Why Can'T We Ask The Questions For Once?

[altersteve]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

[Log]

In a word, no, it would not really be effective.

In person, I would take an opportunity to tell someone exactly why I am LDS. That has the effect of shutting down antagonistic conversations.

[Thunderfire]

Instead, show them your beliefs by what you do. Astound them with how the power of the restored gospel is flowing through you as a light for all mankind.

If they cannot see any difference between you and them, then you will always be put on the defensive regarding beliefs. Yet if you can astound them with the Spirit within you, they will come to you and ask to receive what you have been given (Zechariah 8:23)

[Mudcat]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

I dunno how effective it would be. I think you would get accused of evading the subject because that is how it would appear.

I think you might do better to simply narrow the focus and appeal to reason.. Say something like, "Look that's quite a barrage of questions, I don't mind discussing them with you but it's a lot to take on in one response and I want to be accurate. If you do want to discuss the matter with me, lets start with the question you feel is the most important. Which one would that be?"

[CA Steve]

Given the billions of people who have not yet heard the Gospel, why waste time responding to critics?

[HairBear]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

I doubt it would be effective. Like you said, they don't really want to know at all, and that also goes for any questions directed at them. Not all critics, but usually those who are most forceful with us LDS are less likely to even acknowledge questions that confront their position.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Given the billions of people who have not yet heard the Gospel, why waste time responding to critics?

Because of the multitude of undecided folks lurking and listening to the exchange.

(I used to be one.)

[Lightbearer]

In contemplating the OP I could not help but think of the following scripture:

"AND it came to pass that thus passed away the ninety and fifth year also, and the people began to forget those signs and wonders which they had heard, and began to be less and less astonished at a sign or a wonder from heaven, insomuch that they began to be hard in their hearts, and blind in their minds, and began to disbelieve all which they had heard and seen— Imagining up some vain thing in their hearts, that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil, to lead away and deceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing. And it came to pass that the people began to wax strong in wickedness and abominations; and they did not believe that there should be any more signs or wonders given; and Satan did go about, leading away the hearts of the people, tempting them and causing them that they should do great wickedness in the land."

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 2:1 - 3)

This is the attitude of the critics and enemies of the Church, they do not seek confirmation of the truth, they want to destroy the work of the Lord. They may be varied in their rancor, some of smooth and sophisiticated, others are street screechers and are obvious who's side they are on. The former are much more dangerous than the latter. The chief priests and Pharasees were obvious, Judas was much more subtle. Can you reach such people? Perhaps, but it mostly depends on them, and their relationship with God. We can be an instrument in the hands of God if they are williing to recieve it.

[Darren10]

Over the past few years I have been responding and engaging folks on matters of the LDS faith online. I think how you respond should be based in part on your setting. The olitical/social blog I most frequent I have built a reporé with the posters and administrators and they know full well that I do not attack ther's based upon their faith. I may take a jab at atheists but it's based upon how their atheism affects their politics and it's all in obvious fun. When posters there bring up Mormonism, I have at times responded in the manner of "lok, if you want to go down this road I will but i really do not want to". That, I think, leaves the call up to the poster on how to proceed. That usually avoided potentially deep confrontations. I would let a little knowledge of scriture, oftheir own faith, or anything else I'm familiar with regardng the given topic to be known just to show I know what I'm talking about and then issue the said "challenge". It proved effective but like I said, this was based upon the setting where I was already known, respected, and comfortable. Without these elements, perhaps this approach will not be the best approach.

Recently, having had two Mormons running for president, Mormonism came up a lot (and still does) in political blogs. I found that the intensity of the anti-Mormon attackers has died down significantly since a few months ago. Also, more and more positive things hae come out about Mormons. One blogger i'm aquainted with by the named "texpat" even made a post on my most frequented site about how a mormon senator fromthe 1940s hooked up with a Jewish leader and set up a system to resue Jews from the Nazis. It was very enlightening. (That poster's posts usually are). Furthermore, I have found that being good proves more effective to spread Mormonism than any amount of intelect may offer. You may have profound knowledge of scripture, theological history, etc. but I consistantly found posts right in the middle of "Mormon debates" saying how good Mormons are. Even from those who theologically disagree with Mormons, they have no reservation proclaiming the goodness Mormons are known for. So, regardless of your approach, be nice. You may be determined and passionate; but be nice and let "your light so shine".

