Apologetics & Anti Mormons:

[mercyngrace]

I cam across a link to a new blog, The Mormon Chronicle, whose authors are TBMs with a literal approach to scripture and prophetic utterance. One of the few posts caught my eye: Apologetics & Anti Mormons: Two Sides of the Same Coin.

A couple of thoughts came to mind as I read this article and explored the site.

1. One commenter (responding to the podcast on the rapture) wrote: I applaud you for recognizing that the apologists are in apostasy along with… apostates.

In your experience, do most/many TBMs see apologists as being "in apostasy"? I was surpised that other commenters agreed with this assessment.

2. Do you think an extremely literal approach to the gospel puts a person more at risk of becoming offended upon encountering unflattering church history or seeming contradictions in prophetic utterances as described by Elder Andersen here?

3. Is the internet fostering division where none need be? The authors condemn NOMs but it becomes readily apparent in their comments that they have little idea what a NOM actually is. What's fascinating here is that it seems as though the prevalant thought is "if you aren't with me, you are against me" whether or not I actually know anything about you. To illustrate, one of the blog authors seems to believe that apologists are NOMs, a characterization I know many here would reject outright. I've read similar all or nothing exclusivity on other LDS boards and wonder how healthy this is for the church generally.

What do you think?

Edited May 23, 2011 by mercyngrace

[Nathair/|\]

They would do well to listen to Mike Ash's lecture on Shaken Faith Syndrome. He addresses the problem of taking a too fundamentalist position on gospel issues.

[Peter John]

I cam across a link to a new blog, The Mormon Chronicle, whose authors are TBMs with a literal approach to scripture and prophetic utterance. One of the few posts caught my eye: Apologetics & Anti Mormons: Two Sides of the Same Coin.

A couple of thoughts came to mind as I read this article and explored the site.

1. One commenter (responding to the podcast on the rapture) wrote: I applaud you for recognizing that the apologists are in apostasy along with… apostates.

In your experience, do most/many TBMs see apologists as being "in apostasy"? I was surpised that other commenters agreed with this assessment.

2. Do you think an extremely literal approach to the gospel puts a person more at risk of becoming offended upon encountering unflattering church history or seeming contradictions in prophetic utterances as described by Elder Andersen here?

3. Is the internet fostering division where none need be? The authors condemn NOMs but it becomes readily apparent in their comments that they have little idea what a NOM actually is. What's fascinating here is that it seems as though the prevalant thought is "if you aren't with me, you are against me" whether or not I actually know anything about you. To illustrate, one of the blog authors seems to believe that apologists are NOMs, a characterization I know many here would reject outright. I've read similar all or nothing exclusivity on other LDS boards and wonder how healthy this is for the church generally.

What do you think?

[Peter John]

I cam across a link to a new blog, The Mormon Chronicle, whose authors are TBMs with a literal approach to scripture and prophetic utterance. One of the few posts caught my eye: Apologetics & Anti Mormons: Two Sides of the Same Coin.

A couple of thoughts came to mind as I read this article and explored the site.

1. One commenter (responding to the podcast on the rapture) wrote: I applaud you for recognizing that the apologists are in apostasy along with… apostates.

In your experience, do most/many TBMs see apologists as being "in apostasy"? I was surpised that other commenters agreed with this assessment.

2. Do you think an extremely literal approach to the gospel puts a person more at risk of becoming offended upon encountering unflattering church history or seeming contradictions in prophetic utterances as described by Elder Andersen here?

3. Is the internet fostering division where none need be? The authors condemn NOMs but it becomes readily apparent in their comments that they have little idea what a NOM actually is. What's fascinating here is that it seems as though the prevalant thought is "if you aren't with me, you are against me" whether or not I actually know anything about you. To illustrate, one of the blog authors seems to believe that apologists are NOMs, a characterization I know many here would reject outright. I've read similar all or nothing exclusivity on other LDS boards and wonder how healthy this is for the church generally.

What do you think?

I think the approach presents some internal inconsistencies when it comes to things like the original text of the Book of Mormon. It would seem to me a TBM would have to accept the 1830 text without alteration.

[volgadon]

we must stand for truth especially when “friends” are the ones decimating falsehoods.

Don't they mean disseminating faleshoods? otherwise, one wonders why they would find falsehoods being decimated upsetting.

[mercyngrace]

Don't they mean disseminating faleshoods? otherwise, one wonders why they would find falsehoods being decimated upsetting.

I almost sent the blogger a quick note about that vocabulary mix-up but not knowing him, I hesitated on the off chance I might offend. He'll figure it out sooner or later.

[jo1952]

Don't they mean disseminating faleshoods? otherwise, one wonders why they would find falsehoods being decimated upsetting.

Indeed!!!

