Scott Gordon On The Meaning Of 'apologetics'

[Mars]

It's tough not to feel defensive.

 

Even when a critic is being totally fair, these are sacred things.  If the critic is right, it means a lot of turmoil for me.

[Nevo]

And Bushman is probably one of the more even handed LDS Historians out there.  This puts that in even better perspective.

 

I agree with Bushman completely. That essay is one of my favorites and one that I have quoted many times on this and other boards. Sure, pure objectivity is an ideal that probably doesn't exist in the real world. But, like Bushman, I find it "very hard to relinquish faith in some measure of objective scholarship. We all can think of utterly biased and self-serving scholarship that we are sure would not hold up under scrutiny, or history writing that is filled with factual errors. We want to reserve the right to correct this corrupted work in the name of some kind of objective truth."

 

I don't think "utterly biased and self-serving scholarship" gets a pass because there's no such thing as a completely objective scholar.

 

[stemelbow]

It's tough not to feel defensive.

 

Even when a critic is being totally fair, these are sacred things.  If the critic is right, it means a lot of turmoil for me.

Sure. But in another sense, it ain't that hard. It's all dependent on mood for me, rather than the quality of the arguments posed. SOmetimes I'm just ready to get defensive, and sometimes i'm sitting pretty ready to hear any old critique of my argument or position and not be bothered.

Another thing I noticed long ago. if the critical position has a good argument, granting their position isn't going to cause me turmoil quite often. Most often it causes me to go, "oops...I didn't look at it from that angle. But, in the end, I can still be a believer so oh well."

[Mars]

Those who posture as "balanced" and "objective" are only kidding themselves. Peter Novick pointed this out to a shocked group of LDS historians at a Sunstone many years ago, who subsequently ignored everything he said, and didn't bother to publish his address.

From

Peter Novick, “Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New.” A talk delivered at the 1989 Sunstone Symposium held at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Also from Richard Bushman, The Social Dimensions of Rationality:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=8

The best we can do, Alan Goff says, is to openly expose and admit the implications of our own ideologies, rather than pretend we are objective and that other people are tainted and unreliable apologists.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

"Truth in advertising."

[KevinG]

I agree with Bushman completely. That essay is one of my favorites and one that I have quoted many times on this and other boards. Sure, pure objectivity is an ideal that probably doesn't exist in the real world. But, like Bushman, I find it "very hard to relinquish faith in some measure of objective scholarship. We all can think of utterly biased and self-serving scholarship that we are sure would not hold up under scrutiny, or history writing that is filled with factual errors. We want to reserve the right to correct this corrupted work in the name of some kind of objective truth."

 

I don't think "utterly biased and self-serving scholarship" gets a pass because there's no such thing as a completely objective scholar.

 

 

I'm agreeing with you...  where have I gone wrong?  

[juliann]

 

Right. And that is what creates the adversarial dynamic. One side argues one position and the other side argues the opposite position. There's a prosecutor and a defender. And the discussion plays out in predictable ways. No one ever changes their mind. Maybe this doesn't apply to all apologetics, but it applies to a good deal of it. Including much of what is found on FairMormon.org.

I am puzzled by the question begging. What is your expectation of an apology? To date, it seems to be a defense that concedes as much as it defends. It is like complaining that a dressmaker only makes dresses. Not to mention Kevin's observation about the myth of objectivity.  I am scratching my head over your expectations. This is not something I would have ever expected from you and I have studiously followed you since ZLMB because of your insight.  So I remain puzzled.

 

What I do have to strongly object to, however, is your representation that no one changes their mind. There is no way, no way, you can have been around this long and not noted the changes.  You can go back to how race was dealt with in the early days. No one ever admitted to racism then. There would have been no acknowledgment that the ban could have been wrong. (I hesitate using this example because of the inevitable derail that will ensue.) I think the most striking example is the acknowledgment that the church has overlooked women for too long. I track this by how many women I have seen that rejected any indication of problems with over emphasis on gender roles who are now openly talking about it. The concessions over things like polygamy has been long in coming but it is here. What generally happens on the more encompassing issues like polygamy is that someone comes in and tries to clean up. I am not the only one who has some concerns about Hales theology, for example.  But that is a signal that minds have indeed changed. The church essays are a signal that minds have changed. The changes in manuals are a signal minds have changed. There has been a lot of "apologetic" mind changing going on before those essays ever came out. Somebody has to come up with the material and approach used. The FM wiki is under constant revision in response to criticism.

 

What isn't going to change is the support for the church, even during "you didn't just say that..."  events, such as Elder Oaks' inserting the no apology clause into an otherwise stunning discussion. Which, BTW, showcased some minds changing. (Oaks acknowledged needed work when it comes to  transgenderism. )

 

You may not be paying close attention or simply aren't in a position to see all of this. The change may not be enough, or fast enough...certainly not for "critics."  But to say no minds have ever been changed is not just unfair...it is demonstrably untrue. But if your only measure of needed (and I think natural) progression is that random individuals in places like this bow their head and concede to often nasty and inaccurate attacks, you won't be seeing much change.

 

[mfbukowski]

Those who posture as "balanced" and "objective" are only kidding themselves. Peter Novick pointed this out to a shocked group of LDS historians at a Sunstone many years ago, who subsequently ignored everything he said, and didn't bother to publish his address.

