Is Apologetics Insincere?

[Uncle Dale]

...presuming, without very serious and direct evidence, that those who hold a different opinion

do so out of dishonesty, disingenuously or in bad faith...

A problematic presumption no doubt -- and one that could be closely allied with prejudice.

On the other hand, I could cite some insincere "Mormon" apologetics and polemics as voiced by

elders James J. Strang, William Smith, Sidney Rigdon and (I believe) by Parley P. Pratt and

Orson Hyde.

Just my saying that certain Latter Day Saint pronouncements were "insincere" (or even that

they were accepted as orthodox) does not make them so, of course. I may be wrong.

Hopefully others who make such charges are ready to back them up with more than just their

prejudices against the Saints, (and will be prepared to admit they are wrong, if need be).

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

A few obvious [significant cultural benefits]:

* Sense of belonging in school. Kids in church together often band together in school, and LDS represent the majority in many Utah schools.

* Business contacts. There is a "big boys club" of Mormons who own and manage many of the large businesses in and near Salt Lake City. If you can't go to the temple -- where they sometimes will go together before a golf game -- you're out. No, I won't cite references or names, but I have worked -- and now work -- with several of them. This trend seems to have diminished over the past ten years as the Utah population has become more religiously diverse.

* Ready-made friends if you move.

* Ostracism at work if it's known you were once Mormon and now aren't, and acceptance by cliques at work if they learn you are Mormon.

Even assuming that these presumed benefits obtain in Mormon-dominant areas (e.g., Utah, southeastern Idaho, portions of Arizona) -- I don't, frankly, see how they would motivate dishonest Mormon apologetics even there -- how would they motivate dishonest Mormon apologetics in areas where Mormons are not dominant? Apart from my mission in Switzerland, I first ventured into defenses of the faith while living in California.

It was intentional... but on second thought, even secular critics can be shortsighted and dishonest in promoting the "greater good" of their own careers. That can be just as blinding as faith in (so-called) God's greater truth.

I take it, however, that you believe ideologically-motivated dishonesty (as opposed to careerism) to be unique to the religious?

[LifeOnaPlate]

A few obvious ones:

* Sense of belonging in school. Kids in church together often band together in school, and LDS represent the majority in many Utah schools.

* Business contacts. There is a "big boys club" of Mormons who own and manage many of the large businesses in and near Salt Lake City. If you can't go to the temple -- where they sometimes will go together before a golf game -- you're out. No, I won't cite references or names, but I have worked -- and now work -- with several of them. This trend seems to have diminished over the past ten years as the Utah population has become more religiously diverse.

* Ready-made friends if you move.

* Ostracism at work if it's known you were once Mormon and now aren't, and acceptance by cliques at work if they learn you are Mormon.

Ther are more, but that's a little sampling.

As far as apologists being insincere, I don't think so. I defended the church very vocally before leaving it, and I was sincere on both sides of the fence. I think, however, that quite a few apologists do so to help bolster their own faith.

Anyone who becomes or remains a member of the LDS Church for any of the above listed reasons needs to build their testimony on the foundation of Jesus Christ, not social benefits. Your social benefits list fails to account for social problems that belonging to the Church can create. You mention the 'good ol' boys club' at workplaces in Utah. I live in utah. The last FOUR jobs I have had (Circuit City, Best Buy, Flying J Communications, Unisys) have been comprised largely of non-members. Almost all my direct co-workers, and all but one of my managers, were and are not members of the Church. In Utah, the religion card can cut both ways. It neither bolsters, nor diminishes my faith; it is irrelevant.

And ready-made friends if you move? ?? ... ok... Again, cuts both ways. "Here comes the Mormon, he thinks we are bad because we drink alcohol." [the Mormon walks past thinking 'hrmm..i wonder why when I say hi to those guys they give me a bad look.']

All these hypothetical social implications have little to do with absolute truth, and in my opinion, do not demonstrate that apologists will lie to make a case.

