Does Apologetics Drive People Away From The Church?

[Kevin Christensen]

I do not know. Are apologists being paid to do the work? Are Sacred Funds used to support current apologetics?

We're not paid to do apologetics. I'm a professional technical writer. I have not been paid for my contributions to the FARMS Review, my FARMS Occasional Papers, to FAIR, to Sunstone, to Dialogue, to the Meridian, any of the LDS themed books, or here. The notion of "paid apologists" is a boogeyperson. What you find at FAIR and FARMS and the Interpreter is in general a labor of love.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

I do not know. Are apologists being paid to do the work? Are Sacred Funds used to support current apologetics?

There is one FAIR employee who gets paid and that is the bookstore manager who does no apologetic work that I know of. Everything else which includes hundreds of hours by those most involved is donated and every FAIR member pays for the privilege of being so.

As far as the Maxwell Institute, there were some who were paid for the technical work of getting the articles ready for publishing, such as editing but no payment for the actual writer in my understanding. I believe all of these types of employees were paid through donations to the Institute, someone more knowledgeable will have to say how much, if any funding from BYU went into the apologetic efforts of the MI.

As far as speakers at firesides and conferences, my understanding is in a very few cases where the need is there minimal travel expenses are reimbursed by FAIR itself out of our funds, but no payment for speaking itself, even in nonchurch venues such as the FAIR annual conference and nothing comes from the Church except an occasional article about our conferences reported in the Church News or DN and occasionally a reference from a church spokesman such as Michael Otterson directing people to our site. Most speakers pay for the opportunity themselves just as FAIR members do to answer questions from those in need or to help with the wiki or other projects.

Edited February 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

It appears that Christ needs to revamp his parable of talents so that it rightly places responsibility for the lack of increase in "talent" on the shoulders of someone or something other than the person who received the talents.

Perhaps something analogous to this might work:

Even though a certain piano school has produced an astonishing number of virtuoso pianist, some attendees have quit the school, and aren't to blame for their lack of or loss of talent, but can rightly point a finger at the school and its defenders for having not frequently disclosed during course work, or having weakly defended the fact, that some of the beautiful piano music used by the school, and published by one of the founders, was written while wearing special glasses. This, or some of the private volunteer tutors associated with the school can be blamed for the lack or loss of talent because at times they used witticism in the course of their instruction and corrections.

This makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Now that I think of it there is another group that could be called apologists by some that I tend to forget about because I see them more as promoters of their pet theories rather than defenders of the faith. These individuals put on conferences and tours and at least some of them make a living doing so, but none are endorsed or supported by the Church. They are forbidden to sell their books and other wares in any church facility and some have even been banned from giving firesides. Any income they get is from interested individuals, they do not get funded at all by the church.

These promoters also have no connection with FAiR or FARMS/MI save for being critiqued by them.

Edited February 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I do not know. Are apologists being paid to do the work? Are Sacred Funds used to support current apologetics?

Why did you say "evidently" if you had no knowledge of anyone being paid?

[Scott Lloyd]

... and nothing comes from the Church except an occasional article about our conferences reported in the Church News or DN ....

Moreover, the Deseret News is not supported from "sacred funds." It is self-sustaining through its own earnings from ad sales and subscriptions. And the Church News, which is part of the Deseret News but carries no advertising, is sustained entirely by the Deseret News.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

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.

Well this is not correct. I know of at least one person who took the survery who is not disaffected from the Church and that would be me. I may not view the Church in the same light I did once before but I am still an active participant.

[expressionist]

Why did you say "evidently" if you had no knowledge of anyone being paid?

"Evidently" was an assumption on my part that Sacred Funds would certainly not be used by the Church to support apologetics, but then I wondered if my assumption was incorrect.

[MichelleD]

Well this is not correct. I know of at least one person who took the survery who is not disaffected from the Church and that would be me. I may not view the Church in the same light I did once before but I am still an active participant.

I know of several active members of the church who participated in the survey including me.

[webbles]

I know of several active members of the church who participated in the survey including me.

Taken from the PDF document:

The survey generated 3388 respondents. 302 respondents were removed due to incomplete data or because they answered “yes” to still believing that the Church was “the only true and living church.” A total of 3086 respondents were included in the final analysis.

So you might have taken the survey but if you said yes to that question, then your responses were ignored.

[Daniel Peterson]

Are apologists being paid to do the work?

No.

Are Sacred Funds used to support current apologetics?

No.

[Daniel Peterson]

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....

Richard Bushman is no more a "questioning" member of the Church than I am. He's a friend of mine, and a former bishop and stake president, and a patriarch. He's a believer.

But the idea that Grant Palmer's Insider's View of Mormon Origins is an "apologetic" book has to be, by far, the funniest thing I've read in weeks and weeks.

[Peppermint Patty]

But the idea that Grant Palmer's Insider's View of Mormon Origins is an "apologetic" book has to be, by far, the funniest thing I've read in weeks and weeks.

Daniel,

If you're being honest and that is really the funniest thing you've heard in weeks, it sounds like you need some humor in your life and fast!

Might I suggest renting "What About Bob" on Netflix. If you haven't watched it before, you'll thank me.

[Duncan]

Daniel,

If you're being honest and that is really the funniest thing you've heard in weeks, it sounds like you need some humor in your life and fast!

