Does Apologetics Drive People Away From The Church?

[Sky]

Increasingly, these days, people are following the fad of blaming others for the consequences of their own personal choices. The notion of personal responsibility/accountability is fast dying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're treading on thin ice here...you'll get accused of being insensitive or a big jerk for saying this. Nobody likes to blame their personal apostasy or falling away on anything they may have done wrong...if they can blame it on somebody passionate about their LDS beliefs, whom they perceive as being rude or self-righteous, then so much the better.

I will say that Kevin Christensen is a great example for all of us by always offering intelligent responses and being kind and reasoned simultaneously. I'm not at that level yet, but hope to get there.

[ControlFreak]

Increasingly, these days, people are following the fad of blaming others for the consequences of their own personal choices. The notion of personal responsibility/accountability is fast dying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Huh? So holding the church accountable for its immoral and well hidden past is blaming the church for my choices? Quite to the contrary, I'm taking personal responsibility for my moral actions and not accepting immoral actions deemed moral by the church, whether in the past or the present.

I appreciate the thought though. Very kind of you. Unfortunately, I refuse to accept the lame and damaging idea that if I can't believe the church's mistakes were divine that it is somehow my fault.

[ControlFreak]

Can you give a few examples of 'apologetics truths' which could or would

destroy one's faith?

Try me.

Gail

There is an insurmountable mountain of them. Unfortunately, I have no clue what your level of intellectual honesty is in being willing to admit you could be wrong, nor do I have any desire to destroy your faith anyway.

The important point is that the truth is damaging. If you don't see that, you are being obtuse. I'm fine if people think the truth is hard, but taken with faith, can be accepted, but please, let's not pretend the church doesn't have some real doozies in its past.

Believe it or not, honest, kind, committed members of the church do lose faith from the ugly truths of the past without wanting to sin, getting bent out of shape by grumpy apologists or otherwise having malicious intent.

Disagreeing is not dishonest and will get you banned if you continue saying it.

[Daniel Peterson]

The closest thing is the charge that Daniel snatched up quotes from RFM so that he could humiliate the authors.

The authors of the quotes were anonymous, so it's hard to see how the quotes could have "humiliated" them very much.

Anyway, isn't it a bit odd, if X calls Y a really nasty and insulting name, and Y mentions it, for Observer Z to be morally indignant with Y rather than with X?

Has the author actually read Daniel's mind so that they can verify that as the sole motivation?

I'm reasonably confident, having unusually good access to Daniel's mind, that the mind-reading was wrong. Daniel assures me that he was (a) simply fascinated at the nastiness to which some are prone when they're writing anonymously on the Internet and that (b) he was thinking -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that seeing some of the ridiculously over-the-top language that they were using against him would bring a few of his critics to their senses.

Is that all one can find in Daniel's writings? Nothing but selected quotes?

Over the years, the collection amounts to perhaps twenty or twenty-five relatively short quotations. Total. Certainly fewer than fifty. Peterson has, I'm told, published a bit more than that.

[webbles]

Huh? So holding the church accountable for its immoral and well hidden past is blaming the church for my choices?

I think a lot of people would disagree with those two adjectives in describing the church's past.

[Tacenda]

You're treading on thin ice here...you'll get accused of being insensitive or a big jerk for saying this. Nobody likes to blame their personal apostasy or falling away on anything they may have done wrong...if they can blame it on somebody passionate about their LDS beliefs, whom they perceive as being rude or self-righteous, then so much the better.

I will say that Kevin Christensen is a great example for all of us by always offering intelligent responses and being kind and reasoned simultaneously. I'm not at that level yet, but hope to get there.

Here, here the part about KC always offering intelligent responses and being kind and reasoned simultaneously. Edited February 17, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Huh? So holding the church accountable for its immoral and well hidden past is blaming the church for my choices? Quite to the contrary, I'm taking personal responsibility for my moral actions and not accepting immoral actions deemed moral by the church, whether in the past or the present.