From

Peter Novick, “Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New.” A talk delivered at the 1989 Sunstone Symposium held at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Also from Richard Bushman, The Social Dimensions of Rationality:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=8

The best we can do, Alan Goff says, is to openly expose and admit the implications of our own ideologies, rather than pretend we are objective and that other people are tainted and unreliable apologists.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

This is so incredibly important it should be shouted from the roof tops- "objectivity" does not exist, period, end of story.  As humans, there is no such thing- we all have an "axe to grind", and that is what motivates us to do everything.

 

Even in the sciences, there are reputations at stake, and lifetimes of work involved in interpreting results.  There are grants to be given, teaching assistants to be employed, political faculty decisions to be made, books to be written and even fame, and fortunes to be made by creating/interpreting the "correct" results from a stream of numbers on a page.

 

Look at men like Carl Sagan or Steven Hawking.  There is no question they were/are brilliant men, but they also managed their careers and PR brilliantly.

 

All one needs to do is go to youtube and start looking at videos on quantum mechanics, or really any scientific subject to find out who the "rising stars" are and how well they manage their media presence.

 

The reason this fact of life is so important to we as LDS, can be found below.  We live our lives based on spiritual experience. We are continually criticized for doing so.  What most do not realize is that EVERYONE in fact lives their lives based on "irrational" notions, which are every bit as "irrational" as spiritual experience, and always have. 

 

The bottom line is that what we THINK is "rational" is only rational within a context of preconceived beliefs which are usually emotionally based.  This is a fact of life in being human.  This is the way we are made.  It is this innate ability to feel our way through life, to "follow our gut" and make decisions based on intuition is God-given.  Absolutely everyone does it, but very few acknowledge it.  The importance of understanding this cannot be overestimated.

 

We pick our spouses based on it, we decide what school to attend, what religion to join or not join, how we behave toward others, what ethical system we choose to act on, or no ethical system at all, all based on "gut-level" reactions to our environments.  Then we put together a list of "reasons" why these beliefs make sense.

 

That is precisely what we do on this board.  Another way of saying this is to say that we all organize our own worlds out of "matter unorganized" according to the direction our intuition ("spirit") leads us.

 

This is what human beings are, and in the final analysis, it is perfectly "rational" to base our lives on the "irrational".  The fact of the matter is, we all do it, and it is inescapable anyway.

Wikipedia on William James, since I know no one will actually read the book: 

 

 

"The Will to Believe" is a lecture by William James, first published in 1896,^[1] which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James is concerned in this lecture about defending the rationality of religious faith even lacking sufficient evidence of religious truth. James states in his introduction: "I have brought with me tonight [...] an essay in justification of faith, a defense of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced. 'The Will to Believe,' accordingly, is the title of my paper."

James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that require confidence. Importantly, James points out that this is the case even for pursuing scientific inquiry. James then argues that like belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task, religious faith can also be rational even if one at the time lacks evidence for the truth of one's religious belief.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

Edited February 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Speaking for myself:

 

The critics are in my head.

 

I can't read Church History - even D&C without having to deal with a voice in the back of my head that screams "Joseph Smith made it up!"

 

I can't read the Book of Mormon without having an Evangelical voice scream in the back of my head "It's all lies!  They haven't found any of this stuff!  Horses!  Tapirs!  Vineyards!"

 

I can't read the Pearl of Great Price without hearing "~derisive laugh~ Oh, right, this hippy dippy baloney?!  It's a funerary manuscript!  Joseph Smith is such a liar, man!"

 

I can't bear my testimony without hearing "You're just a pre-programmed automaton, doing what you were raised to do."

 

~shrugs~

 

It's hard not to be influenced by how loud and persuasive some of the critics are.  I don't want to be guilty of the horrible things they accuse me of being or doing.  It's insulting to think I'm just doing what I was raised to do without questioning it.  When I encounter a sticky issue, and my mind races to the worst possible interpretations of the motives behind pro-Church figures, I can't help but wonder if the apologist is just blind to the obvious facts at hand.  So yeah...  I kinda resist describing myself as an apologist.  I just want the Church and its Gospel to be given a fair shake by its critics.  I feel like a great many arguments arrayed against the Church and its Gospel would vanish if critics did a better job treating our claims.  Either that or they'd realize the same mud that sticks against us sticks against a great many of their own ideals and beliefs - be they atheist, Evangelical, or what have you.  And I'd think that that realization would temper their zeal in uncovering Mormonism, but I digress...

 

I'm gradually coming to accept that that voice is a part of me.  I don't ignore it, I entertain it.  I ultimately choose to discard much of what it says - but it is indeed my choice.  I hate how this must sound to the critic, but there it is: unflinching honesty on the part of a TBM.

Welcome to reality, just know that the critics are just as brainwashed as you are, and the belief that one "should live logically" is ridiculous at its base.  That is itself another "illogical" belief. 

 

Our culture IS REALITY AS WE KNOW IT.  It is inescapable.

 

If you live ethically, you live illogically.  Ethics are not logical and are based on emotion entirely.  No on lives based on logic, and has stayed out of prison.

 

So don't worry about it.  Welcome to being human and understanding that.