An excellent catch!!!!

jo

[Nathair/|\]

Don't they mean disseminating faleshoods? otherwise, one wonders why they would find falsehoods being decimated upsetting.

I almost sent the blogger a quick note about that vocabulary mix-up but not knowing him, I hesitated on the off chance I might offend. He'll figure it out sooner or later.

Since "decimate' means to kill one tenth of something, maybe they are upset at how many are left alive.

[Calm]

I think the approach presents some internal inconsistencies when it comes to things like the original text of the Book of Mormon. It would seem to me a TBM would have to accept the 1830 text without alteration.

Only if we believed in inerrancy. IIRC JS didn't accept that edition without alteration.

[Hamba Tuhan]

In your experience, do most/many TBMs see apologists as being "in apostasy"?

In my experience, most Church members don't see apologists, full-stop. They are too busy teaching their children to be kind and honest, taking food to a family laid low with illness, administering to the needs of an elderly sister, planning fun FHEs, etc. to even notice.

2. Do you think an extremely literal approach to the gospel puts a person more at risk of becoming offended upon encountering unflattering church history or seeming contradictions in prophetic utterances...?

I don't think it has anything to do with being too literal. A completely literal reading of Paul, for example, assures people that prophets 'know in part' and 'prophesy in part.' A completely literal reading of the Bible and the Book of Mormon clearly indicates as well that God's prophets throughout time have utilised divining implements such as water-filled goblets, seer stones, and lots. Interestingly, the blog authors make this same argument, which to me is a very apologetic thing of them to do, in opposition to supposed apologists. I'm not sure therefore who they even have in mind.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1: I agree with Hamba here.

On the limited cases where a typical church member encounters the concept, they might or might not group apologists with apostates depending on how what apologists do is understood or explained to them. I can see where some who interpret the name "apologists" to mean an apologizer and not a defender would get offended by the idea that someone thinks they have a right or need to apologize for the Church as an apology generally means an assumption of doing wrong that needs to be apologized for has taken place. If they understand the reality---that "apology" means "defending", then I would expect a significantly different type of reaction. I would also expect if they know an apologist...and know they know an apologist, their perception will be more positive as they will more likely understand the intent....otherwise they may get the wrong idea (in most cases) that an apologist is trying to step in and take over the church leadership's role of proclaiming what is and isn't doctrine, etc.

2: I don't think it's the literal approach that puts people at risk as I see most people starting that position if they've encountered the faith as children. I believe instead it is the flexibility with which a person approaches learning that is the primary determinant of their risk of choosing to be offended. If someone consistently approaches the world with the idea there most things are black and white no matter what information they are presented with, then offense is more likely to be taken than with someone who is used to considering overall context, the inconsistency of human behaviour, the idea of line upon line learning (if doctrine isn't revealed in all of its fullness right from the start, it is likely mistakes will be made because of assumptions carried over from previous traditions or attempts to fill in the gaps, etc) among other things.

[CV75]

What do you think?

The TBMs (is that “True-Blue” or “Totally Believing”?)I know very, very rarely, if ever discuss apologists.

I do think an extremely literal approach to the gospel, as with just about any other thing, puts a person more at risk of becoming offended when the literalness is or appears to be challenged.

I think internet communication lacks an interpersonal intimacy that draws upon a person’s non-intimate leanings and challenges their development of intimacy, such that the non-intimate attributes become a more significant part of their makeup. This can be good for some people and bad for others, the bad being it can contribute to their isolation and division.

[volgadon]

Scandalous. The church doesn't require pantyhose anymore and sister missionaries can wear skirts above their ankles. Shocking. First sign of imminent apostasy!

[mercyngrace]

Scandalous. The church doesn't require pantyhose anymore and sister missionaries can wear skirts above their ankles. Shocking. First sign of imminent apostasy!

I'm surprised there was no mention of the sinfulness of denim skirts.

[Deborah]

In your experience, do most/many TBMs see apologists as being "in apostasy"? I was surpised that other commenters agreed with this assessment.

I consider myself a true believing Mormon and I think if someone sees apologists as being in apostasy they don't understand what an apologist is, as I didn't when I first heard the term. Elder Holland could be considered and apologist by some of his talks.

I also think such fundamentalism is dangerous and can lead those with such views into apostasy because when some new evidence comes forth challenging their beliefs they may not be able to make the adjustment necessary to reconcile the data with what may be the truth vs their dogma.

[volgadon]

I'm surprised there was no mention of the sinfulness of denim skirts.

They did not want to shock sensitive ears and sensibilities. Fighting for the right to fight the right fight for the Right! Join the Dark Side, we have tautology.

Edited May 25, 2011 by volgadon

[BCSpace]

It would seem to me a TBM would have to accept the 1830 text without alteration.

I think most "TBM"'s understand that the prophets are fallible and that there is revelation whcih is line upon line. TBM's seem to roll quite well with changes that fit the established pattern.

