Debate In Mormonism

[SeattleGrunge]

Listening to this podcast last night and hearing how they said that most apologists are not in lock step with the brethren made me think. I would agree that most apologists are not in lock step with the correlated image the church puts forth, but some of the brethren have things that they see as not done exactly how they would want either. I saw a link to an article on FB today that reminded me of two (one, two) other blog posts about debate in the church. I think there definitely is some merit to the passive/aggressive culture of the church. I usually tend towards a middle happy medium on the spectrum of church critics and TBM's. So, I would agree with the critics that our church "forces" us to avoid contention/debate/disagreement, but I would also agree that bringing up some disagreements in Sunday School can kill the spirit.

Is there a happy medium? If so, where is it?

Edit: added first link to podcast

Edited November 4, 2011 by SeattleGrunge

[elguanteloko]

I don't think you can honestly debate issues and confront ideas head on in a rational way and expect not to have your dear core beliefs tried.... That's the whole point of honest discussion. Unless you are comfortable with the thought of admitting having been wrong in the issues a given discussion has been treating, I don't think you will ever be comfortable putting your ideas out there to be tested.

In my experience, people just aren't used to having their ideas shown wrong bluntly in a matter of minutes as it happens when they you speak with someone who actually knows what they are talking about. They don't even think it's plausible because they haven't familiarized themselves with the scholarly work done in a particular area (politics, economics, history of religion, philosophy of religion - of science, etc- and with what is called here "critical thinking" in general).

[wenglund]

I don't think you can honestly debate issues and confront ideas head on in a rational way and expect not to have your dear core beliefs tried.... That's the whole point of honest discussion. Unless you are comfortable with the thought of admitting having been wrong in the issues a given discussion has been treating, I don't think you will ever be comfortable putting your ideas out there to be tested.

In my experience, people just aren't used to having their ideas shown wrong bluntly in a matter of minutes as it happens when they you speak with someone who actually knows what they are talking about. They don't even think it's plausible because they haven't familiarized themselves with the scholarly work done in a particular area (politics, economics, history of religion, philosophy of religion - of science, etc- and with what is called here "critical thinking" in general).

In my experience, some people aren't aware of when they are projecting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

In my experience, some people aren't aware of when they are projecting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was actually thinking of myself having my ideas refuted easily by others before, so I was indeed projecting (and I know many other people have these experiences).

I would imagine one's own experience would be a 'projection' in a sense by definition, though.

Edited November 4, 2011 by elguanteloko

[CV75]

So, I would agree with the critics that our church "forces" us to avoid contention/debate/disagreement, but I would also agree that bringing up some disagreements in Sunday School can kill the spirit.

Is there a happy medium? If so, where is it?

Contention is counterproductive; debate and disagreement are not necessarily so. I would say that the happy medium between avoiding contention and bringing up some debate or disagreement is found in most of D&C 50 and in 88:122-126.

Edited November 4, 2011 by CV75

[KevinG]

Learning doctrine by the Holy Spirit and learning history by research are two different things. I'd hate to have an apologetic discussion in church and I wouldn't enjoy a Sunday School lesson here.

Remember in church we also need to have patience with those members who are still learning the basics and ourselves who often need to relearn the basics.

The pseudo intellectuals who chafe at the fact that Sunday School and Mormon.org is faith promoting are looking to get the wrong things out of those sources.

[ERayR]

In my experience, people just aren't used to having their ideas shown wrong bluntly in a matter of minutes as it happens when they you speak with someone who actually knows what they are talking about. They don't even think it's plausible because they haven't familiarized themselves with the scholarly work done in a particular area (politics, economics, history of religion, philosophy of religion - of science, etc- and with what is called here "critical thinking" in general).

It has been my experience that many give up their faith to easily when confronted with a well presented scholarly concept. If they had waited awhile they would have found there was still reason to have maintained their faith position.

[elguanteloko]

It has been my experience that many give up their faith to easily when confronted with a well presented scholarly concept. If they had waited awhile they would have found there was still reason to have maintained their faith position.

Could be, but, wait for what? Do more research, is this what you mean? I think you can understand that there's a point where "Just wait a little longer" isn't going to work, correct?

