Tone Of Mormon Apologetics

[KevinG]

I smell a loosely coordinated attempt to pull a #4 and #12 from Rules for Radicals. It may be those wanting defenders of the LDS faith (LDS apologists) to shut up and go away are inspired by Alinsky or simply ran across the ideas of holding the opponent to their own often impossible to keep rules (turn the other cheek under all circumstances) and Picking the target, freezing it, personalizing it, and polarizing it (see Dr P and MI) all by their own initiative.

What this tells me is that the opposition to LDS religion and thought lack substance and so resort to polemics and politics to get their way.

[Calm]

Does such an animal exist?

There are quite a few nonrecommendations/rejections of LDS written books.

[Senator]

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Heck yeah! Tack on to that ad hom, polemics, witty prose......it's all a flush these days.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Heck yeah! Tack on to that ad hom, polemics, witty prose......it's all a flush these days.

Ad hom? Did you miss the recent thread?

Edited July 2, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

Heck yeah! Tack on to that ad hom, polemics, witty prose......it's all a flush these days.

Perhaps you are going too far with the word "witty" in your case? Be that as it may, I am pleased to see that you are self-reflective enough to realize that we get little more than finger-pointing from you here. But, what more should be expected of someone posting anonymously?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Ad hom? Did you miss the recent thread?

http://www.mormondia...a-short-primer/

Actually, if I read him correctly, he was being uncharacteristically self-referential and self-critical, though presumably facetiously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, if I read him correctly, he was being uncharacteristically self-referential and self-critical, though presumably facetiously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, my bad.

[Libs]

There are quite a few nonrecommendations/rejections of LDS written books.

Ah, okay....I really didn't know that. Would you say the tone is different, when reviewing those books, than reviewing those of non-members?

[Calm]

Ah, okay....I really didn't know that. Would you say the tone is different, when reviewing those books, than reviewing those of non-members?

Not that I've noticed generally speaking. It depends a great deal on the purpose of the nonLDS ones. There is going to be a different type of response to someone they think has information wrong and someone who is writing because that writer thinks we have it wrong, if you get my meaning. Edited July 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[robuchan]

I see two issues related to using overly aggressive or snarky tone (or in other words, simply being mean) in apologetics.

1. Apologists and critics are not the only groups of people with an interest in LDS apologetics. There is a middle ground of people who are by far the biggest group involved. These are LDS people who are studying out the issues. Some just curious. Some with shaken faith syndrome. The source for LDS material for most of them has been the scriptures, general authorities, and local church leaders. They maybe have been missionaries who were counseled over and over to avoid bible bashing and other sources of contention when representing Christ as a missionary. It's just understood in the church that when we teach the gospel we have a responsibility to do it in a "nice" way. It's a little off-putting for these people to see the "good guys" going after people like John Dehlin and Grant Palmer in ways that actually make the "bad guys" look sympathetic. Sometimes when you beat people up in these forums, you're beating up a believer with some questions going through a phase not hardened apostates.

2. It might get you fired.

If you're not concerned with either of those two, then I agree with you guys, put on the gloves and let' em have it!

[William Schryver]

I see two issues related to using overly aggressive or snarky tone (or in other words, simply being mean) in apologetics.

1. Apologists and critics are not the only groups of people with an interest in LDS apologetics. There is a middle ground of people who are by far the biggest group involved. These are LDS people who are studying out the issues. Some just curious. Some with shaken faith syndrome. The source for LDS material for most of them has been the scriptures, general authorities, and local church leaders. They maybe have been missionaries who were counseled over and over to avoid bible bashing and other sources of contention when representing Christ as a missionary. It's just understood in the church that when we teach the gospel we have a responsibility to do it in a "nice" way. It's a little off-putting for these people to see the "good guys" going after people like John Dehlin and Grant Palmer in ways that actually make the "bad guys" look sympathetic. Sometimes when you beat people up in these forums, you're beating up a believer with some questions going through a phase not hardened apostates.

2. It might get you fired.

If you're not concerned with either of those two, then I agree with you guys, put on the gloves and let' em have it!

Over the years, I have seen vanishingly few of these kinds of people on the various message boards, although there are uncounted numbers of critics and apostates who often like to play pretend.

Edited July 3, 2012 by William Schryver

[Pahoran]

I see two issues related to using overly aggressive or snarky tone (or in other words, simply being mean) in apologetics.

<Snip>

2. It might get you fired.

There is no evidence that that has ever happened.

And frankly I think it's time to lay this libel (because that's what it is) to rest.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

Over the years, I have seen vanishingly few of these kinds of people on the various message boards, although there are uncounted numbers of critics and apostates who often like to play pretend.

