

Thoughts?

[jwhitlock]

Dehlin's perspective on all this is demonstrated as being defective when he does such things as accusing FAIR of being thuggish.

[Buzzard]

I don't know anyone with a testimony who was perusing apologetic articles and suddenly said "Hey, this doesn't make sense!". I think what happens is they are having a faith crisis already and for some reason don't find the arguments in apologetic essays persuasive.

It also works both ways. I have yet to read about a non-member who stumbled across the Maxwell Institute and was persuaded to join the church.

Apolgetics is a useful tool, but certainly not the key to conversion or testimony.

[Freedom]

This comes down to a playground fight and in the next life we will all laugh at how silly and irrelevant the debate was. 99% of members, I suspect, have never heard of Peterson or Dehlin. Most can't even name the 12 apostles. I am not discounting apologetics I have learned a tremendous amount from the free research these scholars produce. Some of it silly and deserves to be criticized, and I am grateful for the critics because without them we would not have some of the great responses. Peterson and friends have written and said some things that are wrong or perhaps even unfounded but is the nature of the game. Providing alternative narratives when little evidence exists will produce some garbage from time to time. The critics trounce on it, and the apologists have an opportunity to develop their argument. I know of many people who have been helped by their efforts. Those who leave, leave because they want to and they use excuses produced by the critics. These matters are all peripheral to the gospel however.

[Calm]

I don't know anyone with a testimony who was perusing apologetic articles and suddenly said "Hey, this doesn't make sense!". I think what happens is they are having a faith crisis already and for some reason don't find the arguments in apologetic essays persuasive.

It also works both ways. I have yet to read about a non-member who stumbled across the Maxwell Institute and was persuaded to join the church.

Apolgetics is a useful tool, but certainly not the key to conversion or testimony.

Great summary.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know anyone with a testimony who was perusing apologetic articles and suddenly said "Hey, this doesn't make sense!". I think what happens is they are having a faith crisis already and for some reason don't find the arguments in apologetic essays persuasive.

It also works both ways. I have yet to read about a non-member who stumbled across the Maxwell Institute and was persuaded to join the church.

Apolgetics is a useful tool, but certainly not the key to conversion or testimony.

Agreed.

[Kevin Christensen]

In the now famous email John cc'ed to Daniel Peterson, he offered five examples culled from his survey of 3000 disaffected:

Mar 26, 2012, at 10:43 AM

From respondent 2108: “The biggest factor was the professional apologists. I watched FARMS and FAIR apologists treat people horribly. For example, Professor Daniel C. Peterson used to lurk on the Recovery from Mormonism site so that he could snatch up quotes from the people posting there, in order to humiliate them. This, coupled with the way apologists tend to treat critics (i.e., with ad hominem attack), was the lynchpin.// I would encourage him/them to do something about the apologists. I think they are the worst aspect of the current Church.”

From respondent 1746: “On honesty, stop leaving it to the apologetics. They are terrible and are doing more damage than good to people’s testimonies with their poor answers. For example....Book of Abraham.”

From respondent 1865: “Please stop the ridiculous apologetics. Their circular reasoning and logical fallacies do more harm than good.”

From respondent 2122: “Please stop with the apologetic as well. Fair and the Maxwell Institute contributed to my leaving the church.”

From respondent 2844: “As I studied Church history and uncovered many controversial historical evidence, I would frequent LDS apologetic sites for answers (e.g. FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute), Shields, FAIR). I soon discovered those sites rarely dealt with the controversial evidences but rather often skirted or obfuscated the issue and frequently resorted to personal attacks on the individuals who were publishing historical information.”

I presume these examples were purposefully selected as particularly effective.

The survey provides evidence of how 3000 self-selected people think, but the quotes nothing substantial to support the claims made. We get standard blanket charges about ad hominem, but no evidence to support the charges. Specifically, who said what about whom? Where? How representative is the example, if we had one? Would the accuser here recognize an ad hominem argument if they saw one?

And John seems to be impressed by the numbers but numbers are not enough. John seems so impressed by the accusations that the notion of defense, of "proving contraries that truth might be made manifest" never comes up. How about details in context, and a broad perspective?

The closest thing is the charge that Daniel snatched up quotes from RFM so that he could humiliate the authors. Has the author actually read Daniel's mind so that they can verify that as the sole motivation? Is that all one can find in Daniel's writings? Nothing but selected quotes?

And think about the non-reflective action by Dehlin here. John is pulling quotes about Daniel, and sending them to General Authorities and some professional colleagues for what specific purpose? Flattery? Praise? Depth insight? To improve communication? To heal divided hearts? To answer troubling questions? Or is the real answer a wee bit more obvious and ironic?

