Dan Peterson: "what It Feels Like To Be A Mormon 'apologist'"

[Scott Lloyd]

A frequent assertion from some in the ex-Mormon crowd is "Apologists drove me out of the Church." I have always been skeptical of this. I think more often than not, they removed themselves for all intents and purposes and are now trying to score points against the "morg" by blaming defenders. The motive seems to be to demoralize defenders so that nobody will bother defending anymore. It hasn't worked, and it won't.

 

Anyway, this is preamble to my link to Daniel Peterson's Deseret News column this week in "Mormon Times" in which he addresses this topic.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Thanks for that. I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever anyone asks me about apologetic responses to specific issues, I always send them to apologetic sources. I don't think apologists are desperate, but obviously I don't see that there's much evidence in favor of that "first step" he speaks of. Some people find Mormon apologetics convincing, or at least as holding out hope for convincing. Sometimes I wish I did. I also don't think apologists drive people out of the church. That said, I know a lot of people who went to the apologists after doing a lot of homework and found the apologetic stuff unconvincing. So, in that sense, it was engaging apologetics that was sort of the last straw.

 

There is good apologetics and bad, just as there is good criticism and bad. Which is which probably depends on who is reading it.

[HappyJackWagon]

A frequent meme from some in the ex-Mormon crowd is "Apologists drove me out of the Church." I have always been skeptical of this. I think more often than not, they removed themselves for all intents and purposes and are now trying to score points against the "morg" by blaming defenders. The motive seems to be to demoralize defenders so that nobody will bother defending anymore. It hasn't worked, and it won't.

 

Anyway, this is preamble to my link to Daniel Peterson's Deseret News column this week in "Mormon Times" in which he addresses this topic.

I've made that claim before because it's how it worked in my personal experience. My experience isn't universal but it is real. I have had no motivation, like you assert, to try to "demoralize defenders". My comments are more generally directed towards the harsh nastiness of many apologists. While I was a TBM in a leadership position I used to post regularly on the now defunct FAIR Mormon Support board to try finding answers for others but the bitterness and condescension of many of the apologist posters was unbearable. Bottom line, if someone acts like a jerk, I'm less likely to listen to them. It's human nature, I guess. Some were very kind and thoughtful, but unfortunately they were drowned out by the bad.

 

And this says nothing about many of the arguments that I studied on FAIR that were little more than desperate pleas to not think for myself and just trust them because...you know...they're really smart.

 

FAIR and the FAIR SUPPORT board colored my view of apologists because I had a good deal of contact and it wasn't pleasant.

Edited October 30, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Buckeye]

Peterson hasn't driven me out of the church (yet), but he did help to drive me out of the Republican party. And if it wasn't for the more aggressive types, I never would have learned some crucial information such as "Metcalfe is Butthead."

 

Seriously, though, on the whole I find the apologists beneficial. Until the recent essays, they were often the only source I could point members to for an understanding of many of the problematic issues.

[sethpayne]

A frequent meme from some in the ex-Mormon crowd is "Apologists drove me out of the Church." I have always been skeptical of this. I think more often than not, they removed themselves for all intents and purposes and are now trying to score points against the "morg" by blaming defenders. The motive seems to be to demoralize defenders so that nobody will bother defending anymore. It hasn't worked, and it won't.

 

 

nevermind ... except to say that the bolded part is absolutely false

Edited October 30, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

I've made that claim before because it's how it worked in my personal experience. My experience isn't universal but it is real. I have had no motivation, like you assert, to try to "demoralize defenders". My comments are more generally directed towards the harsh nastiness of many apologists. While I was a TBM in a leadership position I used to post regularly on the now defunct FAIR Mormon Support board to try finding answers for others but the bitterness and condescension of many of the apologist posters was unbearable. Bottom line, if someone acts like a jerk, I'm less likely to listen to them. It's human nature, I guess. Some were very kind and thoughtful, but unfortunately they were drowned out by the bad.

 

And this says nothing about many of the arguments that I studied on FAIR that were little more than desperate pleas to not think for myself and just trust them because...you know...they're really smart.

 

FAIR and the FAIR SUPPORT board colored my view of apologists because I had a good deal of contact and it wasn't pleasant.

