Apologetics & Anti Mormons:

[Jeff K.]

Looked at the blog and one can clearly note it trends toward anti Mormon bias. Reminds me of Sunstone, which I once subscribed to, much to my regret. Especially when they compared the First Presidency to a heirarchy of Nazi's. I get the same vibes from the blog.

[mercyngrace]

I get the same vibes from the blog.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Zerinus. What specifically was it about the blog that gave you this impression? I'm sincerely curious.

Here are Brian's other sites to get a better feel for what he believes. As I said, we disagree about many things, but you and I have also disagreed about things. That doesn't mean I think you are any less of a TBM.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/ (Keep in mind that the views expressed here are not necessarily Brian's - the site has become a gathering place for "freedom minded" LDS as well as conspiracy theorists (i.e. LDS who see the invisible hand of Gadianton robbers )

I'm not defending Brian's views but it would be dishonest and dishonorable of me not to speak up for him since I have no doubt he is sincere and honest in his beliefs as an active, believing, LDS.

[Bob Crockett]

The blog is mercilessly anti-Church on some political issues and is basically a front for the John Birch Society. To that extent it is out of harmony with Church teachings.

Plus, Ezra is a terrible writer: "Let’s follow the Lords council." Which council? The one in the pre-existence?

[mercyngrace]

The blog is mercilessly anti-Church on some political issues and is basically a front for the John Birch Society. To that extent it is out of harmony with Church teachings.

My opinion is that extreme focus on gospel hobbies distorts an understanding of the gospel generally. This is what I see happening but I wouldn't go so far as to say the blog authors are anti-church or anti-mormon so much as prone to view everything through the lens of their particular hobby - a strength becoming a downfall.

The irony here is that we have groups within the church pointing fingers at each other and shouting "apostate". They think apologists are anti-mormon. In this thread, apologists suggest that they are anti-mormon. Just goes to show how painfully far we are from becoming one heart and one mind.

Plus, Ezra is a terrible writer: "Let’s follow the Lords council." Which council? The one in the pre-existence?

The "about" page say he has published in national publications. I hope he pays his editor well.

[Jeff K.]

Quite simply their emphasis on movies and books that depict the church in a negative way.

Since the others are a mix, it is impossible to know what is the individuals work and what isn't, making the other two blogs irrelevant.

[wenglund]

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

I don't, though I am aware of a few apologists over the years who have apostatized.

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?

In a way, yes. Some people who lack the flexibilities to hand the bending nuances of the gospel, their faith may break. A good example of this is in the New Testament when Christ told his disciples that they will eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, and those disciples were horrified by Christ's suggestion and "followed him no more."

But, to me, being too literalistic is far less risky to loss of testimony than losing sight of the intent and purpose of the gospel, and being distracted from growth in faith by irrelevancies--which is pretty much what the essence of anti-Mormonism (and to some degree apologetics)

3. Is the internet fostering division where none need be?

I don't think the internet fosters the division. Rather, it is simply a place that gives expression to the division.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Urloony]

What do you think?

The issues they raise are valid. Apologists who attempt to rewrite history in order to defend a position they feel casts Mormonism in a negative light is never beneficial. The example they use of the Prophet's use of "magic" is a is a good one.

One example of Mormon apologetics vain attempts to “defend the faith” can be seen in the number of articles attempting to debunk the Prophet’s association with what people today equate to occultism and “magic”.

[Urloony]

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

It's only sinful when accompanied by a denim jacket as well. The dreaded "Texas Tuxedo."

[Jeff K.]

Apologists rewriting history? If you mean changing what actually happened, then such is a problem. Generally apologists present a clearer more contextually accurate perspective.

For instance, with the position of "magic", the modern context os one of occult devil worship, steeped evil organizations and large groups of mindless men bent on evil. And yet you can still go to the isolated portions of the Appalachian Hills and see "folk magic" where dousing rods are used, signs are hung to provide safety from fever, and so on. This type of fronteir magic has been readily used (and abused) for quite some time, and was fairly prevalent in the preindustrial age.

So is the description accurate to state:

One example of Mormon apologetics vain attempts to “defend the faith” can be seen in the number of articles attempting to debunk the Prophet’s association with what people today equate to occultism and “magic”.

in regard to occultism versus magic? Or is the nuanced and more contextually correct answer the one we should be seeking?

The term "magic" has changed in how it has been percieved over the last few hundred years. Apologists who attempt to provide context aren't rewriting history, but they certainly are clearing up the blurry lines of present era thinking imposed upon a distant time.

[Deborah]

The term "magic" has changed in how it has been percieved over the last few hundred years. Apologists who attempt to provide context aren't rewriting history, but they certainly are clearing up the blurry lines of present era thinking imposed upon a distant time.

