Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I agree with you. I think that that's how everyone has resolved the tension, unless there is a post that i have missed (which could be the case). I know you agree with me. I'm not so sure about others. I have seen people (myself included) who suggest that there is no justification for earnestly defending the faith with anger, self righteousness, or pride (ie. ego), but that does not contradict your point. Right. In fact, I posted a quote from Daniel Peterson here that says that very thing.
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I know you agree with me. I'm not so sure about others. Got it. Which posts do you feel disagree with you? Like i said, i haven't seen any, but i could have missed some. I'd be interested in seeing that point of view.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Well, a zero-sum game is not a pejorative term; at least not how I was using it.Apologist is not a pejorative term either, yet I frequently see individuals intent on using it as such. It's an actual tactical approach in game theory. The gist, of course, is that every "win" for you (not you specifically) is a "loss" for your opponent. There is no mutual benefit to the interaction. It's win-lose only. Your description of "noxious weeds" sounds a little like the definition of a zero-sum game. Are you willing to elaborate? I ask because I think the psychology of apologetics as you are describing it is inextricably linked to the position you (and any who view apologetics similarly) might take on the question of resolving the perceived discrepancy on the use of the word "contend" in the two verses of scriptures as cited by the OP. I think it's an interesting avenue of pursuit on the topic, IOW. Well, as noted above, I've seen a bothersome trend to use apologist or apologetics in a pejorative sense. There's your zero-sum game, if you're looking for one. I see it in the effort to demonize and deride certain prominent defenders of the faith of the Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders. I see it on this very thread with the insinuation that apologetics (defense of the faith of the Latter-day Saints) is not welcome on this board, that it somehow must be viewed as being in a category separate and apart from "dialogue and discussion." I've seen it the past year or two in your own frequent cynical or judgmental rejoinders to my posts here. I see it above in your disparaging use of the phrase "psychology of apologetics." Apologetics is not an ignoble pursuit. It has scriptural endorsement, as noted in the quote I provided from Dr. Peterson. "Be always ready to give an answer [defense or apologia] for the hope that is in you." Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Got it. Which posts do you feel disagree with you? Like i said, i haven't seen any, but i could have missed some. I'd be interested in seeing that point of view.Any post that puts apologetics (defense of the faith of the Latter-day Saints) in a disparaging light. The insinuation that apologetics is not welcome on this board, for example. Or the characterization of apologetics as a "zero-sum game." (See my post above to ttribe.) 1
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Any post that puts apologetics (defense of the faith of the Latter-day Saints) in a disparaging light. The insinuation that apologetics is not welcome on this board, for example. Or the characterization of apologetics as a "zero-sum game." (See my post above to ttribe.) I guess i'm not interpreting those posts in the same way you are. Thanks for clarifying though.
ttribe Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Apologist is not a pejorative term either, yet I frequently see individuals intent on using it as such. Well, as noted above, I've seen a bothersome trend to use apologist or apologetics in a pejorative sense. There's your zero-sum game, if you're looking for one. I see it in the effort to demonize and deride certain prominent defenders of the faith of the Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders. I see it on this very thread with the insinuation that apologetics (defense of the faith of the Latter-day Saints) is not welcome on this board, that it somehow must be viewed as being in a category separate and apart from "dialogue and discussion." I've seen it the past year or two in your own frequent cynical or judgmental rejoinders to my posts here. I see it above in your disparaging use of the phrase "psychology of apologetics." Apologetics is not an ignoble pursuit. It has scriptural endorsement, as noted in the quote I provided from Dr. Peterson. "Be always ready to give an answer [defense or apologia] for the hope that is in you." Wow. I think you've completely misinterpreted what I was saying. I wasn't using "apologetics" in a pejorative sense. I had no intent to disparage when I mentioned "psychology of apologetics." I think there's psychology behind everything we do - work, play, hobbies, etc. Apologetics was just one more thing. I'll move on Scott. You accuse me of "frequent cynical or judgmental rejoinder to [your] posts" but fail to evaluate your own actions similarly. I have bigger problems in real life that I don't need a petty Internet tyrant like you making my life more difficult because you view everything I say on this board through some paranoid lens of suspicion and mistrust. Carry on. You can put another notch in your tally of people you've driven away. I'm done. Edited October 13, 2015 by ttribe 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I guess i'm not interpreting those posts in the same way you are. Thanks for clarifying though.From post #50: If I recall it would seem purpose for the renaming of the board was to encourage more dialogue and discussion and less debate and apologetics. (Emphasis mine) This, to me, is saying apologetics (defense of the faith of the saints) is not welcome here. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherrwise. Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Carry on. You can put another notch in your tally of people you've driven away. I'm done.And we see again the recurring Dehlin-esque meme: "Apologists drive people away from the Church." It does get tiresome. Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 From post #50:(Emphasis mine)This, to me, is saying apologetics (defense of the faith of the saints) is not welcome here. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherrwise.I think that some people view apologetics as less argument and more arguing. In that sense, arguing with each other about who is right can certainly fall under the category of contention. And frequently does. That is how I interpreted that post, but I could have misunderstood the poster.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I think that some people view apologetics as less argument and more arguing. In that sense, arguing with each other about who is right can certainly fall under the category of contention. And frequently does.That is how I interpreted that post, but I could have misunderstood the poster.Those who so view it are typically critics who don't like being contradicted in their criticism. 1
