Can LDS Apologists Be Kind?

[frankenstein]

Again for clarity, who gets to define "critic"? And what exactly is the definition?

Can an apologist (or a faithful member) acknowledge issues within the church as an institution, its history, or its doctrines and still be considered a fathful member? Or at that point do you beome a critic in the eyes of the board?

excellent question. From what I have seen, not from the moderation of the board, but from participants is that "faithful member" and "acknowledge issues" are polar opposites you can do one and only one.

on a related note

Elder Packer:

Around us we see members of the Church who have become offended. Some take offense at incidents in the history of the Church or its leaders and suffer their whole lives, unable to get past the mistakes of others. They do not leave it alone. They fall into inactivity. ... If you have been offended, forgive, forget it, and leave it alone.

[mercyngrace]

Sure but first you have to agree to a definition of what I am. I have been accused of being a David Bokovoy sympathizer, William Shryvver sympathizer, Consig simpathizer, Apostate sympathizer and the list can go on.

While I appreciate your dilemma, that's a non-answer. A good non-answer. But a non-answer nonetheless.

I will say this as I have said it before, the true beauty of the church is that allows for a wide variety of opinions and interpretations, even at general conference you are told to recieve your own revelation of the truthfulness of the words spoken.

Nemesis

If more people on the board shared this opinion, I think there'd be no need for this conversation. Sigh.

[Deborah]

While we're talking about being nicey-nice to those who attack us, might I remind everyone that the Savior himself said this in Matthew 23:27 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness." Christ was kind, but he spared no words for the hypocrites whose task seemed to be to mock and to appear as more intelligent and more knowledgeable than those around them. Reminds me of some of those who attack the church and its members today.

Certainly there are those who genuinely have questions and those who disagree with the church and present reasoned arguments for so doing. But there are also those whose only purpose seems to destroy the faith of others and to mock and insult and present themselves as more intelligent by the very fact that they don't believe what those blindly-following LDS believe. Do they really deserve the same consideration? I do think however, we as posters shouldn't be attacking but should report those who do such and let the mods take care of it.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Looking at my own "problem" with this is that the "protection" element is very strong in me, because having been an atheist myself, I feel (if I am correct is another question, but I feel that I am of course) that I am in a good position to, in my opinion, destroy their arguments.

So what happens is that some hormonal switch goes off in my brain, the testosterone kicks in and my brain says (in a monotone robotic voice) "DANGER- PROTECT CHILDREN FROM ERROR- DESTROY OPPONENT" and then I tend to try to do just that.

So playing devil's advocate for a minute, what's wrong with that?

[frankenstein]

While we're talking about being nicey-nice to those who attack us, might I remind everyone that the Savior himself said this in Matthew 23:27 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness." Christ was kind, but he spared no words for the hypocrites whose task seemed to be to mock and to appear as more intelligent and more knowledgeable than those around them. Reminds me of some of those who attack the church and its members today.

Hypocrisy occurs on both sides of the issue. I find it disturbing, and telling, that "apologists" seem to have never ending level of acceptance for other "apologists" or defenders of the Church who give off a bad image of the Church. Cleanse the vessel within first. That correct the mistakes of the those who you claim are on your own side before you start issuing insults at the other side. I would say the acceptance I speak of occurs on these boards, just as with any board that intent on promoting a singular message - as exampled by why me experience on another board. To often one can read members user the term "faithful" or label another as a "cultural mormon" the unspoken message of being that label is used to elevate oneself above the person being referenced.

It should also be noted that Matthew 23 refers to the those from with the religion who proclaimed to know how things must be done within the religion.

[mfbukowski]

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?

Exactly my experience over there. I would defy the most peaceful of us to take it. We have to send Mercy over there for an Abrahamic test!!

[Nemesis]

A good non-answer. But a non-answer nonetheless.

It was meant to be.

Nemesis

[frankenstein]

why me, on 13 April 2011 - 04:02 AM, said: 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?

are you suggesting allowance of "loosing it" in defense of the Church only?

[Nemesis]

I find it disturbing, and telling, that "apologists" seem to have never ending level of acceptance for other "apologists" or defenders of the Church who give off a bad image of the Church. Cleanse the vessel within first.