I appreciate the thought though. Very kind of you. Unfortunately, I refuse to accept the lame and damaging idea that if I can't believe the church's mistakes were divine that it is somehow my fault.

Well Hidden Past? What are you talking about? The Churches "well hidden past" is the most open secret I know.

[williamsmith]

Apologetics lead people away from the church because they provide a source for all the ugly truths that I never would have read from an unfriendly source.

What are these "ugly truths"?

The only ugly truths I've seen is from anti-mormonism for which apologetics entirely or at least reasonably with the full facts debunk.

In the end there are few to little actual ugly truths. The only way you could consider them as ugly truths is if you simply continue to hold the anti-mormon position.

And for the ignorant and inconsiderate on the board, yes, it is 100% possible to be a completely faithful member with a very strong testimony and no intention to ever leave the church and have the truths contained in apologetics destroy that faith. No sin or desire to sin required.

I disagree. As someone who's left the Church and come back I know what "truths" I was embracing, and it wasn't from the apologists.

[williamsmith]

Huh? So holding the church accountable for its immoral and well hidden past is blaming the church for my choices? Quite to the contrary, I'm taking personal responsibility for my moral actions and not accepting immoral actions deemed moral by the church, whether in the past or the present.

And this is a perfect example of you debunking your own claim. Apologists consider few to none events in the Church as being "immoral" or "well hidden", but anti-mormons certainly do. Thus, you reveal exactly who's arguments you are embracing, and it's not from the Apologists.

I appreciate the thought though. Very kind of you. Unfortunately, I refuse to accept the lame and damaging idea that if I can't believe the church's mistakes were divine that it is somehow my fault.

I don't know of any faithful LDS or Apologist who considers whatever mistakes, especially actual ones as "divine". But I do know many anti-mormon claims that they are critical of the Church of and believe, truthful or not. Again, you reveal who's arguments you actually embrace, and it's not the apologists.

[Questing Beast]

@williamsmith: you are mistaken. The Church's history includes very upsetting dichotomies that it has never acknowledged much less taught. And the first introduction to them does not come from the "antis" when you refuse to read anti-Mormon literature, it comes from the seekers of the truth who are Mormon scholars in good standing. Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" is my first example of such a book addressing very difficult issues that the Church never has accepted into its "faith-promoting" history....

[ControlFreak]

Well Hidden Past? What are you talking about? The Churches "well hidden past" is the most open secret I know.

Yeah, that's why neither my bishop, not my stake president, not anyone in my ward, not a single soul in my family or my wife's family or any of my Utah friends knows this stuff? Yeah, it is totally obvious. Just because it CAN be found doesn't mean it isn't hidden from view. The church does an exceptional job of discussing people from looking.

[williamsmith]

There is an insurmountable mountain of them. Unfortunately, I have no clue what your level of intellectual honesty is in being willing to admit you could be wrong, nor do I have any desire to destroy your faith anyway.

Given that most here are intellectuals concerning the Church and religion I think we are well familiar with intellectual honesty in relation to who's doing it or not.

The important point is that the truth is damaging. If you don't see that, you are being obtuse. I'm fine if people think the truth is hard, but taken with faith, can be accepted, but please, let's not pretend the church doesn't have some real doozies in its past.

Again, not something any mormon or apologist would say. The whole and actual truth concerning the Church supports it's divinity, and little to nothing damaging either by themselves but especially as a whole in totality of all the evidences in relation to the Church and it's claims.

Believe it or not, honest, kind, committed members of the church do lose faith from the ugly truths of the past without wanting to sin, getting bent out of shape by grumpy apologists or otherwise having malicious intent.

We do not doubt or question that people "think" they learn "ugly truths" and then leave the Church.

