Tone Of Mormon Apologetics

[why me]

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.

Of course, academic tone can be very aggressive especially in an argumentative thesis. The point behind argumentation is to prove a point and this is done with evidence and with tone that fits into an argumentative article.

I also think that some of the hypothetical illustrations that critics come up with are silly. For example: why did joseph practice polygamy? Critic: because Joseph was horny and full of lust. He needed women to satisfy his libido. Critic: witnesses cannot be trusted because they once or twice claimed that they saw the plates with spiritual eyes. Of course they may lack understanding that at that time frame of the witnesses, spritual eyes may allude to a spiritual experience that was seen.

And then of course come the hypotheticals to prove the critic point. And this is where it becomes dangerous for the member not used to reading good hypothetical illustrations because such hypotheticals can sound like logical facts.

Edited July 2, 2012 by why me

[wenglund]

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.

I believe the various changes in propaganda tactics is due, in large part, because of aggressive apologetic responses rightly discrediting the propaganda and exposing it for what it is. I doubt that a more passive approach would have worked so well, if at all, rendering the old tactics successful--not that they weren't somewhat successful with certain former apologists and perhaps maybe even certain current heads of former apologetic organizations (in this exceptional respect the propagandists may be right about "just plain stupid").

The critics/propagandist are clever and adaptive, and it makes sense for them to attack and try an neutralize the most workable strategies of the opposition/apologists.

It also makes sense for the opposition/apologists to thwart the propagandists' effort.

What doesn't make sense is for the opposition to put out the welcome mat and to tie their own brains and hands behind their back, all under the oft misguided notion of "kinder and gentler."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

accusing Christ

I refer you to post #70

[CASteinman]

Most of the time, i really don't think the 'tone' is the problem. Usually it's what's causing the tone--

The need to be right.

Self Righteousness.

Pride.

Wanting to hurt the other person's feelings.

Wanting to 'win'.

Unrighteous judgements.

Regardless of whether or not our tone matches one Christ may have used in the past, if any unrighteous desire or emotion is behind the tone that we are using, we are in the wrong and need to repent.

There is no way to claim to be exemplifying Christ in our tone, if we are not also exemplifying Him in our desires and feelings.

I feel like your post is full of light.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Apologetics is not about two people in a marriage. Apologetics is the defense of the faith against attackers.

So weird to make that into a marriage situation. God bless you if that's the way things are!

Both are much like all religion...no room for decent.

[Bill Hamblin]

Tone is in the eye of the beholder. There is no nice way to write a negative review, and nobody likes getting a negative review. The reality is that the apostates need to quit moaning--after they remove the beams from their own eyes--and try to engage the arguments and issues rather than whining about tone.

And, by the way, I've never claimed to be as good as Jesus. Jesus is more nice than I am, and I suspect he always will be.

[Pahoran]

Tone is in the eye of the beholder.

Which is precisely why they are now trying to focus on it. They feel like your tone is bad -- and therefore that makes them "Victims"[TM], to be coddled and to have their feelings validated.

This is, of course, a retreat from the "ad hominem" claim, which actually means something and can be tested.

There is no nice way to write a negative review, and nobody likes getting a negative review. The reality is that the apostates need to quit moaning--after they remove the beams from their own eyes--and try to engage the arguments and issues rather than whining about tone.

But that's just it, Bill. Now that (according to their wishful-thinking narrative of events) the leaders of the Church have put an end to LDS apologetics, they think they don't have to. They can continue with their bad polemics, and when confronted by any counter-arguments, self-righteously accuse the defender of "apostasy" and "rebellion against the brethren" for having the temerity to disagree with them. About anything.

So, who do you think will be the first to try that one on? Mister Dehlin, Analytics, or someone else?

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

Tone is in the eye of the beholder. There is no nice way to write a negative review, and nobody likes getting a negative review. The reality is that the apostates need to quit moaning--after they remove the beams from their own eyes--and try to engage the arguments and issues rather than whining about tone.

