Apologists Turned Critics

[DonBradley]

However, if you will return and read the two â??fictitiousâ? scenarios I presented earlier in the thread regarding the hypothetical CES teacher and online apologist, I suspect that the specifics of the situation Iâ??m addressing will make sense as one reason that some apologists have moved towards apostasy. They have done so because of pride.

Hello again David,

Let's suppose some apostatize because of "pride." Assuming a certain definition of pride, this is doubtless true. People leave for all sorts of reasons, so there would likely be some leaving under the rubric of what you mean by the term "pride."

But let's look at the context in which you're proposing this as an explanation for apostasy. Latter-day Saints are already prone, as they have been for 175 years, to chalk up loss of faith and the adoption and/or advocacy of critical views to personal sin or the desire to sin. The stereotype of the person who leaves the church because of sin or the desire to sin is ubiquitous in LDS culture. Everyone who leaves is suspected of unrighteousness.

Speaking as one of the "apostates," I really, really do not appreciate writings that reinforce this absurd stereotype rather than refute it. Even if you hedge your own comments with "sometimes," the bias against leave-takers is so powerful, and the stereotype of their sinfulness so strong, that your qualifiers will not matter. Your words and thoughts will only provide more fodder for the villification of "apostates." Some of your readers will see the motives you describe in various former Mormon "critics" regardless of whether the shoe fits, or whether a few toes must be lopped off to make it fit.

It's not cool, good, or helpful to reinforce prejudices and negative stereotypes against former Mormons and "critics" any more than it is to reinforce them against Jews, blacks, Muslims, or Latter-day Saints. You wouldn't write a post about how some Jews really are shylocks; so why write one on how some LDS critics have turned that way because of what you regard as "pride"? How is this helpful?

I know you are well-intentioned. But that won't stop this type of writing from exerting ill effects.

Don

[DonBradley]

Hello David,

I understand why you characterize pride as a sin however, do you recognize a type of pride that might be considered admirable and at least one motivation for those who engage in apologetics?

If that's off topic to your purpose, just ignore.

Jersey Girl

Excellent quesiton, Jersey.

I have a similar one. Could the desire for LDS "accolades" motivate some critics to become apologists? If not, why not?

If pride and the desire for praise and status are universal sins, why point them out in "critics" of Mormonism in particular? Isn't this a bit like running a headline that says, "Mormon Convicted of Robbing Bank" but not headlining the religious affiliations of Protestant or Catholic bank robbers?

Don

[SlackTime]

Excellent quesiton, Jersey.

I have a similar one. Could the desire for LDS "accolades" motivate some critics to become apologists? If not, why not?

If pride and the desire for praise and status are universal sins, why point them out in "critics" of Mormonism in particular? Isn't this a bit like running a headline that says, "Mormon Convicted of Robbing Bank" but not headlining the religious affiliations of Protestant or Catholic bank robbers?

Don

Hey Don,

I totally agree. In fact, I think I've seen occasions when pride was a factor in separating one apologist with certain scholorly opinions from other apologists with other opinions on the same subject. The contention and eventual enmity that resulted because each side insisted that their veiw was the correct one could easily send someone down a dark path.

Pride, can definitely cause any of us to stumble.

-SlackTime

[John Williams]

I don't buy the argument that the apologist turned critic has just been exposed to "the truth" at last and finally figured out he/she was wrong all along. We have discussed Dr. Terryl Givens' idea that there is plenty of information to sway anyone in either direction. Some just choose to believe and others choose to disbelieve.

For what it's worth, I don't believe Dr. Givens is correct. There may be plenty of information to sway Dr. Givens (and presumably you) either way, but that may not hold true for anyone else. Some people see no evidence that the church is not what it says it is, and others see no evidence for the other side of things.

[DonBradley]

Hey Don,

I totally agree. In fact, I think I've seen occasions when pride was a factor in separating one apologist with certain scholorly opinions from other apologists with other opinions on the same subject. The contention and eventual enmity that resulted because each side insisted that their veiw was the correct one could easily send someone down a dark path.

