Is There A Place For Pastoral Apologetics In Mormonism?

[Calm]

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.

I agree that this happens more in real life than online, but once it happens in real life interaction, online interaction often gets interpreted in the same way...as in someone does something that is requested or says something in agreement not because they are seriously trying to understand, but because they are trying to look good.

And if someone has reached that point how can one let them know you love them (because any expression of love is seen as deception)?

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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.

When I say "judging" I am talking more about occasions where people have condemned others as immoral because of doubts (making assumptions about the cause of those doubts) or called others "wolves in sheep's clothing" or some such thing. I don't think it is always inappropriate as I believe there are actually instances where people are directed by the Spirit to denounce individuals who are attempting to do harm to others (whether it is in the Church or something outside of it) or even harm to themselves. I just think unfortunately that more take this duty upon themselves than the Spirit calls.

If one is concerned about improper behaviour, I think in most cases it is better to point to the behaviour, point to the standard agreed upon by a community and let others make up their own mind. When one has been given a stewardship as a bishop, then one has the calling to determine another's place in the spiritual community (at least whether or not someone belongs or has crossed the line into separation from the community); I would be reluctant myself to do so for those in my community unless I held such a calling. It is like being a moderator, no one else has the right or responsibility to say whether or not an individual can post, but all have the right to report suspect behaviour to the ones in authority (and if they abuse that right, they will likely find themselves judged as harshly as they judge others).

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

If one is concerned about improper behaviour, I think in most cases it is better to point to the behaviour, point to the standard agreed upon by a community and let others make up their own mind. When one has been given a stewardship as a bishop, then one has the calling to determine another's place in the spiritual community (at least whether or not someone belongs or has crossed the line into separation from the community); I would be reluctant myself to do so for those in my community unless I held such a calling. It is like being a moderator, no one else has the right or responsibility to say whether or not an individual can post, but all have the right to report suspect behaviour to the ones in authority (and if they abuse that right, they will likely find themselves judged as harshly as they judge others).

I don't know if I miscommunicated, but just in case, I was not referring to the office of a Bishop. I was not talking about someone being excommunicated for behavior. I was talking about someone going into an emotional-intellectual death spiral and wanting out of the Gospel path -- and we are friends or family watching this. We have to just let go and give them the validation that they have the right to make that decision. However, under God, we are also obliged to help them make that decision with the information about eternal consequences as far as we are made aware of them.

[CASteinman]

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.

I like all of your posts that I have read.

[Calm]

I don't think it is that you miscommunicated but that this conversation reminds me of other conversations and I am drawing ideas from those into this one....so sorry if I got off on a tangent.

And now I must really say goodnight...the grandkiddies drained me and I would have been asleep hours ago except for a minor crisis with my own child kind of woke me up and I came on here as I always do to unwind....and then I let myself get caught up in too interesting of a conversation, lol.

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[BCSpace]

Sigh. I've just read, elsewhere, that when people struggling with honest doubts come to folks like me, they're "attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb."

This is, to put the most charitable possible reading on it, insane fantasy.

Well, to begin with, your avatar is not very friendly.

[Storm Rider]

Dr. Tim Lane has an interesting take on apologetics. I found the following video quite moving as a concept and objective.

http://www.ccef.org/...ral-apologetics

Over the years, most of the efforts of LDS apologists I've witnessed tend to deal with an active defense of unique LDS claims, including the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon, a disconnect between the KEP and the BofA, literal Priesthood restoration, polygamy, etc.

While these are important issues to consider and perhaps even defend against critics, I'm curious if people connect with the concept of "pastoral apologetics" and to what extent (if at all) such an approach to those questioning LDS claims seems applicable to those actively engaged in the defense of Mormonism.

I think the concept of pastoral apologetics was spot on; for LDS we would most easily identify this process as effection home teaching and/or visiting teaching. Pastoral apologetics is impossible to effect without having a personal relationship with the individual. So much of God's work is performed by his servants and the way His love is felt is often through the service his disciples provide to others. Only after the person feel God's love and (s)he has built his relationship with God on an understanding of that love, does the role of apologetics truly become effective and valuable.