My nickname somewhere else is 'whine me'. But the critics can be in a constant whine or a much more nicer word for it is moan. I just don't think that they see it. Or they just enjoy name calling. By the way Bill, as you know academic books are critiqued all the time in academic journals. And quite often it can be a negative critical review. Nothing at all wrong with such a review.

But now for critics, the usage of 'christlike' tone or behavior, for members to use, is in constant stress because they know that it is extremely difficult to write a nice negative critical review of anything. And of course, since they have left the church they no longer have to act christlike and many don't when addressing members on critic boards.

Edited July 2, 2012 by why me

[Kevin Christensen]

Tone is one element of a text or a verbal communication. I related the story of a hallway meeting at a Salt Lake Sunstone, wherein someone I thought was a friend responded to my display of my recently published Occasional Paper with "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon was a 19th Century Fiction and nothing you say will ever change my mind. I never read anything from FARMS. It makes me mad."

Dismissive in tone, don't you think? Not open minded, more than a little defensive. Even hostile, and very sure of herself. Passionate. It's also strikes me as more than a little self-immolating in that the claim that she never reads any thing from FARMS is in direct tension with her claim that FARMS somehow made her mad. If she never reads anything from FARMS because it makes her mad, why is she mad? I would have thought that not reading it would solve the problem. And she also admitted that an essay of mine in JBMS 2/1 had not made her mad, thought it seems that my gently pointing this out also fueled her anger. It ruined a perfectly effective overgeneralization.

How about tone here: Eugene England in "Brigham Young as an Orator and Intellectual."

There is a great tradition of verbal humor of the one line, metaphorical, character assassination, turning on a hyperbolically devestating comparison and rhythmic timing. **** Cavett awared his prize for the greatest achievement in the genre to Steve Allen, who once said, "You put put all the sincerity in Hollywood in a flea's gizzard and have room left over for the heart of an agent." Brigham Young said of Judge McCabe of Michigan, a notorious scoundrel who had maligned the Mormons: "His soul is so small that 1,000 of them could dance a quadrill on the bill of a mosquito. Not, it's worse that that: a million could be encased ina flea's bladder for bell tongues, and you couldn't hear a thing--unless they got to jostling."

Then England goes on to talk about how Brigham preached a fine little sermonette on pure motives, on the way God's grace works to bring all to the right for the pure in heart." (England, Why the Church is as True as the Gospel, 97).

It's interesting to look back. Eugene England was capable of contributing to the FARMS Review, and criticizing at least some of the Reviewers. He demonstrated notable loyalty and faith, and was capable of accusing the Strengthen the Church committee of undermining the church, and of apologizing for making the same accusation. The same man may write and speak in different tones at different times for different audiences. The same person may react differently to the same tone in others. He clearly admires Brigham Young's eloquence and wit. What is interesting is that England sets the tone for appreciating Brigham's wit in describing the judge as a "notorious scoundrel." Suppose he'd described the "the honorable judge from the great state of Michigan," and as a victim of Brigham's scornful rhetoric? Does the joke still work as an illiustration of Brigham's natural genius for language, or does it reveal the blackness of his soul as a poison-tongued assasinator of character?

Tone can be manipulated in both expression and in evaluation of expression. I'd go so far as to say, tone is inevitably subject to manipulation in both original expression and in subsequent evaluation. Religious and social politics enter in. Is all fair in love and wars of words?

So, what about Daniel Peterson's wit? I still think his review of Loftes Tryk in RBBM is one of the funniest and best book reviews ever written, with Swiftian eloquence in it's imagery and satire. I think the tone of Daniel's essay is totally justified by the content he explored, and by his mastery of langage and scholarship. The essay contains a great deal of humor, but the scholarly content is visible. It's a far cry from Dave Barry, for instance, on nearly any topic, who never lets either fact or ignorance stand in the way of telling a joke or meeting a deadline. Daniel has written a great deal, in a variety of settings, for a variety of audiences.

Just as Engene England's essay explores a range of Brigham Young's thought, showing it's not all jokes or brimstone or homilies, but rather, a complex man whose gift for language and expression was remarkable and deserves attention. Someone who approaches Brigham Young via the usual quote mined extracts from the Journal of Discourses often creates a very different tone, and sets the tone and topic of Brigham Young at a very different level. Who gets us closer to understanding the real Brigham Young? Eugene England, or a knee-jerk quote miner who never reads the passages in context?