And that is why the Apologists get involved, because the critics disregard context in all it's forms and go for the soundbites and presentism judgements.

[Steven Blakely]

I find that the church does not need to be defended. It is simply the truth. and if people dont like that well that is just too bad.I,m too busy trying to walk on the strait and narrow than to deal with nuckle heads who just want to pick a fight. Now if someone really wants to know and has honest intentions then i will have a conversation. But most of these anti mormon sites are just built to tear down people faith so that they can indocteranate them with there beliefs. and they call us brain washers. I avoid those sites like the plague.

[Steven Blakely]

that last post of mine seems rather contensiouse. well, thats not good either. the point i was trying to make is that those sights are not good and that rather than trying to defend the church we should simply express our faith and focus on the positive and simply ignore them. the more attention we give them, the more power we give them. putting lds websites out their is a wonderful idea. however you do not need to defend anything. you are allowed to believe what you want dont let someone push you around with some half truth. I always tell people if you want to know wether the church is true or not ask.

[mfbukowski]

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.

...What do you think?

Sorry, I think about stuff.

It's not my fault.

I was born this way.

Edited June 23, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ben McClintock]

I don't think some here have given the site a fair shake, and "coffee colored" really isn't a substantial or even rational critique.

here is the most recent article http://www.mormonchronicle.com/sacred-cow-8-mormons-don%E2%80%99t-stone-their-prophets/

then there are some more tame ones about building a relationship with Christ, the importance of the forming of our nation to the restoration of the gospel, and so on. This is a very pro Gospel website

[Ben McClintock]

The blog is mercilessly anti-Church on some political issues and is basically a front for the John Birch Society. To that extent it is out of harmony with Church teachings.

So President Benson, David O. McKay, etc were out of harmony with Church teachings?

Check out the videos

[mercyngrace]

I don't think some here have given the site a fair shake, and "coffee colored" really isn't a substantial or even rational critique.

Ben,

Do you believe the blog has given apologists a fair shake?

The whole point behind starting this thread is a growing personal fatigue with the villainizing of subgroups within the church by those who perceive themselves as having higher moral standing or greater light and knowledge. Perhaps if we see how we are perceived by other faithful LDS, we may temper the more zealous particulars of our nature and find a place at the Lord's table for all who sincerely desire to be seated there.

MnG

[Ben McClintock]

it's ben very fair. It had a very reasoned discussion on one of its podcasts with one such "apologist"

The Lord sets his own standards, it is our job to conform to them, not to bring more condemnation on those that will not. That is not love nor mercy

[alter idem]

I'm not sure why some had 'bad feelings' or 'bad vibes' from the blog entry--I thought there was truth in it. I have seen posters who think of themselves as apologists do more harm than good in their efforts to defend the faith. I didn't feel the writer was condemning all apologists, just pointing out some mistakes apologists make and yes, I'd agree that this can be as disingenuous as anti-mormon tactics that subvert truth.

I have noticed in particular that some(not all) will throw past church leaders and prophets 'under the bus' in order to distance the modern church from a doctrine or teaching that was accepted and common at one time. I think that their efforts can be as dishonest as anti's at times.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure why some had 'bad feelings' or 'bad vibes' from the blog entry--I thought there was truth in it. I have seen posters who think of themselves as apologists do more harm than good in their efforts to defend the faith. I didn't feel the writer was condemning all apologists, just pointing out some mistakes apologists make and yes, I'd agree that this can be as disingenuous as anti-mormon tactics that subvert truth.

I have noticed in particular that some(not all) will throw past church leaders and prophets 'under the bus' in order to distance the modern church from a doctrine or teaching that was accepted and common at one time. I think that their efforts can be as dishonest as anti's at times.

To ascertain whether or not I agree with you, I would need specific examples of what you regard as throwing past Church leaders "under the bus" and what, specifically, you have in mind that you regard as a commonly accepted doctrine or teaching from which the "modern church" has been distanced.

Lately I have come across some blatantly racist utterances by certain speakers and writers in the Church of yesteryear that I must honestly acknowledge are embarrassing, even shameful, by today's standards. While I'm willing to cut such authors some slack as being, to some extent, influenced by the times in which they lived, and while I definitely acknowledge the good they accomplished in their lives, I certainly do not feel obliged to bind myself or the Church of Jesus Christ to what was obviously an individual — and potentially hurtful — attitude or perspective thoughtlessly expressed.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

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

It depends on the apologist, given the fact that there are many things to be an "apologist" for.

It's not as if all apologists are Mormons, or united in their reasoning and answers to all questions on all issues.

I was surpised that other commenters agreed with this assessment.

