Women And Apologetics

[stemelbow]

I agree Stemelbow. As Kevin pointed out, it is very hard to get women to speak at conferences. The apologetic well has been poisoned to the point that it is set against scholarship....which is bizarre when the defenders of the church graduate from the same universities as the accusers.

 

I sensed that for the two women "apologists" are a different species and don't do the same scholarship everyone else does.  They have created such a narrow and phobic view of "apologetics" that the accusation of having decided the outcome before researching the problem is frequently used. That, of course, is what happens in all scholarship because research is a process. You look around, find something that interests you, see a pattern, create a theory....and then research like crazy to create the outcome you want. And boy, once scholars have established turf in an area they will defend it to their deaths. I heard some great stories about that in my grad seminars. It has become a hello???? type thing to me at this point.  We are still in the if I do it, it is unbiased scholarship. If you do it, it is twisted research. So last season.

Wow. I've never seen it so well put before. It all maeks it feel like there's not a real open dialogue out there...it's all hidden behind agenda trying to shut out certain voices or something.

Anyway, thanks for that. I liked it. And thanks for this thread.

[juliann]

I do have to say that in the earlier days of online defending, those who were not by the book Mormons were not treated well. They come to their anger and suspicion honestly. But they are now doing what they are rightfully complaining about being done to them and spreading the message to those who may not have even read anything other than people arguing on blogs and FB.

 

So what we need, perhaps, is a definition of what defending the church (or "apologetics) really is. And this can't even begin until the players and products are recognized...anymore than anyone could write an article about what scholars think without mentioning names or journals or something concrete.

 

For example, I would consider Mormon Women Stand to be defending the faith. Thus, apologetic. But it isn't in the same world as FairMormon.  This becomes important if we are to determine anything about women in apologetics. So as I am typing this, it occurs to me that maybe the rumble begins when apologetics collides with scholarship.  hmmmm  So women just don't engage in scholarly apologetics much? 

[ERayR]

I do have to say that in the earlier days of online defending, those who were not by the book Mormons were not treated well. They come to their anger and suspicion honestly. But they are now doing what they are rightfully complaining about being done to them and spreading the message to those who may not have even read anything other than people arguing on blogs and FB.

 

So what we need, perhaps, is a definition of what defending the church (or "apologetics) really is. And this can't even begin until the players and products are recognized...anymore than anyone could write an article about what scholars think without mentioning names or journals or something concrete.

 

For example, I would consider Mormon Women Stand to be defending the faith. Thus, apologetic. But it isn't in the same world as FairMormon.  This becomes important if we are to determine anything about women in apologetics. So as I am typing this, it occurs to me that maybe the rumble begins when apologetics collides with scholarship.  hmmmm  So women just don't engage in scholarly apologetics much? 

 

I think there are lot of men who don't either.

[Nofear]

Are you accusing some women of Zeal Without Knowledge? Dangerous stuff (not the accusation, the state of zeal without knowledge). Indeed, some great damage can be done by "apologists" who lack the knowledge. Historically, when women have taken to a cause, many times there has been great zeal. I see that today too. Yet, some of it is without the proper tempering of facts and understanding.

[Nofear]

I think there are lot of men who don't either.

It's almost like you read a discussion board formerly named after Mormon apologetics?

[ERayR]

Are you accusing some women of Zeal Without Knowledge? Dangerous stuff (not the accusation, the state of zeal without knowledge). Indeed, some great damage can be done by "apologists" who lack the knowledge. Historically, when women have taken to a cause, many times there has been great zeal. I see that today too. Yet, some of it is without the proper tempering of facts and understanding.

 

Just because one doesn't engage in scholarly pursuits does not mean they lack knowledge.

[bluebell]

I do have to say that in the earlier days of online defending, those who were not by the book Mormons were not treated well. They come to their anger and suspicion honestly. But they are now doing what they are rightfully complaining about being done to them and spreading the message to those who may not have even read anything other than people arguing on blogs and FB.

 

So what we need, perhaps, is a definition of what defending the church (or "apologetics) really is. And this can't even begin until the players and products are recognized...anymore than anyone could write an article about what scholars think without mentioning names or journals or something concrete.

 

For example, I would consider Mormon Women Stand to be defending the faith. Thus, apologetic. But it isn't in the same world as FairMormon.  This becomes important if we are to determine anything about women in apologetics. So as I am typing this, it occurs to me that maybe the rumble begins when apologetics collides with scholarship.  hmmmm  So women just don't engage in scholarly apologetics much? 

 

This makes sense.

 

I personally wouldn't consider myself an apologist because when i think of that term i think of it applied to someone with some real scholarship behind them-people with degrees who 'work' in the field.  I don't really think of an apologist as a defender of the faith, even though it's obviously a valid definition of the word.

[saemo]

A question for the women here who speak up for the church: Do you identify as an "apologist?" If not, would you identify as a defender of the church?

 

Why is  "apologetics?" so male dominated?

 

If you are critical of some aspects of the church, do you think that disqualifies you as being an "apologist" or defender?