My point is that there is no objective standard out there, and no rules that compells all readers to have the same reaction to any material. Even someone so mild mannered as Richard Bushman can give offense by publishing something that someone disagrees with. People can react to the same content differently.

Several years ago, a student in Utah was badly offended that one of his heros had a book criticized in the FARMS Review. He went ballistic and presented at Sunstone with a widely posted essay on why he no longer trusted FARMS. I read the essay, and thought it poorly reasoned, and was annoyed at how much currency it was getting based on such dubious content, and started writing a detailed response. I mentioned this ambition on an email list I was on at the time, and was discouraged from doing so, on grounds that the author was young, and still sorting through faith issues. Were I to publish a formal response, I might back this person into an intellectual corner, and his defensiveness might then turn him away from the gospel. The one counseling gentleness and restraint was one Louis Midgely.

John Dehlin is apparently asking for people to send him attrocity stories that he can use as propaganda for a presentation. Quote mining by remote control. (I thank Blair for his excellent blog essay on quote mining from the Journal of Discourses.) What is most disturning to be is that there appears to be no self reflection involved. No checking one's own eyes for motes, in order to see clearly. There is no self awarenes that there is something inherently wrong with this approach. Such an open call for attrocity stories inherently corrupts the result because the perspective provided by the wider context is inherently missing.

I've listened to some podcasts. Dehlin's own story, Bill Russell (which in a round about way led to my essay on "Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique), Bushman, Givens, Coe, Peterson and some Gardner. Tone varies there as well. And his tone in his comments sections after the podcasts also varies. Sometimes we see John's genuine concern and tolerance and openness. Sometimes, we defensiveness and open scorn for the objects of LDS faith and for LDS scholars. A broader survey will always give a broader picture of a person than a hunt for ammunition.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 3, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[rameumptom]

Fifth Columnist, on 30 June 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Brent Metcalfe tried to post the following on Bill Hamblin's blog, but Hamblin wouldn't allow it. I think it shows the tone problems with conventional Mormon apologetics.

But you have to understand the history. 20 years ago, Bill ran the Morm-Ant (Mormon Antiquities) email listserv. Brent was involved in bringing the listserv into a total meltdown. Bill had not choice but to shut it down completely. It would be years before Bill came back out in public on the Internet. I can fully understand why he would be reticent to allow Brent anywhere near his blog.

Brent has many places to discuss Mormon things. And he does. But a person's blog is for that person to use as he/she sees fit. You do not allow someone to enter your house and tear up the furniture. Once they've shown such actions once, why let them in again, when they may have the same intentions as before?

Apologetics are not there to convert critics or anti-Mormons. It is there to provide those with an open mind another answer besides what the critics provide. That is especially true when the critics use straw men, or worse, completely lie about what LDS believe.

Will Schryver made a list of things he wants to see in an apologist. I would add one or two more: professionalism and perhaps a bit of charity. We do not need LDS apologists sinking down into the mire where many antis seem to revel.

[Bob Crockett]

Tone is in the eye of the beholder. There is no nice way to write a negative review, and nobody likes getting a negative review. The reality is that the apostates need to quit moaning--after they remove the beams from their own eyes--and try to engage the arguments and issues rather than whining about tone.

All very true. I have long been a big supporter of the Review, but at the same time wondered whether the time would come when the Brethren (or somebody in power) would pull the plug due, in large part, to its tone. The upper-echelon apologists in the Church can control the outcome better with a more charitable tone, something that I personally could not do if I were in that elite club.

[Bill Hamblin]

But you have to understand the history. 20 years ago, Bill ran the Morm-Ant (Mormon Antiquities) email listserv. Brent was involved in bringing the listserv into a total meltdown. Bill had not choice but to shut it down completely. It would be years before Bill came back out in public on the Internet. I can fully understand why he would be reticent to allow Brent anywhere near his blog.

