Tone Of Mormon Apologetics

[William Schryver]

To answer the question of the OP, I think it's important to ask another question first: What is the "tone" of most anti-Mormonism?

Apologetics has always been a response to attacks. It doesn't exist independently of criticisms.

This.

[DBMormon]

I absolutely can feel and percieve a difference in tone in various people here. It could be an error in perception but I can tell those who genuinely care and want to help others and some who let pride and a superiority complex guide how they handle answering questions that have an impact on how one views the truth of the LDS message.

[bluebell]

The kind that, when it finds itself in a room of Mormon apostates, kicks A-S-S and asks questions later.

( )

Oh, so not 'masculine' at all, but rather, 'momma bear' apologetics. That makes more sense.

[cdowis]

I absolutely can feel and percieve a difference in tone in various people here. It could be an error in perception but I can tell those who genuinely care and want to help others and some who let pride and a superiority complex guide how they handle answering questions that have an impact on how one views the truth of the LDS message.

Hmmm... may I suggest that "Help" is found in Social Hall. Apologetics is a sport, a hobby, like chess or soccer.

As a "vocal" apologist, I help silly people discover mature logical thinking. It's a tough job, but....

Edited June 30, 2012 by cdowis

[Buzzard]

I think the main problem critics have with apologists and apologetics is that they exist. Since they have decided in their minds that JS was a con man/fraud, and that the church is man made, anything that goes counter to that supposition is, by definition, also fraudulent. And when it is done by intelligent people who use real research and have knowledge of ancient languages, religious history, and other similar subjects and actually use that knowledge to to defend and support what to any thinking, intelligent person is manifestly a fraudulent, bigoted, man-made, manipulative, arrogant pustule on the face of humanity, why, that's, that's, that's just outrageous! How dare they do that! And since they cannot make these people go away, all they can do is complain about them and the horrible articles and books they write.

My preemptive apologies to all those scandalized individuals, but I enjoy said articles and books, find them elucidating, and sorry to tell you, have every intention of not only going to church tomorrow, but cutting a tithing check without having the HP goon squad coming by to collect.

[juliann]

WhyMe posted this new insight in another thread but I think it will be useful here (my quote format doesn't work so I have to indent).

I have found that this 'tone' strategy' is being used more by the critics as a way to silence apologists and church members who may respond to critic attacks. It is certainly something that critics seem to enjoy bringing up. On the one hand, many claim that the church is a cult and yet, when church members show passion for what they believe in and defend the thing they love with human emotion, suddenly, church members are told to be more christlike because they belong to the true church and neuter their tone to that of a mind controlled freak, being subdued and emotionless. In other words, boring. We see this entering into this thread also.

For the critic being christlike is being without emotion, subdued, mystic in tone, polite, kind, boring, and generic.

[zerinus]

Any thoughts on the tone of Mormon Critics?

[William Schryver]

I think the main problem critics have with apologists and apologetics is that they exist.

You, my friend, have hit the nail squarely on the head.

For years, their primary weapon against Mormon apologetics was characterized by the fallacy of the prevalent proof--all of them merely say the same thing in order to give the impression to the lazy and prejudiced that "everyone knows" Mormon apologetics is just plain stupid.

But just recently they have started to employ a new set of tactics designed to SILENCE apologetics at the source. Thus you see them doing things like concocting and executing rather well-conceived propaganda campaigns designed to suppress/censor the publication of my article about the original length of the scroll of Hor (an article that did not contain a single paragraph that was polemical or ad hominem in nature) and Greg Smith's meticulous analysis of The Dehlinite Movement.

Edited June 30, 2012 by William Schryver

[CASteinman]

But just recently they have started to employ a new set of tactics designed to SILENCE apologetics at the source. Thus you see them doing things like concocting and executing rather well-conceived propaganda campaigns designed to suppress/censor the publication of my article about the original length of the scroll of Hor (an article that did not contain a single paragraph that was polemical or ad hominem in nature) and Greg Smith's meticulous analysis of The Dehlinite Movement.

Sounds a bit like a Book of Mormon group.

But anyway... Could you please provide a link to the location of any description of the events, decisions and personalities involved in the Scroll of Hor article being suppressed? Has the article been released?

[CASteinman]

For the critic being christlike is being without emotion, subdued, mystic in tone, polite, kind, boring, and generic.

It is an effective strategy in many cases because (I think) most members do not know how to react to it but sort of agree that they should retire.

[William Schryver]

WhyMe posted this new insight in another thread but I think it will be useful here (my quote format doesn't work so I have to indent).

I have found that this 'tone' strategy' is being used more by the critics as a way to silence apologists and church members who may respond to critic attacks. It is certainly something that critics seem to enjoy bringing up. On the one hand, many claim that the church is a cult and yet, when church members show passion for what they believe in and defend the thing they love with human emotion, suddenly, church members are told to be more christlike because they belong to the true church and neuter their tone to that of a mind controlled freak, being subdued and emotionless. In other words, boring. We see this entering into this thread also.