What we doubt is your claim that they come from Apologists and not our enemy's. "Ugly truths" don't exist in Mormonism, they only exist in anti-mormonism. Because in Mormonism nearly all of those ugly truths aren't ugly truths at all, but the perversion of truth. In fact, many are even evidences of the restoration as being from God and not of men. Obviously, not there have never been mistakes, and there have been humans in the Church, but that is far different from being many "ugly truths" that would drive people away. The only time that actually occurs is when our enemy's "warp" what is true painting people and events in an ugly and false manner.

[ControlFreak]

What are these "ugly truths"?

The only ugly truths I've seen is from anti-mormonism for which apologetics entirely or at least reasonably with the full facts debunk.

In the end there are few to little actual ugly truths. The only way you could consider them as ugly truths is if you simply continue to hold the anti-mormon position.

I disagree. As someone who's left the Church and come back I know what "truths" I was embracing, and it wasn't from the apologists.

As an example, consider how Joseph promised salvation to the Kimballs in exchange for their 14 year old daughter. Our maybe how he repeatedly lied about polygamy to the world and even his wife.

Maybe you can excuse those things, but please don't tell me you don't find them ugly. I guess that just shows how evil I am that I find them abhorrent.

[williamsmith]

@williamsmith: you are mistaken. The Church's history includes very upsetting dichotomies that it has never acknowledged much less taught. And the first introduction to them does not come from the "antis" when you refuse to read anti-Mormon literature, it comes from the seekers of the truth who are Mormon scholars in good standing. Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" is my first example of such a book addressing very difficult issues that the Church never has accepted into its "faith-promoting" history....

Well, I don't consider that book to actually be "pro-LDS", nor "apologetic" in nature. And I don't know of any LDS who does.

In fact, the book essentially condemns plural marriage, and that is the tone through the book. I'm not the only one who noticed it.

http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Rvw-Sacred_Loneliness_Allred.htm

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=290

http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/MHA-Bachman.PDF

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=291

So, I don't know how this book demonstrates that "Apologists" or pro-LDS scholars are really leading the saints outside the Church?

I would liken this work to Mike Reed's recent work which has such a blatantly false thesis that is clearly anti-LDS in that thesis. (i.e. that LDS bigotry caused the de-emphasis of the Cross in Mormonism, rather than more so theological based, as Protestants had their theological basis well before Mormonism, that also wasn't bigotry based (even though such existed in history)).

[ERayR]

@williamsmith: you are mistaken. The Church's history includes very upsetting dichotomies that it has never acknowledged much less taught. And the first introduction to them does not come from the "antis" when you refuse to read anti-Mormon literature, it comes from the seekers of the truth who are Mormon scholars in good standing. Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" is my first example of such a book addressing very difficult issues that the Church never has accepted into its "faith-promoting" history....

Examples please where you have evidence. Not just anti-Mormon sensationalized stories.

[ERayR]

Yeah, that's why neither my bishop, not my stake president, not anyone in my ward, not a single soul in my family or my wife's family or any of my Utah friends knows this stuff? Yeah, it is totally obvious. Just because it CAN be found doesn't mean it isn't hidden from view. The church does an exceptional job of discussing people from looking.

What stuff? You are beginning to sound irrational so don't keep me in suspense any longer come on with the expose.

[ERayR]

As an example, consider how Joseph promised salvation to the Kimballs in exchange for their 14 year old daughter. Our maybe how he repeatedly lied about polygamy to the world and even his wife.

Maybe you can excuse those things, but please don't tell me you don't find them ugly. I guess that just shows how evil I am that I find them abhorrent.

They certainly aren't secret if you found them. By the way who reported them to you?

[williamsmith]

As an example, consider how Joseph promised salvation to the Kimballs in exchange for their 14 year old daughter. Our maybe how he repeatedly lied about polygamy to the world and even his wife.

Indeed, perfect examples of you accepting the perverted anti-mormon versions of those events to the actual facts of the history, for which Apologists promote debunking the anti-mormon versions.

Take for example "lying" about Polygamy. Joseph didn't lie at all. He was accused of practicing polygamy, he wasn't practicing polygamy, he was practicing the Sealing Ordinance. He only had one actual wife. He wasn't living or practicing polygamy. Whether he had relations with others, that's another question for which the evidence is vastly contradictory and any reasonable person shouldn't say ya or nay one way or the other. But, that's a different issue.

