Can LDS Apologists Be Kind?

[mfbukowski]

Well as a paragon of virtue in this regard,

I promise to do even better in the future. Now we have to get the other Pahoran of virtue on board....

OOPs- did I say that? Freudian slip.....

[David Bokovoy]

We deal with touchy subjects and implications of our conclusions are offensive. When a critic implies I'm delusional, irrational, kooky, a coward, or what have you, I want to respond in kind.

When a believer starts to imply that a critic is motivated by Satan, evil, disingenuous, sinful, lazy, unintelligent, apostate, etc... I'm sure it wears on them.

These are great points, however, I would add that from my perspective, we as believers hold the greater responsibility to respond to critics with kindness. Many critics posting in these forums are former believers, experiencing considerable pain. They feel hurt over the fact that they believe they have been deceived, and that they have wasted major portions of their lives living a lie. Many of them feel pain over the fact that their disbelief has caused problems in their relationships with spouses, parents, friends, children, etc. Some have experienced painful divorces and loss of jobs.

Hence, when given an opportunity to vent as an anonymous poster in a public forum, these people are going to express condescending remarks about matters that we as believers hold sacred. Given my love for the Prophet Joseph, and this Church, I'll admit that I have a hard time reading many of these attacks (there are some forums that I simply choose to avoid). Given these facts, perhaps those of us who cannot respond with kindness to non-believers should either avoid reading their posts, or at least avoid posting responses to their attacks and/or questions.

Not only do attack-centered apologetics fail to convince critics to join our ranks, but I'm quite confident that they leave a bad taste regarding Mormonism in the mouth of the casual observer who happens to land upon an LDS forum.

[Mars]

Agreed, DB.

Best to just ignore the jabs and answer the honest question, if any are put forward.

Best for others to answer the honest questions... I'm terrible at arguing.

[semlogo]

These are great points, however, I would add that from my perspective, we as believers hold the greater responsibility to respond to critics with kindness. Many critics posting in these forums are former believers, experiencing considerable pain. They feel hurt over the fact that they believe they have been deceived, and that they have wasted major portions of their lives living a lie. Many of them feel pain over the fact that their disbelieve has caused problems in their relationships with spouses, parents, friends, children, etc. Some have experienced painful divorces and loss of jobs.

Hence, when given an opportunity to vent as an anonymous poster in a public forum, these people are going to express condescending remarks about matters that we as believers hold sacred. Given my love for the Prophet Joseph, and this Church, I'll admit that I have a hard time reading many of these attacks (there are some forums that I simply choose to avoid). Given these facts, perhaps those of us who cannot respond with kindness to non-believers should either avoid reading their posts, or at least avoid posting responses to their attacks and/or questions.

Not only do attack-centered apologetics fail to convince critics to join our ranks, but I'm quite confident that they leave a bad taste regarding Mormonism in the mouth of the casual observer who happens to land upon an LDS forum.

100% agreed.

[ttribe]

Speaking as one who, several months ago, chose to essentially withdraw from this entire activity of online discussion of the Church and its issues over this very matter of strident animosity on both sides of the debate, I can only make this observation -

Controversial topics have always resulted in polarization and the creation of militancy on both sides of any issue. We are discovering that our topic is no different. That's not to say that nothing can be done about it to rise above the fray; but it's context. We are human beings who are subject to bias, tribalism, emotional outbursts, bruised egos, self-righteousness, lack of self-understanding, etc. It seems a fundamental adherence to the "Golden Rule" would go a long way towards reducing the amount of animosity which resides in this ongoing dialogue (both here and elsewhere). That may seem elementary, perhaps even naive, but it sure seems like an appropriate first step.

[mfbukowski]

Speaking as one who, several months ago, chose to essentially withdraw from this entire activity of online discussion of the Church and its issues over this very matter of strident animosity on both sides of the debate, I can only make this observation -

Controversial topics have always resulted in polarization and the creation of militancy on both sides of any issue. We are discovering that our topic is no different. That's not to say that nothing can be done about it to rise above the fray; but it's context. We are human beings who are subject to bias, tribalism, emotional outbursts, bruised egos, self-righteousness, lack of self-understanding, etc. It seems a fundamental adherence to the "Golden Rule" would go a long way towards reducing the amount of animosity which resides in this ongoing dialogue (both here and elsewhere). That may seem elementary, perhaps even naive, but it sure seems like an appropriate first step.

I think this topic is inseparable from the "persecution complex" it is easy to feel when you are LDS. If we want to be kinder, it will have to be in spite of the anger such feelings can generate.

[Eldwynn]

"They will not come into the church ... because of our eloquence or the evidence that we can amass in something."

I could not disagree more. If a missionary wants to talk to me about gods and other religious topics, he needs to point to these things in a way that I can see them. If not, then it's a lot like string theory, only without the mathematics.

Actually, it's not even that, because at least string theory can be formulated into a testable hypothesis. God can not. It reminds me a lot of ether. It's all around you, you can't see, you just have to assume it exists for our equations to work. Newton did the same thing- he thought god was required to keep the planets in orbit, because his equations did not. However, whenever we look at such things, it turns out they were wrong.

[mfbukowski]

Agreed, DB.

Best to just ignore the jabs and answer the honest question, if any are put forward.

Best for others to answer the honest questions... I'm terrible at arguing.

My problem is that I love it!

I was in debate all the way through High School and college, and being adversarial has just stuck. For me, this is my version of video games- this is a "first person shooter" game for me, so it's going to be hard to change.

[ttribe]

I think this topic is inseparable from the "persecution complex" it is easy to feel when you are LDS. If we want to be kinder, it will have to be in spite of the anger such feelings can generate.

To be clear, the notion of a "persecution complex" is not endemic to LDS; it's a rather tribal instinct.

[SilverKnight]

I find it far easier to defend the LDS church from critics by consciously not self-identifying as an apologist.

Once you call yourself an apologist, you are obligated to defend too many indefensible things.

When I reached the point where I was able to agree with the critic on certain points, and disagree with the church on certain points, being a mormon became a whole lot easier - and likely averted creating another bitter vitriolic apostate.

[consiglieri]

Speaking as one who, several months ago, chose to essentially withdraw from this entire activity of online discussion of the Church . . .

Know that you are missed, mi amigo.

[mfbukowski]

I could not disagree more. If a missionary wants to talk to me about gods and other religious topics, he needs to point to these things in a way that I can see them. If not, then it's a lot like string theory, only without the mathematics.

Actually, it's not even that, because at least string theory can be formulated into a testable hypothesis. God can not. It reminds me a lot of ether. It's all around you, you can't see, you just have to assume it exists for our equations to work. Newton did the same thing- he thought god was required to keep the planets in orbit, because his equations did not. However, whenever we look at such things, it turns out they were wrong.

GRRRRRRRR.......

(how am I doin' so far?)

[mfbukowski]

To be clear, the notion of a "persecution complex" is not endemic to LDS; it's a rather tribal instinct.

Agreed, and pretty primitive I guess!

[mfbukowski]

Thanks guys. Now if we could ever get over for some of Famous David's ribs (not to be confused with Famous Dave's).......

Wait a minute- does that have something to do with David's "Adam's 'Rib'" thread from a couple of weeks back??

[SilverKnight]

I could not disagree more. If a missionary wants to talk to me about gods and other religious topics, he needs to point to these things in a way that I can see them. If not, then it's a lot like string theory, only without the mathematics.

I could not agree more.

Potential adherents to any faith ultimately experience conversion through some sublimely spiritual and transcendent process or event.

Religious conversion is the opposite of deductive analysis - and the reason why atheists are not the target audience of LDS missionaries.

[David Bokovoy]

Wait a minute- does that have something to do with David's "Adam's 'Rib'" thread from a couple of weeks back??

LOL!!!! Oh NO!!!! You are once sick Dude!

[mfbukowski]

LOL!!!! Oh NO!!!! You are once sick Dude!

[Mordecai]

I'm not a good example of humble apologetics. At the same time, at least I'm not afraid to say what I mean. I've just got to get a good balance between the two, which is the real challenge. By the way, Joseph Smith used to tease his antagonists in a way that would irritate them. For example, when they claimed he was a false prophet, he would refer them to Revelation where it says, "To testify that Jesus is the Christ, you must have the spirit of prophecy," and say, "I testify of Christ; therefore, I'm a prophet." Clearly, there is some equivocation in there, but when your antagonists are hopeless causes, fighting for the sake of fighting, I don't have a problem with getting sarcastic and such in response to them.

Again, though, I am not a good example of humble apologetics, so I can't really speak on that. I try to watch others who do that well and am often impressed.

[Eldwynn]

I could not agree more.

Potential adherents to any faith ultimately experience conversion through some sublimely spiritual and transcendent process or event.

Religious conversion is the opposite of deductive analysis - and the reason why atheists are not the target audience of LDS missionaries.

Then get them to stop walking through Red Square at University of Washington and stopping me because I am the only one smiling on campus!

[Eldwynn]

I could not agree more.

Potential adherents to any faith ultimately experience conversion through some sublimely spiritual and transcendent process or event.

Religious conversion is the opposite of deductive analysis - and the reason why atheists are not the target audience of LDS missionaries.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't have a problem with the appeal to personal experience, if every religion wasn't full of it, and claiming it happens in the exact same way. Read this holy book ----> Pray about it ----> If you have a warm feeling, that is god telling you it's true, if not then you didn't try hard enough, but keep trying and it will happen. Such talk is not unique to Christianity.

Assuming the conclusion is true and then finding premises to support it is not the way that I operate, and I would think the supposed creator of the universe would give just a little bit more.

But maybe I am wrong

[Ceeboo]

Can apologetics be kind?

Hello David,

First, I would suggest (sadly) that religious "apologetics" has been a complete and utter failure on many levels (to be clear, this is certainly not limited to LDS apologetics in my view)

Although I believe it is possible for apologetics to be kind, I think it is very, very, difficult to do on these message boards (perhaps the price we all must pay as we play in these most challenging enviornments).

It has been my experience that when one has the advantage of a more favorable enviornment (face to face, one on one, ability to see a smile with certain words, etc) the "apologetic effort" is not only much more likely to come across as kind (at least a little kinder ) but these efforts/dialouge are far more likely to bring mutual benefit, understanding, perspective, and respect to the table for all to feast upon.

BTW: I have always enjoyed, respected, and appreciated your contributions on these boards, David.

IMHO, the LDS Church is most fortunate to have you sitting in the pew.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Listening to Daniel Peterson's FAIR conference on the topic of "Humble Apologetics," I was deeply touched by his remarks and found myself in full agreement with his sentiments. The Mormon Times summary can be found here:

Humble Apologetics

When it comes to online exchanges on religious topics, I'm not about to present myself as a true "Saint" in all aspects of the word, but I personally believe that when LDS apologists move into attack mode that we drive more people away from Christ and the Church than we cause people to stay. Moreover, I would also suggest that when LDS posters do get angry and make disparaging remarks about others, that we do so not out of righteous indignation that someone is attacking our religious beliefs, but instead out of pride. Pride that someone does not agree with our view.

We're all guilty of this, myself included. We would do well to remember Dan's observation as quoted in the article:

"We will not argue people into the church," he said. "They will not come into the church ... because of our eloquence or the evidence that we can amass in something."

If this is true, and I believe that it is, why do we argue? Why do we call others apostates, etc. and attempt to tear them down? Can apologetics be kind?

I think it can often help not to take ourselves too seriously. Laugh at ourselves and our own mistakes and flaws, and acknowledge them. A humble person cannot be injured by the verbal attacks of others.

[Pahoran]

In all seriousness, I wouldn't have a problem with the appeal to personal experience, if every religion wasn't full of it, and claiming it happens in the exact same way. Read this holy book ----> Pray about it ----> If you have a warm feeling, that is god telling you it's true, if not then you didn't try hard enough, but keep trying and it will happen. Such talk is not unique to Christianity.

Bolding mine.

Call for references that "every religion" describes the process of conversion "in the exact same way." In the spirit of "kindness" in apologetics, I will point out that I have frequently seen this claim on message boards, and I do not believe it to be true. In fact, my experience is that those who make it are unable to support it, and I very charitably conclude that perhaps they assume it to be true without having ever bothered to find out.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

Bolding mine.

Call for references that "every religion" describes the process of conversion "in the exact same way." In the spirit of "kindness" in apologetics, I will point out that I have frequently seen this claim on message boards, and I do not believe it to be true. In fact, my experience is that those who make it are unable to support it, and I very charitably conclude that perhaps they assume it to be true without having ever bothered to find out.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited to delete my comment and start falling into a derail.

[David Bokovoy]

Bolding mine.

Call for references that "every religion" describes the process of conversion "in the exact same way." In the spirit of "kindness" in apologetics, I will point out that I have frequently seen this claim on message boards, and I do not believe it to be true. In fact, my experience is that those who make it are unable to support it, and I very charitably conclude that perhaps they assume it to be true without having ever bothered to find out.

Regards,

Pahoran

LOL! See. I knew we could do this! Well done, my friend, Pahoran. Love ya, man!