Brent has many places to discuss Mormon things. And he does. But a person's blog is for that person to use as he/she sees fit. You do not allow someone to enter your house and tear up the furniture. Once they've shown such actions once, why let them in again, when they may have the same intentions as before?

Apologetics are not there to convert critics or anti-Mormons. It is there to provide those with an open mind another answer besides what the critics provide. That is especially true when the critics use straw men, or worse, completely lie about what LDS believe.

Will Schryver made a list of things he wants to see in an apologist. I would add one or two more: professionalism and perhaps a bit of charity. We do not need LDS apologists sinking down into the mire where many antis seem to revel.

I should just add that I've debated Metcalfe plenty over the years. I didn't post Metcalfe's comment on my blog because it was inane and pointless. (It is my blog, after all. There are plenty of venues where Metcalfe can say anything he wants.) The thrust of his post seems to have been that because I used adjectives I was being overly negative in my description of the MI situation.

[Deborah]

and try to engage the arguments and issues rather than whining about tone.

Glad I'm not the only one who uses that word.

[rameumptom]

I do not know how to describe His tone. I would surmise it came across differently to different people, and He had the skill and spiritual power to simultaneously convey His message in many ways to many hearers so they would take away what He needed. The woman would have had a different experience with and perception of Him than the Pharisees did, for example. But I wouldn't call it a "defensive tone." He may have been "sharp" in His articulation (as in D&C 121:43), but that doesn't necessarily account for tone.

By asserting truth and condemning sin and false accusers, I think He effectively skipped the defense stage altogether.

So, if I were to stop defending the Church, and instead just teach the doctrine and call its accusers "hypocrites", then I'm good?

I read things VERY different than you. Christ defended his doctrine when he claimed that he and his father were witnesses of that doctrine. We do the same thing with the 3 Witnesses of the book of Mormon. It is plainly apologetic. Would you consider his overturning the tables at the temple as a non-apologetic act with a mild tone?

[wenglund]

All very true. I have long been a big supporter of the Review, but at the same time wondered whether the time would come when the Brethren (or somebody in power) would pull the plug due, in large part, to its tone. The upper-echelon apologists in the Church can control the outcome better with a more charitable tone, something that I personally could not do if I were in that elite club.

Given that for 23 years the Brethren haven't intervened, and likely didn't in this case either, tells me something about how infrequent they may "pull the plug", and undermines in my mind the old canard about the Brethren as puppet-masters/control freaks.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rameumptom]

Some claim that the content of Mormon apologetics is "embarrassing." Well, I can agree that not all of it is high quality stuff, however, most of it is very good.

In 2001, John Tvedtnes wrote a paper for FAIR discussing how outside scholars view Mormon apologetics. He notes the article by evangelist scholars Mosser and Owens, who claim that evangelical claims are very poor compared to the quality of scholarship coming out of LDS research articles.

So, I see the content as being very good, as the norm. Sadly, since 2001, we've seen much of that scholarship not being done by FARMS/MI. Thankfully, we have more outlets for that scholarship today.

[rameumptom]

And, by the way, I've never claimed to be as good as Jesus. Jesus is more nice than I am, and I suspect he always will be.

Bill, when was the last time you flooded the earth, or wiped out a city because they ticked you off? Maybe you ARE nicer than Jesus is? Or maybe you are nicer, simply because you don't have all that power? BTW, I don't ever remember any modern LDS apologist claiming a city would be laid waste simply because they disagreed with the content and tone.....

[Calm]

Glad I'm not the only one who uses that word.

[CV75]

So, if I were to stop defending the Church, and instead just teach the doctrine and call its accusers "hypocrites", then I'm good?

I read things VERY different than you. Christ defended his doctrine when he claimed that he and his father were witnesses of that doctrine. We do the same thing with the 3 Witnesses of the book of Mormon. It is plainly apologetic. Would you consider his overturning the tables at the temple as a non-apologetic act with a mild tone?

My exchanges with CA were about whether Christ defended Himself, not about apologists or tone. If I can tie my ideas about these three issues together:

1. I do not believe Christ defended Himself or His doctrine. He doesn’t have to. I provided my reasoning on a scriptural basis as to why He operated entirely on the offense (Matthew 7:29, Isaiah 8: 14). He taught, asserted, proclaimed, and condemned and so forth, but not from a defensive position.

