rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I know this is the talking point Dehlin has been trying to popularize for a long time. That was the purpose behind his bogus "survey." I suspect that in many if not most all cases those who claim the Church's defenders drove them out of the Church were already pretty much out already and relish the chance to seize on "apologists" as being the cause of their disaffection. It has the potential to bring discredit upon defenders, if not to silence them altogether. It is an example of the emotional blackmail we have been talking about these past few days. Tow years ago, I posted a message on this board in a thread titled "Does Apologetics Drive People away from the Church?" In the post I drew an analogy -- perhaps more of a metaphor -- that I think is pertinent to this point. I reproduce the post here: I actually didn't even mention apologists. I only spoke of the church's own essays on gospel topics. I have heard Dehlin talk about apologetics but I was referring to my own experience with my own family, friends, and acquaintances. I'm sorry, Scott, but sharing an experience that differs from your perspective is not "emotional blackmail" nor is it an attempt to silence you.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I actually didn't even mention apologists. I only spoke of the church's own essays on gospel topics. I have heard Dehlin talk about apologetics but I was referring to my own experience with my own family, friends, and acquaintances. I'm sorry, Scott, but sharing an experience that differs from your perspective is not "emotional blackmail" nor is it an attempt to silence you. It is interesting to consider how the essays have sent people packing. Who left and how did the essays get credited for causing them to leave?
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 It is interesting to consider how the essays have sent people packing. Who left and how did the essays get credited for causing them to leave? It would be almost impossible to separate catalyst, from cause, from rationalization in those cases. 1
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 It would be almost impossible to separate catalyst, from cause, from rationalization in those cases. I agree. So I wonder how the essays themselves can be seen as the reason people leave. Whenever I discuss with someone who has left why he/she left it is always many reasons--a whole splattering of regular critic talking points, often accompanied with "and the Church never told me".
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 It is interesting to consider how the essays have sent people packing. Who left and how did the essays get credited for causing them to leave? They are personal experiences and I'm not really at liberty to share names. But, I'll give an example... a member of my family has struggled severely with the admissions in the Race and Priesthood Ban essay. He no longer feels that he can trust what the prophets and apostles teach because the Church can so easily decide that those teachings were wrong. He has asked me (multiple times) since reading that essay: What's the point of a prophet. He is still active but his goal is to reduce his activity level to just attending sacrament meeting.
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I agree. So I wonder how the essays themselves can be seen as the reason people leave. Whenever I discuss with someone who has left why he/she left it is always many reasons--a whole splattering of regular critic talking points, often accompanied with "and the Church never told me". In the short term those essays may provide a handy breaking point for those on the fence. In the long term the essays will remove a traditional excuse from the "I was never taught" crowd. In the future apostasy will be blamed on other things. A very common pattern leading to failure to retain members is family dysfunction, unrighteous dominion, and lack of a good example of Sainthood in the home. If we remove the "I wasn't taught" excuse I suspect more will have to be honest about that reason, not having the "they hid the truth from me" excuse. I don't expect it to change the number of people who leave, but at least they will have to be more honest with themselves about the reasons. 1
cinepro Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I know this is the talking point Dehlin has been trying to popularize for a long time. That was the purpose behind his bogus "survey." I suspect that in many if not most all cases those who claim the Church's defenders drove them out of the Church were already pretty much out already and relish the chance to seize on "apologists" as being the cause of their disaffection. It has the potential to bring discredit upon defenders, if not to silence them altogether. It is an example of the emotional blackmail we have been talking about these past few days. Tow years ago, I posted a message on this board in a thread titled "Does Apologetics Drive People away from the Church?" In the post I drew an analogy -- perhaps more of a metaphor -- that I think is pertinent to this point. I reproduce the post here: Obviously, the only way to falsify Dehlin's survey (and the point of your analogy) would be to figure out how many people would not have otherwise left the Church (or fallen over the cliff) if they hadn't encountered apologetics (or the guard). That would be impossible to figure out (I don't see how someone could be so self-aware that they could know). That's also the conundrum of the essays. It was obviously determined that these issues were critical enough that they needed to be addressed publicly and officially. But there must be people who learn about these issues first (and most forcibly) from the essays. Are any of them leaving (or otherwise disturbed)? I would also point out that the flaw (hopefully unintentional) in the analogy is that studying Church history shouldn't be the same as playing on the edge of a cliff. If learning the truth about the Church is like falling off a cliff, then the problem isn't whether or not the guard is nice. Certainly, leaving the Church might be likened to falling off a cliff, but even then, the analogy falls apart pretty quickly. Edited February 18, 2015 by cinepro
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 They are personal experiences and I'm not really at liberty to share names. But, I'll give an example... a member of my family has struggled severely with the admissions in the Race and Priesthood Ban essay. He no longer feels that he can trust what the prophets and apostles teach because the Church can so easily decide that those teachings were wrong. He has asked me (multiple times) since reading that essay: What's the point of a prophet. He is still active but his goal is to reduce his activity level to just attending sacrament meeting. interesting.