Maybe you can excuse those things, but please don't tell me you don't find them ugly. I guess that just shows how evil I am that I find them abhorrent.

Again, what I find ugly is the misrepresentation of truth. Joseph didn't lie. He nor the Church was practicing polygamy, which was the claim. He was honest. Yes, he wasn't forthright in telling all the facts of what was actually occurring (the complicated spiritual sealing ordinance that normal men not schooled would understand), but that again is a different issue. And the other issue, I'll let someone else address.

[Sky]

@williamsmith: you are mistaken. The Church's history includes very upsetting dichotomies that it has never acknowledged much less taught. And the first introduction to them does not come from the "antis" when you refuse to read anti-Mormon literature, it comes from the seekers of the truth who are Mormon scholars in good standing. Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" is my first example of such a book addressing very difficult issues that the Church never has accepted into its "faith-promoting" history....

The Church encourages honest, intellectual inquiry into all aspects of Joseph Smith's life. It has demonstrated this with the Joseph Smith Papers project. But don't expect to see every detail incorporated into Sunday School lessons/manuals. Joseph Smith's polygamy, whatever it encompassed, is not the Gospel as we understand and practice it today.

Our doctrine centers around Jesus Christ and His Atonement, and always has. That is the real meat of the Gospel.

As an example, consider how Joseph promised salvation to the Kimballs in exchange for their 14 year old daughter. Our maybe how he repeatedly lied about polygamy to the world and even his wife.

Maybe you can excuse those things, but please don't tell me you don't find them ugly. I guess that just shows how evil I am that I find them abhorrent.

I don't think you're evil...

But I'm not inclined to throw out the whole legacy of what Joseph gave us just because I may not have a full understanding of this aspect of his life.

I think reserving judgement is in order here.

[sunstoned]

@williamsmith: you are mistaken. The Church's history includes very upsetting dichotomies that it has never acknowledged much less taught. And the first introduction to them does not come from the "antis" when you refuse to read anti-Mormon literature, it comes from the seekers of the truth who are Mormon scholars in good standing. Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" is my first example of such a book addressing very difficult issues that the Church never has accepted into its "faith-promoting" history....

Reading Compton's book was an eye opener for me. I did try to collaborate the material Compton presented with official church sources, but I found nothing. This was my second eye opener.

Edited February 18, 2013 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

Yeah, that's why neither my bishop, not my stake president, not anyone in my ward, not a single soul in my family or my wife's family or any of my Utah friends knows this stuff? Yeah, it is totally obvious. Just because it CAN be found doesn't mean it isn't hidden from view. The church does an exceptional job of discussing people from looking.

Did you try searching LDS.org? Oh wait, never mind.

[Sevenbak]

The authors of the quotes were anonymous, so it's hard to see how the quotes could have "humiliated" them very much.

Daniel, I know this is completely off topic, but your name (and the Church) is being sullied over at Free Republic by a persistent bunch of Mormon bashers, over the Maxwell Institute drama. Thought you might want to know...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2989481/posts

Cheers.

[Sister Gemma]

John Dehlin's survey wasn't designed in such a way that this question could be answered in the scientific way he seems to be implying that it was. Here's why.

The population he targeted in his survey is people who have disaffiliated from the church. Hence, his survey, by the way he has defined his population, does not include people who stayed in the church or returned after being inactive. In other words, his survey includes people who may have had contact with FAIR or other apologists and yet not been convinced, but would not, by the definition of his sample, include people who did find FAIR/apologetics helpful and convincing, as his survey was not designed to include those people. That's fine, as the purpose of his survey was to find out why people leave, but he cannot then go on to draw some of the conclusions he is drawing about FAIR because people who were helped by FAIR were not included as participants, by definition of his survey. There is no way to know from this survey what percentage of people who contacted FAIR were helped. That was not a research question his survey was designed to address. All he can say is that of the people who took his survey and contacted FAIR, most did not find it helpful. That is hardly surprising because if they had found it helpful and returned to the church or not left in the first place, they would not have been eligible to participate in the survey.