True blue faith shaken person here, not an apostate, though I may come across as such. If any of you have read other forums such as NOM or Stay LDS, you'd see that there are truly heart broken people out there that have lost their testimonies. Why is it that I read about so many of them that have occurred in the last 4 or 5 years, like myself? Do you see that? Anyway, they were stalwart LDS. I was stalwart, 100% active, always had a TR, calling etc. But I relied on others testimonies and I believe now I was in it for the social end, never gave church history a second thought. But now in my "middle way" state of mind, it feels so bleak with no end in sight. If you knew me you'd understand the dilemma I face at admitting I've lost my testimony. If I come out to my extended family it could cause so much havoc in so many lives. That's the reason for my obsession with getting the facts. I am blown away at the defenders on this board. I love it here so far, it's a godsend.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Tacenda

[Libs]

Not that I've noticed generally speaking. It depends a great deal on the purpose of the nonLDS ones. There is going to be a different type of response to someone they think has information wrong and someone who is writing because that writer thinks we have it wrong, if you get my meaning.

Not sure I understand. Are these members generally writing critical books against the church? Or informational books about the church that a reviewer might think is off the mark?

Guess I should go look some of these up...but not sure even where to start.

[Libs]

Nevermind.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Libs

[Glenn101]

True blue faith shaken person here, not an apostate, though I may come across as such. If you any of you read other forums such as NOM or Stay LDS, you'd see that there are truly heart broken people out there that have lost their testimonies. Why is it that I read about so many of them that have occurred in the last 4 or 5 years, like myself? Do you see that? Anyway, they were stalwart LDS. I was stalwart, 100% active, always had a TR, calling etc. But I relied on others testimonies and I believe now I was in it for the social end, never gave church history a second thought. But now in my middle wayer state of mind, it feels so bleak with no end in sight. If you knew me you'd understand the dilemma I face at admitting I've lost the testimony. If I come out to my extended family it could cause so much havoc in so many lives. That's the reason for my obsession with getting the facts. I am blown away at the defenders on this board. I love it here so far, it's a godsend.

Tacenda, You have already realized that relying on the testimony of others will not give you a testimony. reading church history. even the "whitewashed" version, will not give you a testimony. Apologetics, no matter how well (or poorly) done, will not give you a testimony. There is only one source for a testimony of Jesus, the restored Gospel, the Book of Mormon, etc.

Glenn

[Senator]

Meh, Half of what I write gets deleted these days. I guess that's my que to take my leave.

It's been real folks

Take care,

Senator

[Calm]

Not sure I understand. Are these members generally writing critical books against the church? Or informational books about the church that a reviewer might think is off the mark?

Guess I should go look some of these up...but not sure even where to start.

Members are doing the second (except in a few cases) and nonmembers are often doing the first, but they also do the second as well.

I'll get some for you later, now is not a good time. Remind me if I forget (I forgot to call my dad on his birthday on Saturday and instead ended up sending him an email at 1:30 AM on Sunday Morning, he said it was even better because it was so uniquely me...the whole middle of the night thing, lol).

Edited July 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

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

Yikes, I just saw this. Didn't read back far enough. Thank you, much, for the example, Cinepro.

[Libs]

Members are doing the second (except in a few cases) and nonmembers are often doing the first, but they also do the second as well.

I'll get some for you later, now is not a good time. Remind me if I forget (I forgot to call my dad on his birthday on Saturday and instead ended up sending him an email at 1:30 AM on Sunday Morning, he said it was even better because it was so uniquely me...the whole middle of the night thing, lol).

Thanks, Calmoriah. No worries...I'll look around a little, myself.

[Pahoran]

I know that John McLay quit his CES position, right before he left the church, because he could not hold that job, without being a faithful member of the church. I'm, sure, at very minimum, people who work for the church could be (have been?) fired, because church membership is kind of written into their contract, so to speak.

Who is John McLay?

Exactly how tragic or unjust is it that someone who doesn't believe what the Church teaches should stop teaching on its behalf?

And what relevance does that have to the question at hand, which is the claim that "overly aggressive or snarky tone (or in other words, simply being mean) in apologetics... might get you fired"?

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

I've never been employed as an LDS apologist. Perhaps its my tone?

[wenglund]

Meh, Half of what I write gets deleted these days. I guess that's my que to take my leave.

It's been real folks

Take care, Senator

I will mis the glib, oft one-way finger-pointing. Best wishes to you and your legislative duties.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I've never been employed as an LDS apologist. Perhaps its my tone?

It's your looks, sorry. The whole wolfish dog thing....just doesn't work. Gives the game away too fast.

[Libs]

Who is John McLay?

Exactly how tragic or unjust is it that someone who doesn't believe what the Church teaches should stop teaching on its behalf?

And what relevance does that have to the question at hand, which is the claim that "overly aggressive or snarky tone (or in other words, simply being mean) in apologetics... might get you fired"?

Regards,

Pahoran

Nevermind. My fault for not tracking the conversation very well. I see, now, that Robuchan was talking about getting fired for using ad hom attacks (a reference to Daniel Peterson's recent firing, I assume).