John Dehlin...Giant Killer

[Brian 2.0]

Agreed. Can I add something else? I also don't think anyone should be reprimanded and belittled for choosing not to explore the critics' side. There are many faithful LDS who stay away from "anti" material, but I believe that when they're seeking for answers, God is more than capable of granting them wisdom and understanding through other means. Perhaps a different kind of wisdom, but wisdom nevertheless.

I agree again!

the one who explores the critics words shouldn't say "you're blinding yourself by not looking at this" to the person who doesn't want to look at it.

And the one who doesn't explore the critics shouldn't say "It's all anti-mormon lies and you're being deceived by even looking at it" to the person who chooses to explore it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Calm]

What is not realized or ignored by those who think it is necessary to coerce people into reading critical materials is forcing someone to go out of their comfort zone and read or confront some material they don't feel comfortable dealing with at the time is not going to yield an accurate/open-minded appraisal. Their strong discomfort will influence their reception of the reading materials, possibly in a positive way (it might lead them to think they are reacting negatively to what is being criticized and therefore think they are agreeing with the criticism when they are really reacting to being pressured to read it) or negative (they are unable to really process it and just turn off any real understanding and then condemn the material for being meaningless, etc). Better to wait until the person is ready and relaxed and then you will get what you want (if what you want is a reaction to the reading material itself and not to baggage more or less unconnected to it).

[why me]

Now if they had no doubts beforehand, came and read stuff on FAIR or FARMs and had no other encounters with negative material before they lost their faith/left the Church, I think the conclusion that FAIR or FARMS contributed to their leaving would be more appropriate, but how and why might still be up in the air.

I think that members come to FAIR/FARMS expecting conclusive proof that the church is true and that evidence has been found to confirm it. What can FAIR do to prove the church true? Very little. But what they do is give plausible explanations for what the critics are saying. And they do this as does FARMS. But when one comes across what the critics are saying over and over again, and they plant a seed in the mind, it just continues to grow into a giant weed. Without evidence of truth, the doubt as some of the members are now experiencing after viewing critic sites, the weed has difficulties dying.

[why me]

Read my post again. I never claimed that anyone decided the church was true solely by reading apologists. I prefaced it with the fact that these people were already questioning the faith and went to apologetics with answers. The answers did not suffice and they left. Apologetics aren't a magic pill that can bring everyone back around just as John Dehlin is not some catalyst that makes people apostatize.

If one is looking for conclusive evidence that the church is true after reading critic sites, the person may be disappointed when they go to FAIR/FARMS. What these two organizations do is offer interpretations and if these interpretations are not convincing...well...the members will be disappointed. I also think that doubting members want to read that what the critics have said are lies: JS's polygamy, polyandry, etc and when they discover that they are not lies by critics, they leave.

[Libs]

I was just about to post something along that line, why me.

I was looking for some quick answers, but what I found seemed so convoluted and just not very satisfying, as far as giving the solid answers I was looking for, in the moment. I think I liked Michael Ash's book, in part, because he condensed all of the arguments into something manageable...and reasonable. As soon as I found out the critics had the basic facts correct, I really came unhinged...and I can remember thinking that the apologists were just trying to make excuses for bad behavior. So, there is something to being receptive and open to an argument...and that is often not the case, after one makes some of these discoveries about the church and Joseph Smith.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Libs

[spudsdog]

I am not qulified to enter this debate. I am an LDS apostate of some 35 years. I have observed John Dehlin for some time now, probably about eight months. He is a very curious figure I think. I even took advantage to stop by and meet him a couple months ago at a nearby park and had a short conversation. I found him to be personable and likeable. However I have always prided myself in being able to figure people out as to what motivates them but Mr. Dehlin remains a mystery to me. I have said that he seems to want to be all things to all people. His efforts seem fragmented to me. He is on facebook in multiple forms and I have lost count of the different groups, organizations, entities he has started.

It seems to me that he has great compassion and understanding for gay Mormons and their predicament and that he has a heart for helping them cope and not turn to suicide. I think Mr Dehlin has made it clear that he does not believe in the divinity of the BOM and takes issue with a number of other aspects of the LDS church. It seems clear that he has compassion for people who are born and raised Mormon and then come to some personal conclusion that Mormonism is a false religion (rightly or wrongly) and that he wants to help them deal with the inner turmoil that results. He seems to want LDS members who disbelieve key doctrines of the church but have an emotional attachment to the culture and enjoy attending church and the Mormon social activities to find a way to be honest about their belief or disbelief and remain members.

