Does Apologetics Drive People Away From The Church?

[wenglund]

Your points would be valid if they were referring to a different survey. Have you even read Dehlin's report?

http://www.whymormon...ef-Mar20121.pdf

An analogous survey would be if a cable company wanted to find out why people were cancelling their subscriptions. If that was the purpose of the survey, how many people should they talk to that are current customers?

The survey wasn't a "customer satisfaction survey of apologetic organizations" (how would Dehlin even be in a position to conduct such a survey? Only FAIR themselves would know who was using their resources.) Interestingly, the survey itself never appears to mention "FAIR" or "apologetics" (or Dan Peterson), so Dehlin must have been introducing comments that weren't included in the PDF.

As far as I can tell, the survey is a pretty good window into the reasons people leave the Church in the internet age, and if that is something I were intent on preventing, I would pay very close attention to it instead of trying to find reasons (and bad analogies) to dismiss it.

I see this as a valid point, which makes me re-think my unspoken criticism of Dehlin's survey.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Questing Beast]

Quite a bit, actually. But your description of Palmer's book was hilarious.

Its genuineness or lack of genuineness is not relevant to whether it's "apologetic" or not.

Incidentally, your explanation of the "coining" of the term "apologetics" is completely wrong. Plato's famous "Apology" absolutely doesn't feature Socrates telling the "men of Athens" that he was "sorry." It's a forthright defense of his behavior. That's the original meaning of the word: "Defense." Even in English, the sense of "apology" as saying "I'm sorry" is a later and derivative one.

I love it when I'm mistaken, I learn something new.

So actually none of those books I listed are "apologia" in genre. They are sympathetic to some degree, Palmer's being the least so, but still, imho, intended to approach Mormonism with the intent to "save" it. Didn't quite work out that way, did it....

Edited February 20, 2013 by Questing Beast

[go_utes01]

Your points would be valid if they were referring to a different survey. Have you even read Dehlin's report?

http://www.whymormon...ef-Mar20121.pdf

An analogous survey would be if a cable company wanted to find out why people were cancelling their subscriptions. If that was the purpose of the survey, how many people should they talk to that are current customers?

The survey wasn't a "customer satisfaction survey of apologetic organizations" (how would Dehlin even be in a position to conduct such a survey? Only FAIR themselves would know who was using their resources.) Interestingly, the survey itself never appears to mention "FAIR" or "apologetics" (or Dan Peterson), so Dehlin must have been introducing comments that weren't included in the PDF.

As far as I can tell, the survey is a pretty good window into the reasons people leave the Church in the internet age, and if that is something I were intent on preventing, I would pay very close attention to it instead of trying to find reasons (and bad analogies) to dismiss it.

Your analogy, I believe, is a good one. However, it is still only a window into the reasons a select group (i.e. those that are attracted to MormonStories, etc.) leaves the Church in the internet age. While I agree that the results should not be thrown out, I believe it is important to understand the selection bias at play. I do not believe that the majority of member that go inactive, even in the internet age, are because of historical/doctrinal concerns. Many leave within just a few weeks of being baptized and/or live in places where the internet is not that available (for example, I recently served my mission in the Philippines and many of the people we taught had little to no internet access).

Edited February 20, 2013 by go_utes01

[Hamba Tuhan]

They are sympathetic to some degree, Palmer's being the least so, but still, imho, intended to approach Mormonism with the intend to "save" it. Didn't quite work out that way, did it....

By 'save' I'm assuming you meant something along the lines of 'destroy and then attempt to rebuild in one's preferred image'?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I love it when I'm mistaken, I learn something new.

By the way, based on our limited interaction on another thread last week, I rather suspect you'd also love taking one of my history courses then.

[Tacenda]

I see this as a valid point, which makes me re-think my unspoken criticism of Dehlin's survey.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good job Wade, I totally have respect for that. Admitting you may be wrong about something gives me hope that you and others haven't shut your eyes completely to a different answer than the obligatory one. Edited February 20, 2013 by Tacenda

[Questing Beast]

By 'save' I'm assuming you meant something along the lines of 'destroy and then attempt to rebuild in one's preferred image'?

Probably it's complicated and conflicted. But I didn't get any irrational hatred for the LDS faith out of Palmer's "Insider's View". What he feels about the Church now, who can say?...