BTW, what would you consider enough reason to be justified in giving up your faith? (I don't think we leave our faiths voluntarily in the way I'm speaking about it may suggest; I know I made all the efforts but just happened to not believe in it anymore, it wasn't a choice I made)

[elguanteloko]

Contention is counterproductive; debate and disagreement are not necessarily so. I would say that the happy medium between avoiding contention and bringing up some debate or disagreement is found in most of D&C 50 and in 88:122-126.

Here's a question for you: Do you think you can seriously question the veracity of the truth claims of Mormonism and the plausibility of these claims as being better explanations for life and the world than other explanations AND still have 'the Spirit' while you are doing this? Can you seriously conceive it? IOW, can you seriously question God's existence while having faith in God or seriously questioning the veracity of miracles while believing there are miracles? I think you need to adopt, for a small time at least, a skeptical attitude before you can seriously question something and I don't see how 'a skeptical attitude' can be reconciled at the same time with having the Spirit. That sounds like a contradiction to me: "To have faith in God while seriously questioning God."

Doesn't it look like it to you?

Edited November 4, 2011 by elguanteloko

[SeattleGrunge]

Contention is counterproductive; debate and disagreement are not necessarily so. I would say that the happy medium between avoiding contention and bringing up some debate or disagreement is found in most of D&C 50 and in 88:122-126.

I agree that using that as a guideline will help, but that still doesn't help with the real problem. Are you going to volunteer things to correct significant false beliefs in church (ie-JS married other already married women as part of polygamy) or raise your hand to disagree when someone is sustained for a calling because you think that calling is not right (ie-young mother as RS presidents who you know is overwhelmed already)? Doing so goes against the culture and no matter how you do it, it will seem scandalous. Right?

[Judd]

What examples are we talking about when we say "most apologists are not in lock step with the correlated image the church puts forth"? Also, if the apologists, through their persevering acts of mental prowess, are able to correctly ascertain a more true and correct understanding of the mind and will of God, then assuredly they need to be advanced into such positions that their ideas may be more fully disseminated and propagated.

[ldsfaqs]

CFR that apologists are not in lockstep with the Church???

That's an anti-mormon claim, not a mormon one.

[The Nehor]

Is there a happy medium? If so, where is it?

Yes, don't share your private beliefs in Sunday School.

[SeattleGrunge]

Why all the hate? Do you guys really not know a single thing that any prominent LDS apologist thinks that is in disagreement with the publicly given correlation? I didn't give a reference because I thought this was a given. Here is one, Daniel Peterson states that he wishes there were more history in the manuals, he even tried to add it when working on them for the church, but it was removed.

Judd and LDSFAQ have done well at proving my point. Any slight suggestion of disagreement with correlation is always returned with pretty harsh comments.

1. Do you feel the same towards my CFR that DP did?
   
2. Do you feel that everything given out by correlation is 100% perfect?
   
3. Why is suggesting that apologists are not in lock step with the church anti-mormon?
   
4. Do you feel that we shouldn't evaluate church policies, doctrine with out own "mental prowess" and just go with what correlation gives us w/o thinking?
   

These are serious questions from a serious member, but one who agrees with this in the institute manual (quote 12, half way down).

[KevinG]

With all respect to Dr. Peterson- it is sometimes hard to keep a Sunday School lesson on track for 45-60 minutes even when sticking to the most basic doctrines and examples. The standard church curricula is not necessarily the place for more history (which I think the Saints should be devouring by the library). Now in the institute classes and publications we should encourage people to go to the source. There are some great resources out there that the Church does not need to duplicate.

This is one discussion the church as an entity cannot win. As the general membership, scholars and curricula developers agree they are accused of groupthing and lack of diversity. If they disagree then their diverse opinions are used as fodder for critics.

The most important things for a testimony are not hemispheric models or use of ancient symbolism in the Book of Abraham, but the basic stuff found in the Articles of Faith, Alma, 3 Nephi and the Biblical Gospels. Given a finite amount of time and resources the church does a pretty good job of balancing their curricula.

1. Conservative is not the same as passive aggressive. I'd say the church is pretty openly aggressive about keeping our teachings and doctrines clear. That does not imply there is anything sinister about wanting to have the Gospel taught in a uniform and easy to access manner world wide.

