Is There A Place For Pastoral Apologetics In Mormonism?

[CASteinman]

The way I believe he is using the term "apologetics" is an effort to "defend the faith."

Maybe I don't really understand his point, but if I grasp it reasonably well, the people he is focusing on do not want a defense of the faith. They do not want to meet any defense -- really. They want no resistance at all. Rather, they want a hand and reaching out. They want something almost exactly opposite of defense -- what they want is outreach in their direction and a feeling of loving connection. It is not the Faith of the Saints that needs defending, but rather it is the sadness, doubt, fear, -- the emotion -- of the individual that needs to be treated first, with an appropriate emotional connection that "lifts up" the weary.

That is not apologetics. It just isn't.. It does fit a sense of "Pastoral" though.

I think that it may, however, be a useful term -- primarily to get attention from people who have not figured this out and who would answer the cry for connection with a technically correct but unfulfilling response.

Incidentally, I am not sure how this works with Teenagers -- who may be at one time BOTH intellectually and emotionally challenged. Focusing on the emotion will leave the intellectual questions open and subject someone to dodging (as has been said before) and focusing on the intellectual will not satisfy the inner craving for connection -- a craving that many people will even deny exists in them in our spirit of independence. There is, sometimes, an emotional-intellectual death spiral people work themselves into. This approach can break the emotional side, at least.

Covey would argue, that is the most important side.

[Aminadab]

That is an astute observation and certainly reflects his "apologetic" efforts of the Joseph Smith story via Rough Stone Rolling. He seems to want to adopt not only a kinder gentler version of classical apologetics, but one that takes seriously challenges to traditional orthodox assumptions that prove incongruent with historical and/or scientific observations.

I think that honesty in this sense is also very important.

What I like about Bushman's honesty is that he takes seriously that there are issues that will cause people to question. I believe I heard Jeff Lindsay say something very similar once. Not everyone is willing to say that, but I think that simply acknowledging the existence of questions as perfectly normal in one's spiritual development is a big first step. People want to know that others are listening, hearing, and caring.

[Aminadab]

Maybe I need to read more modern works, but the work that I am familiar with -- a book that is both profound and yet somewhat incomplete -- is Stephen Covey's book "Spiritual Roots of Human Relations". I believe his concepts of "Diagnose before you Prescribe" and showing love in a way that is accepted before you correct others is, despite his partial coverage of the concepts, a good practical guide to what Lane is calling "Pastoral Apologetics". I do not know what Lane has produced in this area but I can recommend Covey.

I do not think it would be Lane's intent to do a backdoor attack. Rather, I think it is the nature of the enemies of the Gospel to use any brick that they can to throw at us -- including Lane's interesting observations. They would be doing it illegitimately, but if it could get traction, I am sure we would see it all over the internet about how cruel Mormons are or some sort of booshwash like that.

Covey's book is a real classic, CASteinman. I need to go read it again. That is a wonderful suggestion for trying to come to an understanding of how that approach might work in an LDS context as opposed to a Protestant one.

As for the enemies of the Gospel using this as a brick, I am interested in your thoughts there. I don't know that I follow exactly, but it seems like you have some very specific concerns in mind.

[Aminadab]

Maybe I don't really understand his point, but if I grasp it reasonably well, the people he is focusing on do not want a defense of the faith. They do not want to meet any defense -- really. They want no resistance at all. Rather, they want a hand and reaching out. They want something almost exactly opposite of defense -- what they want is outreach in their direction and a feeling of loving connection. It is not the Faith of the Saints that needs defending, but rather it is the sadness, doubt, fear, -- the emotion -- of the individual that needs to be treated first, with an appropriate emotional connection that "lifts up" the weary.

That is not apologetics. It just isn't.. It does fit a sense of "Pastoral" though.

I think that it may, however, be a useful term -- primarily to get attention from people who have not figured this out and who would answer the cry for connection with a technically correct but unfulfilling response.

Incidentally, I am not sure how this works with Teenagers -- who may be at one time BOTH intellectually and emotionally challenged. Focusing on the emotion will leave the intellectual questions open and subject someone to dodging (as has been said before) and focusing on the intellectual will not satisfy the inner craving for connection -- a craving that many people will even deny exists in them in our spirit of independence. There is, sometimes, an emotional-intellectual death spiral people work themselves into. This approach can break the emotional side, at least.

Covey would argue, that is the most important side.

Those are wonderful insights, CASteinman. Thanks for sharing that. Yes, I don't know exactly what the division is between "reaching out" and apologetics. I think in Protestantism pastors tend to be trained in counseling more formally, as well as being called upon to defend doctrine and correct others. So, for them the division between these duties may not seem as clear. In the LDS context, the bishop provides spiritual counsel, apologists defend the faith, and LDS Social Services provides counseling (I know this isn't precise, but you get the idea). What seems like a natural combination to a Protestant pastor may not immediate seem to work naturally here.