[Daniel Peterson]

On the other hand, I could cite some insincere "Mormon" apologetics and polemics as voiced by elders James J. Strang, William Smith, Sidney Rigdon and (I believe) by Parley P. Pratt and Orson Hyde.

Just my saying that certain Latter Day Saint pronouncements were "insincere" (or even that

they were accepted as orthodox) does not make them so, of course. I may be wrong.

I'm sure that cases of dishonest apologetic can be found among Mormons as well as non-Mormons. (And I'm certainly no fan of the "Mormon" James Strang, who, I think, was a transparently obvious charlatan.) But what I'm really curious about is amantha's apparent conviction that apologetics is intrinsically insincere.

Hopefully others who make such charges are ready to back them up with more than just their prejudices against the Saints, (and will be prepared to admit they are wrong, if need be).

Let us hope. (What is it that Samuel Johnson said about the triumph of hope over experience?)

[The Dude]

Even assuming that these presumed benefits obtain in Mormon-dominant areas (e.g., Utah, southeastern Idaho, portions of Arizona) -- I don't, frankly, see how they would motivate dishonest Mormon apologetics even there -- how would they motivate dishonest Mormon apologetics in areas where Mormons are not dominant? Apart from my mission in Switzerland, I first ventured into defenses of the faith while living in California.

I take it, however, that you believe ideologically-motivated dishonesty (as opposed to careerism) to be unique to the religious?

Anyone who is ideologically motivated may be in danger of this. The narrower the ideology, the worse the dishonesty will appear to outsiders who are more broadly motivated. Yeah, a Marxist anti-mormon would be more problematic than your average secular critic, wouldn't you say?

[Uncle Dale]

the triumph of hope over experience...

Some days that's all that keeps me going, Bro.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

Anyone who is ideologically motivated may be in danger of this. The narrower the ideology, the worse the dishonesty will appear to outsiders who are more broadly motivated. Yeah, a Marxist anti-mormon would be more problematic than your average secular critic, wouldn't you say?

Would secularism/agnosticism/atheism/naturalism count as a kind of ideology in your opinion, or are adherents of secularizing viewpoints (other than Marxists and ideologues of that type) able to reach a level of objectivity unavailable to theists?

[The Dude]

Would secularism/agnosticism/atheism/naturalism count as a kind of ideology in your opinion, or are adherents of secularizing viewpoints (other than Marxists and ideologues of that type) able to reach a level of objectivity unavailable to theists?

In terms of ideological motivation, I would not agree that secularism is equivalent to Mormonism or evangelicism. It can be if taken to extremes -- my example of this was marxism -- but generally no.

On the other hand, various theists can be quite as objective as a secularist, and can honestly reach different conclusions based on the same data. I don't mean to say a person cannot be both objective/honest and a theist. So I agree with Bach from the earlier page: LDS apologetics is not necessarily dishonest, but it can be.

But wait a second: I never said anything about objectivity, did I? The dishonesty I spoke of was for those who don't really care about objectivity; they knowingly distort and misrepresent in order to serve a greater good. They might try to look objective, to gain credibility. Aside from shortsighted careerists, I just don't see why mere secularists would do such a thing like ideological Mormons/Evangelials/Marxists might do it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Aside from shortsighted careerists, I just don't see why mere secularists would do such a thing like ideological Mormons/Evangelials/Marxists might do it.

I still wonder why you say some of the things you do, Dude, so the feelings are mutual.

[Daniel Peterson]

Aside from shortsighted careerists, I just don't see why mere secularists would do such a thing like ideological Mormons/Evangelials/Marxists might do it.

I have in mind people who strongly reject religious belief. Is there any possibility that any arguments proposed by such folks might ever sink to the level of insincerity to which religious believers are liable?

[Uncle Dale]

Aside from shortsighted careerists, I just don't see why mere secularists would do such a thing like

ideological Mormons/Evangelials/Marxists might do it.

I suppose that would depend upon the circumstances of the "mere secularist" under consideration.

Let's say that I die and my will is contested in court, with two "mere secularist" attorneys representing

both sides, (that of my wife and that of my business partner).