Edited February 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

For those so inclined if any, here is a snippet of what I was studying, as an agnostic, when I found the church, and at least intellectually why I joined 36 years ago as an agnostic grad student in philosophy, and decided to follow my heart.  God decided for reasons of his own to pound me with a few spiritual experiences after studying William James and Wittgenstein pretty extensively.  After that, philosophy became irrelevant to the course of my life, but a fun avocation.

 

For those not inclined to read philosophy- let me give you a few word summary: 

 

It is rational to be "irrational" and follow your heart.

 

For those inclined to actually want to know how to argue for your faith, I don't see how it can be done without understanding this stuff, and its antecedents.

 

But that's just me.
 

 

2.2.3 James

Mackie's contention that fideism is intellectually irresponsible was anticipated in the nineteenth century by W.K. Clifford, who famously declared that “t is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (346). The American pragmatist William James (1842–1910) called Clifford “that delicious enfant terrible,” and in his essay “The Will to Believe” he argued that Clifford had overstated the case against faith (. In the paper, James delineates a set of conditions under which, he argues, it can be reasonable to believe in the absence of proof.

These conditions are met whenever we are confronted by what James terms a “genuine option”—i.e., a choice between two (or more) “hypotheses” (or candidates for belief) which is “live,” “forced,” and “momentous”—and that option cannot be decided on intellectual grounds. An option is live (as opposed to dead) just in case each of the hypotheses at issue is “among the mind's possibilities” (2). Insofar as it depends upon an individual's willingness or ability to entertain it, a hypothesis' “liveliness” is an extrinsic, agent-specific property. By contrast, an option is forced (rather than avoidable) just in case the candidate hypotheses are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive of the possibilities. Finally, an option is momentous (as opposed to trivial) just in case the opportunity is unique, the stakes are significant, or the decision is irreversible.

James points out that as people who hold beliefs, we generally have two goals: to avoid error, and to believe the truth. Though related, these aims are in fact distinct: one can, for example, avoid error by suspending belief. James argues that the scientific method is oriented around the goal of avoiding error, but that in other aspects of life, the avoidance of error is inadequate.^[6] For instance, in our relationships with others, we first have to believe that others will meet us half-way in order for this to be true. If we refused to interact with others until we had “sufficient evidence” of their willingness to reciprocate, we would no doubt appear stand-offish and unapproachable, thus cutting ourselves off altogether from the possibility of entering into mutually rewarding relationships.

According to James, something similar is true in the case of religion. Religion, he says, teaches two things: (1) that “the best things are the more eternal things” and (2) that we are better off now if we believe (1) (25–26). These two assertions together comprise what James refers to as the “religious hypothesis.” He contends that if the religious hypothesis is a live hypothesis, the option with which it confronts us is necessarily also a genuine option—i.e., it is momentous and forced. In cases like this, James contends, it is not enough simply to avoid error; we also have to seek truth. “We cannot escape the issue by remaining sceptical and waiting for more light, because, although we do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively chose to disbelieve” (26). As in the social example, the religious hypothesis must, as it were, be met half-way.

James acknowledges that choosing under such circumstances entails risk—one might, after all, be wrong—but he denies that one can avoid or reduce this risk by refusing to choose. Skepticism—i.e., the refusal to choose—is just as risky as commitment. Furthermore, all such postures are inevitably—and, indeed, completely appropriately—shaped by one's passions: not deciding is just as much a matter of emotion as deciding, insofar as it is motivated by the fear of being wrong rather than the hope of being right. But, James contends, there is no rational basis for preferring fear over hope.

Like Pascal, James insists that when it comes to religion, we cannot avoid taking sides and incurring risks. James also agrees with Pascal that faith can be rational in the absence of epistemic justification—at least in certain circumstances. However, James's argument differs from Pascal's insofar as it purports to show, not that religious belief is more rational, but only that in the absence of definitive evidence it is not less rational, than unbelief or agnosticism (at least with respect to those for whom the religious hypothesis is live).

Although he disagrees with Clifford about the justifiability of believing without conclusive proof, James appears to share Clifford's view that belief is subject to the will (hence the title of his essay). In other words, James's argument in “The Will to Believe,” like Pascal's wager argument, seems to imply some version of doxastic voluntarism. But depending on how this latter notion is understood, certain worries may here arise. If belief is understood as a function of one's total epistemic situation, rather than an independent judgment which that situation might or might not warrant, then James's analogy between believing and entering into a relationship appears problematic: only the latter is subject to direct voluntary control. Of course, believing is subject to indirect voluntary control. In other words, one can change one's beliefs by changing one's epistemic circumstances; the latter, even if not the former, are susceptible to direct control by the will.

A related objection is that James does not appear to take account of the possibility of “partial beliefs,” and that doing so undermines his notion of a forced option. If believing admits of degrees, then choices of the kind James describes seem less stark. Responding to this kind of anticipated objection to his own work (described in Section 4 below), John Bishop has argued that a forced choice is required whenever one is confronted by the rival “framing principles” of alternative doxastic practices. “One either ‘buys into’ the framework by commitment to its principles or one does not” (139).