For the critic being christlike is being without emotion, subdued, mystic in tone, polite, kind, boring, and generic.

I hadn't read this post yet when I made my previous post. But, obviously, I agree with whyme's observation. It is part of their overall rhetorical strategy, and a transparently cynical one at that, since, when it comes to their online "code of conduct", very few of them appear to attach much intrinsic value to the qualities they want to drape over us; tying a sash around our mouths.

Don't misunderstand me though, they are quite discriminating when it comes to whom they would silence and when, and whom they would have speak. They are more than willing to have those speak whom they can consistently rely upon to say those things they want to hear. For all these they are advocates of the freest modes of speech known to man, but for a select group they have determined that silence is the only remedy, for it tasks them to hear some of the things these few would say.

As for each other—reciprocated flattery is the coin of the realm.

[William Schryver]

Sounds a bit like a Book of Mormon group.

But anyway... Could you please provide a link to the location of any description of the events, decisions and personalities involved in the Scroll of Hor article being suppressed? Has the article been released?

I am presently preparing a blog post that details those events, as well as others from a year previous, when an attempt was made to prevent me from speaking at the 2010 FAIR conference. That led directly to the later suppression of the scroll-length article.

Incidentally, the scroll-length paper consisted primarily of calculations based on the first substantial set of forensic measurements ever made of any ancient Egyptian scroll, insofar as Professor Gee has been able to determine. The measurements of the thickness of the papyri were conducted employing a novel methodology, by a PhD expert in a relevant field, as Professor Gee assisted and I recorded the measurements. It also would have contained some of the first really high quality images of the papyri to be published. The paper had been reviewed and approved for publication by the Church Historian.*

Jerry Bradford, to my knowledge, knew all these things. And yet, because he had apparently been influenced by some to believe that the article was apologetic nonsense, he demanded that its publication be halted, and used a ridiculous smear piece prepared and/or promulgated by the same group of apostates (and their sympathizers) who have most recently been the recipients of the emails leaked from the Maxwell Institute.

It's a long and winding tale, and I hope to publish it to my blog within the next two or three days.

* = This should not be misinterpreted as suggesting that the Church Historian's office endorsed the contents of the article. But its approval was required, by contract, on account of my extensive use of high-resolution scan images from the Joseph Smith papryi.

Edited July 1, 2012 by William Schryver

[CASteinman]

It's a long and winding tale, and I hope to publish it to my blog within the next two or three days.

You probably do not need coaxing but just in case.. please notify us (me).

[cursor]

When John L. Sorenson was asked about his role in Mormon apologetics, he answered:

I almost never think in terms of either “Mormon apologetics” or “Book of Mormon apologetics.” In fact I doubt that I have ever used either term. Many years ago Truman Madsen brought to meet me a man from AZ who planned to write a book attacking the Church. Truman had taken him to speak to various people in Provo and SLC. What I said struck him just right, and Tru asked me a few days later if I would respond to the man’s hour-long tape of his gripes. I said I would and spent a few days supplying answers to his points, amounting to about 25 pages on paper. I had an answer for everything (not necessarily the answer). T. M. sent it to him, and later he wrote T. M. that as a result he had given up the idea of writing his anti-Mormon book. But I did not enjoy that experience and never felt like replicating it. I do not work very much at what I do not enjoy.

What I am concerned with is the truth, nothing less. I do not concern myself with other’s attacks. “Let them worship who, what or how they may.” But in regard to the Book of Mormon I have been concerned (quietly driven) to establish as much of the truth about the Book of Mormon as I am able. I have so striven for most of the 62 years of my scholarly life.

Edited July 1, 2012 by cursor

[William Schryver]

When John L. Sorenson was asked about his role in Mormon apologetics, he answered:

I quite like Sorenson's statement, and his approach to his scholarship.

That said, I still believe there is an important need for apologists and apologetics in the Church.

In other words, both approaches are good and necessary.

[Brant Gardner]

When John L. Sorenson was asked about his role in Mormon apologetics, he answered:

And yet his entire body of work is part of Book of Mormon apologetics. The difference is perhaps in the audience to which the information was directed, but it was apologetic in that it presents a defense of the historicity of the Book of Mormon by supplying a plausible historical context.

There are certainly other types of apologetics, but I appreciate his type of work the most and think it has the greatest value. It is only a small step from understanding that plausible context to having to explain it to people who assume that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical.

[William Schryver]

And yet his entire body of work is part of Book of Mormon apologetics. The difference is perhaps in the audience to which the information was directed, but it was apologetic in that it presents a defense of the historicity of the Book of Mormon by supplying a plausible historical context.

There are certainly other types of apologetics, but I appreciate his type of work the most and think it has the greatest value. It is only a small step from understanding that plausible context to having to explain it to people who assume that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical.