Pride, can definitely cause any of us to stumble.

-SlackTime

Thanks ST. I appreciate the thought and the example.

Don

[Chris Smith]

After pondering it during my drive, I concluded that, in my opinion, (and in addition to many of the comments that have been made on this thread) the primary casus belli in the â??hypotheticalâ? cases you cite is a deep-rooted predilection to contend.

John-Charles Duffy a few years back wrote a pretty scathing critique of the penchant for contention in LDS apologetics. It was an interesting article.

www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/132/Defending_the_Kingdom.pdf

[honer80080]

insert

[charity]

For what it's worth, I don't believe Dr. Givens is correct. There may be plenty of information to sway Dr. Givens (and presumably you) either way, but that may not hold true for anyone else. Some people see no evidence that the church is not what it says it is, and others see no evidence for the other side of things.

You just said what Dr. Givens said.

[John Williams]

You just said what Dr. Givens said.

Then perhaps you didn't say it clearly. You made it sound as if he said there were equal amounts of evidence that one could choose from, pro and con. If that's true, then belief or unbelief is a mere choice of what evidence you want to accept. I'm sorry, but this is not right. How we see evidence is a product of a multitude of things in our experience. It's not a mere choice to believe what we want to believe.

[Ray Agostini]

I would like to turn this into a positive thread.

Given the validity of my claim, to what extent can we, as an online community of LDS believers, assist those whose need for public recognition makes them susceptible to becoming a critic of Daniel Peterson, FARMS, BYU, FAIR, the Book of Abraham, etc.?

Any thoughts?

First, there are two types of vocal critic, one who really wants dialogue, and one who only wants to mock. This is the first thing that has to be discerned. Separating the two is important. You can help the former, but you can do nothing for the latter. And that's all I have time for today.

[Calm]

Then perhaps you didn't say it clearly. You made it sound as if he said there were equal amounts of evidence that one could choose from, pro and con. If that's true, then belief or unbelief is a mere choice of what evidence you want to accept. I'm sorry, but this is not right. How we see evidence is a product of a multitude of things in our experience. It's not a mere choice to believe what we want to believe.

But one does choose what weight to give these different evidences. It may not be because of 'desire' for a particular outcome, but whatever value we use to evaluate something, it is still a matter of choice--conscious or not.

[Daniel Peterson]

John-Charles Duffy a few years back wrote a pretty scathing critique of the penchant for contention in LDS apologetics. It was an interesting article.

He's since gone out of his way to avoid talking with me or shaking my hand. Or, at least, so it seems to me. We've met at small academic receptions and been the two speakers in an academic conference session, but I'm not sure we've ever exchanged more than one set of greetings and one handshake -- which occurred when a mutual friend once brought him over to introduce him to me at a BYU-sponsored reception at a scholarly meeting in Philadelphia. I guess he couldn't escape.

Maybe I'm just imagining things, but it seemed fairly obvious to me. I wondered if maybe I ought to wear a sign around my neck proclaiming myself "Unclean!"

Amusingly, the Sunstone article portrayed me as a pretty evil and vicious person -- every joke I've ever posted on the internet or made in an article was taken with deadly seriousness -- and there was even an accompanying cartoon portraying me as "Danibal Lecter" (for which my friend Dan Wotherspoon, the editor of Sunstone, kindly gave me the original) but then, apparently without recognizing that I'm the guy who founded and directs the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, noted that, in contrast to my rough contempt for those who differ with me, some at FARMS seek to further interreligious understanding by publishing dual-language editions of medieval Islamic texts. ("Dr. Jekyll? Meet Mr. Hyde.")

[DonBradley]

He's since gone out of his way to avoid talking with me or shaking my hand. Or, at least, so it seems to me.

John-Charles is apparently moody. He seemed quite cold toward me the first time I met him, but pleasant the next.