Based on my own experience doing and publishing surveys, I know that the peer reviewers of any respectable journal require that authors write a "Limitation" section, clearly describing the limitations of the survey, including the limitations of the sample. It is not always practical or possible to get a random sample, but if the author didn't and used a nonprobability method such as snowball sampling, the limitations really need to be discussed and unwarranted conclusions not drawn.

The quotes from the open-ended question he featured on his PowerPoint presentation represent an even more highly selected sample from within his sample of 3000. It is questionable what conclusions can even be drawn for the individuals who made the statements without getting more of a context, much less generalize them to any larger population.

[ControlFreak]

The Church encourages honest, intellectual inquiry into all aspects of Joseph Smith's life. It has demonstrated this with the Joseph Smith Papers project. But don't expect to see every detail incorporated into Sunday School lessons/manuals. Joseph Smith's polygamy, whatever it encompassed, is not the Gospel as we understand and practice it today.

Our doctrine centers around Jesus Christ and His Atonement, and always has. That is the real meat of the Gospel.

I think it is completely fair to say the church wants to focus on other things.

I think it is completely unfair to deny that the disconcerting, even ugly at times, truths of the gospel are hidden from general view. Whether intentionally hidden out just left alone in the dark corners, they are hidden as evidenced be the fact that the vast majority of members are completely ignorant of their existence.

I don't think you're evil...

But I'm not inclined to throw out the whole legacy of what Joseph gave us just because I may not have a full understanding of this aspect of his life.

I think reserving judgement is in order here.

I'm totally fine with reserving judgement and even coming to a different conclusion. But let's not pretend there aren't any ugly skeletons in the church's closet.

The topic is whether or not apologetics hurts testimonies. My very strong belief, that I think the church is really missing the boat on, is that people come here because it appears church friendly and are genuinely shocked at what they find. Denying this is neither helpful to the church not to those struggling. Calling anyone who takes these things at face value anti-Mormons is equally detrimental.

FWIW, sky, I really appreciate your understanding and open, respectful dialogue. However, many here seem only interested denying, ridiculing or ignoring those who are sincerely hurt by what can feel like a major betrayal of trust. I never have been and never will be an anti-mormon, but if I'm willing to take the historical facts without a heavy dose of rationalization, some treat me like the enemy.

Is that kind of apologetics driving people away? You better believe it. Do I think most official (sorry, can't think of a better word right now) apologists behave that poorly? For the most part, no. But despite the vast interwebs between us, I'm a church loving, 100% right paying, only recently released elders quorum president who hates to see sensitive issues dealt with poorly, because any one of my family members or loved ones could be the next to come here and learn the facts.

[Questing Beast]

Examples please where you have evidence. Not just anti-Mormon sensationalized stories.

Williamsmith can consider this as a response to his response too.

Yes, Todd Compton is an apologist for the Church. As far as I know he's always remained "in good standing". The tone in his "In Sacred Loneliness" is respectful all the way through. His research is thorough. His questions are many. He remains a believer throughout. So anyone reading ISL as a believer, intending to get historical insight into JS's polygamy, and the individual wives' lives, is not going to get something else, but s/he will get more than they bargained for, if they had not known beforehand of polyandry and the sexual aspect of JS's marriages. So this literature is going to stress some testimonies that are based on incomplete historical information, or information presented by the Church in an incomplete manner.

Other books that I consider friendly and even apologetic in that they do not intend to defame the Church, yet remain historically valuable in that they reveal far more of the story than the Church admits, are: Mormon Enigma (Avery and Newell), Mormon Polygamy (Wagoner), An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Palmer), Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling (Bushman). None of these were written (at the time) by disaffected members of the Church, but rather questioning ones....