Greg Smith'S Review Of Dehlin'S "Mormon Stories" Is Now Available

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see the same level of vile and vulgarity from the faithful towards the less faithful that those who have left direct at the defenders. But I am amazed at time still at the spite and cynicism I see from those who claim to be saints of Jesus Christ. Those who profess to follow him are, right or wrong, held to a higher standard.

Be that as it may, those who understand the higher standard on the part of those they interact with and then try through their own behavior and language to provoke hostility in discourse are dastardly indeed.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

In fact, now that I reflect on it, an apt question to ask someone who is struggling -- or for the struggler to ask him/herself -- is this: Do you want to have your questions resolved, or are you merely seeking to have your doubts validated?

That could go a long way toward ascertaining motive and true desire.

It seems to me that an apologist's self-defined role is to resolve questions, not to validate doubts. Therefore, my hunch is that the problems questioners say they have with apologists might stem from the fact that the apologist is trying to resolve the question when the questioner only wants to have his/her doubts validated. They are thus at cross purposes. Accordingly, the questioner becomes annoyed or angry and makes charges against the apologist such as "He drove me out of the Church."

Perhaps the doubter has reached a point where the answers are not going the bring them back. People really do decide that what they once believed is no longer true. This happens in all faiths. Heck it happens when missionaries convert someone. And we are then quite happy that the convert does not believe one thing in exchange for what he believe. But when it goes the other way, well then there must be a flaw and now the person seeks validation.

And perhaps that is true for some. Others may be seeking those like them for understanding which I guess is a form of validation. But I see this as no different than faithful members attending church each week, going to the temple, socializing with like believers. Such activities solidify ones faith as much as perhaps the doubters solidify their doubts in other venues.

[Louis Midgley]

I don't see the same level of vile and vulgarity from the faithful towards the less faithful that those who have left direct at the defenders. But I am amazed at time still at the spite and cynicism I see from those who claim to be saints of Jesus Christ. Those who profess to follow him are, right or wrong, held to a higher standard.

Where do you see this cynicism and spite in what has been done by FAIR? And held by whom to a higher standard? God is, of course, for the faithful, the judge. But this is not so for the critics, which seems to free them to pound without scruples.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not sure I agree. Or would you agree that believer need their beliefs validated? Sort of like a monthly testimony meeting? Or going the the FAIR conference. Or even the activity of being an apologist? If it works one way it works the other as well.

Everyone needs his beliefs validated. But seeking to have one's doubts, not beliefs, validated is quite a different thing.

I'm searching here for a model as to why the respondents in Dehlin's survey, for example, accused apologists of driving them out of the Church when the apologists were only trying to help. And I don't buy it that apologists, by and large, have done more harm than good.

The model I have come up with here makes sense to me.

[Tacenda]

The "stuff" in your post that I specifically quoted in my requested CFR. Obviously. You insinuated that people here figured "Mormon Stories is such a bad forum." I am asking you who is saying it is a "bad forum"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What's the whole piece about? Is it John only? Or Mormon Stories. I'm nodding my head yes. Edited February 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps the doubter has reached a point where the answers are not going the bring them back. People really do decide that what they once believed is no longer true.

In which case, I don't buy it that the apologist is to blame.

[Teancum]

It depends on what you mean by "tolerate," I suppose.

If you're talking about ideas and notions contradicting the core doctrines and principles of the gospel being endowed with equal standing and stature validity to those doctrines and principles; if you are talking envisioning debates occurring in Sunday School and priesthood classes over core doctrines and principles; then I think you are holding out a vain hope.

And no, I don't believe the Prophet Joseph Smith would have approved of such a thing.

Nope I hold out no such notion as you outline above.. I have no desire to cast doubts for anyone. I do engage in lively debate in priesthood quorum at times and in other meetings but I promise I keep is within orthodoxy. Any doubts I have I may talk to a few friends about that are close. But at church I toe the line. I have no desire to change the Church to any agenda of mine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope I hold out no such notion as you outline above.. I have no desire to cast doubts for anyone. I do engage in lively debate in priesthood quorum at times and in other meetings but I promise I keep is within orthodoxy. Any doubts I have I may talk to a few friends about that are close. But at church I toe the line. I have no desire to change the Church to any agenda of mine.

