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

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with you, but I believe there are a lot of factors beyond "current frame of mind" involved in people letting go of their most cherished beliefs. Some people seem to think the very fact that someone would let go means they didn't cherish them much at all.

More often than not, it has nothing to do with belief or doctrine, but rather may be a socio-economic dynamic at base, or just a vague sense of comfort in one lifestyle as opposed to another.  Indeed, Sociologist Gary Tobin says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once.”**

 

*  Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552; cf. J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977); Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995); Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.  See also S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379; “Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

**  Tobin, Moment, 27/4  (Aug 2002), 58.

[jkwilliams]

More often than not, it has nothing to do with belief or doctrine, but rather may be a socio-economic dynamic at base, or just a vague sense of comfort in one lifestyle as opposed to another.  Indeed, Sociologist Gary Tobin says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once.”**

 

*  Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552; cf. J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977); Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995); Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.  See also S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379; “Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

**  Tobin, Moment, 27/4  (Aug 2002), 58.

My point is that it probably differs from person to person, and it never helps to assume the reasons people leave. In my experience, the worst thing you can do when trying to help someone maintain belief is to tell them why you think they are having problems believing. Best to let them explain it to you.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

Striking in this context is synonymous with impressive or persuasive; not the same as conclusive.

Proofs in mathematics might be "conclusive," but not likely in areas such as questions of historicity.

 

In any case, Dan Peterson's quotation certainly doesn't suggest any sort of "conclusiveness."  However, he takes in far more than just the testimony of the witnesses in that quotation, and such breadth of evidence is indeed striking, impressive, or persuasive.

 

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the complexity of its content and the speed of its dictation, the manifold ways in which it and other revelations given through Joseph Smith seem to fit the ancient milieu that they purport to reflect, the abundant evidence of Joseph’s sincerity and good character, the profundity of his teachings — these and many other things seem so striking that, for us, many other controversies resemble quibbles over whether St. Denis walked a hundred miles or only 99.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

Proofs in mathematics might be "conclusive," but not likely in areas such as questions of historicity.

 

In any case, Dan Peterson's quotation certainly doesn't suggest any sort of "conclusiveness."  However, he takes in far more than just the testimony of the witnesses in that quotation, and such breadth of evidence is indeed striking, impressive, or persuasive.

My point was that a lot of people don't find the evidence he lists particularly striking, impressive, or persuasive. I wouldn't venture to say why that is, but I doubt it's largely because people aren't inclined to believe in the first place, though that may be true for some.

[Robert F. Smith]

My point is that it probably differs from person to person, and it never helps to assume the reasons people leave. In my experience, the worst thing you can do when trying to help someone maintain belief is to tell them why you think they are having problems believing. Best to let them explain it to you.

That is what I do, and have had extensive experience with people making claims of one sort or another.  I don't limit that to people who have left this or that religion or lifestyle.  The sociologists I cited did the same thing and were able to group people into various classes.  No surprises, naturally.  Pretty much what you might expect of people generally:  Just like the people on the series "Cheers," they typically seek a place and people with whom they can feel comfortable.  I had a girlfriend once who selected a church on that basis and said so.  Made sense to me, and I didn't tell her she could be wrong.  I have a sister with whom I am very close, and she chose to attend a local Presbyterian Church.  I have honored her choice by never calling it into question in any way, even though she is a member of the LDS Church.  I feel quite comfortable attending other churches or synagogues, and have on many occasions -- often participating fully.

 

However, I take it that we are a bit more thick-skinned and intellectually concerned on this board than we might be consorting with the members of our local congregations on a quotidian basis.  I take it that we agree with my friend Mike Quinn that "The unexamined faith is not worth having."  Yes, I know he based that on "The unexamined life is not worth living."  The sentiment is true in either case, and some may find such close examination upsetting or disturbing.  After all, one guy was sentenced to death for it.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

That is what I do, and have had extensive experience with people making claims of one sort or another.  I don't limit that to people who have left this or that religion or lifestyle.  The sociologists I cited did the same thing and were able to group people into various classes.  No surprises, naturally.  Pretty much what you might expect of people generally:  Just like the people on the series "Cheers," they typically seek a place and people with whom they can feel comfortable.  I had a girlfriend once who selected a church on that basis and said so.  Made sense to me, and I didn't tell her she could be wrong.  I have a sister with whom I am very close, and she chose to attend a local Presbyterian Church.  I have honored her choice by never calling it into question in any way, even though she is a member of the LDS Church.  I feel quite comfortable attending other churches or synagogues, and have on may occasions -- often participating fully.

 

However, I take it that we are a bit more thick-skinned and intellectually concerned on this board than we might be consorting with the members of our local congregations on a quotidian basis.  I take that we agree with my friend Mike Quinn that "The unexamined faith is not worth having."  Yes, I know he based that on "The unexamined life is not worth living."  The sentiment is true in either case, and some may find such close examination upsetting or disturbing.

Well said. People who have examined their faith and have maintained or increased it have my complete respect. I sometimes I wish I were one of them.