For anybody who would like to see John Dehlin in action I would recommemd watching his lengthy interview on Youtube with Mr & Mrs John McClay, who seem in the interview to have one foot in and one foot out of the church. There is also a Youtube video of Mr. Dehlin interviewing a retired BYU professor that I personally found engaging. It seems completely inexplicable for me how LDS hierarchy seems to have a fondness for him knowing that he is basically a non-believing member.

[Somebodyz]

Definitely. Since I am homebound and even bed bound much of the time, I am very grateful for this board for a social and mental outlet.

Deleted after seeing Bob's apology.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Somebodyz

[spudsdog]

Quick question... from where do we know that Dehlin tried to suppress this article?

John Dehlin's account in his own words are here; http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57768-greg-smith-dan-peterson-john-dehlin-lou/

[Mark Beesley]

People either reach 2 conclusions when they study church history and apologetics: 1. It's 100% true, or 2. The whole faith is man made.

Not quite.

I have studied Church History and apologetics. And I know that sometimes people in the Church, even those in leadership positions, make mistakes. Joseph erred at times. Everything the Church publishes is not, necessarily, 100% true, in my estimation. (Sorry BC.) But that does not shake my witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Church remains the vessel for the Priesthood that is essential to bring salvation to God's children. Thus, in spite of individual and isolated problems, dissensions, crititicisms and bumps in the road, there is no currency in becoming disaffected with the Church as a whole.

[wenglund]

Again. I personally know 5 people who no longer believe in the church. They had doubts and FARMS/FAIR explanations were the lynchpin that pushed them over.

I don't doubt this.

However, the important question to me is, whether this says more about the 5 people, or about FARMS/MI?

I believe it says a lot more about the former than the latter. Some people aren't always keen on being accountable for and taking personal responsibility for things like loss of faith. It is easier for them, though unfair and disadvantageous, to shift blame elsewhere to individuals and organizations regardless that their intents and efforts are to help bolster faith. It makes it easier to live with themselves and their difficult decisions. I suppose to varying degrees we all have this tendency. Perhaps it is the natural man in us which we are or ought to strive to overcome.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 25, 2012 by wenglund

[MitoticSlime]

I agree again!

the one who explores the critics words shouldn't say "you're blinding yourself by not looking at this" to the person who doesn't want to look at it.

And the one who doesn't explore the critics shouldn't say "It's all anti-mormon lies and you're being deceived by even looking at it" to the person who chooses to explore it.

I agree that reprimanding and belittling are not helpful, but I see nothing wrong in saying "if you won't examine the evidence that led me to this conclusion, then there's not much I can discuss with you." 'Cause really, what is the point? I don't agree with forcing people to face things they don't want to, but how can someone have a discussion about things they aren't aware of? They can bear their testimony, which is all well and good, but it's not a discussion.

[Kevin Christensen]

Again. I personally know 5 people who no longer believe in the church. They had doubts and FARMS/FAIR explanations were the lynchpin that pushed them over. Just because you folks don't know people with this experience doesn't mean I don't. One of the five had his name removed. You guys can accuse me of making stuff up all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I personally know 5 people. And, since many others make this claim I am sure it has happened with others. Why would I make this up. People either reach 2 conclusions when they study church history and apologetics: 1. It's 100% true, or 2. The whole faith is man made. Apologistic writings are polarizing. Look how many blogs and forums exist that are for or against apologetics. Look at how many posts on this very board are for or against apologetics. Why is it such a shock that some people read apologetics and come to a different conclusion?

Say what you want, but my experiences are my own. I know what I know and you can all say or think what you want about my claim, but it doesn't change the facts that I am personally in tune with.

Given the existence the hundreds of people who have contributed articles, money, and support to FARMS and FAIR, what is is about these five people that makes their experience particularly revealing? Particularly in comparison to the dozens of people I know who have been helped in their faith? It seems obvious to me that there are other variables in play, that what FAIR and FARMS provide is not inherently disillusioning, but that different people deal with the same information in different ways, something Jesus expressed quite powerfully in the parable of the sower. Same seed, different soil different nurturing, different values, and vastly different yields. But even recognizing the different yields, it seems plain to me that where the seed has rooted and grown and born fruit tells me far more about the value of the seed than the experience of some person who places the same seed on a rock, and says, "Grow now! I'm hungry now!" What do people expect? As Kuhn explains beautifully, anomaly emerges against a background of expectation. It's not that any bit of data is inherently anything more than something to fit into a larger system of understanding.