Might I suggest renting "What About Bob" on Netflix. If you haven't watched it before, you'll thank me.

that's comedy pshaw!!! get "The Burbs", now THAT's comedy!!!

Edited February 19, 2013 by Duncan

[rockpond]

John Dehlin/Mormonstories made this assertion here:

With that, a few questions came to mind.

1) What has Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley said or written that some have found to be so harmful or offensive?

2) Why do certain critics of Mormonism seem to get to say whatever they want? If increasing the quality or respectfulness of the discourse is the desired outcome, shouldn't it come from both sides? Because I see more accusatory tones/uncharitableness/un-Christlike tactics coming from the critics than the other way around.

3) By saying that apologetics destroys faith or is un-Christlike, is this simply a tactic to silence or intimidate or attempt to make irrelevant your ideological opponents?

3) Has your experience with apologetics matched John's description above? Has the Maxwell Institute and FAIR been helpful or harmful to your testimony? What does the Maxwell Institute and FAIR do well, and what could be done to make them better?

4) These questions and inquiries apply to MormonThink, as well.

Thoughts?

My response to the OP as someone who went through a severe crisis of faith and stayed in the church...

1) & 2) I don't want to pass judgement on these two questions without full knowledge but I would imagine that neither side is perfect.

3) (the first #3) I think it is unfair to say that apologetics destroys faith. I also think it is unfair to suggest that Mormon Stories destroys faith.

3) (the second #3) My experience did match Dehlin's description. What I needed during my faith crisis was not the FAIR approach. I needed the discussions I found in the Mormon Stories podcasts. I did seek out both but MS helped me more than FAIR. I would not, however, presume to suggest that that would he the same for everyone. I believe there is room for both.

4) MormonThink strikes me as a site that is more interested in installing doubt than in finding a way to work through it toward faith. So I don't see it as being in the same category as MS, FAIR, and MI. But I do think that FAIR/MI could use MormonThink as a way to know what they should address (Dehlin's Tiger from "Life of Pi" analogy).

[Sky]

My response to the OP as someone who went through a severe crisis of faith and stayed in the church...

1) & 2) I don't want to pass judgement on these two questions without full knowledge but I would imagine that neither side is perfect.

3) (the first #3) I think it is unfair to say that apologetics destroys faith. I also think it is unfair to suggest that Mormon Stories destroys faith.

3) (the second #3) My experience did match Dehlin's description. What I needed during my faith crisis was not the FAIR approach. I needed the discussions I found in the Mormon Stories podcasts. I did seek out both but MS helped me more than FAIR. I would not, however, presume to suggest that that would he the same for everyone. I believe there is room for both.

4) MormonThink strikes me as a site that is more interested in installing doubt than in finding a way to work through it toward faith. So I don't see it as being in the same category as MS, FAIR, and MI. But I do think that FAIR/MI could use MormonThink as a way to know what they should address (Dehlin's Tiger from "Life of Pi" analogy).

I'm happy that you found your way through your faith crisis. That couldn't have been easy.

[Calm]

that's comedy pshaw!!! get "The Burbs", now THAT's comedy!!!

Marx Brothers....

[Duncan]

Marx Brothers....

Now you're talking my language! I LOVE the Marx brothers! Groucho said he first met Charlie Chaplin in my fair city when Chaplin was in Vaudeville and the Marx bros. were switching trains

[Sky]

FWIW...FAIR provided a response to the MormonThink website. I'm grateful that they did this, and hope we will see more along these lines in the future. Is it this type of thing that some people object to regarding apologetics, simply because it's perceived as being confrontational? Would the better approach to be to cower in the corner in silence, or simply to disengage with our critics?

I can understand not liking confrontation, but some things merit a response, and I believe MormonThink is one of them.

[emarkp]

And it's all *your* fault.

Yout sir win 1 Internetz

[Rivers]

For me, the most effective type apologetics is when well-informed, intelligent, and thoughtful members of the church openly discuss their own personal thoughts and perspectives on the church and controversial issues. I found Terryl Givens' and Bro. Peterson's Mormon Stories interviews to be especially helpful. I also enjoyed the interviews with Mike Ash and Don Bradley on the FAIR podcast. I am more interested in their own personal insights on certain things than answers to all of the little questions.

I agree that not all apologetic answers are satisfactory. But you have to give them credit for all the hard work they put into researching all if the difficult issues.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Rivers

[Judd]

that's comedy pshaw!!! get "The Burbs", now THAT's comedy!!!

Funny, I was just watching that with my kids a couple hours ago. I looked up some of the cast and the youngest Klopek apparently was in Back to the Future as well as some Seinfeld episode. Not sure who he was in either.

[Rivers]

that's comedy pshaw!!! get "The Burbs", now THAT's comedy!!!

I would also recommend the TV show "Psych."

[Calm]

FWIW...FAIR provided a response to the MormonThink website. I'm grateful that they did this, and hope we will see more along these lines in the future.

If there is a particular site that interests you, please feel free to write FAIR and suggest it, though we tend to do few sites since most are simply repetitions of each other and it is more efficient to treat individual criticisms.

[Duncan]

Funny, I was just watching that with my kids a couple hours ago. I looked up some of the cast and the youngest Klopek apparently was in Back to the Future as well as some Seinfeld episode. Not sure who he was in either.

I think one of the funniest lines ever uttered in 1980's comedies is "satan is good, satan is your pal" oh man, gets me everytime!