From the column:

 

Few, if any, medicines cure every patient. Even the best pharmaceuticals can sometimes cause harm, hence the obligatory warnings. One in 7 flu vaccinations leads to coughing, abdominal pain or nausea. One in a hundred causes fever.

But this scarcely means that vaccinations are without value.

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

I saw a YouTube video once - a teenager had decided to tell his parents he didn't believe in God any more, and decided to tape the thing and stick it on the internet.  The mom turned into a swearing hate-filled contemptuous horrible rage monster and said (among many other things) that the kid would get no Christmas presents "because that's Jesus".  

 

I wonder if folks have encountered mormons who have acted in similarly horrible ways, and think that's what apologists do.

Edited October 30, 2015 by LoudmouthMormon

[rockpond]

A frequent meme from some in the ex-Mormon crowd is "Apologists drove me out of the Church." I have always been skeptical of this. I think more often than not, they removed themselves for all intents and purposes and are now trying to score points against the "morg" by blaming defenders. The motive seems to be to demoralize defenders so that nobody will bother defending anymore. It hasn't worked, and it won't.

 

Anyway, this is preamble to my link to Daniel Peterson's Deseret News column this week in "Mormon Times" in which he addresses this topic.

 

I'm a regularly listener to the MS podcast and a member of the MS podcast community so I've heard commentary from a lot of ex-Mo's.  I don't recall any of them saying that apologist drove them out of the church.  But I do know that many of them weren't able to find solace or answers from most of the existing LDS apologists.  The feedback I have heard from them is more along the lines of ways that Mormon apologetics could be better.

 

When I had my faith crisis/challenge I didn't find writings of FAIR to be helpful.

 

Your ad hominem in the OP is illustrative of the problem with much of the LDS apologetics out there:  The attitude that the one with the faith crisis is the problem rather than admitting that there may have been (or still be) some problems with church doctrines/teachings/history.  And proceeding from there.

 

All that said, I don't blame the LDS apologists.  They are in a tough spot given the current church position and culture.  There are answers and good apologetics but the current Church leadership and culture doesn't seem very accepting of those answers.  So apologists are somewhat limited.  We're all in a very tough spot that I think will (hopefully) improve as more and more essay topics are tackled.

[Analytics]

A frequent meme from some in the ex-Mormon crowd is "Apologists drove me out of the Church." I have always been skeptical of this. I think more often than not, they removed themselves for all intents and purposes and are now trying to score points against the "morg" by blaming defenders. The motive seems to be to demoralize defenders so that nobody will bother defending anymore. It hasn't worked, and it won't.

 

Anyway, this is preamble to my link to Daniel Peterson's Deseret News column this week in "Mormon Times" in which he addresses this topic.

 

Some arguments are better than others, and some apologists do more good than harm for their cause.  But a lot of apologetics is exactly like the Wizard of Oz telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. 

 

Even though you hope the Church is true, you strongly begin to suspect it isn't.  When the apologist makes efforts to distract the doubter from the problem rather than address it directly, it lends validity to the problem.  After all, if the problem had a valid response, why wouldn't the valid response simply and clearly be given?

 

I'm not saying this to somehow "demoralize defenders" and "score points against the morg."  It's simply the truth. 

 

If somebody has a valid reason to doubt the church and asks an apologist about it in a desperate attempt to find a reason to believe, it is counterproductive to take the attitude of "no uncontested slam dunks!" and obfuscate, divert, dodge, or otherwise misrepresent.

[jkwilliams]

I saw a YouTube video once, a teenager had decided to tell his parents he didn't believe in God any more and decided to tape the thing and stick it on the internet.  The mom turned into a flying swearing hate-filled contemptuous horrible rage monster and said (among many other things) that the kid would get no Christmas presents "because that's Jesus".  

 

I wonder if folks have encountered mormons who have acted in similarly horrible ways, and think that's what apologists do.

 

Just because some LDS apologists sent me and my wife death threats, it doesn't mean that's what apologists do. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for that. I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever anyone asks me about apologetic responses to specific issues, I always send them to apologetic sources. I don't think apologists are desperate, but obviously I don't see that there's much evidence in favor of that "first step" he speaks of. Some people find Mormon apologetics convincing, or at least as holding out hope for convincing. Sometimes I wish I did. I also don't think apologists drive people out of the church. That said, I know a lot of people who went to the apologists after doing a lot of homework and found the apologetic stuff unconvincing. So, in that sense, it was engaging apologetics that was sort of the last straw.