Excellent observation.

My scroll-length paper contains nothing that is overtly apologetic within its pages, and yet it is rather elementary to see its apologetic implications.

Even so, to the extent it is based on empirically verifiable elements, it is inherently valuable, independent of its apologetic implications.

Edited July 1, 2012 by William Schryver

[CV75]

There is a problem with the tone of Mormon apologetics or at least some Mormon Apologetics. One individual and a band of his thrall are said to be the source of this issue with tone.

I don’t think Jesus ever defended His doctrine. “…the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29). I don’t see Him defending much of anything else, either.

Scriptural examples of His assertiveness and aggressiveness, to me, show a strongly offensive position, whether in the form of refusing temptation or teaching, inviting, protecting, and condemning others. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5: 17, 18). In fulfilling the law, He neither defended nor offended it.

The approach for an apologist, I believe, stems from such counsel as, “be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16), which can apply to all members, just not the apostles, and which can be carried out through defensive and offensive techniques as the case or individual talents may require. I think the reference to doves may allude to the use of the Holy Spirit, but all saints have that responsibility in everything we do, and that doesn't mean everything is done to everyone's liking.

[cursor]

The style employed when "defending the truth" is absolutely key when delivering a constructive message. It's best received if it's not contentious. As a matter of fact, I see my father's more passive style (still, totally thorough) to be the most effective technique for confronting naysayers.

[CASteinman]

I don’t think Jesus ever defended His doctrine. “…the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29). I don’t see Him defending much of anything else, either.

Scriptural examples of His assertiveness and aggressiveness, to me, show a strongly offensive position, whether in the form of refusing temptation or teaching, inviting, protecting, and condemning others. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5: 17, 18). In fulfilling the law, He neither defended nor offended it.

The approach for an apologist, I believe, stems from such counsel as, “be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16), which can apply to all members, just not the apostles, and which can be carried out through defensive and offensive techniques as the case or individual talents may require. I think the reference to doves may allude to the use of the Holy Spirit, but all saints have that responsibility in everything we do, and that doesn't mean everything is done to everyone's liking.

Have you overlooked John chapter 8?

[CASteinman]

I don’t think Jesus ever defended His doctrine.

Is this something you want to discuss or did you just want to make your opinion known? Because I think there are times that in the context of his day and the types of discourse done then and the way people thought, he did indeed defend his doctrine.

[cursor]

I quite enjoyed and appreciated CV75's post regarding Jesus' style of delivery.

[BCSpace]

Questions:

1. What is meant by "tone" in an argument?

2. What is the tone of Mormon Apologetics generally and of any apologists in particular?

3. Why is this tone a problem or not a problem?

4. Who is the judge of such things?

5. Is there legitimate and valid room for variations in tone?

6. Are tone critics raising an invalid point - given Jesus' "tone" in his disputations on earth?

7. It is said that we must be nice. Which is to say we must be perceived as being nice. What is the role of niceness in apologetics?

Jesus himself, while he did sometimes use a "nice" tone also used tones, mortal, pre mortal, and post mortal, that today would raise a hue and cry of meaness and cruelty. Some things that Jesus said would even cause him to be banned from this board. Thus if we really believe that Jesus is our Exemplar, then restricting one's "tone" to niceness in most or all cases is unChristlike.

[Storm Rider]

While the tone of much of Mormon Apologetics is discourteous and annoying, the real problem with Mormon apologetics is not tone, but content. Some of the stuff that Mormon apologists come up with is just plain embarrassing. One can only hope that those setting the new course NAMIRS will be able filter out some of the silliness and steer Mormon apologetics so as to be more in line with accepted academic norms in both content and tone.

This is interesting. When I try to look at a situation to analyze I try to look at the whole picture, seeing both sides of the issue. When I look at both Mormon apologetics and criticism (a very broad term given the full scope this covers), I get a completely different impression from your review above. Beginning with Howe and going all the way to...I can't recall the fellows name, but just insert any of the recent publishers. The criticism is deceitful, lying, and sensationalized. I have yet to read a single book of criticism that approaches LDS teachings honestly.

Conversely, when I review what is looked at as LDS apologetics I find a range of styles. Some are straight forward and honest. Some I have found the product of exasperation and frustration for needing to respond to the same lies that Mr. Howe produced so many decades ago, but this is definitely a small minority of all that has been written.

Given the type of allegations that are bandied about against LDS apologetics, it seems people would prefer that LDS just shut up and let those who really know discuss their church's beliefs and history. The only ones who really know the full story are either ex-Mormons, Evangelicals, or the purely uniformed and wanting to sell a book (think Krakauer).

No, when taken in context and with a full story, I will take LDS apologetics anytime over its counterpart.

[CASteinman]

I appreciate BCSpace's observations about Christ and emulating Him.