Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[William Schryver]

My post came from my heart and pained me greatly to relate to you all. I now have been mocked by those of you who have chosen to do so. I do not stand as a judge of anyone but, I am entitled to relate how I feel.

You all have this wonderful knowledge of how arguments are to be phrased and the fallacies of logic memorized and will surely pick apart anything I have to say. I am not here to debate anything with you. I am not inclined to even participate on these types of boards, however I felt compelled to do so in defense of John Dehlin. I have never met the man , but I have listened to his podcasts and read some of the things he has written, and can feel a humility and concern emanating him, a supposed critic. Whereas I read Peterson and other from the Maxwell Institute who are the supposed apologists, and I feel the spirit of contempt and hostility in their chosen voice. Their distain for one struggling is palpable and it led me away from the church. Many of your words and likewise divisive and filled with contempt.

All one has to do to find the source of my pain is read many of the responses to my first post. I'm sure you are all going to your heaven clothed in the glory and righteousness of your God. You have earned it by casting stones at those who disagree with you and through your hate for those who supposedly oppose you.

Graphic deleted

Believe me, we can also feel the humility and concern emanating from you.

[mentalgymnast]

So are we to accept such things at face value, then, without scrutiny or critical thinking? This is a discussion board, after all. Rufus and Dehlin's anonymous correspondents have made some rather serious charges here; don't they bear some examination?

For my part, I asked for clarification about his statement that he was "in a bishopric" because I find that it happens occasionally in such situations that a person claims past  membership in a bishopric when they were really only a clerk or a secretary. I find this to be disingenuous, and it strikes me as reflecting on the credibility of the person making the claim.

Here's the thing Scott. I have known and currently know a number of people who have studied, have prayed, have sincerely sought out TRUTH, and they come up lacking. These folks are, in many cases, trying to get "at the meat of things" and would like to come out the other end of the meat grinder with a belief in a loving God and a hope that when all is said and done (with the problems/concerns in church history, science and religion, etc.) they can believe in latter day prophets, Christ and his atonement, the BofM, celestial families/marriage, etc., etc. But when they are responded to in a somewhat knee jerk fashion without being given the benefit of a doubt that they are REALLY TRYING to get at the truth of things, it may cause them to become even more disillusioned or hurt. You have to realize, these folk's spiritual bearings are hanging in a somewhat precarious balance. To kick them, even if gently, while they're down may not be productive.Regards,MG

[Mark Beesley]

It occurs to me that in the final analysis, faith is always a gift of the Spirit, regardless of how much personal effort one has had to expend to obtain it.

I agree with you and Calmoriah. I guess my questions arise because I don't think I ever did anything to be blessed with the faith I have. Of course it may be that I'm just too humble to recognize my own good works . . .

BTW I think we may be derailing this thread . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

I personally know one young man who had his faith strengthened when I introduced him to FARMS publications.

I count myself as one such person.

[MAsh]

Of course, regardless of its utterly mythological status, this whole "apologetics destroyed my faith" meme has become virtually an article of faith among the ex-Mormon crowd. At the very least it has become a talking point imperative. Never mind that it is only adopted AFTER apostasy has occurred. Why is that? Quite simply because it is nothing more than a weapon in the arsenal of the apostate evangelists; a weapon designed to discredit LDS apologetics in the eyes and minds of those who simply aren't in a position to know better.

A snippet from something I published earlier:

Because LDS apologetics have successfully responded to

numerous anti-LDS arguments, the critics make the following claims in

an effort to dissuade investigators and struggling members from turning

to LDS scholars for help:

1. LDS scholars are not real scholars.

2. LDS scholars engage in ad hominem.

3. LDS scholars are too biased to be objective.

4. LDS scholars are really just paid apologists.

5. FARMS publications are not “peer reviewed.”

6. Non-LDS scholars reject the arguments of FARMS and other

LDS apologists.

7. LDS scholars have changed, and are continuing to change,

the Church and Church doctrine.

These claims have common goals: to prevent members or investigators

with doubts from (a) reading LDS scholarly material or (b) taking it

seriously. Those who study informal logic...refer to this as poisoning the well.

By casting doubt on LDS scholarship

from the start, some of those who encounter anti-Mormon material will

never turn to the LDS scholars for answers. Likewise, those who do

read—or have previously read—LDS scholarly material may be disinclined

to give credence to their arguments.

Shaken Faith Syndrome (2008), pgs. 83-84.

And here we see the anti-Mormon playbook in action....

Mike Ash

[Calm]

John Dehlin is the most visible and successful voice trying to help these people find peace with their doubts and still maintain support for (or at least some degree of comfort with) the Church and its members.

Several (if I haven't lost count) have stated that while JD may have had this approach originally, that more recently he has moved over to promoting disbelief.

Why would church leaders need to "marginalize" him any more than others who have attempted to lead members out of the faith?

[Mark Beesley]

I don't profess to be perfect. I am only stating how I have felt as I have navigated the apologist's works.

Well, spend enough time on the anti-Mormon sites and you'll learn that your feelings can't be trusted. . . .

I don't want to fit in:

Everyone wants to fit in somewhere. No one wants to be alone.

my comments were defensive jabs at a couple of the comments to my first post.