Don

[charity]

Then perhaps you didn't say it clearly. You made it sound as if he said there were equal amounts of evidence that one could choose from, pro and con. If that's true, then belief or unbelief is a mere choice of what evidence you want to accept. I'm sorry, but this is not right. How we see evidence is a product of a multitude of things in our experience. It's not a mere choice to believe what we want to believe.

Dr. Givens said, "We are always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion of life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. What we choose to embrace, to be response to, is the purest reflection of who are and what we love." Terryl Givens, "Lightning Out Of Heaven, BYU Studies (45:1) byustudies.byu.edu

You are focusing on the "who we are" part. Passive. No choice. But we know we have agency, and I prefer to look at the early part of the sentence. "What we choose to embrace" is the active individual with agency.

The whole discussion can be found at:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=17298&hl=

[grego]

Sorry I've only read the first page so far, but I'll share my experience here.

(As a big beginning, I admit, and I'll be the first to say, that I'm not always the funnest person to debate. The longer I am here, the more sarcastic I have seem to become, to where it drools and oozes and I don't really notice it sometimes. Perhaps that and other quirks have a lot to do with what follows; how much, I don't know...)

I read some articles (FARMS, FAIR, etc.). I was a little familiar with Nibley and absolutely loved it. I came here because I loved to learn, and had some things to share. I think it was mentioned before by karl61, what one finds of incredible interest, others yawn at.

You write some authors with feedback to their articles, and no one writes you back or notes it.

You ask for critique, and either get none, or get wild comments, or get apologist getting hussy.

You start getting a little disappointed and less positive.

You write some papers, and those "in authority" try to egotistically slam them. I realize it's sometimes hard when you have two competing apologists, too, with competing theories/ interpretations/ etc. You say anything, you get criticized; they *obviously* wouldn't have done anything wrong...

I have posted quite a few threads that get no more than 10 comments, tops. In fact, even recently, I have posted many topics that, without my bumps or comments sometimes, would fall off the charts with 0 posts (and a few that have). (The Fellowship section is even worse--BoM posts there reguarly got no more than 2 comments.) These are often threads on the BoM. Sometimes I think, "Wait. There have been some posts about topic "Z". Here's an example of "Z", and it's longer, deeper, and harder for critics to refute than lots of the other arguments here. I can maybe, maybe understand a critic not wanting to respond, but... no one? How come there are 0 comments?"

Someone gives an example of "Y", and says "Aha!" and everyone pats them on the back. You give examples of "J, K, L" and no one says anything.

Someone publishes a paper in an apologetic magazine/ book on topic "I" in the BoM and uses three examples as supporting evidence. You leave out the superfluous stuff and use over numerous, extensive examples to support the topic "I", and... again, about nothing.

Though most apologists might not want to admit it, it seems obvious to me that status is very important for readers/ others--for LDS or critic--not just what you say. The Gee thread made that pretty apparent to anyone who might doubt, I think.

I have realized, over and over, that not many people really like to discuss the BoM, and those that did, have left or don't much anymore (BOMA, Warship, Magyar, even Brant Garnder!, etc.). Just that sometimes, it's hard to remember and understand.

Also, sometimes people just aren't open-minded. I think that while the arguments and logic are quite on for many things (or would like to know through debate if so), people just can't even imagine or consider them, so there are just no comments. People beg for answers, then ignore them when they come, unless they fit in with the answers that they want or are willing to accept.

You've got lots to share, but... So you look for other possibilities sometimes.

Yes, it's easy to become *disillusioned* more than anything. You hope and expect much more most of the time, yet...

There are times you feel like not bothering, you take a rest, you lash out just a little too much, etc. I say, when you feel that, limit yourself and go to the park and play in the sunshine. And get to other parts of life, and to the scriptures, etc.

[DonBradley]

Hi Grego,

Don't give up! Several years ago I wrote a paper on Jacob 2, identified scholars who were likely to take interest in it, and sent it to them, as well as to several friends. When I received virtually no feedback, I nearly left Mormon studies altogether. I thought, "If even the people I'd think would be most interested in this sort of thing aren't, then what difference does it make whether I write or not?"