James's essay is intended as a “defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced” (1–2). Some critics have worried that the argument leads down a slippery slope to irrationalism. John Hick has claimed that James's conclusion “constitutes an unrestriced license for wishful thinking… If our aim is to believe what is true, and not necessarily what we like, James's universal permissiveness will not help us” (60). However, this seems unfair. James insists that in defending the “lawfulness of voluntarily adopted faith” he is not thereby opening the door to what he calls “patent superstition” (2, 29). Faith, on James's account, is not a matter of believing against the evidence; the “will to believe” is justified only when the option is genuine and the evidence is inconclusive. “In concreto,” James writes, “the freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider” (29).

It is important to appreciate that James is not claiming that it is morally permissible to believe something to which one is not epistemically entitled. Rather, he is claiming that there are beliefs to which one can be epistemically entitled even in the absence of definitive evidence—that, pace Clifford, entitlement is not always a function of evidential support. Although James's argument is often classified as a pragmatic argument for belief, he is not offering a prudential, as opposed to an epistemic, justification. Rather, he is comparing the relative merits of rival epistemic strategies (oriented respectively toward the goals of avoiding error and believing truth). In this respect his argument differs importantly from Pascal's “wager” arguments. It can thus be argued that James is not disparaging reason in favor of faith, but attempting rather to carve out a sphere for faith within what is rationally respectable.

2.2.4 Wittgenstein

Widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) was also one of the most controversial and difficult. Wittgenstein famously argued that “meaning is use”—that our words mean what they do by virtue of the role they play in our discourse. Moreover, he argued that words are used in more than one way, and that it is a mistake to “sublime the logic” of our language—i.e., to treat any single function of language as paradigmatic. “Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a rule, a glue-pot, nails and screws.—The functions of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects” (1958, I, §11).

In his later writings, Wittgenstein calls these diverse phenomena language-games, in order, he explains, “to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life” (1958, I, §23). Renouncing his own earlier quest for a general form of propositions, his later writings suggest that these language-games “have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all,—but that they are related to one another in many different ways” (1958, I, §65).

Although Wittgenstein was not by conventional standards religious, his philosophical remarks and journal entries reveal what might be described as a religious sensibility and are informed by a definite sympathy toward at least certain features of religion. For Wittgenstein, as for Kierkegaard, whom he admired, religion was less a matter of theory than of practice. “I believe that one of the things Christianity says is that sound doctrines are all useless. They have to change your life. (Or the direction of your life.)…Wisdom is passionless. But faith by contrast is what Kierkegaard calls a passion” (1980, 53e).

It has been argued that Wittgenstein's later thought, though perhaps not overtly fideistic, nevertheless lends itself to fideistic interpretation. According to this interpretation, religion is a self-contained and primarily expressive enterprise, governed by its own internal logic or “grammar.” This view—commonly called Wittgensteinian Fideism—is variously characterized as entailing one or more of the following distinct (but arguably inter-related) theses: (1) that religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life; (2) that religious discourse is essentially self-referential and does not allow us to talk about reality; (3) that religious beliefs can be understood only by religious believers; and (4) that religion cannot be criticized.^[7]

It is highly doubtful, however, whether Wittgenstein would have endorsed any of these claims, let alone all four of them. Their attribution to Wittgenstein seems in fact to depend on a narrowly selective reading of what he actually said. As Richard Bell has pointed out,

It is premised on the view that our language is a series of language-games rooted in a form of life each governed by its own set of rules—as if our life of speaking and acting were like a bag of marbles, separate spherical speech-worlds with their own boundaries and rules governing their size and elasticity and use—some are shooters, others decorative, all rest side by side and affect their neighbors only if they collide (217–218).

It is true that Wittgenstein cautioned against the tendency to assume a unity of logical form behind the diversity of actual usage. He writes, “Don't say: ‘There must be something common…’—but look and see” (1958, I, §66). However, it is by no means clear that he intended to advance any equally a priori thesis about the discontinuity and incommensurability of our discursive practices.

Indeed, he suggests that the result of “looking” is that “we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing” (1958, I, §66). A metaphor to which he returns periodically is of language as an ancient city: “a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with additions from various periods; and this surrounded by a multitude of new boroughs with straight regular streets and uniform houses” (1958, I, §18). Remarks such as these seem to militate against the balkanized view of language implied by Wittgensteinian Fideism.

It also should be noted that the term “Wittgensteinian Fideism” appeared after Wittgenstein's death but prior to the publication in English of some of his most important writings on religion, including Lectures on Religious Belief (1967), Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough (1979), and Culture and Value (1980) —i.e., at a time when Wittgenstein's legacy was particularly vulnerable to misinterpretation.

The origins of the term “Wittgensteinian Fideism” derive from an essay of that name by Kai Nielsen, which appeared in the July 1967 issue of Philosophy. There Nielsen suggested that Wittgensteinian Fideism might in fact constitute a misrepresentation of Wittgenstein's writings—not, interestingly enough, by his critics, but by his followers—and that “Wittgenstein might well wish to say of Wittgensteinians what Freud said of Freudians” (194). Accordingly, Nielsen directed the brunt of his critique not against Wittgenstein himself, but against Wittgensteinians like Norman Malcolm and Peter Winch. More recently, the charge of Wittgensteinian Fideism has become associated especially with the work of the philosopher of religion D.Z. Phillips.