Let's say that the entire disposition of the case boils down to the question of whether I loved my wife.

My wife's counsel argues that of course I did, and produces "apologetics" in favor of spousal love and

husbandly affection ------ while my business partner's paid counsel argues that such stuff is baloney

and should not be considered in dividing up my estate.

Are either of these lawyers being sincere, as they argue for and against my alleged love for my wife?

Or against love as a reality? Do either of them really care whether their loudly voiced arguments are

"sincere"???

How often do any of us find ourselves us such a situation -- as we defend a family member, or a

fellow ethnic "brother," or a fellow political comrade, or such?

Folks have a right to be skeptical of the "sincerity" of apologetics ---- but they should also keep in

mind the possibilty that I really do love my wife (no matter the sincerity of anybody's arguments).

Or so it seems to me.

UD

.

[The Dude]

I have in mind people who strongly reject religious belief. Is there any possibility that any arguments proposed by such folks might ever sink to the level of insincerity to which religious believers are liable?

Anything is possible (especially with heavy doses of qualifiers).

If a critic's overriding ideology is "destroy the LDS church" then it might not really matter whether they come from a competing religion or from a secular point of view.

[cdowis]

In order to be dishonest, apologists would have to know or strongly suspect that what they defend is false. I have no reason to suspect that this is true, except in a very small number of cases. Therefore, apologists are not dishonest, by and large.

I recently had someone claim that my solution to one of their "issues" was ad hoc, which is another term for dishonest. I responded that I had espoused that view for several years, but I can see why they were so upset over a very simple answer to one of their "killer arguments".

If you cannot address the issue, you are left with impuning the integrity of the respondent.

[Corky Wallace]

For Corky Wallace:

I guess I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that missionary efforts are motivated, wholly or in large part, by a desire to gain wealth, sexual favors, or (most likely) status -- or, at least, something of that sort -- and that, accordingly, defenses of the Church are (again, wholly or in large part) insincere?

I think there are quite a few people for whom the "gold stars" they may receive for missionary success (either as a young person or later as an informal missionary) are substantial but quite secondary motivators. To the extent the alignment of personal "profit" & religious ideological integrity are perceived by non-LDS (much more likely in LDS dominant Utah), I believe non-LDS can honestly posit non-altruistic motivations for LDS apologetics.

There is a very small set of people for whom successful apologetics is a make or break business proposition - various bookstores, missionary sites, etc. [There are certainly others on the anti side who have similar economic interests]

There may be some people who more cynically "play the game" for economic profit, but my sense is the alignment of apologetics & non-religious interest is a secondary one for most, if it exists at all. I would bet there are many, many folks for whom the existence or opportunity for economic advantage related to the success of LDS apologetics is nil, or invisible.

[Daniel Peterson]

Human motivations are rarely simple or entirely pure, even when they're very good. We like to be thought well of, etc.

But it seems that you don't endorse amantha's apparent claim that apologetic efforts are intrinsically insincere. Am I right on that?

Does anybody (besides amantha) endorse that idea?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Does anybody (besides amantha) endorse that idea?

Not me.

I'd call it 'clutching at straws'.

But I don't believe - for a second - that it is 'intrinsically insincere'.

[urroner]

At work today, a lady I work with was talking about some of the problems she and her husband were having. One, in particular, was when they would start talking about problems they were having and when she would start disagreeing with him, he would immediately say "Well, there goes the discussion." Apparently he thinks that discussion is very similar to reaching a compromise with a teenager. Compromise to a teenager is agreeing with the teenager that he is right and you are wrong. Communicating with this man is agree with him and telling him what he wants to hear.

[Uncle Dale]

At work today, a lady I work with was talking about some of the problems she and her husband were having. One, in particular, was when they would start talking about problems they were having and when she would start disagreeing with him, he would immediately say "Well, there goes the discussion." Apparently he thinks that discussion is very similar to reaching a compromise with a teenager. Compromise to a teenager is agreeing with the teenager that he is right and you are wrong. Communicating with this man is agree with him and telling him what he wants to hear.

