Apologists Turned Critics

[Paul Ray]

Only that two words derived from the same root, like critique and critical, and even the same (kinda) word used in two different contexts like "criticizing John's beliefs" and "critically evaluating John's beliefs", can have very different meanings and consequences. I can critically evaluate and apply them to my life in accordance with my evaluation without criticizing John and offending him. And I think you know that.

Yes, I think I know what you mean. I'm just saying that if you critically evaluate [something] you are then offering criticism... and yes you can do that while still being nice.

A person can be a critic and offer criticism and still be a nice person, you know. Just remember there can be evil "behind smiling eyes"... as we were told by one of our General Authorities.

Also, if you will check my posting, it was an observation, not directed at anybody. You seem to have assumed that it was directed towards you.

No, I didn't assume that. I simply responded to your comment, since it was a free for all.

... and anyone else can also respond to my comments.

And btw, I'm not directing this post at you, personally, Slack Time. I'm simply responding to the thoughts that I got from your post, and I'm quoting your post as a reference to help other people understand what thoughts I am responding to.

And I'll also make one more comment just to make sure the moderators know I am staying or trying to stay on the topic of this thread.

I believe a person can offer criticism and still be a true saint. I don't think critics are necessarily on the other side.

... OIOW, I think both sides can have and actually do have both "critics" and "apologists"

[Alf O'Mega]

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.

I had much the same reaction to Givens's talk about a year ago here:

Then he takes a stab at answering the "why faith" question I have asked so many times:

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice and therefore the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on one's personal horizon like the fruit of Paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension.

Once again, I find myself unsatisfied with the answer. Why? That the believing intellectual considers his choice "laden with personal vulnerability and investment" is no doubt true, but I fail to see how this recommends it.

Givens makes much of this razor-thin balance he sees between reason and faith. He considers faith for an intellectual such as himself a deliberate choice, one that Buridan's *** (who dies of starvation because he could not choose between two equally enticing piles of hay) could not make. Further, he sees moral weight in this choice, although why, once again, is elusive. Here is the grand and beautiful tautology with which he sums it up:

There is, then, as with the *** of Buridan, nothing to compel an individual's preference for one over the other. Only in the case of us mortals, there is something to tip the scale. There is something to predispose us to a life of faith or a life of unbelief. There is a heart that in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, and only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally enticed by the one or the other, is truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness.

Why, then, is there more merit that obtains given this perfect balance in believing in the Christ and his gospel and prophets than believing in a false deity or in nothing at all? Perhaps because there is nothing in the universe, or in any possible universe, more perfectly good, absolutely beautiful, worthy of adoration, and worthy of emulation than this Christ. And a gesture of belief in that direction, a will manifesting itself as a desire to acknowledge his virtues as the paramount qualities of a divided universe is a response to the best in usâ??the best and noblest of which the human soul is capable. For we do indeed create gods after our own image or potential image. And that is an activity endowed with incalculable moral significance.

This amounts to choosing the gospel because it ought to be true. It's a seductive notion, but not, finally, compelling enough to pull me in.

Moreover, I personally have never found the Buridan's *** analogy particularly fruitful. Such equilibrium is naturally unstable, and not even as monumental an *** as myself would starve in such a predicament. There are good reasons to prefer atheism to Mormonism.

Besides, you can still eat the best of both piles.

[Daniel Peterson]

-A-

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.

I agree that his apparent humorlessness was a problem with the article. He did a prodigious amount of research, and organized it well, but he typically put a far, far more negative spin on things than I think was actually warranted -- both in my case and in the cases of people I know.

But that's not altogether unusual. When the 1964 election was over, and he finally had a chance to read through the print-media coverage of the campaign, Barry Goldwater is said to have remarked that it was only after a few days of catching up on newspapers and magazines that he finally realized what a &$#@!%@ing #@$%%@ he was.

I'm always fascinated -- I'm being serious here -- to learn more concerning what a hateful, vicious, dishonest, duplicitous incompetent I am, and, fortunately, some of my internet critics out there are more than willing to lay it all out. I've learned a lot, from such things, about the wildly different ways in which people read situations, and about the starkly variant pictures two or more individuals' memories can conjure up.

-B-

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.

Ah yes. That's right. Sorry, and thanks for the correction. Thanks, too, for the drawing.

[juliann]

"For many years FARMS has thrived on ad hominem attacks, polemical tricks, and political maneuverings. I remember when they had an all out campaign to ruin Tom Murphy's career. There are many other like stories. While I don't approve of fighting dirty, FARMS and FARMS supporters can hardly take the moral high ground here. And when they do . . ., it's obscene."

(Dan Vogel, on the Shades Board [13 June 2007])

What the...?

[Daniel Peterson]

What the...?

Precisely my reaction.

But the funny thing is that certain critics see it as a self-evident and undeniable truth. And many of them are undoubtedly sincere.

These earth-folk are very, very strange.

[John Williams]

Precisely my reaction.

But the funny thing is that certain critics see it as a self-evident and undeniable truth. And many of them are undoubtedly sincere.

These earth-folk are very, very strange.

I have that same reaction when reading some apologetics. Strange indeed.

[Paul Ray]

Precisely my reaction.

But the funny thing is that certain critics see it as a self-evident and undeniable truth. And many of them are undoubtedly sincere.

These earth-folk are very, very strange.

Okay, time to break out the Star Wars quotes.

You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

-Ben Kenobi, Return of the Jedi

There. Is that better?

If not take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay, time to break out the Star Wars quotes.