 

If you do consider yourself a defender of the church, what motivates you?

 

Where are you most comfortable?  (Blogs, message boards, publishing, etc.)

 

I'd appreciate any and all input from women who are putting themselves out there. I think it makes you quite unique and would like to know more about the dynamics from your perspectives.

My father in law once told me that women have made strides in the work place and male dominated fields because men ALLOW them to. Yup, that went over really well with me, but indicates how a lot of men view women and themselves. It takes a paradigm change, in men and women, to stop viewing women as in competition with men, and men letting the girls win.

[juliann]

This makes sense.

 

I personally wouldn't consider myself an apologist because when i think of that term i think of it applied to someone with some real scholarship behind them-people with degrees who 'work' in the field.  I don't really think of an apologist as a defender of the faith, even though it's obviously a valid definition of the word.

 

Do you consider yourself a defender of the faith?

[Tacenda]

Do you consider yourself a defender of the faith?

I think she's already a proven defender of the faith, she gives well thought out answers to some of my guff, and knows her stuff! Edited January 13, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Well maybe it comes from the idea that Eve partook of the fruit and thus the male is in charge because of it, and it spiraled from there. But our saving grace is that just maybe it is all man made thinking for their gain or is an allegory? Oh boy, I better take cover.

There are plenty of nonBiblical cultures where men are in charge though....

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................

..........................................former bishops are still called bishop so and so in our ward (which shouldn't be.) 

...............................................  

Once called and set apart a bishop remains a bishop for life, even when he is released, so the title is not only honorific.

[Yirgacheffe]

I don't believe this is about blaming men at all.  It's not unusual to find out that we as women are our worst enemies and that we are treated a specific way precisely because we have taught that group of people to treat us like that.

 

I think this is about understanding the momentum that has lead to some discrepancy between how men and women use their voice at church and then trying to understanding how to halt that momentum.  

I agree, but that's always how this goes and it becomes all about the men being blamed.

[mfbukowski]

Once called and set apart a bishop remains a bishop for life, even when he is released, so the title is not only honorific.

That's because it is an actual priesthood office which doesn't go away either, of course.  If a bishop is called to be a bishop a second or third time, he is only set apart, he need not be ordained again.  But often the title is more of a burden than an honorific.  It is inescapable, and one cannot ever again just be "brother x" or just plain old "Bob". to pick a name.  You walk into a party with a few close friends and everyone calls you bishop, and won't stop, even if you ask them.  People you do not know come up to you in stores and say "Hi Bishop!" because they know you from a different ward.

 

And you go on a discussion board, and mention it, and then you are perceived as "pulling rank" even if you are the dumbest person there.  This is not a complaint, it's just the facts of life.  People expect you to be perfect at all times.  But of course in my case, I already am  perfect so its not a problem.  Except for that typo I left just to show my humanity. 

[Yirgacheffe]

I disagree. It is only about men if the men make it about men.

When ever I've seen someone ask women "why do women" or "why don't women" it is turned into a conversation about men, about the only forums I don't see this on are sewing/quilting.

[why me]

This phenomenon has been observed in schoolgirls not responding in class as much as boys, perhaps because it was not considered good form for a girl.  This has been changing in the West, and women now outnumber men in many university graduate schools.

 

Within the LDS community this development has come more slowly, where the mere existence of male religious leadership tends to diminish expectations for women to lead in secular areas of endeavor (business, medicine, industry, etc.), perhaps due to the emphasis on marriage and homemaking.  However, LDS women are obtaining increased political and business power, and there are more significant female defenders of the faith now than in the past century, e.g., Ann Madsen, Gayle Strathearn, Neylan McBaine, Julie Smith (no relation), Valerie Hudson, et al.   In early Mormonism (throughout the 19th century) LDS women had far more responsibility and power.

Although this is true, a main factor is not addressed: the lack of critical thinking in our society, a critical thinking which encourages people to think outside the box and see the forest for trees. We also must remember that most people in USA society may lack a critical voice to stand up for a truth. This critical voice would allow people the opportunity to engage with people with critical judgement about what they are deliberating about. I think that this is lacking in lds culture. Narrative acceptance without a critical reflection of such a truth found in the narrative can create weak members and weak defenders of the faith.

[why me]

.

 

I sensed that for the two women "apologists" are a different species and don't do the same scholarship everyone else does.  They have created such a narrow and phobic view of "apologetics" that the accusation of having decided the outcome before researching the problem is frequently used. That, of course, is what happens in all scholarship because research is a process. You look around, find something that interests you, see a pattern, create a theory....and then research like crazy to create the outcome you want. And boy, once scholars have established turf in an area they will defend it to their deaths. I heard some great stories about that in my grad seminars. It has become a hello???? type thing to me at this point.  We are still in the if I do it, it is unbiased scholarship. If you do it, it is twisted research. So last season.