[Questing Beast]

By the way, based on our limited interaction on another thread last week, I rather suspect you'd also love taking one of my history courses then.

Maybe. It would depend on the subject and the timing....

[wenglund]

Good job Wade, I totally have respect for that. admitting you may be wrong about something gives me hope that you and others haven't shut your eyes completely to a different answer than the obligatory one.

That is nice of you to say.

I have made a concerted effort to be open to differing points of view because I believe it is in my interests to do so. That may not seem to be the case given how infrequently my mind is changed. However, the lack of change of mind hasn't been because of a lack of open-mindedness. Rather, it is due to the failure of those differing points of view to surmount, in terms of persuasive power and value, my own point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

Your analogy, I believe, is a good one. However, it is still only a window into the reasons a select group (i.e. those that are attracted to MormonStories, etc.) leaves the Church in the internet age. While I agree that the results should not be thrown out, I believe it is important to understand the selection bias at play. I do not believe that the majority of member that go inactive, even in the internet age, are because of historical/doctrinal concerns. Many leave within just a few weeks of being baptized and/or live in places where the internet is not that available (for example, I recently served my mission in the Philippines and many of the people we taught had little to no internet access).

Yes, but if I were FAIR or any other person or group that was trying to help internet-connected people stay in the Church, I would look at the survey's table "Specific Historical Factors Contributing to Disbelief" (p.9) and focus most of my resources on those issues (which they already do, obviously, but I would make sure that information is easiest to find and understand).

Edited February 20, 2013 by cinepro

[Helen47]

I watched that video fom Mormon Challenges called "alone" on youtube now. It was well done. The emotional turmoil is something real for many LDS when they find out these things. There is no answer to the BOA question. The Mormon Egyptologist says one has to be either an Egypotologist or a historian to be qualified to comment on the problem. On one side with have Ritner, and Chris Smith. Have Chris and Andrew Cook demolished Gee's lost manuscript argument about the length of the papyri? If someone is somewhat knowledgeable about both sides of the argument Apologist's argument will IMO drive you away from the lds church.

[Daniel Peterson]

Have Chris and Andrew Cook demolished Gee's lost manuscript argument about the length of the papyri?

No.

The final word on that hasn't been spoken.

If someone is somewhat knowledgeable about both sides of the argument Apologist's argument will IMO drive you away from the lds church.

That "somewhat" is potentially problematic.

[Hamba Tuhan]

That "somewhat" is potentially problematic.

'A little learning is a dangerous thing;

'drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

'there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

'and drinking largely sobers us again'.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It's kind of a good point.

I don't want to pretend i know more about people's spiritual struggles than they do, but most of the people that i've heard say they have significant issues with JS's polygamy, have no issues at all with Abraham's polygamy, or Jacob's (through whose polygamy the Lord created His chosen people, the 12 tribes of Israel).

They don't stop to try to reconcile old world plural marriage before they can know for sure whether or not Christianity is of God, so it is interesting that so many do see the need to reconcile JS's polygamy before they can know whether or not the gospel as taught by the LDS religion is of God.

To me, it seems like the question is, if Abraham can be a prophet of God and also a polygamous under somewhat shady circumstances, then why can't JS?

However, like I said before, just because this seems obvious to me doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. I don't doubt the sincerity of such struggles of faith, or that they are probably more complex than they appear from the outside.

I agree that Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jonah all seem just as flawed as Joseph Smith. I have huge problems with many parts of the old testament. I think that Abraham's marriage to Hagar is problematic for many reasons. I personally doubt that Hagar had much consent in the matter. Additionally, Hagar was abandoned by Abraham with their child in the middle of the wilderness. I also have issues with Abraham's almost sacrifice of Isaac. These things really and truly deeply bug me. At the same time, if God maintains a relationship with a flawed person like Abraham, it gives me much hope that he will maintain a relationship with a flawed person like me.

As for Joseph Smith and polygamy, well I am with Eugene England and do not think there is any polygamy in the hereafter. I have no testimony that Joseph Smith was commanded to live polygamy. I have no real issues with polygamy and polyandry assuming that all parties involved consented (don't think its divinely inspired, but I do come from a long line of polygamists). I do think that Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was flawed in that he sneaked around Emma's back, and used spiritual promises of salvation to manipulate some of the women (among other things). On the whole I love Joseph the prophet but think that the Lord really meant it when he said "for unto this end have I raised you up, that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth."