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 They are personal experiences and I'm not really at liberty to share names. But, I'll give an example... a member of my family has struggled severely with the admissions in the Race and Priesthood Ban essay. He no longer feels that he can trust what the prophets and apostles teach because the Church can so easily decide that those teachings were wrong. He has asked me (multiple times) since reading that essay: What's the point of a prophet. He is still active but his goal is to reduce his activity level to just attending sacrament meeting. You might tell him the point of a Prophet, is that we don't still ban races from the Priesthood. We do have to learn and grow as individuals and as a group. Can you imagine the effect on the church members if Brigham had gone full bore abolitionist in the Utah Territory during the Civil War? We receive revelation as a people when we are ready to receive it. No Prophet can override our preparation as a society if we are not sufficiently humble or faithful to accept revelations in store for us.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Obviously, the only way to falsify Dehlin's survey (and the point of your analogy) would be to figure out how many people would not have otherwise left the Church (or fallen over the cliff) if they hadn't encountered apologetics (or the guard). That would be impossible to figure out (I don't see how someone could be so self-aware that they could know). That's also the conundrum of the essays. It was obviously determined that these issues were critical enough that they needed to be addressed publicly and officially. But there must be people who learn about these issues first (and most forcibly) from the essays. Are any of them leaving (or otherwise disturbed)? I would also point out that the flaw (hopefully unintentional) in the analogy is that studying Church history shouldn't be the same as playing on the edge of a cliff. If learning the truth about the Church is like falling off a cliff, then the problem isn't whether or not the guard is nice. I agree with your last line. The Church took a pretty poor view of intellectual disciplines, like history. It didnt' want history to interfere with the Church's telling of events. Now it's like it's trying to put something out there to cover it's fear of letting members decide, with all this "the Church hid it from me" stuff. Making steps. I've noticed how little the essays are read or how little they're noticed. Some members seem quite happy that they are there, but aren't really interested in the content. Other members seem quite happy without the essays at all, seeing as they seem essentially ignored. I think plenty will still say, "the Church hid it from me" noting that the essays aren't widely known about.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 You might tell him the point of a Prophet, is that we don't still ban races from the Priesthood. We do have to learn and grow as individuals and as a group. Can you imagine the effect on the church members if Brigham had gone full bore abolitionist in the Utah Territory during the Civil War? We receive revelation as a people when we are ready to receive it. No Prophet can override our preparation as a society if we are not sufficiently humble or faithful to accept revelations in store for us. We've had similar discussions. I don't think he expects BY to have been a "full bore abolitionist" but he also expects the prophet to lead rather than follow decades after the civil rights movement. But that's not even his main issue... It's that for 125 years prophets and apostles taught things about the ban that we now say are incorrect and racist all the while claiming that they were supported by God and scripture. It's been very upsetting for him. And this is not coming from Dehlin/MS or some anti-Mormon source... this is what he found on LDS.org.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 . Can you imagine the effect on the church members if Brigham had gone full bore abolitionist in the Utah Territory during the Civil War? might have been one of his best moves. But the anti-abolitionist sentiment seemed grounded too strongly in the Church by that time. Should have started in the late 40s, bypassing any priesthood restriction.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 We've had similar discussions. I don't think he expects BY to have been a "full bore abolitionist" but he also expects the prophet to lead rather than follow decades after the civil rights movement. But that's not even his main issue... It's that for 125 years prophets and apostles taught things about the ban that we now say are incorrect and racist all the while claiming that they were supported by God and scripture. It's been very upsetting for him. And this is not coming from Dehlin/MS or some anti-Mormon source... this is what he found on LDS.org. If he keeps on digging he'll find plenty of more instances in which we don't accept teachings from past prophets too. I really can't blame the essays though. It's what happened. He's just not geared to accept it so easily, just as some of us aren't.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I think plenty will still say, "the Church hid it from me" noting that the essays aren't widely known about. I think that many members operate under the assumption that if they are giving the church 3 hours each week in which to instruct them, they will be given the relevant and critical details.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 If he keeps on digging he'll find plenty of more instances in which we don't accept teachings from past prophets too. I really can't blame the essays though. It's what happened. He's just not geared to accept it so easily, just as some of us aren't. Yep. And why is he not geared to accept it? Because it contradicts that paradigm he was taught throughout his life as an active church member. And there we have the roots of the betrayal felt by so many members when they learn these things.