Get a bigger gun . . .

And don't take anything in this post seriously, really . . . it's all in good fun . . . honest.

[stemelbow]

Some people believe and some people don't.

Some people find solace int eh works of MI folks and some apparently do not.

I can't imagine why anyone in particular is to blame for another who loses faith. Conclusions are drawn from many sources, at least that's how I understand most people's minds to work.

It seems unfair to blame the pains of loss of faith on people like Daniel Peterson. I think John took a terribly uncharitable, harsh, and mean-spirited turn when he went there.

[Calm]

BTW I think we may be derailing this thread . . .

That would be a travesty!

[David T]

While

A snippet from something I published earlier:

Because LDS apologetics have successfully responded to

numerous anti-LDS arguments, the critics make the following claims in

an effort to dissuade investigators and struggling members from turning

to LDS scholars for help:

1. LDS scholars are not real scholars.

2. LDS scholars engage in ad hominem.

3. LDS scholars are too biased to be objective.

4. LDS scholars are really just paid apologists.

5. FARMS publications are not “peer reviewed.”

6. Non-LDS scholars reject the arguments of FARMS and other

LDS apologists.

7. LDS scholars have changed, and are continuing to change,

the Church and Church doctrine.

These claims have common goals: to prevent members or investigators

with doubts from (a) reading LDS scholarly material or (b) taking it

seriously. Those who study informal logic...refer to this as poisoning the well.

By casting doubt on LDS scholarship

from the start, some of those who encounter anti-Mormon material will

never turn to the LDS scholars for answers. Likewise, those who do

read—or have previously read—LDS scholarly material may be disinclined

to give credence to their arguments.

Shaken Faith Syndrome (2008), pgs. 83-84.

And here we see the anti-Mormon playbook in action....

Mike Ash

While most of those issues are clearly incorrect, wouldn't it be helpful if there was an increased attempt by the apologists to refrain from ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric, something that legitimately is offputting to many seeking answers? I am not saying by far that most, or even the majority do. But a VERY vocal minority of those even on your side can have far more a well-poisoning effect that those outside can do by accusation. An editorial policy of review that specifically has a point to keep the biting ad hominem rhetoric off of the reviews and articles, I think, would go a far way in helping such publications and productions to best fulfill their stated missions.

[Scott Lloyd]

You have to realize, these folk's spiritual bearings are hanging in a somewhat precarious balance. To kick them, even if gently, while they're down may not be productive.

I guess I have to say I don't see a couple of direct questions and some candid evaluation as amounting to Rufus having been kicked while down. It seems to me he was expecting to stop the conversation with a personal testimonial, and when that didn't happen, he is the one who got pious.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

my comments were defensive jabs at a couple of the comments to my first post.

Doesn't thatstrike you as a little ironic?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, because "Rufus" is a transparent sock puppet--probably a regular poster from MDB--who created an account and popped into this thread to provide tangible "evidence" of the fact that LDS apologia destroys faith.

Alas, I fear that may well be true.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rufus writes:

Thank-you for this post. I am very sincere in my posts. I am not a poser looking to muddy the waters. I live in the heart of the Salt Lake valley and i do humbly believe in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice for me. I follow his teachings as best I can and continue to look to God for answers. My testimony is largely in tact, but it seems to fragment on a regular basis, especialy after stupidly chosing to post on this board today.

Let me offer a couple pieces of advice then.

First, joining a forum under an alias and jumping right in as the cheerleader for a controversial person in a particularly controversial post doesn't help. Forums like this are communities. And, despite every claim that you make (anonymously), you don't simply become a member of that community just by virtue of registering and posting. (Being a member of the church, having held callings, even having some kind of testimony do not make you a member of this community). If you want to be a part of this community, then become a part of it. But, essentially, all you did was make a drive by shooting here. You shouldn't be at all puzzled by the response you got.

Second, you can relate all you want about yourself, but, as long as you participate anonymously, all anyone has is your word. In this specific case, that's going to be a real problem for you. Many of the participants here know these individuals. I have met Dan Peterson several times. We have spoken. He is a wonderful person. You, I don't know.

Do you think that we should all simply accept what you have to say at face value?

Ben M.

[Calm]

An editorial policy of review that specifically has a point to keep the biting ad hominem rhetoric off of the reviews and articles, I think, would go a far way in helping such publications and productions to best fulfill their stated missions.

Please, examples of what not to do would be helpful.

[David T]

Yes, because "Rufus" is a transparent sock puppet--probably a regular poster from MDB--who created an account and popped into this thread to provide tangible "evidence" of the fact that LDS apologia destroys faith.

Will, there have been some bad apologetics that had deleterious effects on individuals foundations of testimony. This is a fact. Yes, we wish their testimonies had been planted on something stronger, or real. Yes, they may have been misguided, and looked in the wrong places, and not done as much research as was humanly possible. But to just slice it off like that is hardly helpful. It's the opposite of helpful in circumstances like this.