I think there are a number of reasons you may not get a response, and some of them are actually positive (e.g., no one can think of how to improve on what you said; or, your posts are of the substantive, thought-out sort that gets little response, as compared to the shouting matches that others start). I know I haven't commented much on your threads, but I've got your blog saved as one of my Favorites, and I consider you one of the more interesting readers of the Book of Mormon. I hope you'll continue with your blog, and perhaps eventually evolve some of your interlocking ideas into a few published papers.

Don

[juliann]

The Duffy article was bizarre. He takes a position that it is bad to use humor against those who attack you....and then immediately begins to mock those who do, sometimes viciously. It is kind of a jaw dropper but this guy takes himself very seriously. I am assuming his mention of the "side splitting rendition" of anti-Mormon material at the FAIR conference referred to readings of the early anti writings, the jumping off the temple spire genre. You would have to hate Mormons very much to not laugh at such over the top stuff. I could only conclude Duffy had a very huge straw up his nose.

There are many things that keep me watching...but among the most compelling is the sense of entitlement that anti-Mormons have...even to the point of thinking they can tell people how to react to their attacks. We see that all the time online.

[Fatboy]

I accept that the fact that I come to this board and share my opinions and thoughts on the non-truth of the LDS church makes me a critic, and not merely an unbeliever. But I don't do it because I crave attention. I was never a public apologist for the church, except as a full-time missionary, however I was an apologist for it in my own life, and with family members. Just months before I made the switch from believer to unbeliever I was defending Joseph Smith from some allegations a brother-in-law had found on the web, and defending the church.

What changed me from believer to unbeliever was a realization that it wasn't true after all, and that I just had to accept it and not kick against the pricks, and what turned me into a critic, by Paul's definition, was that it was a topic of great personal relevance and interest to me, and I wished to both share my feelings on the subject and listen to the feelings and insights of others on a board like this, and I found this board, and there you go. For the record, I posted a few times over at RfM before I found this board, but I quickly tired of some of the more strident criticism, for lack of a better explanatory phrase, and lost interest in active participation over there. This board has suited me much better. Nowhere in any of this was there a desire to be recognized by any side or the other, and that especially had no part in my switch from believer to unbeliever. That was a hard switch. Very hard. I'm not sure that any of the TBMs can possibly understand how hard that is until you actually go through it.

We've strayed from the original topic, though, except to disagree on the premise of the OP. I have nothing to offer David in his search for how to help Mormons to prevent them going from believers to unbelievers.

I am an apologist because I wanted to learn more about what I believed. I had anti mormon friends and co workers that brought many questions to light. Being partial anyway to apologetics especially on my mission, I got back into it about 15 years ago. Did I have a strong testimony of the church? I thought I did. But reading the tons of information that is negative about Joseph Smith and the church was overloading my mind. When I looked for answers to the questions, I found most of them from scholars or other apologists. But many of the answers seemed weak, and not complete to say the least. That did not discourage me from looking for answers my self. Now my answers may not satisfy someone else, but they sastify me. And If I can point another to find their own answers.

I know of friends who have left the church for various reasons. And some turn bitter and critical. Those who were in apologetics always seemed on the verge to begin with. They seemed to be missing something. I think it is patience. Instead of looking to finish searching for answers, they go into overload. Once there, the mental and emotional frustration becomes painful, and they want nothing to do with. That is a normal reaction. All of us need a balance in our lives. I think those who burn out so to speak become unbalanced. It would be better to step back and take a breath. Study the positive for a while. Recharge your batteries. One thing I do know is that a person who turns to the other side, usually stops reading the scriptures and praying.

I can tell you that I believe much differently today about Joseph Smith and the church than I did five or ten years ago. Does it bother me that he was imperfect? Not in the least. Does it bother me when I read that he translated the Book of Mormon by putting the stone in the hat? Not at all. I have my own understanding and beliefs on what I have put together as what happened. Call it blind faith, but I think not. I have had to many experiences to come to any other conclusion.