Although it is impossible here to explore these allegations in any detail, it is worth noting that Wittgensteinians generally regard “Wittgensteinian Fideism” as a caricature not only of Wittgenstein's views but also of their own. In defending himself and other Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion against the charge of fideism, Phillips writes:

Many philosophers of religion influenced by Wittgenstein have spent much of their time denying that connections of a

certain kind

hold between religious beliefs and other aspects of human life. Similarly, they have denied the appropriateness of

certain kinds

of criticisms of religion. Those who have been criticized often react as follows: “This is what I mean by the connection between religion and other aspects of human life and this is what I mean by criticism of religion. Here [are] Phillips and others like him denying the intelligibility of such connections and criticism. Therefore Phillips and others like him hold that there is

no

connection between religion and other aspects of human life and that religion cannot be criticized.” Of course, all that I and others have denied is

their

conception of the relation between religion and other aspects of human life and

their

conception of criticism of religion. Sometimes, the explanation of the persistence of the critical theses concerning Wittgenstein's influence in the philosophy of religion…is as simple as that (1981, 89–90).

In the last decade of his life, Phillips in fact devoted considerable attention to what, following his teacher Rush Rhees, he called the unity—i.e., the interlocking intelligibility—of discourse. He argued that religious beliefs depend for their sense and importance on non-religious features of human existence, but that the relation between the former and the latter is not generally the relation between conclusions and their justification.

Phillips's longstanding debate with Nielsen is commonly portrayed as a modern-day contest between faith and reason, but Phillips never regarded it that way himself. Whereas Nielsen treats Phillips's “contemplative” approach to philosophy of religion as essentially an apologetic strategy meant to shield belief in God from criticism, Phillips contended that “it casts a liberating light on both belief and atheism. Both are rescued from philosophical distortion” (2005, 75). As Phillips saw it, his disagreement with Nielsen was a disagreement not between the advocates of competing first-order commitments, but between Nielsen's atheism and his own professed desire to do conceptual justice to rival points of view, both religious and anti-religious—an asymmetry that the term “fideism,” with its pietistic connotations, seemed to him to obscure.

 

I would recommend the whole article, for those who want to know more than this reader's digest version of THIS larger reader's digest version of the argument.

 

Why Mormon "apologists" appear to me to be totally unacquainted with these issues remains a mystery to me.

 

After all we cannot have "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" influencing our pure minds, even if it helps us immeasurably. 

[USU78]

This is so incredibly important it should be shouted from the roof tops- "objectivity" does not exist, period, end of story.  As humans, there is no such thing- we all have an "axe to grind", and that is what motivates us to do everything.

 

Even in the sciences, there are reputations at stake, and lifetimes of work involved in interpreting results.  There are grants to be given, teaching assistants to be employed, political faculty decisions to be made, books to be written and even fame, and fortunes to be made by creating/interpreting the "correct" results from a stream of numbers on a page.

 

Look at men like Carl Sagan or Steven Hawking.  There is no question they were/are brilliant men, but they also managed their careers and PR brilliantly.

 

All one needs to do is go to youtube and start looking at videos on quantum mechanics, or really any scientific subject to find out who the "rising stars" are and how well they manage their media presence.

 

The reason this fact of life is so important to we as LDS, can be found below.  We live our lives based on spiritual experience. We are continually criticized for doing so.  What most do not realize is that EVERYONE in fact lives their lives based on "irrational" notions, which are every bit as "irrational" as spiritual experience, and always have. 

 

The bottom line is that what we THINK is "rational" is only rational within a context of preconceived beliefs which are usually emotionally based.  This is a fact of life in being human.  This is the way we are made.  It is this innate ability to feel our way through life, to "follow our gut" and make decisions based on intuition is God-given.  Absolutely everyone does it, but very few acknowledge it.  The importance of understanding this cannot be overestimated.

 

We pick our spouses based on it, we decide what school to attend, what religion to join or not join, how we behave toward others, what ethical system we choose to act on, or no ethical system at all, all based on "gut-level" reactions to our environments.  Then we put together a list of "reasons" why these beliefs make sense.

 

That is precisely what we do on this board.  Another way of saying this is to say that we all organize our own worlds out of "matter unorganized" according to the direction our intuition ("spirit") leads us.

 

This is what human beings are, and in the final analysis, it is perfectly "rational" to base our lives on the "irrational".  The fact of the matter is, we all do it, and it is inescapable anyway.

Wikipedia on William James, since I know no one will actually read the book: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

 

Der Wille zum Glauben.

 

I like it!

[Nevo]

I am puzzled by the question begging. What is your expectation of an apology? To date, it seems to be a defense that concedes as much as it defends. It is like complaining that a dressmaker only makes dresses.

You're quite right. I am basically complaining that LDS apologists are doing apologetics. Which is silly, I know. I guess I was reacting to Scott Gordon's attempt to destigmatize apologetics by making it sound like it's something that all scholars do ("all scholars are apologists"). I think apologetics really is quite distinct from what scholars do in the academy. As Bushman (in)famously put it:

"The apologists. . . feel that they are living in a hostile world. The church has real enemies, they firmly believe, and war has to be waged. Not all of the apologists write pugnaciously, but they all write defensively. If not exactly at war with an enemy, they are certainly engaged in debate.... Although seeing themselves as collaborators in the cause of Mormon history, apologists and new Mormon historians occasionally snipe at one another. The apologists wonder why the historians do not spring to the defense of the faith when Joseph Smith comes under attack. The apologists want to war with the critics; the historians ask them out to lunch."