 

There is good apologetics and bad, just as there is good criticism and bad. Which is which probably depends on who is reading it.

 

Thanks for that. I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever anyone asks me about apologetic responses to specific issues, I always send them to apologetic sources. I don't think apologists are desperate, but obviously I don't see that there's much evidence in favor of that "first step" he speaks of. Some people find Mormon apologetics convincing, or at least as holding out hope for convincing. Sometimes I wish I did. I also don't think apologists drive people out of the church. That said, I know a lot of people who went to the apologists after doing a lot of homework and found the apologetic stuff unconvincing. So, in that sense, it was engaging apologetics that was sort of the last straw.

 

There is good apologetics and bad, just as there is good criticism and bad. Which is which probably depends on who is reading it.

On the matter of whether the "first step" is convincing, here is my report appearing in this weekend's Church News of a lecture I covered at last week's Sidney B. Sperry Symposium. It relates to "tangible interactions with Book of Mormon objects." Hard to discount all those witnesses' reports of having handled such objects. And I only touched on a portion of Sweat's lecture, as much as I had space to report.

 

Explaining away such things gets so convoluted that the negative arguments get harder to believe than the original claim: that Joseph received the Book of Mormon plates from an angel and translated them through the gift and power of God.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

On the matter of whether the "first step" is convincing, here is my report appearing in this weekend's Church News of a lecture I covered at last week's Sidney B. Sperry Symposium. It relates to "tangible interactions with Book of Mormon objects." Hard to discount all those witnesses' reports of having handled such objects. And I only touched on a portion of Sweat's lecture, as much as I had space to report.

 

Explaining away such things gets so convoluted that the negative arguments get harder to believe than the original claim: that Joseph received the Book of Mormon plates from an angel and translated them through the gift and power of God.

 

I don't feel the need to explain away the witnesses. That would be rather odd.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just because some LDS apologists sent me and my wife death threats, it doesn't mean that's what apologists do. 

For poisoning the well, you can't beat a bit of passive-agression, eh jkwilliams?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't feel the need to explain away the witnesses. That would be rather odd.

Well, then that takes us back to Dr. Peterson's analogy. The remarkable thing is not that the headless body walked 100 miles, it is that it walked at all.

[jkwilliams]

For poisoning the well, you can't beat a bit of passive-agression, eh jkwilliams?

 

I'm not poisoning the well. I just think it's silly to imagine that some apologists don't do unpleasant things. I've known anti-Mormons who are as vicious and unscrupulous as anyone in pushing their agendas and trying to destroy their enemies. It just seemed rather reductive to say that bad experiences with apologists are the result of assuming things about people instead of actual experience.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

If somebody has a valid reason to doubt the church and asks an apologist about it in a desperate attempt to find a reason to believe, it is counterproductive to take the attitude of "no uncontested slam dunks!" and obfuscate, divert, dodge, or otherwise misrepresent.

If, on the other hand, somebody's reason for doubting the Church stems from bit of spurious sophistry or distortion found in the Internet, then contesting the slam dunk could hardly be regarded as counterproductive.

[Buckeye]

Well, then that takes us back to Dr. Peterson's analogy. The remarkable thing is not that the headless body walked 100 miles, it is that it walked at all.

 

By that logic, we should all be Catholics. The original church lasted for well over one mile. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not poisoning the well. I just think it's silly to imagine that some apologists don't do unpleasant things. I've known anti-Mormons who are as vicious and unscrupulous as anyone in pushing their agendas and trying to destroy their enemies. It just seemed rather reductive to say that bad experiences with apologists are the result of assuming things about people instead of actual experience.

Well, the most prominent and reputable sources of LDS apologetics these days seem to be FairMormon and the Interpreter Foundation. I don't recall seeing any death threats or other viciousness from these sources. I've seen accusations along those lines, but none ever substantiated.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

By that logic, we should all be Catholics. The original church lasted for well over one mile. 

You've misapplied the analogy. The point is, if Joseph really was visited by God and Jesus Christ, if the Book of Mormon is an authentic record and if he translated it by the gift and power of God, most of the other stuff is just quibbling.