A very recent LDS debate I've been involved with is HERE. I go by "Darren"

[The Nehor]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

Attack what exactly? They rarely have a coherent explanation for the church and they are quick to change their conception of it to fit the argument they want to make. They rarely have anything to attack and many of them actively try to keep it that way.

You can tear apart things like the Spaulding theory but that is about it.

[Darren10]

Because of the multitude of undecided folks lurking and listening to the exchange.

(I used to be one.)

Good point. That's what I figure. To allow the anti-Mormons to control the debate would be akin to allow them to control "what Mormons believe" and those who listen in are deceived. Obviously nobody can debate everything and everytime so one must choose his or her battles but listen to the message people do.

[Darren10]

Instead, show them your beliefs by what you do. Astound them with how the power of the restored gospel is flowing through you as a light for all mankind.

If they cannot see any difference between you and them, then you will always be put on the defensive regarding beliefs. Yet if you can astound them with the Spirit within you, they will come to you and ask to receive what you have been given (Zechariah 8:23)

That was a very good reply.

[cinepro]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

This is why.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is why.

I contend that the burden of proof is on the antagonists.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not propose to validate itself via empirical argument, but by faith. That is, it presents teachings to others who are then invited to seek a spiritual experience telling them the teachings are true. The Church is thus obliged, then, only to preserve plausibility.

The antagonists, on the other hand, are the ones with the daunting, and in my mind, impossible task — which they have set for themselves — to disprove via empirical reasoning the validity of the Church of Jesus Christ. Ergo, the burden of proof is on them, and they have thus far failed to meet it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

I, for one, would never want to be in the position of making a direct assault on the religious faith of another. For too long, I have seen antagonists engaging in that endeavor against the Church of Jesus Christ, and I find it highly distasteful.

[Bob Oliverio]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

I remember getting a video just before I joined the Church, from one of my many friends trying to talk sense into me, from a Church leader named Millett I think.  The video clip showed him teaching a bunch of missionaries at BYU I believe.  In the video he advocating the same thing you seem to be promoting by teaching them how to respond to difficult questions of investigators or critics.  He taught them: "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question 'they should have asked' ".  I have to admit it sounded like a dodge at the time I saw it, but perhaps it's what you are getting at for these message boards.  But I think it already is in play for both sides here!

[cinepro]

I contend that the burden of proof is on the antagonists.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not propose to validate itself via empirical argument, but by faith. That is, it presents teachings to others who are then invited to seek a spiritual experience telling them the teachings are true. The Church is thus obliged, then, only to preserve plausibility.

The antagonists, on the other hand, are the ones with the daunting, and in my mind, impossible task — which they have set for themselves — to disprove via empirical reasoning the validity of the Church of Jesus Christ. Ergo, the burden of proof is on them, and they have thus far failed to meet it.

If someone can avoid the burden of proof by insisting their claim requires only faith and it isn't subject to "empirical" inquiry, then why would anyone ever make an empirical claim? Why not always make "faith" claims and thus always avoid any burden to back up the claim with evidence?

Edited May 27, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

I remember getting a video just before I joined the Church, from one of my many friends trying to talk sense into me, from a Church leader named Millett I think. The video clip showed him teaching a bunch of missionaries at BYU I believe. In the video he advocating the same thing you seem to be promoting by teaching them how to respond to difficult questions of investigators or critics. He taught them: "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question 'they should have asked' ". I have to admit it sounded like a dodge at the time I saw it, but perhaps it's what you are getting at for these message boards. But I think it already is in play for both sides here!