I was basically restating (rather badly) Bushman's observation here—but naturally it has met with a lot of defensiveness

You ask what my expectation is of apology. I think Bushman, along with Terryl Givens, Grant Hardy, and others, find the right tone in their Mormon Studies writings. For the most part, I think, they grapple with criticisms sensitively and fairly and are modest in their conclusions where the evidence is mixed. Daniel Peterson described this approach once as "humble apologetics." I find it quite different from the style of apologetics typically found on this board and on FairMormon.

 

What I do have to strongly object to, however, is your representation that no one changes their mind. There is no way, no way, you can have been around this long and not noted the changes.  You can go back to how race was dealt with in the early days. No one ever admitted to racism then. There would have been no acknowledgment that the ban could have been wrong. (I hesitate using this example because of the inevitable derail that will ensue.) I think the most striking example is the acknowledgment that the church has overlooked women for too long.

 

I admit I was not thinking of racism or the role of women in the Church when I was thinking about LDS apologetics. I agree that FairMormon has been progressive on these issues. Most of the amateur apologists on this board, however, haven't received the memo. It is still "presentist" to say that Brigham Young expressed racist views and I cannot think of any here that have acknowledged that the ban could have been wrong.

[stemelbow]

It is still "presentist" to say that Brigham Young expressed racist views and I cannot think of any here that have acknowledged that the ban could have been wrong.

let me be the first. I've suggested as much on this board many times. No doubt most disagree but others have agreed with me.

[Kevin Christensen]

For the record, I can think of several here who have bluntly stated that the ban was wrong, including yours truely, and I've several times pointed to this BYU Studies article to explain the actual source, which Brigham Young did not invent, but inherited from the larger culture.

Those interested can see the Stirling Adams review essay in BYU Studies here:

https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=7674

And I generally find the tone and content at FAIRMormon to be exemplary. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'm talking the general trend. After all, I've been told that my style and tone are exemplary, and I also had a few people take issue with my thread last June on "New York Times Non Article."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

For the record, I can think of several here who have bluntly stated that the ban was wrong, including yours truely, and I've several times pointed to this BYU Studies article to explain the actual source, which Brigham Young did not invent, but inherited from the larger culture.

Those interested can see the Stirling Adams review essay in BYU Studies here:

https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=7674

And I generally find the tone and content at FAIRMormon to be exemplary. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I'm talking the general trend. After all, I've been told that my style and tone are exemplary, and I also had a few people take issue with my thread last June on "New York Times Non Article."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Sounds like Nevo's complaining about people he doesn't know, at all. But that happens in this world wherein certain groups are demonized, I guess.

[juliann]

 

You ask what my expectation is of apology. I think Bushman, along with Terryl Givens, Grant Hardy, and others, find the right tone in their Mormon Studies writings. For the most part, I think, they grapple with criticisms sensitively and fairly and are modest in their conclusions where the evidence is mixed. Daniel Peterson described this approach once as "humble apologetics." I find it quite different from the style of apologetics typically found on this board and on FairMormon.

 

 

 

I think I know what Bushman was responding to in that quote....and he was being...defensive.    I can see where those who abhor polemics want to distance themselves from it but this idea that there is a pure form of scholarship that by definition can never defend anything is outrageous bunk. Not to mention hypocritical beyond belief. In all of my time at CGU I never once knew of anyone who undertook a paper without knowing exactly what they were going to "prove." The research starts before the end product, for cryin' out loud. Who is going to invest weeks into something they know so little about that the day before it is due they have to throw it out and start over?  Like it or not, religious scholarship is theory from start to finish punctuated by "facts" which tend to change every generation because facts are only as meaningful as their interpretation. That is what I am finding so annoying with some current takes on polygamy. The same facts are being used (or not used) but different layers of interpretation are laid on them. And called truth. By both sides. And so on.

 

Well, hard to win that battle, right? So let's go the indirect route. Let's just call that Yale grad an apologist! And let's call me an objective scholar! Every time I hear that my mind goes straight to the magic vs. religion nonsense for some reason. It started in antiquity but scholars engaged in it, too. What I do is religion, what you do is magic. Or a cult. It is just silly and sad.

 

 

I admit I was not thinking of racism or the role of women in the Church when I was thinking about LDS apologetics. I agree that FairMormon has been progressive on these issues. Most of the amateur apologists on this board, however, haven't received the memo. It is still "presentist" to say that Brigham Young expressed racist views and I cannot think of any here that have acknowledged that the ban could have been wrong.

 

OK, I keep hearing mixed signals about FM from you. What always happens, and I mean always, is that we hear this and ask very sincerely for examples. And.  we. never. get. any.  We have so darn much stuff up now that we know there are some oh oh moments. But everyone just repeats the meme that it is mean and nasty and walks off.  The whole wiki format is being changed into a Q&A format to get away from the "critics say." But it is a very long project.

 

So, what is it that needs to be changed? Tell us! When you run across something put it here if it's too much trouble to contact FM.

[mfbukowski]

Der Wille zum Glauben.

