Apologetics Of The "Swedish Rescue"

[KevinG]

This is rather odd. The church wants people to have logical answers, but when I present that angle, I get jumped on for not having "faith." I promote logical, scientific, seriously rigorous examination instead of "faith" and I get slapped. Where are all the angry replies to this? Why doesn't the church just tell em all to simply have "faith" and all things will work for their good like so many Mormons tell me to online? (sarcasm mode off)

Because your toothache does not need the same treatment as my sprained ankle. Advil might do us both some good but an ace bandage might help me more than your filling.

[BCSpace]

We are likely to begin to see waves of these responses. Elder Jensen has indicated the church has been working on a response and hopefully we can stem the tide of lost faith among Latter-Day Saints.

It's interesting to see that the response was to refer to the same apologetics many of us engage in and refer to. Basically the Church is embracing what many call Bible bashing. I was saddened to hear in Sunday's lesson on Koriher, a general attitude of shying away from difficult questions, ignoring the dissenting voices, and making sure our children are not exposed to them. I spoke against it.

[cinepro]

Just give me a damn calling is it that hard.

If that's a direct quote, I think I know what the problem is.

[Calm]

Basically the Church is embracing what many call Bible bashing.

CFR the Bible bashing (perhaps you could define it as well) and show this is what many in the Church call Bible bashing because I just haven't seen it.

I see nothing in the apologetics done by FAIR or historically by the MI that is what I define as Bible bashing, which is engaging in a debate based purely on condemning the other's beliefs about biblical passages, basically arguing interpretations of the Bible and in the context of attacking rather than attempting to understand and communicate one's own beliefs. I will locate examples of using this definition later when I have time if you want.

I think Bible bashing (as I and I believe the majority of individuals) is not only useless for the most part, but it is discouraged as being a waste of time and a promoter of contention by church leadership.

Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[treehugger]

What would be the purpose or hope in referencing FIAR or MI?

Is the Church stressing intellectual reasoning/confirmation over Spiritual reasoning/confirmation?

The mission statement of FAIR, in my opinion, appeals to the intellect rather than the Spirit. And in a FAIR article (seer stone article) about the Church hiding things, 38 of the 40 footnotes are either to FAIR members or to masters papers, only two of the references are to Church materials. The claim the article rebuts, is answered with only the 2 footnotes to Church materials.

Edited July 23, 2012 by treehugger

[Calm]

Could you proof your comment please, I can not understand with the errors currently in it, it appears there are some missing words or something I cannot extrapolate as is usual with an error, sorry.

[treehugger]

Could you proof your comment please, I can not understand with the errors currently in it, it appears there are some missing words or something I cannot extrapolate as is usual with an error, sorry.

small keyboard.

[BCSpace]

Basically the Church is embracing what many call Bible bashing.

CFR the Bible bashing (perhaps you could define it as well) and show this is what many in the Church call Bible bashing because I just haven't seen it.

Just my own experience. Many seem to think of debating or discussing as "Bible bashing" as opposed to say, stating the doctrine, bearing testimony, and walking away. These people are going to be refered to "Bible bashing" materials and not only are they going to get answers for themselves from them, they will use those answers in talking with other people who question the Church.

I see nothing in the apologetics done by FAIR or historically by the MI that is what I define as Bible bashing

Me neither.

Edited July 23, 2012 by BCSpace

[Calm]

small keyboard.

I understand which is why I don't make an issue unless I really can't understand....

The Church is not stressing intellectual over spiritual, but merely suggesting that if someone has questions that deal with "intellectual" issues it makes sense to address in that way, once that aspect is dealt with the spiritual is often better able to do its part especially if those "intellectual" issues have cause emotional turmoil. (I put "intellectual" in quotes because I don't think that is an accurate term for describing what FAIR does, but am too out of it to think of the correct one at the moment...maybe it will hit me when I wake up from the nap I am hoping to take in a few minutes).

Sources used to create FAIR articles of course are dependent on the question they are trying to address. If one had a scientific question dealing with the laws of physics, would one criticize a paper because it did not link to the Church's website? If there are historical details not available on lds.org...which is not surprising since lds.org is not a site for teaching history, even Church history, in detail, then one must find those details in other places....often through sources the Church has funded directly or indirectly such as BYU facilities or the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

I believe the majority of issues FAIR deals with are historical ones, btw.

Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[treehugger]

I see Bible bashing as "you believe X and you are wrong" the bashers usually must smear/well poison/character assassinate in attempting to support the very weak foundation of own point.

Bible bashing is contrary to what when learn in the Bible, Jesus opened up the scriptures to his disciples, while journeying with them on the road. And then their is the Ethiopian who read the scriptures but did not understand, and the scriptures were opened to him.

While the two styles might look similar, the first is of contention, the second is of the Lord and appeals to the Spirit of revelation to confirm the truth of what is spoken.

[Calm]

The term "Bashing" seems to go way beyond the term "discussing" or even "debating". "Bashing" has the connotation of vicious attacking (as in bashing one's head against the wall). What websites is the Church recommending that include this approach of attacking another's beliefs?

[treehugger]

I understand which is why I don't make an issue unless I really can't understand....

The Church is not stressing intellectual over spiritual, but merely suggesting that if someone has questions that deal with "intellectual" issues it makes sense to address in that way, once that aspect is dealt with the spiritual is often better able to do its part especially if those "intellectual" issues have cause emotional turmoil. (I put "intellectual" in quotes because I don't think that is an accurate term for describing what FAIR does, but am too out of it to think of the correct one at the moment...maybe it will hit me when I wake up from the nap I am hoping to take in a few minutes).