I was baling hay the other night and was listening to a broadcast given from the editor of Sunstone Magazine. I really felt bad for them. They were talking about the different stages you go through in your journey of faith. I really tried to understand why they no longer believe in the church. I mean as I said, I certainly do not believe the same, but to abandon your faith, is beyond me. These men sounded much more intelligent than myself, yet my faith has been strengthened. Sometimes I think if they put their faith together a different way, that perhaps they would have remained faithful. How can a person abandon the spiritual experiences. I know they had them.

[Fatboy]

Sorry I've only read the first page so far, but I'll share my experience here.

(As a big beginning, I admit, and I'll be the first to say, that I'm not always the funnest person to debate. The longer I am here, the more sarcastic I have seem to become, to where it drools and oozes and I don't really notice it sometimes. Perhaps that and other quirks have a lot to do with what follows; how much, I don't know...)

I read some articles (FARMS, FAIR, etc.). I was a little familiar with Nibley and absolutely loved it. I came here because I loved to learn, and had some things to share. I think it was mentioned before by karl61, what one finds of incredible interest, others yawn at.

You write some authors with feedback to their articles, and no one writes you back or notes it.

You ask for critique, and either get none, or get wild comments, or get apologist getting hussy.

You start getting a little disappointed and less positive.

You write some papers, and those "in authority" try to egotistically slam them. I realize it's sometimes hard when you have two competing apologists, too, with competing theories/ interpretations/ etc. You say anything, you get criticized; they *obviously* wouldn't have done anything wrong...

I have posted quite a few threads that get no more than 10 comments, tops. In fact, even recently, I have posted many topics that, without my bumps or comments sometimes, would fall off the charts with 0 posts (and a few that have). (The Fellowship section is even worse--BoM posts there reguarly got no more than 2 comments.) These are often threads on the BoM. Sometimes I think, "Wait. There have been some posts about topic "Z". Here's an example of "Z", and it's longer, deeper, and harder for critics to refute than lots of the other arguments here. I can maybe, maybe understand a critic not wanting to respond, but... no one? How come there are 0 comments?"

Someone gives an example of "Y", and says "Aha!" and everyone pats them on the back. You give examples of "J, K, L" and no one says anything.

Someone publishes a paper in an apologetic magazine/ book on topic "I" in the BoM and uses three examples as supporting evidence. You leave out the superfluous stuff and use over numerous, extensive examples to support the topic "I", and... again, about nothing.

Though most apologists might not want to admit it, it seems obvious to me that status is very important for readers/ others--for LDS or critic--not just what you say. The Gee thread made that pretty apparent to anyone who might doubt, I think.

I have realized, over and over, that not many people really like to discuss the BoM, and those that did, have left or don't much anymore (BOMA, Warship, Magyar, even Brant Garnder!, etc.). Just that sometimes, it's hard to remember and understand.

Also, sometimes people just aren't open-minded. I think that while the arguments and logic are quite on for many things (or would like to know through debate if so), people just can't even imagine or consider them, so there are just no comments. People beg for answers, then ignore them when they come, unless they fit in with the answers that they want or are willing to accept.

You've got lots to share, but... So you look for other possibilities sometimes.

Yes, it's easy to become *disillusioned* more than anything. You hope and expect much more most of the time, yet...

There are times you feel like not bothering, you take a rest, you lash out just a little too much, etc. I say, when you feel that, limit yourself and go to the park and play in the sunshine. And get to other parts of life, and to the scriptures, etc.

At least you get 10. Many times I get nothing at all. In fact most times I get nothing at all. Greg we are all at different levels of understanding. What you see as arrogance may just be that, but I think mostly it is just people at a different level. That could be lower, not always higher. I don't post here much, but visit a lot. I read and read. I learn and learn. Don't ever think that what you write is ignored by all. Just because it is not responded to, does not mean that I have not learned from it. The important thing is, that you wrote it down. Posted it for many to read. It is all a part of learning. Thank you.

[grego]

(

I hope you'll continue with your blog, and perhaps eventually evolve some of your interlocking ideas into a few published papers.