 

I like it!

I am reading Givens' "Wrestling The Angel" at present, and all I can think about is the Hegelian dialectic

 

Stirring the pot.....   

Edited February 6, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Kevin Christensen]

And incidentally, regarding Bushman's concern here:

It is very hard to relinquish faith in some measure of objective scholarship. We all can think of utterly biased and self-serving scholarship that we are sure would not hold up under scrutiny, or history writing that is filled with factual errors. We want to reserve the right to correct this corrupted work in the name of some kind of objective truth.

I've also addressed the resulting problem of how to measure competing viewpoints in various places, recently in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" in Interpreter.

In The Anatomy of Criticism, Northrop Frye comments that “to defend the right of criticism to exist at all, therefore is to assume that criticism is a structure of thought and knowledge existing in its own right with some measure of independence from the art it deals with.”105 He’s talking about literature, but the point applies to any criticism. For instance, the omnipresent term “politically correct” comes from Marxist thought, and its use presupposes a dependence on the Marxist thought through which it deals with everything. He’s talking about the need for a way for a critic to provide independent criticism, remembering here that discernment is another word for criticism, and that discernment is listed as one of the spiritual gifts.106 “Not politically correct” originally meant “not Marxist.” It is a dependent form of criticism. It functions in the same way that “not orthodox” does in any society. It means “not us,” and it is dependent on the originating society. It is one thing to test Mormonism by an outside ideology, as Riskas does, and as all of the sources in his Appendix B do, but quite another thing to test Mormonism in an independent way by religiously sensitive criteria that are not ideologically dependent. It is also one thing to try to validate Mormonism by an inside approach, as our own pedagogical texts tend to [Page 157]do, or to criticize outside faiths in terms of being “not us.” That sort of criticism has no independence. It works at Position 2 of the Perry Scheme. We need to find a mode of criticism (that is, discernment) that answers the question, “Why us?”

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

I, rather predictably for those who know me at all, turn towards Kuhn, Alma 32, and Ian Barbour's notion of Critical Realism. And that leaves us with set of values to apply, but without a formal set of rules for doing so, which means, conclusions will vary, and all conclusions must be tentative and open-ended, and we have to extend some measure of tolerance to those with whom we may disagree. "It makes a great deal of sense," Kuhn says, "To ask, 'Which paradigm is better?'" And it is very sensible indeed to pay close attention to how a person decides.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[juliann]

 

I admit I was not thinking of racism or the role of women in the Church when I was thinking about LDS apologetics. I agree that FairMormon has been progressive on these issues. Most of the amateur apologists on this board, however, haven't received the memo. It is still "presentist" to say that Brigham Young expressed racist views and I cannot think of any here that have acknowledged that the ban could have been wrong.

 

I think the ban was wrong, more accurately, God wasn't involved in it. And the presentist thing is old. The reason defenders do have to listen is that nobody wants to give a defense that doesn't hold up. It is embarrassing for one thing.  It isn't efficient to argue against dictionary definitions that the rest of the world uses. We are even getting some warnings from leadership about using common language. That is where I find the message boards, at least the older ones, so critical. I could put something up and it would be immediately apparent where the holes were.

 

Racist has a meaning and it doesn't matter when it happened. It can be more understandable in the past...but it is still racism. No one benefits from trying to make that word mean something else. I think where we have the biggest struggle right now with this same thing is with women. We are way back in the 90s when it comes to the ability to use the understood meaning of discrimination. The church discriminates against women. It is way past time to just freakin' acknowledge it. It is counterproductive not to.

 

I could go on and on with other examples of changed minds on our end. Where I can't is from the other side, though. I have often said we should have kept a list of all of the accusations because once they were proved wrong they just silently dropped out of sight never to be used again. When I first started, a big one was a lot of laughter over the idea that there were populations before the Maya that would coincide with the BOM.  The mere fact that there is so little known with new discoveries in the jungles popping up regularly should give people pause. I called it "the discovering has all been done" defense. And sure enough, civilizations which fit into the BOM timeline are being discovered. But there never was any acknowledgment. Just next! And so it goes.

 

I don't think the anti-defenders of the church have any idea how diverse a group we are..and how small a group. I doubt they can....because this is about so few that if there was a concern for truth and honesty, names would be used rather than weasle words. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by juliann

[Tacenda]

Racism is wrong, but what about polygamy?  It was never doctrine according to Pres. Hinckley.  It was a practice, just as now blacks being banned from the PH was, not doctrine, which is laughable because it was stated as doctrine at one time. 

 

I'll bring things up on occasion and they are never answered or addressed, maybe because there is no answer.     

 

Apologists, please call a spade a spade on certain issues when the proof is there, usually they aren't quite dealt with that way, there is always some nuance to answer the tough stuff.  The tough stuff is true, but people can't admit a truth, always finding a way around it.   

 

Tacenda:  Stop derailing the thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Racism is wrong, but what about polygamy?  It was never doctrine according to Pres. Hinckley.  It was a practice, just as now blacks banned from the PH was, not doctrine, which is laughable because it was doctrine. 

 

I'll bring things up on occasion and they are never answered or addressed, maybe because there is no answer.     