You really have no clarity on the issue. Guilt by association proclamations are lame.

Nemesis

[consiglieri]

I have been accused of being a David Bokovoy sympathizer, William Shryvver sympathizer, Consig simpathizer, Apostate sympathizer and the list can go on.

But you really like me best, don't you?

It's okay.

You can admit it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William Schryver]

It should also be noted that Matthew 23 refers to the those from with the religion who proclaimed to know how things must be done within the religion.

You're exactly right.

The scribes and pharisees were the biblical scholars of their day.

[David Bokovoy]

Cate, I'm happy to share my email address with you and any others in the forum so we can keep in contact.

bokovoy@brandeis.edu

Warm wishes to all,

--DB

[mercyngrace]

You really have no clarity on the issue. Guilt by association proclamations are lame.

Nemesis

Are guilt by association proclamations lame enough to get a poster suspended?

I only ask because though I rarely hit the report button, I did today after a poster decried me for not responding to a third party's reaction to one of my posts. It was a clear attempt at guilt by association based on my lack of a response since the poster described the third party as a "largely hostile fringe Mormon".

PS I realized your non-answer earlier was intentional. I should've used an emoticon to show I was chuckling over that response. I do realize how difficult this board must be to moderate. As a parent, I can honestly understand how much it sucks to be the bad guy when I'm forced to be such. You all have a tough job here and as I've said in the past, I can't even quantify my appreciation for what I've gained from my experience here. I'm thankful that in spite of the headache you've kept the doors open.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're exactly right.

The scribes and pharisees were the biblical scholars of their day.

Now that is interesting.

[consiglieri]

The scribes and pharisees were the biblical scholars of their day.

They were also the general authorities . . .

[frankenstein]

frankenstein, on 13 April 2011 - 08:49 AM, said:

It should also be noted that Matthew 23 refers to the those from with the religion who proclaimed to know how things must be done within the religion.

William Schryver: You're exactly right.

The scribes and pharisees were the biblical scholars of their day.

Please do not misuse my quotes for your anti-anti-mormon crusade.

It is clear that Jesus was speaking to the those with in Judism, and if we liken the scriptures unto ourselves, then He is speaking to those withing the COJCOLDS; those within Mormondom who proclaim to be faithful, who deride others for having concerns, who disparage those ask if there is a disconnect between Salt Lake and Local Authorities; those who label another who is playing solitaire on his computer because "Mormons don't use face cards" yet that same person returns home to play a game of Go Fish, whereon all the cards have depictions of the Prophets; or those within Mormondom who call a caffiene soda drinker unfaithful whilst scraffing down chocolate; or those who demand a certain level of standards from outsiders yet have a lesser standard for those with in.... Those are the who Christ spoke of. Cleanse the vessel within.

[Mars]

It is clear that Jesus was speaking to the those with in Judism, and if we liken the scriptures unto ourselves, then He is speaking to those withing the COJCOLDS; those within Mormondom who proclaim to be faithful, who deride others for having concerns, who disparage those ask if there is a disconnect between Salt Lake and Local Authorities; those who label another who is playing solitaire on his computer because "Mormons don't use face cards" yet that same person returns home to play a game of Go Fish, whereon all the cards have depictions of the Prophets; or those within Mormon who call a caffiene soda drinker unfaithful whilst scraffing down chocolate; or those who demand a certain level of standards from outsiders yet have a lesser standard for those with in.... Those are the who Christ spoke.

I think it more likely the Savior was addressing those who were keeping up the masquerade of piety while not really believing a word of it. In many cases they made a huge showing of outward religiousness while their hearts were removed from God - The numerous examples of "don't do what the hypocrites do" in Matthew 4, 5, and 6, getting on the Lord's case for performing miracles on a Sunday, trying to catch Him in His words, the widow's mite story, and so on...

I don't believe the leadership or general membership is so devoid of spirituality that they've become like the scribes and Pharisees, especially not with your assessment that our membership or leadership today can be most likened to the Pharisees the Savior addressed.