Sources used to create FAIR articles of course are dependent on the question they are trying to address. If one had a scientific question dealing with the laws of physics, would one criticize a paper because it did not link to the Church's website? If there are historical details not available on lds.org...which is not surprising since lds.org is not a site for teaching history, even Church history, in detail, then one must find those details in other places....often through sources the Church has funded directly or indirectly such as BYU facilities or the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

I believe the majority of issues FAIR deals with are historical ones, btw.

Spiritual concerns v. "intellectual concerns", it raises and interesting issue, which I think the Church has tried to address.

Is the Church true even if Joseph Smith used what looked like 3D glasses to translate the Book of Momron?

Is the Church true even if someone believes the Book of Isiah was written by 3 different people?

To me it would seem both questions need a spiritual confirmation to be assured of the answer. However, in the D&C we learn that "Spirit of Revelation" involves studying out things in ones mind, and given this counsel to study things out in ones mind provide room for deference to FAIRs mission statement which seems to appeal primarily to the temporal intellect.

[sjdawg]

I don't understand why the Church would use unofficial sources to try and provide the context/substance to help people with their doubts. I would think there should be some official opinions or doctrines available. I love Marlin K Jensen but I found his answers to my own personal questions to be very lacking in actual substance.

Edited July 23, 2012 by sjdawg

[Calm]

FAIRs mission statement which seems to appeal primarily to the temporal intellect.

I think this is likely because we think the Church is doing a great job to deal with the spiritual issues and it is not our place to attempt to take that over. OTOH, the Church has currently chosen not to deal with many of the historic/academic/intellectual issues and so that presents a place where we can put our own efforts to a good cause.

FAIR starts from the assumption that the Church is true. We are not trying to prove its truth, but merely provide information about certain historical issues as well as providing accurate information about beliefs (without really arguing for their truthfulness, though demonstrating why our interpretation has scriptural or other support can be part of it) and occasionally on things that contribute to overall context.

Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

If that's a direct quote, I think I know what the problem is.

President Grant swears too!

[volgadon]

What would be the purpose or hope in referencing FIAR or MI?

Is the Church stressing intellectual reasoning/confirmation over Spiritual reasoning/confirmation?

The mission statement of FAIR, in my opinion, appeals to the intellect rather than the Spirit. And in a FAIR article (seer stone article) about the Church hiding things, 38 of the 40 footnotes are either to FAIR members or to masters papers, only two of the references are to Church materials. The claim the article rebuts, is answered with only the 2 footnotes to Church materials.

The point is to bolster faith which is being attacked on mostly "rational" grounds.

[Pahoran]

Anyone interested in the original Swedish documents can email me at paul.pryjr@gmail.com

Greetings Paul, and welcome to the forum.

Are you the same "Paul Pry Jr" who was circulating anti-Mormon propaganda as long ago as 1987, as described here?

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

Greetings Paul, and welcome to the forum.

Are you the same "Paul Pry Jr" who was circulating anti-Mormon propaganda as long ago as 1987, as described here?

Regards,

Pahoran

If so, it would be ironic, as the Palmer book was used quite heavily in the attacks that triggered the "rescue."

[Pahoran]

If so, it would be ironic, as the Palmer book was used quite heavily in the attacks that triggered the "rescue."

Unfortunately, Paul has not deigned to respond, so we have no other choice than to take him at his word.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

The mission statement of FAIR, in my opinion, appeals to the intellect rather than the Spirit.

Imho, one can't even begin to have faith without some intellectual basis.

[BCSpace]

The term "Bashing" seems to go way beyond the term "discussing" or even "debating". "Bashing" has the connotation of vicious attacking (as in bashing one's head against the wall).

I agree. The problem is that I am running into many people who misidentify discussion and debate, just plain old defending the faith, as bashing.

[Calm]

Yes, that is unfortunately a problem with attempting to do apologetics at times...that from the opposite position the "what do we have to apologize for?"

[Kerry A. Shirts]

The point is to bolster faith which is being attacked on mostly "rational" grounds.

That's precisely why there is such an outflow going on. Until religion begins using reason more faithfully (GRIN!), the hemorraging will never stop. Faith simply cannot hold up to reason, there is simply no better way to learn than using our brains. I FIRMLY believe THAT, regardless of what cat-calling occurs when I mention it.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I agree. The problem is that I am running into many people who misidentify discussion and debate, just plain old defending the faith, as bashing.

ALL apologetics, that is defending a position ends up as bashing. There is simply no way to avoid it. I have yet to see anyone in any religion remain calm when the pure light of reason begins taking down their faith, and I include myself in that. Religion is terrified of being examined carefully, so when science and reason come out in force and power religion does nothing but HOWL in great paroxyisms of anger, which, true to form, end up in war and killing. History can easily prove the proposition. Scientists do not go to war in trying to convince others of their view, even though they get pretty heated up at times, of course. Religion always says CONVERT OR DIE HERETIC. Again, history easily proves the proposition.

[volgadon]

That's precisely why there is such an outflow going on. Until religion begins using reason more faithfully (GRIN!), the hemorraging will never stop. Faith simply cannot hold up to reason, there is simply no better way to learn than using our brains. I FIRMLY believe THAT, regardless of what cat-calling occurs when I mention it.

There is a bit more to it in this case than 'reason.'

As for learning to use our brains, I agree. http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html