I grant that people can be sincere and mistaken. In the interview with Coe, John and Professor Coe talked about how there was no evidence whatsoever for iron arrowheads and brass helmets in Mesoamerica. They did not check to see whether the Book of Mormon ever mentioned iron arrowheads or brass helmets.

What poor answers about the Book of Abraham do they mean? Are all the answers poor? Are any answers good? Can we even ask?

And what about the critics who where invited to publish in the Review? Paul Owen, Carl Mosser, and Michael Heiser? Does nothing but "ad homimen" explain that?

Which specific arguments and authors does the phrase "ridiculous apologetics" cover? Can you provide an objective definition of the phrase that people on all sides of a controversy can agree on?

Which circular reasoning? Which logical fallacies?

These examples certainly demonstrate passion. But do they demonstrate accurate perceptions?

Actually, the quotes, and their use provides good examples of something, though not, I think, deliberately.

http://maxwellinstit...d=77&chapid=972

RULE 17: In place of evidence use Rhetoric! When one is making grave criminal charges, either directly or by broad implication as all anti-Mormon writers do, questions of evidence can be very bothersome unless one has the wisdom and foresight to avoid all such questions. Surprisingly enough, this can be done rather easily. As Housman has just reminded us, the writer who is telling the public what it wants to hear will never have to answer embarrassing questions about evidence. The ancients discovered that any public prefers rhetoric to evidence, and the modern historian will soon learn the truth of the time-tested and timeworn maxim of the Doctors of old, that rhetoric and not truth is the key to success in this world. The basic principles of the classical rhetorical method are two: (1) eikos, that is, the building up of a case not on facts but on probabilities, and (2) the use of loci communes, standard responses to standard situations (hence our word "commonplace"), the appeal to familiar stock phrases to avoid thought and the use of emotive words of tested reliability to avoid evidence.

RULE 22: Discuss motives; read minds!

RULE 25: Attack not the thing but the Image! For your readers Mormonism [think Apologetics] is what you say

it is: it is to establish that thesis that you have been at such pains with your personal buildup. Once entrenched as an official guide, you can take your readers where you please; it is not the thing you are showing them from then on, but your interpretation of the thing. It has been the practice of religious polemic in every age to attack not what the opposition practice and preach but our impression of what they practice and preach.

RULE 28: Develop a special vocabulary of loaded and emotive words.

RULE 29: Study the techniques of gossip.

RULE 32: Be bloody, bold, and resolute! What the public wants in an atrocity story is straight horror, not namby-pamby explanations: the propaganda artists of World War I proved that once for all. As the murder mystery demonstrates so often, the emotionally involved reader is a functionally blind reader who will not see the evidence that is staring him in the face.

Now of course, John had referred to the numbers involved, and concluded to me "And unfortunately, perception is often reality."

In this argument, the hinge is "often" which makes an argument based on probablility rather than demonstration.

Nibley had pointed out that in sophistry (even unconciously done, as in this case)

The main thing was to establish the probability. The first Sophists showed the way to do this by breaking down the thing that made the Greeks uniquely great, the high moral wall between seeming and being.

I think any study of disaffection in Christianity should consider the implications of the Parable of the Sower, and figure out why people have completely different experiences on encountering the same words. "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 17, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Darren10]

John Dehlin/Mormonstories made this assertion here:

With that, a few questions came to mind.

1) What has Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley said or written that some have found to be so harmful or offensive?

2) Why do certain critics of Mormonism seem to get to say whatever they want? If increasing the quality or respectfulness of the discourse is the desired outcome, shouldn't it come from both sides? Because I see more accusatory tones/uncharitableness/un-Christlike tactics coming from the critics than the other way around.

3) By saying that apologetics destroys faith or is un-Christlike, is this simply a tactic to silence or intimidate or attempt to make irrelevant your ideological opponents?

3) Has your experience with apologetics matched John's description above? Has the Maxwell Institute and FAIR been helpful or harmful to your testimony? What does the Maxwell Institute and FAIR do well, and what could be done to make them better?

4) These questions and inquiries apply to MormonThink, as well.

Thoughts?

1) Truth often with intriguing and profound insights.

2) They reject absolute truth and therefore must embrace a psedo form of it I guess.

3) My experience with LDS apologetics has been a profound eye opener which has very much strengthend my testimony of the restored gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith. The Maxwell Institute has done very well and I do not desire for them to takethe current course they are taking but it's not my but their decision to make.