[CASteinman]

As for the enemies of the Gospel using this as a brick, I am interested in your thoughts there. I don't know that I follow exactly, but it seems like you have some very specific concerns in mind.

Oh Gosh no! Nothing specific. I am actually laughing out loud.

Its just that I have seen them try just about everything I could imagine and I have seen some things that went way way past what I could have brainstormed if I tried. Loftes Tryk and his Mormon Temple Spires Crucifying Jesus Again, comes to mind. I recall one woman, an anti-Mormon who claimed that she left the LDS Church and started studying the evils of our gospel because they didn't have a proper Sunbeam Manual for a year or two and had to use the CTR Manual -- and that we were trying to teach small children actual gospel subjects. Obviously we are of the devil.

Really... I have seen such amazing, over the top, bogus stuff, that nothing at all would surprise me. And this seems to me like one more opportunity for a brick to try. I don't, however, think it will have legs.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[Aminadab]

Oh Gosh no! Nothing specific. I am actually laughing out loud.

Its just that I have seen them try just about everything I could imagine and I have seen some things that went way way past what I could have brainstormed if I tried. Loftes Tryk and his Mormon Temple Spires Crucifying Jesus Again, comes to mind. I recall one woman, an anti-Mormon who claimed that she left the LDS Church and started studying the evils of our gospel because they didn't have a proper Sunbeam Manual for a year or two and had to use the CTR Manual -- and that we were trying to teach small children actual gospel subjects. Obviously we are of the devil.

Really... I have seen such amazing, over the top, bogus stuff, that nothing at all would surprise me. And this seems to me like one more opportunity for a brick to try. I don't, however, think it will have legs.

What you bring up here is an excellent point. I think that sometimes those who attack the LDS Church are hurting, particularly those who belong to the Church and attack it nonetheless. If the underlying problems are addressed, then perhaps the "crazy" attacks can be preempted, so to speak, but in a Christlike way. Obviously Christian counter-cultist ministries don't fit into such a discussion easily.

[CASteinman]

Oops! I meant Bitton spoke about not having a testimony of the history of the Church. LOL.

I may need to read that paper again (I think I read it once). But I do --- kinda -- have a testimony of the History of the Church. I respect the Catholics quite a bit, but I hope I am not being too much like their apologist historians when I say that I see the hand of God in our History. Also, of course, the Hand of Men, but I really see the Hand of God.

The Book of Mormon says to read it and think about how God has worked with the Children of Men through all ages.

I think I see that working in Church History -- though i wish the dramatic things that God sometimes does, were more common. I think I understand why they are not.. At least, I have come up with enough of an explanation that I am not overly troubled not to see very many burning bushes, smoking pillars of flame, and cities taken up into heaven in our day.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[Aminadab]

I may need to read that paper again (I think I read it once). But I do --- kinda -- have a testimony of the History of the Church. I respect the Catholics quite a bit, but I hope I am not being too much like their apologist historians when I say that I see the hand of God in our History. Also, of course, the Hand of Men, but I really see the Hand of God.

The Book of Mormon says to read it and think about how God has worked with the Children of Men through all ages.

I think I see that working in Church History -- though i wish the dramatic things that God sometimes does, were more common. I think I understand why they are not.. At least, I have come up with enough of an explanation that I am not overly troubled not to see very many burning bushes, smoking pillars of flame, and cities taken up into heaven in our day.

Yeah, I don't think he meant it that way. But you would have to refer back to him. When God manifested himself to the Israelites in the desert, he most certainly identified Himself by historical events. What I think he is saying is that his witness is grounded in the spirit, not individual facts and scholarly interpretations that can shift over time. I should go reread it too. I think there is even a video on youtube if you are interested.

[Calm]

Oops! I meant Bitton spoke about not having a testimony of the history of the Church. LOL.

I was wondering.

You will be able to edit your posts when you hit 25 posts posted....also start your own threads here in the main forum.

[Calm]

There is, sometimes, an emotional-intellectual death spiral people work themselves into. This approach can break the emotional side, at least.

Covey would argue, that is the most important side.

The intellect tends to be able to be much more patient than the emotions are.

[Calm]

Not everyone is willing to say that, but I think that simply acknowledging the existence of questions as perfectly normal in one's spiritual development is a big first step.

Why would we ever need faith if there was no real reason for questioning?

[CASteinman]

The intellect tends to be able to be much more patient than the emotions are.

Oh wow! I wish I had said that. Can I steal that quote?