The apologist that I do not wish to hear is the one who comes up with a lengthy list of precepts or

doctrines which he/she says are undeniably correct and must be "the truth."

When that same person tells me that there is no possibility that a single item on the list may be

incorrect or "untrue," --- well, that's when I walk away.

What are the odds of any politcal party, or school of philosophy, or religion arriving at a list of 1000

statements of utter truth, which must be believed -- which must be assented to by a non-believer,

before an honest discussion of their merits can even begin?

But the apologist who is willing to admit that even ONE ITEM on his/her list may be wrong, is a

person with whom I can talk for hours.

UD

[urroner]

The apologist that I do not wish to hear is the one who comes up with a lengthy list of precepts or

doctrines which he/she says are undeniably correct and must be "the truth."

When that same person tells me that there is no possibility that a single item on the list may be

incorrect or "untrue," --- well, that's when I walk away.

What are the odds of any politcal party, or school of philosophy, or religion arriving at a list of 1000

statements of utter truth, which must be believed -- which must be assented to by a non-believer,

before an honest discussion of their merits can even begin?

But the apologist who is willing to admit that even ONE ITEM on his/her list may be wrong, is a

person with whom I can talk for hours.

UD

I have trouble talking with anybody demanding that I believe them because they are right and I am wrong.

[urroner]

A great man once said:

A number of years ago, I attended a small regional academic conference at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver. At one point, I came into the back of a room where a session was already underway. The topic of the presentation was a psychology-of-religion attempt to define "religious maturity." It turned out that, according to the presenter, belief in an anthropomorphic deity and in a relationship to God as child to Father are among the marks of an immature spirituality. Afterwards, during the question-and-answer period, a professor from the University of Utah indicated that, very possibly, a majority of her students believed that God is indeed anthropomorphic and that he is their Father. What, she wondered, should be her response to this problem?

The audience erupted. "Don't the Mormons have any concept of idolatry?" demanded one. Another informed the professor from Salt Lake City that it was her duty to educate her students out of these absurd and contemptible beliefs. (To her credit, she responded that she didn't think that the taxpayers of Utah had hired her to destroy the faith of their sons and daughters.) I sat in the back, unnoticed, stunned by what was being said by people with whom I had shared panels and lunches at several of these annual meetings. It continued for several minutes, growing worse and worse. Finally, a non-LDS acquaintance from Boise State noticed me and motioned ever more insistently that I should speak up. So I did. "I thought you should know," I said, "before this goes any further, that there is at least one spiritually immature idolater in the back of the room."

There was a very brief and very awkward silence, and then several of those present began to fall over themselves to insist that they respect Mormons greatly and (I'm not making this up) that some of their best friends are Mormons. But I had learned something very valuable during those few minutes of comment, and I'm under absolutely no illusions about the prevailing attitudes among academics toward Mormonism.

I can't remember who this august and world reknown man is, he truly is the foremost of true men, a consummate scholar, and a top-notch crackerjack, but if any of you can remind me, I'll be forever indebted to you.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A great man once said:

I can't remember who this august and world reknown man is, he truly is the foremost of true men, a consummate scholar, and a top-notch crackerjack, but if any of you can remind me, I'll be forever indebted to you.

Ghallager?

[urroner]

Ghallager?

No, it wasn't Mike Gallagher if that is who you mean.

If I recall correctly, his first name starts with a "D." Donny Osmond, Dude, Dudley Do-Right. I know it'll come to me.

[Daniel Peterson]

A great man once said: . . .

I can't remember who this august and world reknown man is, he truly is the foremost of true men, a consummate scholar, and a top-notch crackerjack, but if any of you can remind me, I'll be forever indebted to you.

Hmmm. Sounds vaguely familiar. Was it Brent Metcalfe? The late "Dr." Walter Martin?

[e=mc2]

No, not Gallagher, it was Petersoner........

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hmmm. Sounds vaguely familiar. Was it Brent Metcalfe? The late "Dr." Walter Martin?

I believe I read that in the illustrious work by Floyd McElveen.