My two cents for the little that its worth.

Edited February 20, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

The talking point du jour seems to be that apologists -- even if one sets aside the alleged nastiness of Peterson et al -- drive people from the Church because the arguments and logic they provide to answer concerns and allay doubts are not satisfactory. To this, I would reply that apologetics, like any form of opinion writing or expression, is more persuasive to some people than it is to others. That is the nature of public discourse. Some hearers and listeners, for one reason or another, are not open to being persuaded. Some, due to prejudice, past influences, or whatever reason are inherently predisposed not to change their minds, no matter how reasonable the argument.

Does it make sense to blame apologists and apologetics organizations for people leaving the Church just because the apologists are not successful in every instance? To say -- implicitly or explicitly -- that they ought not be doing apologetics, because they do more harm than good?

I liken it to the following scenario.

A guard is poised at the edge of a steep mountainside to prevent a group of children from tumbling over the edge. He employs a variety of approaches ranging from gentle persuasion and humor to stringent warning to sharp reproach to outright threats to get them to come away from the edge.

Some heed him. Others, convinced that he is bent on hindering their enjoyment, ignore his warnings. He actually rescues a few just as they are going over the edge and sets them back on safe ground. One or two he grabs as they are going over, but he lacks the strength to hold them. They slip from his grasp and are seriously injured.

Later, at a town meeting, some people assert that the guard should be removed from his post because he has done more harm than good and that his efforts have actually driven children over the edge.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

Apparently I am "one of many reasons why the church is in trouble, and members are bailing out," not only that, but my asking for credible sources is "one reason why" Randall57 himself left the church.

[wenglund]

You see, people leave the church because apologists are mean, but they don't leave the church because anti-Mormons are mean. The solution is obviously to get more mean anti-Mormons. Then everyone will stay.

As funny as that sounds, it may not be beyond the realm of possibilities. It just might occur when certain apologists have been sooo mean they caused themselves to leave the faith and become anti-Mormons. Seeing them now in pathetic action would make any reasonable member think twice about ending up like that. :-/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[Atomic Punk]

As funny as that sounds, it may not be beyond the realm of possibilities. It just might occur when certain apologists have been sooo mean they caused themselves to leave the faith and become anti-Mormons. Seeing them now in pathetic action would make any reasonable member think twice about ending up like that. :-/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh . . . okay. Peace. Wade's right. Kind of the opposite of "if you should labor all your days and save but one soul , , ,"

[Tacenda]

As funny as that sounds, it may not be beyond the realm of possibilities. It just might occur when certain apologists have been sooo mean they caused themselves to leave the faith and become anti-Mormons. Seeing them now in pathetic action would make any reasonable member think twice about ending up like that. :-/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Where is the old Wade England? Where did you put him? Just kidding, but not totally. You come across alot differently to me Wade, of course maybe it's me and I've changed?

[wenglund]

Where is the old Wade England? Where did you put him? Just kidding, but not totally. You come across alot differently to me Wade, of course maybe it's me and I've changed?

Is there an old or new "Wade"? I don't know. When I ask myself, "Who am I." my answer is "24601."

I think it may be that my sense of humor can be so subtle and odd at times that it may not be recognized as such, and can also be interpreted in a variety of different ways that inadvertently make me appear as if I have as many faces as Eve.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

Is there an old or new "Wade"? I don't know. When I ask myself, "Who am I." my answer is "24601."

I think it may be that my sense of humor can be so subtle and odd at times that it may not be recognized as such, and can also be interpreted in a variety of different ways that inadvertently make me appear as if I have as many faces as Eve.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

PM if this isn't the right place or if you even care to answer, but are you related to the late Eugene England? I've always assumed you were. Glad to have you back I think.

[Calm]

PM if this isn't the right place or if you even care to answer, but are you related to the late Eugene England?

Note the spelling...

[Tacenda]

Note the spelling...

I'm such a dunce!

[ERayR]

I'm such a dunce!

Just human.

[Mike Reed]

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)).

If my book is so blantanly false and obviously anti then why do most participants here disagree with you. Why has all feedback that I have had from Latter-day Saint readers been overwhelmingly positive? Why do you suppose that a copy of my thesis can be found in the LDS Church History Library? Here's a possibility: Maybe what you assume is not so obvious after all. Maybe you'd have a different perspective if you actually read the book.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Mike Reed