[Calm]

LDS Social Services provides counseling (I know this isn't precise, but you get the idea). What seems like a natural combination to a Protestant pastor may not immediate seem to work naturally here.

Wouldn't fellowshipping be to a great extent part of the suggested counseling as well?

[Calm]

Oh wow! I wish I had said that. Can I steal that quote?

Yes as long as you give me a rep point.

[Calm]

Oh Gosh no! Nothing specific. I am actually laughing out loud.

I am thinking it is likely to be something very similar to the condemnation that we often get for not being Christlike in our responses (not saying this isn't sometimes true, but it is often used as a bat to intimidate LDS into shutting up completely in questioning any claims of the disaffected). If someone chooses the classical apologetics approach because an individual is asking questions and it seems appropriate to answer them, one could be accused of not really caring about the individual like those who use pastoral apologetics do, etc.

[Calm]

If the underlying problems are addressed, then perhaps the "crazy" attacks can be preempted, so to speak, but in a Christlike way.

Unfortunately there are many that have become disaffected who perceive any attempt to engage or connect as an attempt to manipulate. This interpretation just reinforces the negative viewpoint and puts greater space between rather than drawing two closer together.

What do you do then except step back and give them the space to resolve their own issues in their own time? I think this is a real conundrum for many trying to help, but feeling like they only make things worse when they do reach out.

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Aminadab]

I was wondering.

You will be able to edit your posts when you hit 25 posts posted....also start your own threads here in the main forum.

Cool. Thanks!

[Aminadab]

Unfortunately there are many that have become disaffected who perceive any attempt to engage or connect as an attempt to manipulate. This interpretation just reinforces the negative viewpoint and puts greater space between rather than drawing two closer together.

What do you do then except step back and give them the space to resolve their own issues in their own time? I think this is a real conundrum for many trying to help, but feeling like they only make things worse when they do reach out.

I can see that sometimes happening, yes. Everyone has different needs.

[Aminadab]

I am thinking it is likely to be something very similar to the condemnation that we often get for not being Christlike in our responses (not saying this isn't sometimes true, but it is often used as a bat to intimidate LDS into shutting up completely in questioning any claims of the disaffected). If someone chooses the classical apologetics approach because an individual is asking questions and it seems appropriate to answer them, one could be accused of not really caring about the individual like those who use pastoral apologetics do, etc.

I hope I don't give the impression that I think this would be an "either, or" solution, instead of a "both, and" one. I mean, this is not prescriptive, in my view. It is not about saying, "hey, classical apologetics is wrong, so everyone must do this new thing." I am just wondering whether this brings out new tools that might address some people better, since, as I like to say, everyone has different needs. Some want a classical apologetics answer; others want to be addressed on a more emotional, spiritual level first. Just a thought.

[CASteinman]

Unfortunately there are many that have become disaffected who perceive any attempt to engage or connect as an attempt to manipulate. This interpretation just reinforces the negative viewpoint and puts greater space between rather than drawing two closer together.

What do you do then except step back and give them the space to resolve their own issues in their own time? I think this is a real conundrum for many trying to help, but feeling like they only make things worse when they do reach out.

One of two things is probably true. Maybe both. Either I am apostate in this matter, or I will say things that are unpopular though valid.

For those trying to help, we must remember:

1. Lots of these spiritual issues are rooted personal, emotional and mental issues. We may not be either qualified -- or more importantly -- able to help in any meaningful way. We just need to accept these limitations in ourselves and be self accepting.

2. We are not responsible for the decisions other people make.

3. The Church and the Gospel are not for everyone. The scriptures are clear: There will be MANY who do not qualify for the Church or the Kingdom. We cannot help that.

4. God is aware of all things and will weigh all things in the balance -- and is exceedingly merciful. Those people who are His will not be lost unless they choose it. And they DO get to choose.

I believe this is hard doctrine for those who have loved ones wrestling with unbelief or for those who are actually wrestling with it themselves.

I am sorry if it is offensive. But I believe it is all true.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CASteinman

[Aminadab]

One of two things is probably true. Maybe both. Either I am apostate in this matter, or I will say things that are unpopular though valid.

For those trying to help, we must remember...

Very well said.

[Calm]

I hope I don't give the impression that I think this would be an "either, or" solution, instead of a "both, and" one. I mean, this is not prescriptive, in my view. It is not about saying, "hey, classical apologetics is wrong, so everyone must do this new thing." I am just wondering whether this brings out new tools that might address some people better, since, as I like to say, everyone has different needs. Some want a classical apologetics answer; others want to be addressed on a more emotional, spiritual level first. Just a thought.