[Buckeye]

Surprising, we're almost 14 pages into this topic on Dan Peterson and the dark lord has not made an entrance. 

[Thinking]

No surprises, naturally.  Pretty much what you might expect of people generally:  Just like the people on the series "Cheers," they typically seek a place and people with whom they can feel comfortable.

 

A coworker of mine (back in the 80's) told me once that some missionaries (not LDS) had come to his door to try to teach him about their religion. During the course of the conversation he made it known to them that he wasn't going to change his lifestyle. They told him he was going to Hell. He responded that he was OK with that because from their description of who goes there, all of his friends would be there too.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well said. People who have examined their faith and have maintained or increased it have my complete respect. I sometimes I wish I were one of them.

However, John, I take it that you have a belief system of some sort which you have examined and you live by.  You have suggested as much in making judgments about other belief systems.  So, if you are adhering to that belief system, how do you differ from those who adhere to a differing system?  Surely you apply specific principles of judgment and hermeneutical canons of knowing.  Don't all of us do that?  And, when we are called into jury service we sometimes get to apply those principles and canons to civil or criminal cases, along with a group of disparate individuals -- who must somehow reach a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.

 

You have no doubt served on juries, and have found that the deliberations require a good deal of mutual respect as well as firmness.  Finding truth ain't easy.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Again, the intent of LDS apologetics, as I see it, is not to prove Mormonism true definitively and empirically, but rather to fend off attacks to the extent that the question is left open. If we can do that much, then mission accomplished, say I.

That is a pretty good intent, but not as good as the intent of a scholar who takes seriously the nature of the evidence and believes that it is quite convincing -- purely as an intellectual matter.  Going through the motions merely to keep the discussion open is not what Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, Dan Peterson, and I have been doing.

 

Of course, there are those anxiously engaged in arguing that the evidence goes in the opposite direction.  There must needs be opposition, says I.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

And for most people, that is troubling information that speaks to Joseph's character. As I said, some people believe that there are good answers for this concealment, but for most people, it's troubling, and the answers given by apologists (such as, he had to hide it from Emma because she wouldn't let him keep the commandment) are not comforting at all.

 

'Most people' in the world? 'Most people' in the Church? 'Most people' you hang out with?

[saemo]

That is a pretty good intent, but not as good as the intent of a scholar who takes seriously the nature of the evidence and believes that it is quite convincing -- purely as an intellectual matter.  Going through the motions merely to keep the discussion open is not what Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, Dan Peterson, and I have been doing.

 

Of course, there are those anxiously engaged in arguing that the evidence goes in the opposite direction.  There must needs be opposition, says I.  

All looks to me in the same vein as the emperor who had no clothes.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Our views are likely colored by different experiences.

 

I suspect this is the key to many of the different responses we see to information more broadly. For example, people who have received difficult personal revelation, who have struggled to understand and implement it, who have forged ahead anyway and done their best, finding peace and strength in that choice and eventually tasting the sweet fruit of their obedience will look upon Joseph's practice of plural marriage differently to those who -- for whatever reason/s -- may have not had that experience.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

We might attribute it to post partum depression by those who thought the grass was greener somewhere, and then found out the hard truth -- that they sold their soul for a mess of pottage.  Discovery after the fact can be such a let down . 

Where are you getting your information, because it doesn't align with an anything I have experienced or observed.  To me this sounds like just another take on the old "they left because their feelings were hurt and they wanted to sin". 

If you take a look at another thread OP by Blair Hodges, you'll see that he knew people who left the LDS faith because they erroneously thought that one could not be an evolutionist and Mormon at the same time.  The reason they believed that nonsense is because they were not well informed.  That happens a lot.  People leave because they just don't know what the LDS faith actually is.  What happens later?  After they discover their error.  Well, it is hard to admit that you are wrong, so some will talk about the LDS faith not being any good anyway -- the old "sour grapes" response.  Others admit their fault and come back to full faith..

Edited November 3, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

'Most people' in the world? 'Most people' in the Church? 'Most people' you hang out with?

I think it's safe to say that most people in the world would find it troubling for a man to marry other women without his legal wife's knowledge or consent. I don't know what kind of people you hang out with, so YMMV.

[jkwilliams]

However, John, I take it that you have a belief system of some sort which you have examined and you live by.  You have suggested as much in making judgments about other belief systems.  So, if you are adhering to that belief system, how do you differ from those who adhere to a differing system?  Surely you apply specific principles of judgment and hermeneutical canons of knowing.  Don't all of us do that?  And, when we are called into jury service we sometimes get to apply those principles and canons to civil or criminal cases, along with a group of disparate individuals -- who must somehow reach a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.

 

You have no doubt served on juries, and have found that the deliberations require a good deal of mutual respect as well as firmness.  Finding truth ain't easy.

Depends on who you ask, whether I have any belief system other than to destroy the faith of others.

What I mean is that I would not have caused my family so much pain had I been able to maintain the faith I had for 40 years. I've actually never served on a jury, only been called for jury duty once, and that was literally the day before I moved away from Texas. I agree with you that truth is difficult to find, and I wouldn't say I've found it.