We too often lose the battle for the soul of each individual by focusing on winning the intellectual war of words, doctrinal explanations, etc. rather than focusing on the real needs of each child of God.

[Storm Rider]

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.

How often have I heard people laugh about the visiting/home teacher that brings over a loaf of bread or other homemade item? Too often; it is derided as those stupid Mormons think they can wrangle their way into a relationship; they are just fake and don't really care about me. In some respects this may be accurate, but to say that it is always fake is to deny reality. Some humans simply build very tall walls around themselves to ensure that no one helps them. All the while they stand alone behind the walls and wither in lonliness.

I have always believed that we create our own hell. This is one way that we each ensure that we are not aided by our brothers and sisters; we keep building walls behind which we stand all alone.

[zerinus]

Dr. Tim Lane has an interesting take on apologetics. I found the following video quite moving as a concept and objective.

http://www.ccef.org/video/dr-tim-lane-pastoral-apologetics

Over the years, most of the efforts of LDS apologists I've witnessed tend to deal with an active defense of unique LDS claims, including the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon, a disconnect between the KEP and the BofA, literal Priesthood restoration, polygamy, etc.

While these are important issues to consider and perhaps even defend against critics, I'm curious if people connect with the concept of "pastoral apologetics" and to what extent (if at all) such an approach to those questioning LDS claims seems applicable to those actively engaged in the defense of Mormonism.

I would be inclined to call that pastoral service rather than pastoral apologetics. The truth is that pastoral service can take apologetical colors if it becomes focused on doctrinal and theological issues or concerns; while apologetics can assume a pastoral dimension if the individual you are dealing with happens to be in need of pastoral care. A good pastor should have good apologetic skills when needed; and a good apologist should be aware of, and be able to recognize and meet the need for pastoral service when it arises (or direct the individual as required). Therefore inventing a new category of "pastoral apologetics" seems to add an unnecessary level of complexity to the issue that appears to be superfluous, and does not serve a useful purpose. A better solution might be to better educate pastors in apologetics, and apologists in pastoral care.

Edited May 14, 2012 by zerinus

[mercyngrace]

I like all of your posts that I have read.

That's because I'm using my pastoral approach on you.... lol

[Aminadab]

I think the concept of pastoral apologetics was spot on; for LDS we would most easily identify this process as effection home teaching and/or visiting teaching. Pastoral apologetics is impossible to effect without having a personal relationship with the individual. So much of God's work is performed by his servants and the way His love is felt is often through the service his disciples provide to others. Only after the person feel God's love and (s)he has built his relationship with God on an understanding of that love, does the role of apologetics truly become effective and valuable.

We too often lose the battle for the soul of each individual by focusing on winning the intellectual war of words, doctrinal explanations, etc. rather than focusing on the real needs of each child of God.

The vision presented in your post represents perfectly how we can conceptualize "pastoral apologetics" in an LDS context. Now, the question is whether we can think of ways of implementing such an approach. It would seem to me that a comprehensive effort, involving the current resources and programs the Church has in place is a great way to start, but I think that there also ought to be something more formal in place. At the very least, someone ought to formulate a method for doing this effectively, and then see to the training of others in that method.

[CASteinman]

Now, the question is whether we can think of ways of implementing such an approach.

I don't mean this in any derogatory way, so I hope you do not take it that way, but is this possibly a "steadying of the ark"? That is, if your meaning is to apply it as a system for the Church? I think any individual is free to choose their way of dealing with things (as attested to by the title count at Deseret Book), but the direction of the Church and its programs is under the hands of the Apostles.