2. Correllation is not 100% perfect. They are human beings. Very good human beings who are expert in preparing curricula and who try very hard to help people teach the Gospel well. But humans prone to error or false traditions when they creep in. I do think that a very large percentage of what they do is accurate and does a good job of presenting the Gospel to members and investigators in an age and situation appropriate manner.

add: When manuals are updated and new information and understanding included we end up taking criticism that we've "changed our doctrines" yet again. Once again - can't win for losing.

3. Suggesting the apoligists, historians and other LDS hobbyists are not in lock step with the Brethren is not anti-Mormon. It is sensible given the difference in the mission and interests of the two groups. Suggesting there is some unreconcilable rift between the apologists and the brethren that shows cracks in the foundation of Mormonism is silly and sometimes an anti-Mormon tactic which can lead to defensiveness on the part of apologists who hear the question.

4. We should continue to ask questions and learn. We should not let sewers of dissent make it more important than nurturing our estimony of Christ's Gospel and nurturing the testimonies of others. There is always a need to teach the basics and not send people down rabbit trails (which as much as I love to explore are a specialty of apologists and critics alike).

Really - how many discussions about the efficacy of putting one's head in a hat to block out distractions while using a seer stone will give anyone the information they need to come unto Christ? (only partly sarcastic)

One more note on Brother Brigham's Quote. He isn't referring to research and apologetics as much as he is the influence of the Holy Ghost in knowing for ourselves. "Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not."

Ultimately the truth comes from God and we access it by obeying His commandments.

Edited November 4, 2011 by DaddyG

[Senator]

Judd and LDSFAQ have done well at proving my point. Any slight suggestion of disagreement with correlation is always returned with pretty harsh comments.

"Ark-steadier" is an often used label.

[KevinG]

"Ark-steadier" is an often used label.

I would use that label for someone who felt they knew better than the correlation committee, the brethren and the curricula developers who prepared a Sunday School Lesson and so decided to ignore the manual chapter on the importance of keeping personal records and instead decided to teach a lesson on the hemispheric model of BOM geography.

I would not however use that label for someone who felt they could add to the knowledge of the Saints by publishing a book including new models of Book of Mormon geography or a history of early Church practices.

Time and place...

Add: I find few people more obnoxious than those who are posessed with having to interrupt the Sunday School lesson to teach all of their more ignorant brethren and sisters the special knowledge or revelation they have been blessed with. That applies to TBMs as well as Fringers. (some of those same discussions on the MDD board or other open forum can be fascinating and well worth the time).

Edited November 5, 2011 by DaddyG

[Senator]

I would use that label for someone who felt they knew better than the correlation committee, the brethren and the curricula developers who prepared a Sunday School Lesson and so decided to ignore the manual chapter on the importance of keeping personal records and instead decided to teach a lesson on the hemispheric model of BOM geography.

I would not however use that label for someone who felt they could add to the knowledge of the Saints by publishing a book including new models of Book of Mormon geography or a history of early Church practices.

Time and place...

I don't think I woud ever be inclined to invoke that label.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Senator

[KevinG]

I don't think I woud ever be inclined to invoke that label.

Only for a fleeting moment in my mind. I've never actually called anyone an ark-steadier.

[Senator]

Only for a fleeting moment in my mind. I've never actually called anyone an ark-steadier.

Bravo!

[KevinG]

Bravo!

Is it forgivable if I roll my eyes in the back of the classroom from time to time?

If I really wanted to make a stink I'd go all the way.

[CV75]

Here's a question for you: Do you think you can seriously question the veracity of the truth claims of Mormonism and the plausibility of these claims as being better explanations for life and the world than other explanations AND still have 'the Spirit' while you are doing this? Can you seriously conceive it? IOW, can you seriously question God's existence while having faith in God or seriously questioning the veracity of miracles while believing there are miracles? I think you need to adopt, for a small time at least, a skeptical attitude before you can seriously question something and I don't see how 'a skeptical attitude' can be reconciled at the same time with having the Spirit. That sounds like a contradiction to me: "To have faith in God while seriously questioning God."

Doesn't it look like it to you?

I think everyone can have some question(s) about a truth claim or an aspect of a truth claim and still be extremely appreciative of the guidance of the Spirit in their search for truth. Sometimes faith in one principle keeps one on an even keel while questioning or struggling with other principles (or with aspects, depths or applications of the same principle), but not the precisely the same exact principle. That would be like keeping one's eyes shut while they are open. However, one might envision or pretend they are open when they are shut or vice-versa, but unless he is well spiritually grounded at a very fundamental level a person can get lost in such an exercise (Korihor did).

