Can Apostates Produce Valuable LDS Scholarship?

[Damien the Leper]

I think you fail to appreciate the continental dimensions of the divide between discussing the bona fides of those who make their Church Court proceedings public and those who, like Gileadi, don't.

The latter's proceedings and his rebaptism are his own business to share or not as he chooses.

Since nobody hereabouts knows anything about Avraham's life before, during or after, it's sheerest speculation for anybody to offer opinion on what happened with him.

Accordingly, it was actually quite helpful for our mods to tell us to lay off Gileadi, while permitting, for example, conversations about others of the "September Six" et al. who made personal matters press matters.

USU "Doesn't understand why anybody would not get this" 78

I respect the nature of his privacy. However, I asked as a means to separate him from the negative connotations against the September Six.

There seems to be a big difference between the 'apostasy' of the other five and Gileadi.

[Ceeboo]

By apostate I did not mean non-member (mark that CeeBoo) I meant apostate, as in traitor, turncoat, one who renounces their faith..

Consider it marked, Lightbearer.

Peace,

A non-apostate Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

Zeezrom:

Is that like someone opposed to what I believe telling me what I believe?

[zeezrom]

Zeezrom:

Is that like someone opposed to what I believe telling me what I believe?

Just saying that the mere fact that a person is a believer does not necessarily mean what they say or publish is of value.

[wenglund]

FYI. A collection of interview with most of the September 6 (minus Gileadi) plus Margaret Toscano, Janice Allred, and Tom Murphy will be coming shortly from Greg Kofford Books.

Very timely.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[the narrator]

Very timely.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It also has an interview with Don Jesse, from Church Public Affairs.

I'll be honest though, Mike Quinn's narrative seems way too conspiratorial.

[wenglund]

At the very least the "scholarship" from apostates have been of value in that they have caused many of the faithful (apologists in particular) to stretch and expand the horizons of their understanding of their own beliefs. I know that my faith has been tested and strengthened through open-mindedly considering the varied apostate points of view. And, wrestling for decades with their scholarship has brought home to me the importance of grasping what the restored gospel is really all about, and how easy it is, at no small cost, to lose sight of what is truly important and in our best interest. This lesson alone is of great value to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

At the very least the "scholarship" from apostates have been of value in that they have caused many of the faithful (apologists in particular) to stretch and expand the horizons of their understanding of their own beliefs. I know that my faith has been tested and strengthened through open-mindedly considering the varied apostate points of view. And, wrestling for decades with their scholarship has brought home to me the importance of grasping what the restored gospel is really all about, and how easy it is, at no small cost, to lose sight of what is truly important and in our best interest. That lesson alone is of great value to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Excellent point.

[wenglund]

It also has an interview with Don Jesse, from Church Public Affairs.

This makes sense since most all of the other good folks are far more well known for what the Church did decades ago rather than for what they have done then and since.

I'll be honest though, Mike Quinn's narrative seems way too conspiratorial.

That seems in character.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

zeezrom:

What I have consistently said is mere faith, or lack there of, should not be determinative, but bias should be a consideration as to how much if any weight we put to their arguments. I leave it up to the listener/reader to do that.

To give a personal example from this board. I have no problem in agreeing with Tarski on matters of science(when he is right. ). By the same token I have no problem with disagreeing with him matters of what I believe.

[zeezrom]

What I have consistently said is mere faith, or lack there of, should not be determinative, but bias should be a consideration as to how much if any weight we put to their arguments. I leave it up to the listener/reader to do that.

That sounds good. I was just responding to your comment that implied apostates may not always produce works of value. Why pick apostates? I would say any person in this world is capable of producing a work of no (or very little) value. Doesn't mean it isn't of value to the author though.

I read a story about yellow birds with gray on their wings in the Ensign a while back. I found it to be of very little value to me. But others may find it extremely valuable. So a prophet can come up with something of little value, IMO.

Also, I find Ed Decker's work of very little value.

I don't care who the person is - we cannot determine whether or not their work is of value solely on who they are or what they represent but instead by what their work contains and how it resonates with the consumer.

[thesometimesaint]

zeezrom:

I never said that all of the work of apostates is worthless, or that works by the Apostles always have value to me. Only that one should consider how much weight(if any) to give to that work because of known bias.

I have some stories from/about the Apostles that have no real applicability in my personal life. So yes it does happen. But by and large I find their talks and comments to be useful, and just discard those that don't meet my needs.

I don't go to known enemies of my religion for what I believe, any more than I go to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for my information on what the Jews believe. Is it POSSIBLE that its author(s) may have at some time produced some material worth my time to read? Yes, it is possible, but to do so without acknowledging, and giving extreme weight against that bias is rather disingenuous.

[rameumptom]

I think it depends, as in any other field of research, how the author manages/controls/acknowledges his/her own biases. Richard Bushman was praised for Rough Stone Rolling, because he managed to write a book on Joseph Smith that enraged the apostates and the faithful LDS. It definitely reads differently than Lucy Mack's biography on her son. The former hits hard on many levels, and the latter inspires us. There is value for both types of "history" I suppose, but we need to be able to separate them.

Too many apostates, though, tend to write with the focus on tearing down the Church, rather than reporting on actual quality research. They have chosen a biased path for their writings and videos, even though they do not acknowledge the bias.

[Obiwan]

Just to mention.... LDS don't generally call people "Apostates", ex-LDS or not.

We call them just that, ex-LDS or non-LDS.

[MAsh]

In answer to the original thread title:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Impact_of_Mormon_Critics_on_LDS_Scholarship.html