Most days I feel a kinship with the nihilists in The Big Lebowski: "Nihilists! ... I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." I'm not even sure I have an ethos anymore.

Edited November 2, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think it's safe to say that most people in the world would find it troubling for a man to marry other women without his legal wife's knowledge or consent. I don't know what kind of people you hang out with, so YMMV.

 

Ah, so a hypothetical projection.

[jkwilliams]

Ah, so a hypothetical projection.

I haven't taken a survey, but yes, I think it's a safe bet. Do you honestly think that a majority of people in the world would not have a problem with a man taking multiple wives without the knowledge and consent of his first wife? If so, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I haven't taken a survey, but yes, I think it's a safe bet. Do you honestly think that a majority of people in the world would not have a problem with a man taking multiple wives without the knowledge and consent of his first wife?

 

I suspect it would depend in large part on if people were asked with a leading question based on a soundbite explanation or if they were asked based upon a fuller context.

 

In the former instance, it would also depend upon local culture; in large parts of the world, men still do take additional wives without the consent of existing wives. (I've lived in such places; your projected freak-out would be completely lost on them.)

 

In the latter instance, I suspect it would then also depend upon pre-existing beliefs* and/or personal experiences, complicated further by the possible intervention of personal revelation.

 

-----

*The Elders were teaching an investigator in my home last week, and when they asked him how he felt about what they had shared, he said, 'I don't believe it, but I have no reason to reject it since similar things happened in the Bible, and I believe that'.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[cynth]

 

Robert F. Smith, on 31 Oct 2015 - 4:23 PM, said:

If you take a look at another thread OP by Blair Hodges, you'll see that he knew people who left the LDS faith because they erroneously thought that one could not be an evolutionist and Mormon at the same time.  The reason they believed that nonsense is because they were not well informed.  That happens a lot.  People leave because they just don't know what the LDS faith actually is.  What happens later?  After they discover their error.  Well, it is hard to admit that you are wrong, so some will talk about the LDS faith not being any good anyway -- the old "sour grapes" response.  Others admit their fault and come back to full faith..

 

And some move forward, never looking back, satisfied with their decision.  The entire spectrum may be there, no reason to disregard anyone's anecdotal evidences, which of course, remain what they are, anecdotal. 

[jkwilliams]

I suspect it would depend in large part on if people were asked with a leading question based on a soundbite explanation or if they were asked based upon a fuller context.

 

In the former instance, it would also depend upon local culture; in large parts of the world, men still do take additional wives without the consent of existing wives. (I've lived in such places; your projected freak-out would be completely lost on them.)

Freak-out? No need for hyperbole. lol

 

In the latter instance, I suspect it would then also depend upon pre-existing beliefs and/or personal experiences, subject to the possible intervention of personal revelation.

I guess I am still waiting for the context that would make such behavior acceptable. I haven't seen it yet, certainly not in the church essay, which doesn't attempt to justify it. But that would be a subject for another thread, not this one.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I guess I am still waiting for the context that would make such behavior acceptable. I haven't seen it yet.

 

Fair enough. But that doesn't change the reality that millions of Latter-day Saints see it.

[jkwilliams]

Fair enough. But that doesn't change the reality that millions of Latter-day Saints see it.

Have you surveyed millions of Latter-day Saints, or are you just hypothetically projecting? I doubt millions of Latter-day Saints even know Joseph married women without Emma's knowledge and consent, let alone see a context in which that would be acceptable. Do you have information otherwise?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I doubt millions of Latter-day Saints even know Joseph married women without Emma's knowledge and consent, let alone see a context in which that would be acceptable. Do you have information otherwise?

 

Just anecdotal. That's precisely why I was interested in the source of your assertion. I can honestly say that the Latter-day Saints I know in these parts are (1) familiar with the basic details of the history of plural marriage in the Church and (2) have no concerns with it. (Some, of course, may be harbouring unexpressed concerns.)

 

I can state with further confidence that not one of the many investigators that I've helped join the Church over the past two years (as WML) has been ignorant of the history of plural marriage in the Church. Former members who are convinced that if only people know what they know, those people won't join the Church have made sure of that.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Teancum]

You seem habituated to personalizing these discussions. Well, as a counter to your anecdotal evidence, I'll offer myself as an example of one who, having already received a spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost of the divinity of Jospeh Smith's calling, has been helped toward greater understanding by sources such as the Gospel Topics essay I quoted.

 

I'm not disparaging the honesty of anyone who is troubled by the issues, only suggesting that the available information is not sufficient to justify abandoning the faith over them, especially when someone has received personal revelation about the truthfulness of the Restoration.

 

And I stand by my observation that Analytics gave us a textbook example of quick-and-dirty, bumper-sticker, sound-bite style argumentation.

 

 

Perhaps some are willing to re-evaluate their so called spiritual witness in light of information they did not have in the first place. It is not a pleasant thing to do.