Academics also create an argument and seek out to defend their argument. Most academic scholarship would need some form of critical judgement about the material being researched. This critical judgement is now perhaps on the decline as more and more people accept truths without critically reflecting on such given truths. I think that most research would need to be biased by theory or ideology. I don't think that research that would advocate a position can be unbiased. However, a good crtical thinker always approaches knowledge with an empty blackboard, advocating a position and yet, willing to modify such a poition based on new knowledge that may come forth. And adopting such knowledge into their own position of truth. Those academics who approach knowledge with a full blackboard have difficulties in modifying their position and in accepting new knowledge that may cause them to iron out their own positions.

 

The internet has created populations who surf the internet for confirmation bias. We see this with lds people who have left the church and the information that they then search for from critical sites of the lds church. This also creates a problem for apologists who must counter such confirmation biasness. Not an easy task since the happening may have occured but can offer just a differing interpretation. So, how to confront a world that is becoming more non-critical? And where is a woman's or a man's place in it?

Edited January 13, 2015 by why me

[Nofear]

Just because one doesn't engage in scholarly pursuits does not mean they lack knowledge.

Nor have I said or implied such.

Nonetheless, it remains that a lot of the most damaging stuff to the Church comes from members, male and female, who rush to defend and do so from a position of ignorance and myopia. That was a problem for the Church in the late 1900's and for that reason FAIR and other organizations rose to more intelligently respond to the (scholarly) wiles of the Adversary. And indeed, much of that has been met and countered by faithful LDS scholars.

A new front has risen anew on the front of gender issues. Many zealous members rush to defend calling out, "All is well in Zion" but are largely ignorant of things that need improvement or the issues at hand (this board provides ample evidence to that effect).

I think (but cannot pretend to speak for her) that one of the things Juliann bemoans is the fact that we don't have a lot of women on the scholarly front motivated in the same way apologists were in the prior battle-font faced by LDS apologetics. And if that need is not met the Adversary will acquire an avoidably higher body count.

I see the question of the OP as being "Why not? Where are our apologists and defenders for this new battle front?"

[ERayR]

Nor have I said or implied such.

Nonetheless, it remains that a lot of the most damaging stuff to the Church comes from members, male and female, who rush to defend and do so from a position of ignorance and myopia. That was a problem for the Church in the late 1900's and for that reason FAIR and other organizations rose to more intelligently respond to the (scholarly) wiles of the Adversary. And indeed, much of that has been met and countered by faithful LDS scholars.

A new front has risen anew on the front of gender issues. Many zealous members rush to defend calling out, "All is well in Zion" but are largely ignorant of things that need improvement or the issues at hand (this board provides ample evidence to that effect).

I think (but cannot pretend to speak for her) that one of the things Juliann bemoans is the fact that we don't have a lot of women on the scholarly front motivated in the same way apologists were in the prior battle-font faced by LDS apologetics. And if that need is not met the Adversary will acquire an avoidably higher body count.

I see the question of the OP as being "Why not? Where are our apologists and defenders for this new battle front?"

 

Agreed

[juliann]

I agree, but that's always how this goes and it becomes all about the men being blamed.

 

Oh, yes...I see what you mean. We have had problems with that on Mormon Women Connect and when men are asked not to make it about men many have gotten angry and have left or have been asked to leave.

 

 

 

I see the question of the OP as being "Why not? Where are our apologists and defenders for this new battle front?"

 

Yes, but not in the sense of a rallying cry.  I only want to take a look at why defending the church is such a male dominated endeavor. And that doesn't imply that there aren't legitimate reasons.  One of the frequently cited reasons for women is time. When you can't even go to the bathroom by yourself if you are home with children, it isn't likely you are going to be able to get to the computer. ;-)

[tonie]

Yes, but not in the sense of a rallying cry.  I only want to take a look at why defending the church is such a male dominated endeavor. And that doesn't imply that there aren't legitimate reasons.  One of the frequently cited reasons for women is time. When you can't even go to the bathroom by yourself if you are home with children, it isn't likely you are going to be able to get to the computer. ;-)

 

 

What makes one an "apologist" in your opinion?

[bluebell]

Do you consider yourself a defender of the faith?

I suppose I do.

It's not a title I would come up with on my own but it fits how I spend a lot of my time and energy.

[Nofear]

For my part, I think Dr. Peterson has a nice commentary on apologetics, what it is and why it is important, and response to criticism about apologetics.
 
The Role of Apologetics in Mormon Studies
 
And I think there is definite room for apologetics to be applied to gender issues and the Gospel. As C.S. Lewis put it (quote from the article cited above):

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. (C.S. Lewis)

[why me]

 

 

 

 

Yes, but not in the sense of a rallying cry.  I only want to take a look at why defending the church is such a male dominated endeavor.

Apologetics are also seen as being rather aggressive and maybe many women do not want to be aggressive when dealing with opposing ideas. However, when apologetics are seen to be academic, maybe more will feel comfortable in using their intelligience in defending the faith. We did see women coming out against ordain women however. This may mean that apologetics in general may not be seen as having a close relationship to women. So, women may not feel a connection with apologetics.

[Thinking]

Why is  "apologetics?" so male dominated?

 

Women are perfect. They don't need to apologize for anything. Men need to apologize for everything!