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I think that many members operate under the assumption that if they are giving the church 3 hours each week in which to instruct them, they will be given the relevant and critical details. I've had this discussion before. There is precious little time enough for lessons on Salvation, Gospel Restored, Jesus Christ, the Testaments, etc. At what point would you teach a Sunday School or Priesthood Lesson on Brigham's Adam God theory, Polygamy, Blood Atonement, Brigham's Racial Views, or the like?
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Yep. And why is he not geared to accept it? Because it contradicts that paradigm he was taught throughout his life as an active church member. And there we have the roots of the betrayal felt by so many members when they learn these things. Teaching Church/Prophetic/Parent inerrancy, and failing to recognize our children's full agency (keeping them on borrowed light) are two terrible and destructive errors. Edited February 18, 2015 by KevinG 2
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I think that many members operate under the assumption that if they are giving the church 3 hours each week in which to instruct them, they will be given the relevant and critical details. hey I'm all for it.
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Yep. And why is he not geared to accept it? Because it contradicts that paradigm he was taught throughout his life as an active church member. And there we have the roots of the betrayal felt by so many members when they learn these things. I don't know. Some of us are geared for it. It also reflects the variations amongst us as a human population.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Teaching Church/Prophetic/Parent inerrancy, and failing to recognize our children's full agency (keeping them on borrowed light) are two terrible and destructive errors. Agreed. 1
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I've had this discussion before. There is precious little time enough for lessons on Salvation, Gospel Restored, Jesus Christ, the Testaments, etc. At what point would you teach a Sunday School or Priesthood Lesson on Brigham's Adam God theory, Polygamy, Blood Atonement, Brigham's Racial Views, or the like? I think that is debatable. More importantly, if members are going to find themselves feeling betrayed for not having learned those things, to the degree that it interferes with personal salvation, than maybe we ought to find the time. 1
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I think that is debatable. More importantly, if members are going to find themselves feeling betrayed for not having learned those things, to the degree that it interferes with personal salvation, than maybe we ought to find the time. As a student I personally wouldn't mind more history lessons, but as a teacher it's hard to fit in the basics, or stray from the manuals and still cover the breadth and depth of the basic Gospel principles. At some point individuals need to take advantage of institutes, online history resources, and reading books to get the full story. Or church pageants to get the dancing, singing version. 1
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 As a student I personally wouldn't mind more history lessons, but as a teacher it's hard to fit in the basics, or stray from the manuals and still cover the breadth and depth of the basic Gospel principles. At some point individuals need to take advantage of institutes, online history resources, and reading books to get the full story. Or church pageants to get the dancing, singing version. I think your average middle-age life-long church member has a good grasp of the basics. (And that description fits most of the people I know who have left over these issues.) You can say that they should have taken advantage of other sources, but what seems to be the case is that their schedules are often full from doing their callings, HT/VT, attending church each week, and raising their children. We spent YEARS studying the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. And those manuals were cleared of references to polygamy, multiple first vision accounts, Book of Abraham issues, polyandry, Adam-God, etc. We can keep saying that "they should have learned it elsewhere" but it won't stop the bleeding. It doesn't solve the problem. The Church has lost control of the narrative... time to take it back.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I would also point out that the flaw (hopefully unintentional) in the analogy is that studying Church history shouldn't be the same as playing on the edge of a cliff. If learning the truth about the Church is like falling off a cliff, then the problem isn't whether or not the guard is nice. Certainly, leaving the Church might be likened to falling off a cliff, but even then, the analogy falls apart pretty quickly.When I devised the analogy, I had in mind the children in the story representing individuals who take their renditions of Church history and other potentially controversial matters from untrustworthy sources without seeking balanced information and commentary from knowledgeable but Church-friendly sources (those sources being represented by the person who is trying to keep the children safe and the cliff representing the untrustworthy sources). I was not saying that studying Church history is a bad thing. That would, of course, be absurd. Studying Church history could thus be compared to the children playing -- so long as they do not get so close to the edge that they fall off. Hence: Playing=good. Playing dangerously close to the edge=bad. Studying Church history=good. Relying exclusively or too much on untrustworthy sources in your study=bad. That said, an analogy is not necessarily flawed because it cannot be compared with something in each and every respect. By definition, an analogy is a figurative comparison that is intended to apply to the thing it is compared to only in limited respects. An example I used the other day is Christ's parable of the importunate widow and the unjust judge. Obviously, Christ was not intending to liken God the Father to an unjust judge. Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Stargazer Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Apophasis -- I had to look that one up too. Reading your posts is a continual education. Yes, but how do you pronounce it?
Recommended Posts