It also happens that polarized thinking is an indicator of the level of cognitive growth a person operates on. I post this every now and then. Seems like another good time. I got it from Veda Hale several years ago. It's based on a study done of the development of students coming to Harvard but has obvious relevance to what happens to LDS members coming to deal with information they come upon.

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH

TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION

POSITION 1 - Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go.

Transition 1. The person can make the transition by modifying dualism drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them. Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors. With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

Transition 2. The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes. All is of equal value. To have an opinion makes it right.

Transition 3. Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.

Transition 4. Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.

Transition 5. The person is moving closer to accepting relativity. He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations. To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers. So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.

Transition 6. Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent. They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground. But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.

Transition 7. This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity. The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.

POSITION 5 Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY.

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

POSITION 7. Commitments in Relativism developed.

The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggle responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative.

POSITION 8. Commitments in Relativism developed continues.

The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity. He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN

THE MODEL MUST BE TRANSCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma. The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas. But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love".

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

####

FWIW.

Incidentally, I introduced this to John Dehlin several years ago. He commented that is seemed "deep," and hasn't followed up.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 25, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Brian 2.0]

I agree that reprimanding and belittling are not helpful, but I see nothing wrong in saying "if you won't examine the evidence that led me to this conclusion, then there's not much I can discuss with you." 'Cause really, what is the point? I don't agree with forcing people to face things they don't want to, but how can someone have a discussion about things they aren't aware of? They can bear their testimony, which is all well and good, but it's not a discussion.

Agreed. And I'm in the middle of this exact thing with my father. He really wants to discuss these things with me, but we can't really discuss unless he looks at the varying evidences. He is doing that right now and I keep saying, "You don't need to look if you don't want to and it makes you uncomfortable." I really don't want to force someone to look at harder issues that may complicate their worldview. I have no reason to think my father will lose his testimony or anything, but he will have to adjust some things he assumed were cut and dry. But he says he wants to look saying, "it may be difficult, but if it's important to you, it's important to me."

Basically, I got a cool dad.

[wenglund]

Basically, I got a cool dad.

I view this as far more important than whatever may be published on either side.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MitoticSlime]

I view this as far more important than whatever may be published on either side.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good point, Wade. I always try to remember that relationships are more important than being right. I don't always succeed in behaving that way, though. Still working on it.

[ERayR]

Again. I personally know 5 people who no longer believe in the church. They had doubts and FARMS/FAIR explanations were the lynchpin that pushed them over. Just because you folks don't know people with this experience doesn't mean I don't. One of the five had his name removed. You guys can accuse me of making stuff up all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I personally know 5 people. And, since many others make this claim I am sure it has happened with others. Why would I make this up. People either reach 2 conclusions when they study church history and apologetics: 1. It's 100% true, or 2. The whole faith is man made. Apologistic writings are polarizing. Look how many blogs and forums exist that are for or against apologetics. Look at how many posts on this very board are for or against apologetics. Why is it such a shock that some people read apologetics and come to a different conclusion?

Say what you want, but my experiences are my own. I know what I know and you can all say or think what you want about my claim, but it doesn't change the facts that I am personally in tune with.

I would argue that FARMS nor FAIR had anything to do with "pushing them over". It was what or who they chose to believe and give their allegiance to. We(humans) really love to give credit to others for our actions.

[wenglund]

Good point, Wade. I always try to remember that relationships are more important than being right. I don't always succeed in behaving that way, though. Still working on it.

To me, in a way, relationships and becoming our best selves (like Christ) is what defines "being right." And, like you, I sometimes fail in that advantageous quest, but am still working on it, and will likely continue to work on it throughout my life and on into the hereafter. As I see it, that is what the gospel is all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 25, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Read my post again. I never claimed that anyone decided the church was true solely by reading apologists. I prefaced it with the fact that these people were already questioning the faith and went to apologetics with answers. The answers did not suffice and they left. Apologetics aren't a magic pill that can bring everyone back around just as John Dehlin is not some catalyst that makes people apostatize.

Therefore if they were already questioning their faith whether the read apologetic s before they actually left is irrelevant.

[Libs]

I would argue that FARMS nor FAIR had anything to do with "pushing them over". It was what or who they chose to believe and give their allegiance to. We(humans) really love to give credit to others for our actions.