You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

-Ben Kenobi, Return of the Jedi

There. Is that better?

If not take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

That, of course, was exactly my point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That, of course, was exactly my point.

Well, without quoting Star Wars, how do you plan on establishing any ethos?

[juliann]

I have that same reaction when reading some apologetics. Strange indeed.

That we are all sincere when we try to destroy people's careers? Nice. I think we all know who likes to do that kind of thing and it isn't done by publishing articles to compete in the market of ideas. It is done up close and very personal and very secretly so that no one will ever know what was done if the intended result doesn't materialize. That is what is obscene.

[John Williams]

That we are all sincere when we try to destroy people's careers? Nice.

That's not what I meant. I was making a lighthearted response to Dr. Peterson's joke that people actually believe things they say. I was joking that I read apologetics and think maybe some apologists actually believe what they write.

I think we all know who likes to do that kind of thing and it isn't done by publishing articles to compete in the market of ideas. It is done up close and very personal and very secretly so that no one will ever know what was done if the intended result doesn't materialize. That is what is obscene.

I was not making any sort of commentary on Dan's statement regarding any alleged viciousness on the part of apologists. I'm sorry you read it that way.

[Ray Agostini]

Apparently it is considered by some an admirable virtue to see an apologist turn critic. Wow, someone who "speaks the truth!" (pats donkey while adjusting tin-foil hat). It is now all so "clear". Now why can't everyone see what the born-again critic can so obviously see? Bias, maybe?

[John Williams]

Apparently it is considered by some an admirable virtue to see an apologist turn critic. Wow, someone who "speaks the truth!" (pats donkey while adjusting tin-foil hat). It is now all so "clear". Now why can't everyone see what the born-again critic can so obviously see? Bias, maybe?

Actually, Ray, the OP suggested that it was not an "admirable virtue." People have different reasons for their beliefs and choices. Your post associates a certain arrogance with those who have left the fold because they believe they "speak the truth." People who convert to Mormonism feel that they now see clearly. Is that arrogant, or do both groups simply believe what they believe?

[Ray Agostini]

People who convert to Mormonism feel that they now see clearly. Is that arrogant, or do both groups simply believe what they believe?

No, it is not arrogant, because they do see clearly. And their lives are changed so much for the better.

[John Williams]

No, it is not arrogant, because they do see clearly. And their lives are changed so much for the better.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's interesting to me that I hear exmormons say the same thing. It's fascinating to me to hear that if exmormons feel better and feel like they see clearly, it's from the devil.

[Ray Agostini]

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's interesting to me that I hear exmormons say the same thing. It's fascinating to me to hear that if exmormons feel better and feel like they see clearly, it's from the devil.

Lehi's dream clears this up quite well. All of those in the great and spacious building, mocking and laughing, thought they "saw clearly" while walking in darkness at noonday.

[John Williams]

Lehi's dream clears this up quite well. All of those in the great and spacious building, mocking and laughing, thought they "saw clearly" while walking in darkness at noonday.

What if Lehi's dream never happened?

The interesting thing about Lehi's dream is that the people clinging to the iron rod didn't spend a lot of time telling each other how awful those folks were in the building.

For a lot of exmormons (most, I think), life simply makes more sense now. Obviously, life makes more sense to you within a Mormon context.

[Ray Agostini]

What if Lehi's dream never happened?

What if it did?

The interesting thing about Lehi's dream is that the people clinging to the iron rod didn't spend a lot of time telling each other how awful those folks were in the building.

You mean like Nephi?:

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge yeâ??for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.

13 And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until that great day shall come.

14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.

15 For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen.

[John Williams]

What if it did?

Don't worry. It didn't.

You mean like Nephi?:

Touche.

[Ray Agostini]

Don't worry. It didn't.

Quite sure, John? Good night, friend.

[John Williams]

Quite sure, John? Good night, friend.

Actually, yes, I'm quite sure. Good night, Ray.

[Uncle Dale]

...I just find it interesting that people believe that you "drift" if you try to understand

the folks on the other side. It doesn't have to be that way.

And yet, I have gone through that experience. At one point, years back, I was an

active, official RLDS missionary "assistant," promoting the RLDS Church against

the Mormons, in efforts like manning church booths at the Utah State Fair in SLC, etc.

Part of my experience in "drifting" away from the RLDS/CoC certainly came

about as a consequence of my "trying to understand folks on the other side."

I guess the starting point for all of that was my question of 30 years ago, to the

LDS I encountered: "Why do you believe Brigham Young was NOT a false prophet;

and why do you believe that Joseph Smith III WAS a false prophet?"

In my experience, at least, trying to "understand the other side" can lead directly to

some serious "drifting" --- not only towards certain Mormon viewpoints, but also

towards numerous "critical" viewpoints existing totally outside of Latter Day Saintism!

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

I just find it interesting that people believe that you "drift" if you try to understand the folks on the other side. It doesn't have to be that way.

My professional life is largely focused on trying to understand another (significantly different) religious point of view.

No "drift" in my case (that I can detect).

[Daniel Peterson]

every other religion in the world has its equal number of meaningful spiritual experiences

Is this actually true?

I'm often confidently informed that Muslims, for example, claim testimonies in the same way (or, at any rate, in much the same way) that Latter-day Saints do, but (and perhaps I simply don't know enough about Islam or know too few Muslims) this doesn't appear to me to be the case.

[Calm]

It's interesting to me that I hear exmormons say the same thing.

Why would anyone choose a belief system that they thought made them less informed about the truth or 'unenlightened'?