As a small sidenote, I can't get in to my blog (got caught in the "google bought blogger" fiasco) to do anything--even ok comments that people make--so it will probably never change. "Updates" just come straight here to the board.)

[John Williams]

But one does choose what weight to give these different evidences. It may not be because of 'desire' for a particular outcome, but whatever value we use to evaluate something, it is still a matter of choice--conscious or not.

You can't give weight to evidence you do not perceive. The problem I have with this Givens quote is that it assumes that we all perceive the same body of evidence, and then we evaluate it and reach our conclusions. I would think that this is obviously untrue. From my conversations with some people here and on MDB, I conclude we don't see the same evidence. It's not that one of us gives more important to "positive" or "negative" information, but rather that we don't see the same things at all.

It might be interesting to discuss whether our perception is a choice, conscious or not, but that's far afield from the topic of the thread.

I guess what bothers me about the Givens quote and the way it's being used is that it's the first step in a particular tautology: if we choose what we perceive, then perceiving the wrong things is evidence of poor choices (we were too proud or intellectual, or we wanted to sin, or we didn't nurture our testimonies). It just doesn't reflect what I see among exmormons at all.

And no, I'm not suggesting that unbelief is a passive response to reality. I'm just saying that it's a nonstarter to assume that we all see the same set of evidence.

[MAsh]

John-Charles Duffy a few years back wrote a pretty scathing critique of the penchant for contention in LDS apologetics. It was an interesting article.

www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/132/Defending_the_Kingdom.pdf

Duffy's article had some good stuff in it. His major problem, however, was his lack of sense of humor. I've talked with him about the article & other issues and, as far as I can tell, he is somewhat humor-impaired. Obviously, humor is a matter of taste, but he failed to understand that some of the things he called mean and nasty, were actually tongue-in-cheek comments meant to be humorous and not meant to be taken seriously. For example, if you look at part of my website here: http://www.mormonfortress.com/gloss1.html (which falls under a heading of "Fun Stuff") you'll find that I poke fun at critics. Now perhaps it's me and my weird sense of humor, but I was surprised that Duffy thought that some of the things stated in this section of my website were intentionally contentious and hostile.

Mike

[MAsh]

Amusingly, the Sunstone article portrayed me as a pretty evil and vicious person -- every joke I've ever posted on the internet or made in an article was taken with deadly seriousness -- and there was even an accompanying cartoon portraying me as "Danibal Lecter" (for which my friend Dan Wotherspoon, the editor of Sunstone, kindly gave me the original)

Just as a minor correction & clarification, the "Danibal Lecter" cartoon was based on the Apologete I invented here: http://www.mormonfortress.com/gloss2.html

While Duffy seemed to be oblivious to the humor on my Apologeez web page, apparently Dan Wotherspoon, got it.

I asked Dan W. for the original drawing & he put me in contact with the artist. She (the artist) finally tracked down the original drawing (after several months) and delivered it to me at a previous FAIR conference, where I passed it on to you.

Mike

[grego]

OP reply:

I think something that would help would be for apologists to remember to base "attacks" on the arguments, not the people/ critics--especially in more "offical"/ "professional" publications. Also, it would seem that being more honest would be better than trying to make someone look like a fool or that they have a stupid argument.

-=-=-=

DonBradley, Fatboy,

Thank you for the encouragement!

[gitxsanartist]

I mean as I said, I certainly do not believe the same, but to abandon your faith, is beyond me. These men sounded much more intelligent than myself, yet my faith has been strengthened. Sometimes I think if they put their faith together a different way, that perhaps they would have remained faithful. How can a person abandon the spiritual experiences. I know they had them.

Your right almost all of us have spiritual experiences perhaps some of them can be explained away as hormones, emotions or mere chance, but some others are not so easily explained away. If you realize that every other religion in the world has its equal number of meaningful spiritual experiences (we don't have a monopoly on spiritual experiences) then you quickly realize that loosing your faith and therefore belief in JS and the church he created does not mean denying the existence of God/Jesus Christ and all your spiritual experiences.