Like it or not..for better or worse...people do, sometimes, have an impact on our beliefs and decisions. Isn't that what apologists desire? Otherwise, why would they bother? We don't live in a vacuum. If that were true, how could you say that Christ has had an impact on your life for the better? Or the church, for that matter? Others can impact our lives for better or worse, especially when we are in questioning mode, searching for answers.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Libs

[wenglund]

Like it or not..for better or worse...people do, sometimes, have an impact on our beliefs and decisions. Isn't that what apologists desire? Otherwise, why would they bother? We don't live in a vacuum. If that were true, how could you say that Christ has had an impact on your life for the better? Or the church, for that matter? Others can impact our lives for better or worse, especially when we are in questioning mode, searching for answers.

I agree that people can be impacted to varying degrees by either side (for good or ill).

However, spiritual faith, at least within the LDS scheme of things, is personal and between the individual and God. In other words, the responsibility for one's own faith ultimately rests with each individual. They are the captain of their spiritual ship, and they get to determine where they wish to go and how to respond to whatever forces and the extent and way they will be impacted.

In short, if a person loses faith, then ultimately they, themselves, are responsible.

It is actually in people's best interest to understand this since it empowers them instead of others with their personal spiritual futures.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 25, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Like it or not..for better or worse...people do, sometimes, have an impact on our beliefs and decisions. Isn't that what apologists desire? Otherwise, why would they bother? We don't live in a vacuum. If that were true, how could you say that Christ has had an impact on your life for the better? Or the church, for that matter? Others can impact our lives for better or worse, especially when we are in questioning mode, searching for answers.

What Wade said.

[Libs]

I agree that people can be impacted to varying degrees by either side (for good or ill).

However, spiritual faith, at least within the LDS scheme of things, is personal and between the individual and God. In other words, the responsibility for one's own faith ultimately rests with each individual. They are the captain of their spiritual ship, and they get to determine where they wish to go and how to respond to whatever forces and the extent and way they will be impacted.

In short, if a person loses faith, then ultimately they, themselves, are responsible.

It is actually in people's best interest to understand this since it empowers them instead of others with their personal spiritual futures.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course, decisions to stay in the church or leave are always, ultimately, up to the individual. That doesn't negate what I have said, about others influencing those decisions.

[why me]

I was just about to post something along that line, why me.

I was looking for some quick answers, but what I found seemed so convoluted and just not very satisfying, as far as giving the solid answers I was looking for, in the moment. I think I liked Michael Ash's book, in part, because he condensed all of the arguments into something manageable...and reasonable. As soon as I found out the critics had the basic facts correct, I really came unhinged...and I can remember thinking that the apologists were just trying to make excuses for bad behavior. So, there is something to being receptive and open to an argument...and that is often not the case, after one makes some of these discoveries about the church and Joseph Smith.

I think that many members forget to keep it simple. What is simple? We have the book of mormon. We also have 11 witnesses. And we have emma. I find it hard to believe that all these people were duped. Oliver is a good case in point. He becomes disappointed in Joseph and leaves the church even though he saw what he saw and experienced what he experienced. But like many people who leave he could not leave it alone until he decides to come back to the church and bears his testimony about what he experienced and how this experience is true. It was a powerful testimony of the early saints to hear. And on his deathbed, he bears his testimony to his wife. Amazing and yet very simple. Then we have david who wanted his testimony on his tombstone. Rather simple. Both men wanted to be on the side of right when they died. And the other witnesses too.

This is a very strong case about what they experienced. And emma? She held fast to the iron rod. Very little complaining about the whole aspect of her experience because she knew who Joseph was and could not deny what she experienced with the book of mormon. Very simple and yet the critics wish to complicate it all by distracting from the foundation and pointing out what Brigham said here or there. Or someone else. But the beginnings of mormonism are very simple and the beginnings make a strong case for it.

[why me]

Of course, decisions to stay in the church or leave are always, ultimately, up to the individual. That doesn't negate what I have said, about others influencing those decisions.

And yet, those other influences may not be so important when looking at the big picture. And that was my point. The critics certainly want to make them important since they repeat them over and over again like a broken record. But the foundation of mormoniism is strong, etched in stone...(when we think of david whtimer's tombstone. He went to his maker believing he was making things right for him before giving an account of his earthly life to his maker.

[Mark Beesley]

Like it or not..for better or worse...people do, sometimes, have an impact on our beliefs and decisions. Isn't that what apologists desire?

No. The apologist wants the argument to have an impact.