[DBMormon]

Just for the record, though, which is not aimed at you, but is a general-purpose explanation for some others who routinely generalize from this place to FAIR, and from FAIR to a mythical entity that they call FARMS/FAIR or MI/FAIR:

This board is not responsible for everything said by every poster on it.

agreed, I never related it to FAIR or FARMS, just that it does occur way too much in general on this board, and that when one comes for help and gets that treatment, one is already in a emotional place... and it doesn't help. One feels ganged up on, like questions are bad and frowned upon. there are fair and Farms people here thpugh who could step in and put their two cents in, in stopping the attack

[Calm]

agreed, I never related it to FAIR or FARMS, just that it does occur way too much in general on this board, and that when one comes for help and gets that treatment, one is already in a emotional place... and it doesn't help. One feels ganged up on, like questions are bad and frowned upon. there are fair and Farms people here thpugh who could step in and put their two cents in, in stopping the attack

Very few "FARMS" (as has been pointed out, the "FARMS" people who post here are authors who may have a minor connection due to writing an article or two or even more for a MI publication, but actually have very little else to do with MI) and FAIR people post on a regular basis, I think I am the only FAIR member who posts on pretty much every topic. Most FARMS and FAIR posters from their posting history are looking for specific topics and don't take the time to read every thread so do not have the opportunity to step in and stop the attack.

I understand the ganged up feeling, but it actually is rarely as bad as it feels, I suspect, (since it usually amounts to maybe at most five posters), comparing the number of actual posters active on the board and the usually very limited number who jump in prematurely and identify newcomers as trolls etc. (usually based on their similarity to past posters who were actually trolls, there are a very few posters who assume based purely on disagreeing that someone is troll or anti-mormon, but most of the time it is relatively easy for someone familiar with the board to point to the rational reason why someone thinks a newcomer is hostile, unfortunately they are not always right....also unfortunately they are right a lot of the times....which unfortunately increases the habit of assuming before enough evidence has been collected that someone is a troll or anti....hope this makes sense, not a lot of sleep last night but too awake now to go back to sleep).

And usually from what I've seen there are those who are trying to have nonaggressive discussions or clarification of what they see as overly negative criticisms that are often lumped in with those who are drawing premature negative conclusions because once a newcomer starts to feel defensive, everything in a conversation said can take on a negative hue if it appears to question at all a person's POV.

It is unfortunate that such things happen, but considering how one study I saw quite some time ago that concluded the majority of discussions on the internet involve misunderstandings and miscommunications, it is not surprising to me at all no matter how hard one tries, in most cases someone ends up getting their feelings hurt. Wish it wasn't so but I think it would help a great deal if posters were more realistic about the internet environment and tempered their communications accordingly. What it means to me is that I need to be patient with others and myself and take the time not to respond emotionally....which means I don't send stuff if I am upset plus I try and help create an environment of civility by using the report function as needed because I have found that "stepping in" often leads to more contention, not less, but the mods can always bring such to a halt when necessary (though not always immediately due to them not being on the board 24/7).

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

Might not be a bad idea to also ask if there's a place for pastoral Mormonism in apologetics.

[Daniel Peterson]

there are fair and Farms people here thpugh who could step in and put their two cents in, in stopping the attack

I'm the only person formally affiliated with "FARMS" (better, the Maxwell Institute) who posts here with any degree of regularity, and I'm away for weeks on end and look at only a few of the threads when I'm in town. Of the board of directors of FAIR, I think I'm also the only one who looks in very regularly.

Several in the leadership of FAIR never pay attention at all, so far as I know, and the majority of the folks who work formally with the Maxwell Institute may not even know that this message board exists.

[Aminadab]

I don't mean this in any derogatory way, so I hope you do not take it that way, but is this possibly a "steadying of the ark"? That is, if your meaning is to apply it as a system for the Church? I think any individual is free to choose their way of dealing with things (as attested to by the title count at Deseret Book), but the direction of the Church and its programs is under the hands of the Apostles.

I can see why you might say that, but I am brainstorming, not telling the Church what to do. You ask a good question, however, because, even in brainstorming, it is important to understand the limitations that exist. Otherwise one can waste time on completely unrealistic speculation.