[cinepro]

Our critics are always the ones on the offensive side, always putting us on the defensive and dumping a load of questions and criticisms on us about Book of Mormon archaeology, Book of Abraham translation issues, multiple First Vision accounts, Church history, failed prophecies, humans becoming gods, etc. But I don't think it's required of us to answer everything they want to know, because they really don't want to know at all -- they're trying to catch us in a contradiction, and when they do that, they have total control over the whole conversation. So instead of scrambling to find an answer to everything they say, do you think it's effective to commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive side for once, not to pick a fight but simply to make a point?

I think you also have a misunderstanding of what a "critic" is.

Certainly, there may be circumstances where a "critic" is holding a double standard or operating from false premises, and in those cases it is certainly appropriate to point this out.

But in general, if you make a claim and a "critic" questions your claim and offers reasons the claim might not be true, it's probably going to look pretty weak if you "commandeer the discussion and put them on the defensive".

Which probably wouldn't work anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

If someone can avoid the burden of proof by insisting their claim requires only faith and is isn't subject to "empirical" inquiry, then why would anyone ever make an empirical claim? Why not always make "faith" claims and thus always avoid any burden to back up the claim with evidence?

Because there is much knowledge that is not in the realm of religious faith and at present can only be ascertained by such inquiry.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Oliverio]

Bingo, that was it!

[CA Steve]

Because of the multitude of undecided folks lurking and listening to the exchange.

(I used to be one.)

6 people reading this topic atm. Hardly a multitude. Engaging the critics is no assurance the lurkers will be more swayed to one side over the other.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 people reading this topic atm. Hardly a multitude.

It's a message board. People come and go as they please. It's like a 24/7 open house. Over time, there could be exposure to an indefinite number of people, perhaps a multitude.

Engaging the critics is no assurance the lurkers will be more swayed to one side over the other.

I find the assurance is greater than if you let their sophistry go unchallenged.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Palerider]

I contend that the burden of proof is on the antagonists.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not propose to validate itself via empirical argument, but by faith. That is, it presents teachings to others who are then invited to seek a spiritual experience telling them the teachings are true. The Church is thus obliged, then, only to preserve plausibility.

The antagonists, on the other hand, are the ones with the daunting, and in my mind, impossible task — which they have set for themselves — to disprove via empirical reasoning the validity of the Church of Jesus Christ. Ergo, the burden of proof is on them, and they have thus far failed to meet it.

But what of the individual who has sincerley read the BOM (many times actually) and applied and lived by it's teachings in faith and still receives no confirmation that it is what it represents?

Will you resort to the usual Mormon tactic of blaming the individual and finding fault with them rather than allowing that perhaps there is a hole in your claim?

Does the church keep or even seek to know how many millions of people have actually sincerley read the BOM and found it lacking? Without the other side of the equation you really can't trumpet your successes as actually being spiritual "proofs". I'm sure all of those who reject the BOM and the story of it's origin are all lacking in faith and probably "worldly" types.

As I recall Mr. Hinkley used to proudly hold up the BOM in general conference referencing it as a physical (empirical) proof that cannot be dismissed and implies the critics cannot explain it's origins. Therefore he issues the challenge and opens the door to a discussion on an empirical level rather than soley one of faith.

In reality many of the critics claims are every bit as plausible as your own if plausibility is your standard........

[The Nehor]

If someone can avoid the burden of proof by insisting their claim requires only faith and is isn't subject to "empirical" inquiry, then why would anyone ever make an empirical claim? Why not always make "faith" claims and thus always avoid any burden to back up the claim with evidence?

Because you can't convert the world that way. The gospel seems to me designed to force anyone interested to investigate its claims alone and without definitive empirical evidence either way. We will not see the Book of Mormon empirically proven and then line up everyone at the font because we were right all along.

The reason most people don't make faith claims is that they want people to take their word on trust. I can't imagine a physicist at a hadron collider withholding the results of a study and asking you to build one of your own and run the same tests and experiment upon it yourself.