[Calm]

If I really wanted to make a stink I'd go all the way.

Bookmark this one.

[CV75]

I agree that using that as a guideline will help, but that still doesn't help with the real problem. Are you going to volunteer things to correct significant false beliefs in church (ie-JS married other already married women as part of polygamy) or raise your hand to disagree when someone is sustained for a calling because you think that calling is not right (ie-young mother as RS presidents who you know is overwhelmed already)? Doing so goes against the culture and no matter how you do it, it will seem scandalous. Right?

You are probably asking the wrong person because the only thing that is important to me is the testimony, covenants and blessings I've received in connection with them. So I let a lot of things like that go. That's not my acculturation, that's just my personality. I'd have to feel pretty strongly about it and then I would privately correct or indicate my reticence to sustain (who knows, maybe I'm the one in the wrong or lacking the full picture).

But I think we primarily need to be vigilant about our own false beliefs. Unless we have the stewardship to do so (and the Spirit helps us discern this and there is a pattern to follow in D&C 121), correcting is an extremely poor substitute for inviting to partake of the truth or volunteering another perspective. I think we can bring up just about anything if we develop a humble, charitable reputation and bring it up in a way that shows love toward our spiritual siblings.

[ldsfaqs]

Why all the hate? Do you guys really not know a single thing that any prominent LDS apologist thinks that is in disagreement with the publicly given correlation? I didn't give a reference because I thought this was a given. Here is one, Daniel Peterson states that he wishes there were more history in the manuals, he even tried to add it when working on them for the church, but it was removed.

So, when apologists think you're misrepresenting apologists, we (those apologists) are the ones with the "hate"?

The rare small differences of opinion with individuals of a group is not a "pattern" of something, such as the thing you are claiming.

You made a specific claim of behavior that most apologists are not in lock step with the brethren/church, that claim is entirely FALSE.

Just go over to FAIR.... Nearly every article, especially gospel articles are entirely in lockstep with the Church. Thus, your claim is a LIE.... a gross exaggeration. No-one is saying that as individuals some on rare occasion might have a view that's not perfectly in-line with the Church, but that's an exception to the rule, NOT the "rule" that you claim is the rule. On rare occasion, I see apologists on this forum have wrong views, such as BCspace and his Church of the Devil views, or Consiglieri and some of his views, all in conflict with not only the Church, but with 99.9% of other apologists.

Your comment about Daniel Petersen I suspect you're slightly misrepresenting his views in the matter.

Judd and LDSFAQ have done well at proving my point. Any slight suggestion of disagreement with correlation is always returned with pretty harsh comments.

1. 
   Do you feel the same towards my CFR that DP did?
   
2. 
   Do you feel that everything given out by correlation is 100% perfect?
   
3. 
   Why is suggesting that apologists are not in lock step with the church anti-mormon?
   
4. 
   Do you feel that we shouldn't evaluate church policies, doctrine with out own "mental prowess" and just go with what correlation gives us w/o thinking?
   

1. I've explained the DP issue.
   
2. Nothing in life is "100%" perfect, but I've basically never seen anything that is actually false. Basic is not false.
   
3. You made a claim that was false and in disparaging Church while doing it, that's what's anti-mormon.
   
4. Who made that claim? The actual point is, is that apologists are ALSO the Church. The Church is not separate from us. We are not in conflict or disagreement with the Church in any matter. Thus, your strawman is just that. A little truth used to tell a great lie.
   

These are serious questions from a serious member, but one who agrees with this in the institute manual (quote 12, half way down).

Just admit it.... You want us to teach the anti-mormon version of history, and if the Church doesn't, you think the Church isn't being honest, and that apologists are in conflict with the Church. Fact is, apologists don't teach the anti-mormon version of history either. The only difference between us and the Church, is that we tell the full story, but still with the same conclusion that the basic story the Church tells. The child like version of history the Church tells is not lying, because the conclusions are still the same. Unless you want to claim when your children read a childrens book, your children are actually being lied to???

Edited November 5, 2011 by ldsfaqs