4) Mormon Think is a guise of intellect but it's nothing more than dancing to the same tune as many others have done. Mormon Think offers nothing in terms of receiving truth. They've been thoroughly rebutted by FAIR and rightfully so.

5) BONUS: My Gospel doctrine class rocks!!!

[Darren10]

I think what happens is they are having a faith crisis already and for some reason don't find the arguments in apologetic essays persuasive.

It also works both ways. I have yet to read about a non-member who stumbled across the Maxwell Institute and was persuaded to join the church.

Apolgetics is a useful tool, but certainly not the key to conversion or testimony.

I agree with your last statement, "but certainly not the key to conversion or testimony". I think, or rather I should say, I would not be surprised if many who are denouncing FARMS and LDS apologists are doing so in part because the apologetic arguments are very good and/or because in their doubt they are attempting to embrace reason and reason only. That, from my experience, is not enough for, as you pointed out, conversion. That comes from a sincere desire within oneself and for through the reception of the Holy Spirit.

[ERayR]

I agree with your last statement, "but certainly not the key to conversion or testimony". I think, or rather I should say, I would not be surprised if many who are denouncing FARMS and LDS apologists are doing so in part because the apologetic arguments are very good and/or because in their doubt they are attempting to embrace reason and reason only. That, from my experience, is not enough for, as you pointed out, conversion. That comes from a sincere desire within oneself and for through the reception of the Holy Spirit.

An old adage fits quite well here: A man convinced against his will is unconvinced still. Those who denounce FARMS and LDS apologists do so because it calls into question, quite convincingly, their opposition to all things LDS.

[jwhitlock]

An old adage fits quite well here: A man convinced against his will is unconvinced still. Those who denounce FARMS and LDS apologists do so because it calls into question, quite convincingly, their opposition to all things LDS.

People do hate to see their carefully crafted rationalizations and facades for leaving the church torn down, don't they. No wonder they respond so viciously when such things are exposed.

[Bill Hamblin]

You see, people leave the church because apologists are mean, but they don't leave the church because anti-Mormons are mean. The solution is obviously to get more mean anti-Mormons. Then everyone will stay.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think what Dehlin's surveys have demonstrated without a doubt is that people who pay attention to Dehlin and take his surveys agree with Dehlin and follow his coaching in answering his surveys. (Did mean apologetics contribute to your decision to leave the church? Hint: the answer does not begin with N.). The reality is, of course, that 99+% of the people who leave the church have never heard of Dan or Lou, and certainly have never heard of me. Dehlin's claims are nonsensical.

It is undoubtedly true that some people might leave the church if they don't find apologetic responses to their questions convincing. But having no apologetic responses at all will hardly solve that problem. The reality is that if a person leaves the church because they think Dan or I are mean jerks then he is a fool.

[ERayR]

I think what Dehlin's surveys have demonstrated without a doubt is that people who pay attention to Dehlin and take his surveys agree with Dehlin and follow his coaching in answering his surveys. (Did mean apologetics contribute to your decision to leave the church? Hint: the answer does not begin with N.). The reality is, of course, that 99+% of the people who leave the church have never heard of Dan or Lou, and certainly have never heard of me. Dehlin's claims are nonsensical.

It is undoubtedly true that some people might leave the church if they don't find apologetic responses to their questions convincing. But having no apologetic responses at all will hardly solve that problem. The reality is that if a person leaves the church because they think Dan or I are mean jerks then he is a fool.

He had one foot out the door already.

[Bill Hamblin]

Another thing needs to be noted. John Dehlin himself left the church without reading a single thing I've written. Despite the fact that he constantly says I'm a despicable unchristlike thug, when I asked him to provide an example of ad hominem nastiness in what I have written, after some hemming and hawing he finally admitted that he had never read anything I've written. Yes he knew it was mean and unchristlike in exactly the same way he knows Greg Smith's article is.

Some of you might be more than astonished to learn that someone has actually left the church without being negatively influenced by my unchristlike thuggishness.

[ERayR]

Another thing needs to be noted. John Dehlin himself left the church without reading a single thing I've written. Despite the fact that he constantly says I'm a despicable unchristlike thug, when I asked him to provide an example of ad hominem nastiness in what I have written, after some hemming and hawing he finally admitted that he had never read anything I've written. Yes he knew it was mean and unchristlike in exactly the same way he knows Greg Smith's article is.

Some of you might be more than astonished to learn that someone has actually left the church without being negatively influenced by my unchristlike thuggishness.

It does seem that some peoples opposition us in a direct proportion to their lack of knowledge and willingness to gain that knowledge.