[bookofmormontruth]

As a non-apologist, I believe there is a big difference between an "honest critic" who sincerely questions our faith in a respectful way and a "chronic naysayer" who are only satisfied in causing derision at any cost. These naysayers are in and out of the Lord's Church.

In addition, it is rare to find an honest truth seeker on any board. Sure, there are many that claim to be, but 99.9% of honest truth seekers are out serving the poor or out performing more wholesome activities, not hiding behind a computer finding fault in others' beliefs.

I have absolutely no problems "calling out" a blatant lie or a mockery of our sacred faith and beloved leaders in discussion boards or in person. I am learning that it is better to "report" the behavior, but is it "unkind" to defend a truth and a sacred faith?

I am also not impressed with those who claim to be "faithful" members while posting inflammatory posts for their own entertainment. I might be harsh with them on here, but probably would take them out for a ball game and be good friends in person. Maybe, it is because I only see words, not a person.

Apologetics have their own style in defending the Church. The other week, I went to another board that I had to shower 4 times after, but I was absolutely impressed with Daniel Peterson and his complete patience and civility. I was amazed to see the "needy" behavior of the so called "critics". They were begging for a response from Dr. Peterson and would get mad that he wouldn't respond fast enough. Any critic has some kind of "need" to be fulfilled. Maybe we need to help them out in other ways.

Mercyngrace and other women on this board are perfect examples of how we all should be. Women have always filled this role and who we can rely on for that example.

And bottom line. We will only be accountable to the Lord so ultimately I can't judge others even though I am guilty of it on a daily basis. I will try to be more "kind" even though this post probably will offend 56% of people.

[Jeff K.]

I see two groups developing.

There are the anti Nephi Lehis who believe that no weapon should be used. That the issues speak for themselves, and all opinions are equally good and even godlike.

Then there are those who have opinions and promote them.

Those questioning the church fall into two catagories.

There are those who critique or question the church and bring up questions that are legitimate and deserve thoughtful consideration. These are the best critics. They require one to thoughtfully delve into the why we believe what we believe. Often the answer is basically a fall back on faith and that is an acceptable stance for any church. The discussions between Tolkien and Lewis would reflect such an approach. Such critiques unfortunately are rare and usually buried by the critic provocateur.

The critical provocateur means only to attack. Seeks only to demean, and wishes only to turn the most sacred into the most profane. These are the normal run of the mill assailants upon people and ideas that we often face. It is not necessarily reflected in brute language, in fact their language can be as pleasing to the eye as anyone's but in the end the underlying motivation is merely to demean.

It is inappropriate to approach both people in the same way. One does not cast pearls before swine and one should indeed drive swine off the cliff. I consider the latter unclean critics who seek not to critique the church but to destroy it, regardless of its good works.

So when the anti Nephi Lehis present their necks, we know that forts are built round about those wonderful critics who refuse to take up arms against anyone to protect them. The realitiy in life is that we do not approach all people the same way.

Atheists that I know personally often do ask sharp and penetrating questions, as do Southern Baptists and 7th Day Adventists, and Agnostics. All bring excellent meals of intellectual pursuit to the table and should be welcomed. The dregs though, are not worth the same consideration.

[William Schryver]

They were also the general authorities . . .

No, they were in no way analogous to the general authorities in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. They rejected revelation and miracles, and fought against the Son of God even in the face of the numerous testimonies of his wisdom and power, ultimately conspiring to put him to death.

But your attempt to, once again, denigrate the current leadership of the church is well-noted. As I have observed elsewhere, your growing hostility and increasingly manifest allegiances unmistakably mark the slippery slope of your accelerating disaffection.

[Jeff K.]

They were also the general authorities . . .

They were not, to my knowledge, imbued with authority to speak for God.

[Nemesis]

Are guilt by association proclamations lame / enough to get a poster suspended?

Yes/Depends

[consiglieri]

They were not, to my knowledge, imbued with authority to speak for God.

I suppose that depends on who you asked.

[consiglieri]

No, they were in no way analogous to the general authorities in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

I didn't say they were.

I was responding to your attempt to paint them as mere "biblical scholars."

They were also the general authorities of the Jewish community.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Yes/Depends

I see/I don't understand