To be "in apostasy" is all about being "fallen away" from something, presumably the truth, and to be an "apologist" is all about being someone who offers some kind of reasoning and answer to an issue.

Now you tell me: Do you think all apologists are right on every issue they are promoting?

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?

No. To overcome the tendency to become offended all it takes is enough maturity to realize everybody has their own opinion, and not every opinion is right..

3. Is the internet fostering division where none need be?

It's not the internet's fault that ther is division between people. Each person chooses for himself (or herself) which side to be on.

[Ben McClintock]

division always happens when people try and change the truth and there are those that choose not to go along with it and defend the truth vigorously.

This is not new to the internet age as President Benson pointed out here

http://www.mormonchronicle.com/a-divided-church/

[frankenstein]

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

I agree that there are those who call themself defenders who probably do more damage than good. I also have seen all too often here and other boards "defenders" justify crude, crass, vulgar and otherwise obscene behaviour of other "defenders". I have seen that some "defenders" are prone to find fault with others while proclaiming or suggestion himself/herself is righteous, I think the quote from Joseph Smith is applicable in that instance.

I have posted statement(s) from the Church given specific direction and sure enough one who might be viewed as a LDS defender attempt to justify that what the Church stated did not apply to his actions.

I find the recent actions by the Mods to be very refreshing, an almost lightning fast curtailing or redirecting of uncouth behaviour. However, it is disappointing there appear to be some here justifying uncouth behaviour and blaming the person on the receiving; quite honestly when I heard the OP I fully expected a few of the "lds defenders" to respond with justification.

Edited July 5, 2011 by frankenstein

[Ben McClintock]

I agree that there are those who call themself defenders who probably do more damage than good. I also have seen all too often here and other boards "defenders" justify crude, crass, vulgar and otherwise obscene behaviour of other "defenders". I have seen that some "defenders" are prone to find fault with others while proclaiming or suggestion himself/herself is righteous, I think the quote from Joseph Smith is applicable in that instance.

I have posted statement(s) from the Church given specific direction and sure enough one who might be viewed as a LDS defender attempt to justify that what the Church stated did not apply to his actions.

I find the recent actions by the Mods to be very refreshing, an almost lightning fast curtailing or redirecting of uncouth behaviour. However, it is disappointing there appear to be some here justifying uncouth behaviour and blaming the person on the receiving; quite honestly when I heard the OP I fully expected a few of the "lds defenders" to respond with justification.

I hope this doesn't come across as rude, I am really trying to just understand your viewpoint. Your post seemed really ambiguous and hard to understand where you were aiming your remarks towards

The great quote from Joseph Smith as well. I don't see how it applies to the discussion, and would appreciate some clarification

thanks

[frankenstein]

I see the Joseph Smith quote as being applicable to those who are members of the LDS faith and those same person claim the title or do not reject the title "apologists" or "defenders" of the LDS Church/Faith, and behave in such a way that is very unbecoming one who wishes to speak for or defend the LDS Church. I have observed several people make claims about another persons lack of faithfulness to the LDS . In another board one particular LDS aspiring "apologist" was quite apt at vulgar commentary towards those within the LDS Church and without who did not agree with this particular posters opinion.

So although I have not seen the person I ambigiously reference find fault with the leaders of the Church, I have seen them find fault with other members while suggesting their own personal righteousness.

So how does my commentary and the Joseph Smith quote apply to the OP, I think it does concerning this from the OP

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.

Based on the Joseph Smith quote and the actions of some of those who claim to be apologist/defenders, I find it reasonable for a person to comment '"I applaud you for recognizing that the apologists are in apostasy along with… apostates."

and just for the record, I am not in any way referring to Dr. Peterson.

(yes, I realize the irony, in my commentary)

Edited July 5, 2011 by frankenstein

[alter idem]

To ascertain whether or not I agree with you, I would need specific examples of what you regard as throwing past Church leaders "under the bus" and what, specifically, you have in mind that you regard as a commonly accepted doctrine or teaching from which the "modern church" has been distanced.

I think that discussions involving the doctrine of whether God was once a Man, Adam/God theory, Polygamy are the most likely topics for this to happen. Also, when discussing where the Book of Mormon Events took place is another topic. But this is just my opinion--I have no idea if this is what the writer of the Blog was referring to.

Lately I have come across some blatantly racist utterances by certain speakers and writers in the Church of yesteryear that I must honestly acknowledge are embarrassing, even shameful, by today's standards. While I'm willing to cut such authors some slack as being, to some extent, influenced by the times in which they lived, and while I definitely acknowledge the good they accomplished in their lives, I certainly do not feel obliged to bind myself or the Church of Jesus Christ to what was obviously an individual — and potentially hurtful — attitude or perspective thoughtlessly expressed.

Yes, I know what you are saying and would agree on this.