2. Christ certainly defended and defends the defenseless and asks us to join Him in doing the same.

3. Apologetics do defend, and that this is consistent with #2. They defend those who are vulnerable to incorrect information about the Church that is presented by its attackers, by providing better information. Sometimes this is in the form of a defensive counterattack (which I discussed in an earlier post; Christ used offensive counterattacks). Apologists are not set apart as missionaries who simply proclaim (an offensive approach). How they manage their conversations is up to them. I think Matthew 10:16 applies to any saint involved in a discussion that may become adversarial, while in either a missionary or apologetic mode.

4. Tone is often in the ear of the hearer. I am sure Christ used many kinds of tones and used them perfectly well. Tone has a proper place in both His offensive approach and apologists’ defensive approach. A contentious spirit is discouraged, but “negative” tones (whatever those are) do not necessarily arise from a contentious spirit.

So, if you were to stop defending the Church, and instead just teach the doctrine and call its accusers "hypocrites", that would be good only if that is what the Spirit is guiding you to do.

Hopefully you understand my points enough by now to understand that I consider Jesus’ overturning the tables at the temple as a non-apologetic act with an angry tone as follows: He saw something amiss in His house, was rightfully angry about it, and went on the offensive to set it back in order. I don’t see it as a defensive act because He wasn’t protecting anything (He knew it had been going on for a long time, and hadn’t done anything about it until this point in time); the timely point for His ministry is that He was powerfully asserting His rights, standards and expectations as the Son of God.

[Senator]

Tone is in the eye of the beholder. There is no nice way to write a negative review, and nobody likes getting a negative review. The reality is that the apostates need to quit moaning--after they remove the beams from their own eyes--and try to engage the arguments and issues rather than whining about tone.

And, by the way, I've never claimed to be as good as Jesus. Jesus is more nice than I am, and I suspect he always will be.

I'm kind of liking this new apologetic character that is emerging on the wake of all this. It's edgy, with a bit of "bad-boy, don't mess with me" feel to it.

We just need some new LDS art to depict it. I'm thinking of a new rendering of the Tree of Life scene. Everything remains the same, with the folks in the big building pointing their fingers and all. But instead of Lehi and his family lowering their heads in shame, they are shown standing erect, squarely facing their mockers and with a raised arm, pointing a finger back at them!!

Edited July 2, 2012 by Senator

[cinepro]

There is no nice way to write a negative review, and nobody likes getting a negative review.

Yes there is.

For good examples, I recommend every negative review published by FARMS towards a book written by a faithful LDS.

[Libs]

Yes there is.

For good examples, I recommend every negative review published by FARMS towards a book written by a faithful LDS.

Does such an animal exist?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Glad I'm not the only one who uses that word.

Ha, I am actually some what tired of all of it from certain sectors. Edited July 2, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

But instead of Lehi and his family lowering their heads in shame, they are shown standing erect, squarely facing their mockers and with a raised arm, pointing a finger back at them!!

When it comes to finger-pointing, aren't you projecting more than just a bit? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

Does such an animal exist?

Sure. For starters, any book that disagrees with the mesoamerican geography for the Book of Mormon seems to get a pleasantly negative review.

Here's a softly worded summary from a negative review:

The Book of Mormon: Fourth Nephi through Moroni, From Zion to Destruction provides some insights, but the real treasures of these last books in the Book of Mormon are yet to be found, or, at least, they are found elsewhere. This book or the entire series should not be considered a commentary on the deeper things of the Book of Mormon. "It must not be forgotten that the Church still awaits an in-depth, scholarly but faithful commentary on the Book of Mormon."⁶⁰ This volume is cautiously recommended, but disappointment should not come as a surprise if the reader is hoping for something more than the written form of a subjective oratory. Is it worth buying? Perhaps, but only at a value equal to the effort applied to many of the papers: a discounted price.

The exception to this rule being the reviews of Rod Meldrum's books, of course, which were called "pseudo scientific snake oil".