[jo1952]

I consider myself a true believing Mormon and I think if someone sees apologists as being in apostasy they don't understand what an apologist is, as I didn't when I first heard the term. Elder Holland could be considered and apologist by some of his talks.

I also think such fundamentalism is dangerous and can lead those with such views into apostasy because when some new evidence comes forth challenging their beliefs they may not be able to make the adjustment necessary to reconcile the data with what may be the truth vs their dogma.

Amen to that!! When franktalk introduced me to apologetics, I was working exclusively on a preterist website defending the LDS Church. I will tell you that it is not for the faint of heart. It is probably not a good idea to have someone who is questioning their own personal faith or testimony to get involved with an unfriendly anti-LDS website. However, I soon discovered that I had to be exactly precise in explaning myself which actually caused me to really come to terms with what my own beliefs truly "look" like. As a result, my faith and my testimony have been strengthened. I have found there is an evolution which takes as you participate in apologetics - especially when in enemy territory. My tactics certainly have changed since I first started. Indeed, I have been extremely blessed through this process of receiving some astounding epiphanies from the Holy Ghost which I don't think would have been revealed to me if I had not been so engaged in this work.

Love,

jo

[jo1952]

I'm surprised there was no mention of the sinfulness of denim skirts.

Hey, sometimes I resemble that remark!!

jo

[volgadon]

Another thing that was bugging me. Shouldn't the title of their blogpost be "Apologists & Anti Mormons"? Or if not that then "Apologetics and Anti Mormonism"?

[ERMD]

I found that website recently as well.

Gave me a bad feeling.

[zerinus]

I cam across a link to a new blog, The Mormon Chronicle, whose authors are TBMs with a literal approach to scripture and prophetic utterance. One of the few posts caught my eye: Apologetics & Anti Mormons: Two Sides of the Same Coin.

A couple of thoughts came to mind as I read this article and explored the site.

1. One commenter (responding to the podcast on the rapture) wrote: I applaud you for recognizing that the apologists are in apostasy along with… apostates.

In your experience, do most/many TBMs see apologists as being "in apostasy"? I was surpised that other commenters agreed with this assessment.

2. Do you think an extremely literal approach to the gospel puts a person more at risk of becoming offended upon encountering unflattering church history or seeming contradictions in prophetic utterances as described by Elder Andersen here?

3. Is the internet fostering division where none need be? The authors condemn NOMs but it becomes readily apparent in their comments that they have little idea what a NOM actually is. What's fascinating here is that it seems as though the prevalant thought is "if you aren't with me, you are against me" whether or not I actually know anything about you. To illustrate, one of the blog authors seems to believe that apologists are NOMs, a characterization I know many here would reject outright. I've read similar all or nothing exclusivity on other LDS boards and wonder how healthy this is for the church generally.

What do you think?

I had a look at the article, and listened at the podcast; and I disagree with your assessment of it. I don't believe they are what you call "TBMs". After listening to the podcast, I came to the conclusion that it is set up by people with questionable motives.

[mercyngrace]

I had a look at the article, and listened at the podcast; and I disagree with your assessment of it. I don't believe they are what you call "TBMs". After listening to the podcast, I came to the conclusion that it is set up by people with questionable motives.

Questionable in what way?

I don't know Ezra (at least by that name) but I do know a bit about Brian as I've read his other websites and have posted on the forum he hosts for about 3 years.

He is a church and temple attending LDS.

[zerinus]

Questionable in what way?

I don't know Ezra (at least by that name) but I do know a bit about Brian as I've read his other websites and have posted on the forum he hosts for about 3 years.

He is a church and temple attending LDS.

Then all I can say is that you are a very gullible kind of person, and you are easily deceived. I recommend you the advice given by the Lord in the scriptures: "Behold, verily I say unto you, that there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world" (D&C 50:2). "Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, . . ." (D&C 46:8 ).

Edited July 5, 2011 by Minos
Zerinus has left the building.

[mercyngrace]

Then all I can say is that you are a very gullible kind of person, and you are easily deceived. I recommend you the advice given by the Lord in the scriptures: "Behold, verily I say unto you, that there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world" (D&C 50:2). "Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, . . ." (D&C 46:8 ).

I'm not sure how your flawed assessment of me is a response to the question.

You've made an assertion about the character of those running the Mormon Chronicle blog and I'm asking you what the basis for that assessment is.

While I don't agree with Brian on numerous isues, I've dealt with him online enough to believe him when he says he is a true, beliving LDS. What evidence do you have to the contrary other than unrelated false accusations which you leveled at me? I'm really kind of disappointed that you fell back to your default MO of baseless attacks, Zerinus. I was hoping you'd seen something specific or could actually put up some reasonable support for your description because if you think these folks are deceived or deceiving, I'm interested in hearing why.