[CASteinman]

it is important to understand the limitations that exist. Otherwise one can waste time on completely unrealistic speculation.

Its rare for someone to not only get my point but to get the point behind my point that I did not express! Kudos on your excellent mind reading skills.

I have a feeling the Apostles would say "But we have already told you and shown you how to do this!". We might need to look through Conference talks a bit.

[Aminadab]

Its rare for someone to not only get my point but to get the point behind my point that I did not express! Kudos on your excellent mind reading skills.

I have a feeling the Apostles would say "But we have already told you and shown you how to do this!". We might need to look through Conference talks a bit.

Thanks! I think you are correct about doing some research. It seems to me that there is room to be anxiously engaged in a good cause. That is how FARMS, FAIR, etc., got started, but you want to go about it the right way. Not try to steady the ark or anything.

[zerinus]

Its rare for someone to not only get my point but to get the point behind my point that I did not express! Kudos on your excellent mind reading skills.

I have a feeling the Apostles would say "But we have already told you and shown you how to do this!". We might need to look through Conference talks a bit.

Unlike other churches and denominations, the LDS Church does not have a professional clergy, and it does not provide a "training program" to teach its ministers and priesthood holders the art of "ministering to the saints" (2 Corinthians 8:4). The Holy Ghost is to be their teacher, and the scriptures are to be their training manual, according to the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 18:

26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

Alma 17:

2 . . . yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.

3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.

The LDS Church has neither a training manual nor instruction program for either “pastoral service,” or “doing apologetics”. Instead, they are given a true priesthood, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the revelations of God; and they are to learn how to do their job by being “taught form on high” (D&C 43:15–16).

Edited May 15, 2012 by zerinus

[Aminadab]

Unlike other churches and denominations, the LDS Church does not have a professional clergy, and it does not provide a "training program" to teach its ministers and priesthood holders the art of "ministering to the saints" (2 Corinthians 8:4). The Holy Ghost is to be their teacher, and the scriptures are to be their training manual, according to the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon:

Yes. It is true that the precise mechanisms that a Protestant congregation uses to achieve "pastoral apologetics" would not work in an LDS environment. Any efforts made would have to conform to the pre-existing program that the Church has. At the same time, before FARMS was voluntarily started, there was no scholarly-apologetic institution of that precise kind in the LDS world. There is room to do good, being anxiously engaged in a good cause. Naturally no one can jump into such a thing on an inappropriate basis and conflict with the order of the priesthood. But, I think LDS apologetic organizations like FARMS and FAIR show what can be done without violating the proper order of things. It seems to me that such efforts that are handled appropriately and in the right spirit can be a great blessing to the lives of others.

I think that there are members who have needs that neither local leaders nor classical apologetics work for, for whatever reason. The idea would be to meet that need without interfering with either the priesthood or the good work of apologists. I think it is possible to imagine how that could be done. That is the reason to engage in this discussion, I believe. The end result is the saving of souls and the lessening of suffering, not only for the troubled member, but for family and friends, and the LDS community at large. This is also the kind of thing that could forestall the creation of a longterm enemy of the Church that goes online or writes books to criticize the LDS Church. If they fall into an oppositional role, because the only way they felt they were able to address their problems at the time was by fighting with you or another apologist online, and that ends with more alienation, what does that help?

[mercyngrace]

Cushan,

I thought this discussion and video (NT Wright on apologetics) were an interesting approach. I think "narrative apologetics" is more pastoral in nature.

Also, this crowd might find it funny that in the Q&A at the end of the video, someone asks a questions about the comparatively phenomenal growth of Mormonism.

[Aminadab]

Cushan,

I thought this discussion and video(NT Wright on apologetics) were an interesting approach. I think "narrative apologetics" is more pastoral in nature.

Also, this crowd might find it funny that in the Q&A at the end of the video, someone asks a questions about the comparatively phenomenal growth of Mormonism.

Thanks for posting this, mercyngrace!