[Buckeye]

You've misapplied the analogy. The point is, if Joseph really was visited by God and Jesus Christ, if the Book of Mormon is an authentic record and if he translated it by the gift and power of God, most of the other stuff is just quibbling.

 

If Christ arose and appointed Peter and met with the disciples and the church was organized and grew, maybe all that other apostasy stuff is just quibbling. 

 

I haven't misapplied the analogy. It's just a really bad one.

[Zakuska]

I'm not poisoning the well. I just think it's silly to imagine that some apologists don't do unpleasant things. I've known anti-Mormons who are as vicious and unscrupulous as anyone in pushing their agendas and trying to destroy their enemies. It just seemed rather reductive to say that bad experiences with apologists are the result of assuming things about people instead of actual experience.

If I may borrow your words:

 

I've known "Scientists" who are as vicious and unscrupulous as anyone in pushing their agendas and trying to destroy their enemies. They've even resorted to forging fossils.

 

[jkwilliams]

Well, the most prominent and reputable sources of LDS apologetics these days seem to be FairMormon and the Interpreter Foundation. I don't recall seeing any death threats or other viciousness from these sources. I've seen accusations along those lines, but none ever substantiated.

 

I've never received threats from either one of those organizations, nor have I claimed to. I'm reasonably certain I know the identify of the person who threatened my wife, and that person has been actively involved in apologetic organizations. My point was that this dirtbag is not representative of Mormon apologetics, but he/she demonstrates that people do have bad experiences with apologists sometimes.

[jkwilliams]

If I may borrow your words:

 

I've known scientists like that, too. Again, doesn't mean they all do it.

[Buckeye]

Here's a better analogy (and some advise). You don't judge whether a tree is alive by recalling that it had a pretty good first season. You judge it by what it's doing today. If a branch is dead or decayed you don't ignore it and say "well, it bore some good fruit at one point." You cut it off so that it doesn't sap strength from the living parts of the tree and risk introducing disease. 

 

I'm on board with Dan Peterson's (and other's) apparent desire to move off of controversial historical topics that cause heartache and bear no good fruit (e.g., MMM, racial priesthood ban, polygamy, etc.) But "moving off" means to stop defending those things, admit the error, apologize and make restitution, and covenant afresh to do better going forward. Stop defending the offending branches; and instead cut them off and burn them. Unfortunately, unless things have recently changed, most of apologetics has been aimed at making up silly arguments to avoid the reality that some of our teachings and history was just bad fruit from a dead or bitter branch.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a better analogy (and some advise). You don't judge whether a tree is alive by recalling that it had a pretty good first season. You judge it by what it's doing today. If a branch is dead or decayed you don't ignore it and say "well, it bore some good fruit at one point." You cut it off so that it doesn't sap strength from the living parts of the tree and risk introducing disease. 

 

I'm on board with Dan Peterson's (and other's) apparent desire to move off of controversial historical topics that cause heartache and bear no good fruit (e.g., MMM, racial priesthood ban, polygamy, etc.) But "moving off" means to stop defending those things, admit the error, apologize and make restitution, and covenant afresh to do better going forward. Stop defending the offending branches; and instead cut them off and burn them. Unfortunately, unless things have recently changed, most of apologetics has been aimed at making up silly arguments to avoid the reality that some of our teachings and history was just bad fruit from a dead or bitter branch.

Well, you gave three specific examples. Let's consider each in turn.

 

Mountain Meadows Massacre. No authoritative Church spokesman I know of today defends that. It is universally condemned among the leadership of the Church, and an Assistant Church Historian and two colleagues have written what is probably the most reliable account, exposing it for what it is. And I know of no reputable apologist who defends it either. To say that they do is a bad rap.

 

"Racial priesthood ban." The problematic speculations of the past to explain the reason for it have been institutionally and prominently disavowed. There has been no repudiation of the policy itself, because we lack the revelation it would take to do so. As far as can be determined, God temporarily required it for reasons that He has not made known.

 

Plural marriage. This was a directive given by God to the early leaders and members of the Church in this dispensation. It would be presumptuous, to say the least, to disavow something that God Himself commanded. For you to call it "dead fruit" strikes me as presumptuousness on your part. You are free to hold that opinion but it is not binding on the Church of Jesus Christ or its members.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd