Can LDS Apologists Be Kind?

[Mars]

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.

I think it's a worthwhile 'argument' to get you and your opponent to a point where you can see the other point of view, or even have respect for it. If that's not possible, count me out. There's nothing to be done but waste a lot of time and hot air.

I've come to term it this way: I argue with idiots. I discuss with friends. I hate doing the former.

[Daniel Peterson]

Can LDS apologists be kind?

I'm reliably informed that I cannot be. But I have no doubt that others can.

[Pahoran]

Can LDS apologists be kind?

I'm reliably informed that I cannot be. But I have no doubt that others can.

Having met and spent time with you in person, I'm not sure that your malevolent stalker and his claque are such reliable sources, myself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

Except when you thought my avatar was William Shatner . . .

I knew who your avatar was right away. That was one of my favorite shows!

[volgadon]

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

I served a mission in Russia, a deeply Orthodox area of it to boot. The idea that one could turn to God for an answer regarding the truthfulness of something, let alone a book, was fairly novel. I don't recall a single investigator or member that I spoke with who had done so prior to meeting with LDS missionaries.

One person we tracted into was a former-Satanist turned Orthodox. He embraced Christianity because of a profound spiritual experience involving Christ. He became Orthodox because that was the faith of his grandmothers, because Christianity = Orthodox in the minds of most Russians. He didn't pray about the Bible, or about the truth claims of any other group. He never became LDS (to my knowledge) because he didn't even attempt to put it to our test- that is, pray about it.

Also, in all my years in Israel I never recall anyone advocating prayer as a means to conversion in the way LDS intend it.

[Deborah]

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!

You could always stop smiling.

[Daniel Peterson]

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)

I disagree completely.

C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, St. Thomas Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig . . .

I don't agree that such people and their works have been complete and utter failures. By any measure.

[Deborah]

I have observed that often thread topics start out reasonably, but then one person gets on who starts being asinine and the comments start to get more heated and it degenerates quickly downhill. Sometime when you've said what you have to say it's often better not to say anything further and let the topic die a natural death before the mods have to shut it down.

[mercyngrace]

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.

David,

I'm so glad you pointed this out. I was one of those casual observers who happened to land here. Although I am a lifelong member of the church, I had no idea LDS were gathering online until a few years ago. I started lurking here after I bumped into the place researching background information for my gospel doctrine class. It was pure happenstance. I know none of the folks here in real life. I don't have the baggage that seems to have been carried over from the board's previous incarnations. Because it left a bad impression on me when other LDS were insulting and unnecessarily aggressive, I made a conscious decision when I began to post that I would try to represent the Savior as best I could in my interactions here. For the first six months of posting here, I would ask myself before I submit any comment "If a non-LDS lurker read this comment, would they know I was a disciple of Jesus Christ?" As a former political blogger, it took a real effort to reprogram my brain.

Obviously, I still slip up all the time and I can remember all too well a few threads where I got carried away and wish I'd been a better ambassador of my faith but the point is that those doing the posting aren't the only people reading this board. We need to be conscious of that and be witnesses of Christ at all times, in all things, and in all places - even virtual ones.

[David Bokovoy]

Obviously, I still slip up all the time and I can remember all too well a few threads where I got carried away and wish I'd been a better ambassador of my faith but the point is that those doing the posting aren't the only peple reading this board.

Honestly, I've never seen it. I'm so glad you found this forum. You've been an example to us all.

[Ceeboo]

Hello Dr. Dan,

I disagree completely.

No problem

C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, St. Thomas Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig . . .

Perhaps I was not clear, sorry. I was speaking about the folk on these boards who attempt the work of an apologist (No names offered by design )

I don't agree that such people and their works have been complete and utter failures. By any measure.

Given your list, I would certainly agree with that.

Would you suggest that the apologetic efforts on display here at MDDB are similar to apologetic efforts of those people on your above list?

BTW, hope all went well with your son's recent wedding (Congrats)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[mercyngrace]

Honestly, I've never seen it. I'm so glad you found this forum. You've been an example to us all.

You heard I baked my famous Tollhouse oat cookies tonight, didn't you? Some people will say anything to get baked goods...

[Libs]

I agree, I love mercyngrace's posts. Love her handle, too...it so fits her.

I was reading through the article linked in the first post (which I agree with, btw). Two comments in the article really popped out, for me.

But still, Peterson worries about the tone of discussions on Internet message boards. They are like boxing rings and are dominated too much by men. "There's a lot of, dare I say, a lot of testosterone involved with this kind of apologetics," he said.

This is so true, from my observation of many boards (and not just apologetics, but politics and a lot of other subjects). A lot of men and a lot of competition...which, has often discouraged me from wanting to participate.

I don't see that quite as much here. This board is pretty mild, compared to some.

Also, loved this statement...very quotable and so true:

"We are winning souls, we hope — not so much arguments," he said. "Winning an argument can lose you a soul."

[MorningStar]

Me too.

Except when you thought my avatar was William Shatner . . .

It's not William Shatner?

[MorningStar]

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?

Some can and others can't (or so it seems), but I find myself wondering lately why apologists can't be nice to each other when they disagree either! My heck.

[mfbukowski]

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

Yep I agree

I have never seen anyone do that but us.

[mfbukowski]

I think it's a worthwhile 'argument' to get you and your opponent to a point where you can see the other point of view, or even have respect for it. If that's not possible, count me out. There's nothing to be done but waste a lot of time and hot air.

I've come to term it this way: I argue with idiots. I discuss with friends. I hate doing the former.

I understand what you mean. I just need more friends I guess!

[mfbukowski]

I knew who your avatar was right away. That was one of my favorite shows!

I still don't know who his avatar is.

[Calm]

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.

I think it's important though to remember this goes both ways, there are many believers who have been hurt in their personal lives by nonbelievers (I have quite a few of these in my extended family) and are hurt by over the top critical comments. In those cases, do we not need to be as kind to the believer as to the critic and try and understand why they might choose more aggressive tactics? Or why if someone has observed others they care about get hurt in this way, why they might choose the role of protector?

I find it rarely worthwhile to publicly call someone out, either as a critic or as a believer for what I might believe is their inappropriate behaviour. If I think there might be a chance of change, then I think it is better to make a private contact to share my concerns. If I don't, then I report the comments to the mods.

[zerinus]

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.

How terrible. You have really made me feel sorry for them now.

[why me]

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?

There is another point however. Can critics be kind to apologists? And the answer seems to be no, they can't. I have been on the boards for six years now and I have seen personal attacks against apologitsts and yet, critics in general do not scold one another about the attacks. When one has been attacked personally for a couple of years and the attacks continue, it kind be rather difficult to be kind. Actions get reactions. And when kindness begets mocking and personal attacks, what is one to do?

[why me]

We cannnot argue people into the Church but we can argue people out of it. Contention, condescension, self-righteousness, and defensiveness are all manifestations of pride. Pride breeds enmity just as love begets love and prideful communication whether in apologia or elsewhere has the opposite effect of charity. Instead of drawing others to us, it pushes them away.

How we speak is just as important, if not more, than what we say.

This is not necessarily true. Let me give you an example: on the catholic apologeic forum, the lds responded to many blantant personal attacks with kindness and decor. Only to be met with more attacks directed toward the religion that they were defending and at times against themselves. Eventually many were banned anyway. Difficult not to lose it at times when this is happening. And how did Joseph Smith respond to his critics when constantly pushed by them?

[why me]

.

It definitely takes a "look, I'm going to be wrong sometimes and that doesn't mean the Church is false" persona sometimes. We really ought to drop all pretenses to "contention, condescension, self-righteousness (key in my view), and defensiveness" if we hope to establish a beautiful, thoughtful atmosphere in which to discuss inter-faith (or non-faith) concepts and ideas.

You are a somewhat new guy on the block. To create a beautiful thoughtful atmosphere is just as much a critic reponsibility too. And yet, from my experience on critic boards, this can be in short supply. Should critics get a free pass on this? Should they also not be held accountable for the atmosphere that they create? I think so.

[why me]

I think it's important though to remember this goes both ways, there are many believers who have been hurt in their personal lives by nonbelievers (I have quite a few of these in my extended family) and are hurt by over the top critical comments. In those cases, do we not need to be as kind to the believer as to the critic and try and understand why they might choose more aggressive tactics? Or why if someone has observed others they care about get hurt in this way, why they might choose the role of protector?

This is a good point. But I see no condemnation of the critics actions on this thread. And yet, the critics on various boards should come under scruntiny. Until someone has been personally attacked by the critics, it is difficult to understand just why some apologists respond the way they do. I firmly believe that apologists can be kind and should be kind. But when an apologist haa been personally attacked for a long time, kindness directed to the posters who post personal attacks may just be in short supply and understandably so.

[why me]

Having met and spent time with you in person, I'm not sure that your malevolent stalker and his claque are such reliable sources, myself.

Regards,

Pahoran

Dan has been personally attacked on other forums too. My take on it is simple: he is a threat to their new belief system.