[Storm Rider]

I tend to look at these types of criticisms as rationalization of the worst variety. Look, if someone wants to leave the church it is not found in a single reason. These brothers have as much to do with people leaving the church as a rainy day, a sunny day, or the mere fact that someone did not smile on any given day. I remember reading a story about missionary work in the south. A young companion was waiting at the station to meet his new companion while praying all the while that he would be a fighter. To his great joy his rather tall, muscular companion met him and he knew all would be well. There are times when some strong defense is necessary because of the tactics used by others. D can have a biting wit at times and frankly I appreciate it. The world is not nirvana and attempting to think that Jesus walked around in utter bliss teaching others is nonsense. He used anger when confronted with both contempt and disrespect of his Father. He used wit when interacting with the Pharisees. No, the reasons for leaving are not DP & LM. The people who say these types of things reveal more about themselves than anything else.

[Libs]

I think what Dehlin's surveys have demonstrated without a doubt is that people who pay attention to Dehlin and take his surveys agree with Dehlin and follow his coaching in answering his surveys. (Did mean apologetics contribute to your decision to leave the church? Hint: the answer does not begin with N.). The reality is, of course, that 99+% of the people who leave the church have never heard of Dan or Lou, and certainly have never heard of me. Dehlin's claims are nonsensical.

It is undoubtedly true that some people might leave the church if they don't find apologetic responses to their questions convincing. But having no apologetic responses at all will hardly solve that problem. The reality is that if a person leaves the church because they think Dan or I are mean jerks then he is a fool.

I took John's survey. I did answer "no" to that question. Church apologists had nothing to do with my leaving the church. LDS critics had much more to do with helping me out of the church. I will say, Mike Ash's book (Shaken Faith Syndrome) gave me a reason to try again, after I had been out for about a year, and so did John Dehlin's "Stay LDS" site. He was still in the church, at that time. So, church apologists gave me an incentive, for awhile, to stay in the church, rather than leave.

That was my personal experience. I know that ex-LDS have a variety of experiences that differ.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Libs

[rodheadlee]

Discovering apologetics on the internet ( I had been sailing around the Pacific with no internet) made me want to get off the fence and participate in the Church once again. I'd like to thank all of you for your work, it certainly helped this lost sheep return to the fold.

[ControlFreak]

Do apologetics lead people away from the church? Absolutely!

However, I disagree that it has much to do with apologists being human and at times inconsiderate or condescending. Apologetics lead people away from the church because they provide a source for all the ugly truths that I never would have read from an unfriendly source.

And for the ignorant and inconsiderate on the board, yes, it is 100% possible to be a completely faithful member with a very strong testimony and no intention to ever leave the church and have the truths contained in apologetics destroy that faith. No sin or desire to sin required.

[William Schryver]

Do apologetics lead people away from the church? Absolutely!

However, I disagree that it has much to do with apologists being human and at times inconsiderate or condescending. Apologetics lead people away from the church because they provide a source for all the ugly truths that I never would have read from an unfriendly source.

And for the ignorant and inconsiderate on the board, yes, it is 100% possible to be a completely faithful member with a very strong testimony and no intention to ever leave the church and have the truths contained in apologetics destroy that faith. No sin or desire to sin required.

I think it is 100% possible that this post is 100% based on a mythical narrative constructed and perpetuated by a very clever and cunning confederacy of anti-Mormons and their sympathizers.

[volgadon]

I think it is 100% possible that this post is 100% based on a mythical narrative constructed and perpetuated by a very clever and cunning confederacy of anti-Mormons and their sympathizers.

In itself likely a myth.

[rodheadlee]

Do apologetics lead people away from the church? Absolutely!

However, I disagree that it has much to do with apologists being human and at times inconsiderate or condescending. Apologetics lead people away from the church because they provide a source for all the ugly truths that I never would have read from an unfriendly source.

And for the ignorant and inconsiderate on the board, yes, it is 100% possible to be a completely faithful member with a very strong testimony and no intention to ever leave the church and have the truths contained in apologetics destroy that faith. No sin or desire to sin required.

It's the harvest. Who let's the words of men cause them to lose their testimony of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Truth of the Gospel?

[wenglund]

Increasingly, these days, people are following the fad of blaming others for the consequences of their own personal choices. The notion of personal responsibility/accountability is fast dying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[telnetd]

it is 100% possible to be a completely faithful member with a very strong testimony and no intention to ever leave the church and have the truths contained in apologetics destroy that faith. No sin or desire to sin required.

Can you give a few examples of 'apologetics truths' which could or would

destroy one's faith?

Try me.

Gail