No, I didn't get the impression this was what you or anyone else here was claiming, just agreeing that it might be used as a tool to try and shut down reaching out to those who are questioning in a classical way when there are those that are helped with that approach. From what I understand Lane was not excluding classical apologetics, just saying that for a specific subgroup of individuals pastoral apologetics (whether it is really apologetics or not) is the way to go if our intent is to help and not just defend.

[Calm]

I believe this is hard doctrine for those who have loved ones wrestling with unbelief or for those who are actually wrestling with it themselves.

I am sorry if it is offensive. But I believe it is all true.

I agree. I just think that we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about who is who, never taking it upon ourselves to judge unless it is in our stewardship to do so and only with the Spirit as the one doing the actual judging since only the Spirit can tell us what is in someone's heart, and we need to try to help people and the only real excuse not to help outside someone refusing to accept help (as they have made the decision for us) is because the Spirit has told us it is time to rest and let them be, but I would still not interpret this as an excuse to give up and ignore, condemn or reject them, we need to remain open to the Spirit in case there comes a time when things change for the individual.

And I think we need to realize that even if interacting within the context of the Gospel is out of the question for an individual, there may be other ways to still be engaged and if we truly view someone as our brother or sister (as a fellow child of God) then we will not reject these nonGospel interactions as something not worth our time or lacking in meaning.

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[mercyngrace]

Unfortunately there are many that have become disaffected who perceive any attempt to engage or connect as an attempt to manipulate. This interpretation just reinforces the negative viewpoint and puts greater space between rather than drawing two closer together.

My experience (mileage may vary and all that) is that this happens more IRL than online. When people are online talking it's because they want to, not because you've cornered them in some socially awkward, not-easily-escapable situation. Most people simply want to be heard and acknowledged. People (and I'm referring specifically to those who are disaffected or experiencing a crisis of faith) want to know what they are going through isn't unique or life-ending. And invariably, at least in terms of disaffection from the church, it isn't. Acknowledging the complex issues, the multitude of unknowns, and the reality of institutional and individual imperfection is part of this pastoral approach. Furthermore, it's just honest.

What do you do then except step back and give them the space to resolve their own issues in their own time? I think this is a real conundrum for many trying to help, but feeling like they only make things worse when they do reach out.

IRL, I think the best approach is to not try and fix people but to let them know you love them, even as broken as they are. (To paraphrase Benjamin, "Are we not all broken?") I think it's possible to maintain the same kinds of supportive relationships online. If that means giving someone space to make their own way while letting them know that you love them regardless, that's absolutely fine.

In this context, the words of President Uchtdorf come to mind:

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

I think we can do those things without compromising our beliefs or idly allowing others to attack our faith. In fact, I believe that is because of our beliefs that we must do them.

Edited May 14, 2012 by mercyngrace

[CASteinman]

I agree. I just think that we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about who is who, never taking it upon ourselves to judge unless it is in our stewardship to do so and only with the Spirit as the one doing the actual judging since only the Spirit can tell us what is in someone's heart, and we need to try to help people and the only real excuse not to help outside someone refusing to accept help (as they have made the decision for us) is because the Spirit has told us it is time to rest and let them be, but I would still not interpret this as an excuse to give up and ignore, condemn or reject them, we need to remain open to the Spirit in case there comes a time when things change for the individual.

And I think we need to realize that even if interacting within the context of the Gospel is out of the question for an individual, there may be other ways to still be engaged and if we truly view someone as our brother or sister (as a fellow child of God) then we will not reject these nonGospel interactions as something not worth our time or lacking in meaning.

I don't see it as a matter of judging. I see it as a matter of not judging and just letting go. Letting people be who they are.

Of course it can be used cynically. Sometimes I do, particularly with enemies of the Church. But i was not speaking about enemies to the Church when I wrote this. I was talking about people who are trying to help members who are struggling and trying to get out of the Gospel.

I think that we must empower people to make the choice to leave the Church -- but with the clear understanding of what they are doing. This is in effect saying "I accept your decision, I accept you as a person but in return, you need to realize that your decision will put you out of the Kingdom of God. If you are happy with that, then go in peace".

Of course, not everyone wants to actually leave -- and for those people we can say things like "This is a hard time for you. Its not quite right to say that anyone else in the world really knows what you are going through. None of us can really appreciate the feelings you have completely. But we have all had trials of faith in life and some us have had feelings like you have had from time to time. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel and Jesus knows every pain and counts every tear. If you can try to exercise even a little bit of Faith -- you will be surprised at how the Lord will bless you!"

People who are struggling probably need Hope more than anything else.

And on that note, I wonder, why is it listed "Faith Hope and Charity"? I would have put it as "Hope, Faith and Charity" in that order.

Edited May 14, 2012 by CASteinman