I'm OK with that, except that I'm uncomfortable with debate in Church classes. As a gospel doctrine teacher, i would not have tolerated it.

[Teancum]

Where do you see this cynicism and spite in what has been done by FAIR? And held by whom to a higher standard? God is, of course, for the faithful, the judge. But this is not so for the critics, which seems to free them to pound without scruples.

I did not say FAIR Lou. And do you really need to ask what standard. Read what Elder Ballard has said about interecting with those who disagree with you especially online. Disciples of Christ are held to a higher standard by, well Christ. Can you tell me that there is not a lot of posting here by defenders that would be outside of that higher standard?

[Louis Midgley]

Perhaps the doubter has reached a point where the answers are not going the bring them back. People really do decide that what they once believed is no longer true. This happens in all faiths. Heck it happens when missionaries convert someone. And we are then quite happy that the convert does not believe one thing in exchange for what he believe. But when it goes the other way, well then there must be a flaw and now the person seeks validation.

And perhaps that is true for some. Others may be seeking those like them for understanding which I guess is a form of validation. But I see this as no different than faithful members attending church each week, going to the temple, socializing with like believers. Such activities solidify ones faith as much as perhaps the doubters solidify their doubts in other venues.

I can't figure out where the energy you manifest defending those who attack the faith of the Saints comes from. Why do we need to validate they apostasy for them? The ones we are talking about are simply not some Latter-day Saints with doubts, but those who have turned against their former faith and are now making war against it. Read the comments on Mormon Stories that follow John Dehlin's comment on Greg Smith's paper. They are not challenging Greg's picture of what is going on with Mormon Stories but celebrating it. They denounce Greg Smith the same way they denounce the faith itself. Those comments are additional evidence the Greg got it exactly right, are they not?

[wenglund]

What's the whole piece about? Is it John only? Or Mormon Stories. I'm nodding my head yes.

...and I am scratching my head wondering how you think this supports your assertion. Please clarify

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[Tacenda]

I'm OK with that, except that I'm uncomfortable with debate in Church classes. As a gospel doctrine teacher, i would not have tolerated it.

I didn't know you're a GD teacher! How many people that teach GD, do you think know church history to the extent you do?

[Bill Hamblin]

I can't figure out where the energy you manifest defending those who attack the faith of the Saints comes from. Why do we need to validate they apostasy for them? The ones we are talking about are simply not some Latter-day Saints with doubts, but those who have turned against their former faith and are now making war against it. Read the comments on Mormon Stories that follow John Dehlin's comment on Greg Smith's paper. They are not challenging Greg's picture of what is going on with Mormon Stories but celebrating it. They denounce Greg Smith the same way they denounce the faith itself. Those comments are additional evidence the Greg got it exactly right, are they not?

Exactly.

[Teancum]

Everyone needs his beliefs validated. But seeking to have one's doubts, not beliefs, validated is quite a different thing.

I'm searching here for a model as to why the respondents in Dehlin's survey, for example, accused apologists of driving them out of the Church when the apologists were only trying to help. And I don't buy it that apologists, by and large, have done more harm than good.

The model I have come up with here makes sense to me.

Well doubts in a way may become belief. A person may say they no longer believe JS is a prophet, or that there is a God.

I don't buy the argument that apologists are drving people out of the Church either by the way.

[Teancum]

I'm OK with that, except that I'm uncomfortable with debate in Church classes. As a gospel doctrine teacher, i would not have tolerated it.

Debate may be the wrong word. Discussions, thought provoking questions that are within the realm of the topics is a better way to put it.

[Teancum]

I can't figure out where the energy you manifest defending those who attack the faith of the Saints comes from. Why do we need to validate they apostasy for them? The ones we are talking about are simply not some Latter-day Saints with doubts, but those who have turned against their former faith and are now making war against it. Read the comments on Mormon Stories that follow John Dehlin's comment on Greg Smith's paper. They are not challenging Greg's picture of what is going on with Mormon Stories but celebrating it. They denounce Greg Smith the same way they denounce the faith itself. Those comments are additional evidence the Greg got it exactly right, are they not?

I am really not sure how you get this from my comments. Take a breath please.

I have not read the comments so I am not sure why you think I am defending anything. And I do not defend hostility and angry retorts from anyone. And you don't have to validate squat for anyone. On the other hand have you ever considered that there is a chance that you may be wrong? See you operate from an a priori assumption that you have the absolute truth. And maybe you do. But maybe not.