[Hamilton Porter]

How can we do pastoral apologetics within the framework of our current curriculum?

Apologist: You see, in the older books of the Bible teach that El presided over a council of gods, just like the Book of Abraham. Post-exilic books like Deuteronomy leave all that out.

Mormon: But we learned in Gospel Principles that Moses wrote Deuteronomy! Blasphemy!

[CASteinman]

How can we do pastoral apologetics within the framework of our current curriculum?

Apologist: You see, in the older books of the Bible teach that El presided over a council of gods, just like the Book of Abraham. Post-exilic books like Deuteronomy leave all that out.

Mormon: But we learned in Gospel Principles that Moses wrote Deuteronomy! Blasphemy!

Pastoral "apologetics" would not make this argument. It would, instead, build a relationship with the person having doubts. I am probably not very good at it, but I think it would be more like this:

Mormon: I am thinking of leaving the Church because the Book of Abraham teaches the satanic idea that God rules over other Gods -- Blasphemy! There is only one God!

P Apologist: Hmmm, That sounds pretty bad. I guess you are pretty upset - it seems so. How do you feel?

Mormon: Yeah, I feel like I've been lied to all along. No one will answer my question. I'm pretty angry about it.

P Apologist: You know? You raise some good points and it seems to me you have some pretty strong reasons to be angry. When you have talked about this with others, do they understand how important this is to you?

Mormon: No. So many people in this ward don't know anything anyway. And the ones that do are all stuck up. I think that they don't like me asking these messy questions. But if I am a real Christian, people need to know the truth!

P Apologist: I know you are a real Christian. If you weren't, you wouldn't be so upset and this is pretty important.

Mormon: Yeah -- I guess so. I don't know. I just know I'm feeling pretty upset about it right now. How could I not know this before now?

P Apologist: You know what? Its not your fault. You have a right to be upset and it shows that you have a good heart and really care about these things. Would it help you to know that you are not alone in this -- that other people have seen this same problem before?

Mormon: Really? Like who?

P Apologist: Well, I've kinda looked at it before. But how about this -- I was just about to go get some Pinkberry. Wanna come along? Maybe we can talk about it along the way.

and so on.... until you have a connection of some sort.

And finally it might go something like this:

P Apologist: I agree with you .. Your question deserves an answer. Maybe I can help. But hold that thought for a moment and let me ask you: suppose, in some way, there was a really good answer that made perfect sense to you. Is that the only problem? Would that help you feel better about the Church? Or would you still have some issues with the Church?

Mormon: Well yeah, that's not all. There's this thing about tithing. I just don't get it. Why do I have to pay so much when I can barely get along now? I mean, right now my wife needs new shoes and I don't have the money to buy them. Do you know what that's like?

P Apologist: Boy do I! Why do you know that for five years, my wife and I could never eat out because we didn't have the money? We always had to have date nights where we spent almost no money at all. So I know EXACTLY how you feel. It can be pretty hard sometimes. And to tell you the truth, one year we actually didn't pay our tithing fully. I kinda felt -- well -- pretty bad about it. When tithing settlement came around, I didn't want to go to Church!

Mormon: Really? What did the Bishop Say?

P Apologist: He was very nice to me! He actually made me feel better and he and I kneeled down in his office and prayed together about my problems -- all of them -- and especially my financial struggles.

Mormon: And did you get your "miracle" to pay your tithing?

P Apologist: Maybe -- I kinda think I did. Well, not that year. Its not like money came out of the sky but things started going better. I've been able to pay my tithing ever since.

Mormon: I don't know....

P Apologist: Tell you what... lets you and me ... lets also kneel down and pray. We don't have to pray for everything, but lets at least ask God to help you with some of your problems and lets pray for the Holy Ghost to be your friend. I know, even if not everything is solved right away, just having the Spirit with you will make things brighter.

-------

As I said, I may not be all that good at this, but I think that might be how it goes. Except not canned and rehearsed and so on.

Others have said that this approach can lay you open to charges of manipulation and other crimes.