bluebell Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Those who so view it are typically critics who don't like being contradicted in their criticism.I don't know that I agree with that. I know a lot of member posters who don't want to hear people arguing back and forth for pages, trying to one up each other. No one comes out looking good in such a scenario. And it produces hard feelings on both sides, which keeps the spirit away anyway. 2
Senator Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 From post #50: (Emphasis mine) This, to me, is saying apologetics (defense of the faith of the saints) is not welcome here. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherrwise.This, to me, is saying (seeing as it is my statement) that the old debate style apologetics, which was for more prevalent in the old Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, was to be tamed in the new board. Which could be evidenced by the substitution of "Apologetic", with "Dialogue" in the new name. I did not say that apologetics was not welcome. That is of your own making. 2
Senator Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 And we see again the recurring Dehlin-esque meme: "Apologists drive people away from the Church." It actually can. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I don't know that I agree with that. I know a lot of member posters who don't want to hear people arguing back and forth for pages, trying to one up each other. No one comes out looking good in such a scenario. And it produces hard feelings on both sides, which keeps the spirit away anyway.Well, I'm not saying that's a good thing either. In fact, I have pledged to close one of my own ongoing threads in a few days from now to curtail that sort of thing. But so long as there are attacks, there will be defenses. I don't know how to avoid that short of giving in and allowing attackers to have free rein.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) It actually can.I think more often than not, it is an excuse to try to pre-empt or shut off contradiction of criticism and attack. Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) This, to me, is saying (seeing as it is my statement) that the old debate style apologetics, which was for more prevalent in the old Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, was to be tamed in the new board. Which could be evidenced by the substitution of "Apologetic", with "Dialogue" in the new name. I did not say that apologetics was not welcome. That is of your own making.So, again, attackers were to continue to have their way, but defenders were to be "tamed." I can see how some might welcome that sort of thing. I can't say why the name was changed; that's something the board proprieter(s) would have to address. But one reason for the substitution could be that a lot of people don't comprehend the meaning of apologetics, that in this context, it means defense, not expression of regret or contrition. Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Senator Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I think more often than not, it is an excuse to try to pre-empt or shut off contradiction of criticism and attack.I don't know how true that is. 1
Senator Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 So, again, attackers were to continue to have their way, but defenders were to be "tamed." I can see how some might welcome that sort of thing. No, I see it as an attempt to change the nature or tone of the forum in regards to all posters. We do not see near the number of vocal or hostile posters from either side of the isle. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 I don't know how true that is.Just as I don't know how true it is that apologists "drive people away from the Church." We have Dehlin and his self-selected sample saying so, but I think there is good reason to be skeptical of that. 2
Rain2 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Well, I'm not saying that's a good thing either. In fact, I have pledged to close one of my own ongoing threads in a few days from now to curtail that sort of thing.But so long as there are attacks, there will be defenses. I don't know how to avoid that short of giving in and allowing attackers to have free rein.I think that different people will have different definitions of attacks. Too often what people think are attacks are questions or just matters of discussion. It's understandable that people immediately jump in thinking "attack" since too many times people come in as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but it is a real problem when we automatically assume attack and don't take time to listen. 2
Senator Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Just as I don't know how true it is that apologists "drive people away from the Church." We have Dehlin and his self-selected sample saying so, but I think there is good reason to be skeptical of that.I have my sample
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) No, I see it as an attempt to change the nature or tone of the forum in regards to all posters. We do not see near the number of vocal or hostile posters from either side of the isle.So, if I understand you correctly, then, you are amending your prior statement in post #50 to the effect that the name of the board was changed because they wanted "less ... apologetics." What you are now saying is that they wanted less of "vocal or hostile posters" of any stripe. Correct? Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I think that different people will have different definitions of attacks. Too often what people think are attacks are questions or just matters of discussion. It's understandable that people immediately jump in thinking "attack" since too many times people come in as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but it is a real problem when we automatically assume attack and don't take time to listen.And a corollary to that is there will be differing perceptions of what constitutes mere "questions or matters of discussion." Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Senator Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 So, if I understand you correctly, then, you are amending your prior statement in post #50 to the effect that the name of the board was changed because they wanted "less ... apologetics." What you are now saying is that they wanted less of "vocal or hostile posters" of any stripe. Correct?Correct
ttribe Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 And we see again the recurring Dehlin-esque meme: "Apologists drive people away from the Church." It does get tiresome. Don't flatter yourself, Scott. I was talking about this board, not the Church. Just to set the record straight.
Recommended Posts