But can you so badly miss my point? You would cheer for someone who would reject the faith of their fathers for yours yet you hold those who decide that there is something else for them who were once LDS believers in derision. Why is that?

[Teancum]

Exactly.

Rah! Rah! Zisboombah!

[Louis Midgley]

It seems to me that an apologist's self-defined role is to resolve questions, not to validate doubts.

This is the key to figuring out what has from at least middle of 2006 has separated those who seek to help those with questions from one who has gathered a following by validating their having made a choice not to believe. One might call the validators of unfaith the apologist for apostasy. Appearing to provide a so-called "safe space" for any to opine and by interviewing all kinds of people, including those who not only do not believe but are hostile to the faith of the Saints. The excuse for doing this is that one ought to hear both sides and hence make an "informed decision." But the one doing this hardly is a model for solid information on virtually any aspect of the faith of the Saints. That becomes clear obvious by listening to a few episodes of Mormon Stories. Now all of this is set out in Greg's essay, is it not?

[Louis Midgley]

I am really not sure how you get this from my comments. Take a breath please.

I have not read the comments so I am not sure why you think I am defending anything. And I do not defend hostility and angry retorts from anyone. And you don't have to validate squat for anyone. On the other hand have you ever considered that there is a chance that you may be wrong? See you operate from an a priori assumption that you have the absolute truth. And maybe you do. But maybe not.

But can you so badly miss my point? You would cheer for someone who would reject the faith of their fathers for yours yet you hold those who decide that there is something else for them who were once LDS believers in derision. Why is that?

If you have not read those comments on "Moving Foward," then perhaps you ought to give it a go. And, I have been wrong, and I am do not think that I have something called "the absolute truth." I have, instead, what I consider good reasons for faith in God as that is set out in the core narrative that constitutes the ground and content of the faith of the Saints. I am, of course, delighted to see the transformation that takes place in those who come to faith, or return to faith. I find it sad when someone turns against God and adopts as their new religion hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ coupled, most often, with an arid militant atheism. Don't you? If not, then why not?

[Mayan Elephant]

Some may have heard that an agnostic French King once said that "Paris is worth a Mass." With this in mind, I am a bit troubled, actually very disappointed, by the comments in support of John on his own website.I still hold out hope.

i hope you are not wondering why so many people despise you. You may not agree with them, but it must be clear when you write and share comments like these that you are being unkind, at best.

[Louis Midgley]

...you hold those who decide that there is something else for them who were once LDS believers in derision.

Why is that?

I do not hold those who go missing in derision. I am saddened by their decision. I have tried hard as missionary and in my academic endeavors to provide one of the lower light burning for some seamen lost out their in the darkness of this disconsolate world. You insist on painting a image of me as a arrogant bully puffed up with myself. I don't this is helpful at all in this conversation.

[Mayan Elephant]

I do not hold those who go missing in derision. I am saddened by their decision. I have tried hard as missionary and in my academic endeavors to provide one of the lower light burning for some seamen lost out their in the darkness of this disconsolate world. You insist on painting a image of me as a arrogant bully puffed up with myself. I don't this is helpful at all in this conversation.

there is no need, Lou, for anyone to paint a caricature of you. you painted it yourself. you are sad when another person, even someone from your same church, get support. you would rather the person be abandoned and hurt. you said it yourself. nobody is painting. i quoted it above if you need a "CFR."

[Pahoran]

there is no need, Lou, for anyone to paint a caricature of you. you painted it yourself. you are sad when another person, even someone from your same church, get support. you would rather the person be abandoned and hurt.

CFR, please.

you said it yourself. nobody is painting. i quoted it above if you need a "CFR."

Unfortunately, what you quoted above does not support your baseless personal attack.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Louis Midgley]

Pahoran:

It is hopeless to try to reason with those who are porangi and filled with riri. (Check Williams, 7th edition (1971.)

Louis

[Louis Midgley]

there is no need, Lou, for anyone to paint a caricature of you. you painted it yourself. you are sad when another person, even someone from your same church, get support. you would rather the person be abandoned and hurt. you said it yourself. nobody is painting. i quoted it above if you need a "CFR."

Still more bunk!