 

Call a spade is a spade on certain issues when the proof is there, but usually they aren't quite dealt with that way, there is always some nuance to answer the tough stuff.  The tough stuff is true, but people can't admit a truth, always finding a way around it.

Can you cite the quote from President Hinckley to the effect that plurality of wives was not doctrine?

The doctrine is this: A man shall have no more than one wife at a time in mortality <unless the Lord directs otherwise.> To my knowledge, President Hinckley never contradicted this. I would be very surprised if you could show that he did.

But I'm open to correction on this or anything else.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Can you cite the quote from President Hinckley to the effect that plurality of wives was not doctrine?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

 

Scott, is there a way around this statement?  Maybe there is or maybe I've somewhat proven my point.

 

ETA:  Or is the answer in the second sentence?  You see it's really just hidden unless you're an insider.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Tacenda

[USU78]

I think the ban was wrong, more accurately, God wasn't involved in it. And the presentist thing is old. The reason defenders do have to listen is that nobody wants to give a defense that doesn't hold up. It is embarrassing for one thing.  It isn't efficient to argue against dictionary definitions that the rest of the world uses. We are even getting some warnings from leadership about using common language. That is where I find the message boards, at least the older ones, so critical. I could put something up and it would be immediately apparent where the holes were.

 

Racist has a meaning and it doesn't matter when it happened. It can be more understandable in the past...but it is still racism. No one benefits from trying to make that word mean something else. I think where we have the biggest struggle right now with this same thing is with women. We are way back in the 90s when it comes to the ability to use the understood meaning of discrimination. The church discriminates against women. It is way past time to just freakin' acknowledge it. It is counterproductive not to.

 

I could go on and on with other examples of changed minds on our end. Where I can't is from the other side, though. I have often said we should have kept a list of all of the accusations because once they were proved wrong they just silently dropped out of sight never to be used again. When I first started, a big one was a lot of laughter over the idea that there were populations before the Maya that would coincide with the BOM.  The mere fact that there is so little known with new discoveries in the jungles popping up regularly should give people pause. I called it "the discovering has all been done" defense. And sure enough, civilizations which fit into the BOM timeline are being discovered. But there never was any acknowledgment. Just next! And so it goes.

 

I don't think the anti-defenders of the church have any idea how diverse a group we are..and how small a group. I doubt they can....because this is about so few that if there was a concern for truth and honesty, names would be used rather than weasle words. 

 

That hadda leave a mark

[Scott Lloyd]

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

 

Scott, is there a way around this statement?  Maybe there is or maybe I've somewhat proven my point.

 

ETA:  Or is the answer in the second sentence?  You see it's really just hidden unless you're an insider.

You didn't provide a link or a citation for this, but I think I've seen it before, and I'm fairly certain you are taking it out of context. If I recall correctly, he was responding directly to a question that was put to him about apostate groups such as the Warren Jeffs group and others. Nail down the primary source and I believe that's what you'll find. Of course what they are doing is not doctrinal. They are carrying it on in violation of the direct commandment of God.

But this cannOT refer to the authorized practice of plural marriage that occurred in the early history of the Church.

Within the body of LDS literature are repeated references to the <doctrine> of plurality of wives.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

Racism is wrong, but what about polygamy?  It was never doctrine according to Pres. Hinckley.  It was a practice, just as now blacks being banned from the PH was, not doctrine, which is laughable because it was stated as doctrine at one time. 

 

I'll bring things up on occasion and they are never answered or addressed, maybe because there is no answer.     

 

Apologists, please call a spade a spade on certain issues when the proof is there, usually they aren't quite dealt with that way, there is always some nuance to answer the tough stuff.  The tough stuff is true, but people can't admit a truth, always finding a way around it.   

 

Tacenda, you have been answered and answered and answered and answered and answered and answered and answered and answered and answered. And answered. For years!  You will demur after a response is given that undoes your "question" and then start up the same questions the next round as if nothing was ever said. It is mystifying.

 

When you call out "apologists" what the heck do you mean? Are you demanding a consensus for any response to be valid? It is as if even one person doesn't give you what you expect, nothing else said matters.

 

 

Can you cite the quote from President Hinckley to the effect that plurality of wives was not doctrine?

The doctrine is this: A man shall have no more than one wife at a time in mortality <unless the Lord directs otherwise.> To my knowledge, President Hinckley never contradicted this. I would be very surprised if you could show that he did.

But I'm open to correction on this or anything else.

He did say it, Scott. And one of the most astonishing things I have witnessed as a defender of the church is to see other defenders putting words in the prophet's mouth so to divert its meaning.  (Sort of like some are doing now with 132:41 that clearly gives permission for polyandry.)

 

He said polygamy wasn't doctrine. Other authorities have called it policy. That shouldn't even be controversial.

 

So Tacenda, to continue this derail, there is a difference of opinion on polygamy. In fact, I'd say defenders of the church are all over the place on it. I'd even say schools of thought are forming around certain experts.  The church is only in the first stages of addressing it. As you said, "The tough stuff is true, but people can't admit a truth, always finding a way around it." Maybe that is also your problem when it comes to making accusations, demanding answers and then doing it all over again until people are worn out with it?  Sorry for the frustration but it seems far too many really good threads turn into this.

Edited February 6, 2015 by juliann

[toon]

The etymology of a word tells me very little about what that word means in a particular context.