Don't you get it? People don't want to listen to people writing apologetics if they are jerks, and discount and write off their experiences as bunk and a sham, and shout from the hilltops that those who disagree with them are wicked conspiratorial apostate scum who hate the Truth. They won't even address whatever good scholarship you may have, because behavior by some writing the articles - and at times unnecessarily within the articles - is so off-putting and contentious.

It really generally tends to be a small, but highly vocal minority that turn people off.

Edited May 10, 2012 by David T

[William Schryver]

While

While most of those issues are clearly incorrect, wouldn't it be helpful if there was an increased attempt by the apologists to refrain from ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric, something that legitimately is offputting to many seeking answers? I am not saying by far that most, or even the majority do. But a VERY vocal minority of those even on your side can have far more a well-poisoning effect that those outside can do by accusation. An editorial policy of review that specifically has a point to keep the biting ad hominem rhetoric off of the reviews and articles, I think, would go a far way in helping such publications and productions to best fulfill their stated missions.

As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications. It is a myth, propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.

[Calm]

Do you think that we should all simply accept what you have to say at face value?

And what is troubling to me is that while there is willingness to condemn there does not appear to be willingness to help change for the better since there is only generic accusations without any effort to actually identify the problems he says exist.

[Mark Beesley]

And what is troubling to me is that while there is willingness to condemn there does not appear to be willingness to help change for the better since there is only generic accusations without any effort to actually identify the problems he says exist.

And a this point, since Rufus has been instructed by a moderator to put up or shut up, I suspect his generic accusations will remain just that, generic accusation. <This is Mark being charitable.>

[Rufus1]

Yes, because "Rufus" is a transparent sock puppet--probably a regular poster from MDB--who created an account and popped into this thread to provide tangible "evidence" of the fact that LDS apologia destroys faith.

So you want proof of the message coming from apologists? Here is it. I say WOW. What charity. What empathy. Thank you, William, for proving my point.

For what its worth: I did joing MDB.....yesterday. To post what I posted on here. However I didn't get my account approved in time and ended up coming on that thread when it had disolved into a neener neener neener fest. I ended up never posting. My name over there is Rufus, (without the 1 on the end). Go see my history. I felt strongly that what I said needed to be said because there are a lot of people who apparently think it is OK to come to these types of boards, ANONYMOUSLY I might add, and rip apart the other. The one struggling for help. The person who has found something that went against everything they have been told for their 45 years on this earth that is damaging to the testimony and belief that they have protected and built up to that point. To the people who want to be a part of the wheat, but who are treated like the chaff.

Are you the ones to decide who is the chaff?

[Calm]

I suspect his generic accusations will remain just that, generic accusation.

Unfortunately this is what happens in the vast majority of these types of accusations.

If FAIR got specific pointers on where they had gone wrong every time accusations like this were made, we'd have a practically perfect website. (except perhaps for being a bit bland in colouring according to 'why me', but considering we live off of donations, it's probably as exciting as we can handle, lol)

Rufus is still posting though, so I am hopeful.

Edited May 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[William Schryver]

Will, there have been some bad apologetics that had deleterious effects on individuals foundations of testimony. This is a fact.

Is it a FACT?

I don't believe it, and I don't believe you can demonstrate it.

Again, I am convinced it is a myth, created and propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.

If I were you, I would be a little embarrassed to have fallen for it.

[mentalgymnast]

Alas, I fear that may well be true.

And if that is true, he unfortunately has a negative impact in regards to those that are sincerely/honestly trying to get at the truth of the matter(s) as it relates to the mormon story. One bad apple...That's the problem with these message boards. No face to face contact, and it IS difficult sometimes not to take things at face value...without the face.Regards,MG

[treehugger]

As Scott averred above, I also am not aware of any significant use of "ad hominem and antagonistic rhetoric" in either FAIR or MI publications. It is a myth, propounded by those whose primary objective is to silence the voice of those attempting to defend the restored gospel against the attacks of its detractors.

But you are admitting you do see apologists use ad homenim and antagonistic attacks, but it just is not significant to you. Can anyone here justify such conduct in defending the Faith?

Viewing the conduct of lds apologists elsewhere, it is not surprising in the least that those same people here fail to see how the conduct of members of the Church can negatively affect other members of the Church.

Edited May 10, 2012 by treehugger

[William Schryver]

So you want proof of the message coming from apologists? Here is it. I say WOW. What charity. What empathy. Thank you, William, for proving my point.

For what its worth: I did joing MDB.....yesterday. To post what I posted on here. However I didn't get my account approved in time and ended up coming on that thread when it had disolved into a neener neener neener fest. I ended up never posting. My name over there is Rufus, (without the 1 on the end). Go see my history. I felt strongly that what I said needed to be said because there are a lot of people who apparently think it is OK to come to these types of boards, ANONYMOUSLY I might add, and rip apart the other. The one struggling for help. The person who has found something that went against everything they have been told for their 45 years on this earth that is damaging to the testimony and belief that they have protected and built up to that point. To the people who want to be a part of the wheat, but who are treated like the chaff.

Are you the ones to decide who is the chaff?

Mmmm ... smells like a Buffalo.

At any rate, a brand new member of two message boards, who magically has all the controversial issues and all the terminology down pat in a single day ... you're an absolute marvel.