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

[jkwilliams]

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.

That's good. I occasionally hear from people who are troubled by these issues, and I always send them to FAIR (and now to the church essays). So, obviously, I'm talking about people who know about the issues and are troubled by it. I do remember in Utah working with a woman who was well-versed in Joseph's practice of polygamy. One day she was asked by a non-member coworker about it, and she spent about 20 minutes explaining the basics, and I added what I knew about it. Unbeknownst to any of us, another coworker was eavesdropping, and after the non-member left, he came over and was literally yelling at us for daring to spread lies about the prophet. My coworker sent him to FAIR, and he came back saying that, yes, we were telling the truth, but he couldn't figure out how that could have been OK with God for a prophet to do. Pretty much every believer I have ever known is troubled by what happened. Some are able to put it on the shelf, so to speak, or say it's not as bad as we think, but I've never met anyone who believed what Joseph did was righteous and commanded of God.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

That you would put the phrase "so-called" in front of spiritual witness pretty much telegraphs your mindset on this.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

And Dan makes a number of a priori assumptions in his comments.  Very common in apologetics.  The first one is "what I am defending is most certainly true."

[Hamba Tuhan]

Pretty much every believer I have ever known is troubled by what happened. Some are able to put it on the shelf, so to speak, or say it's not as bad as we think, but I've never met anyone who believed what Joseph did was righteous and commanded of God.

 

Clearly we run in very different circles.

 

By the way, I believe that what Joseph did was righteous and commanded of God.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

Clearly we run in very different circles.

You know people who think he was commanded to hide the marriages from Emma? Maybe we do run in different circles.

[Teancum]

That you would put the phrase "so-called" in front of spiritual witness pretty much telegraphs your mindset on this.

 

 

And the clearly offends you.  Yes Scott everyone should challenge what they believe God has told them about supernatural claims. I have had spiritual experiences and believe it or not I still hold them dear and close and that is why I still seek.  But yes I do interpret them differently in light of additional evidences I have discovered in my truth quest and I have been willing to examine them in such light. And that is my mind set.  Your comments above also demonstrate your mind set as well.  What that mind set is really only you can answer but I think I have an idea as to what I it may be, 

[Kenngo1969]

As you've already astutely pointed out, we don't experience phenomena (especially phenomena having to do with faith or with supernatural aspects) as they are: we experience them as we are.  Thus, to me, what matters most about any such phenomena is not that they differ or how they differ, but, rather, whether they inspire those who experience them to strive to live better lives, and whether those phenomena bear good fruit in the lives of those who experience them.  Good fruit is good fruit, period.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Yes, and that is the nub of Lehi's Law of Opposition.  There must needs be opposition.  Without it, there is no discussion, and without discussion there can be no clarity.  In philosophy we say that claims must make a difference.  They cannot be neutral.  One must be able to theoretically falsify any claim.

 

So, does the emperor have clothes?  By what means do we know?  In that case, by simple inspection.  Are all cases that simple?  No.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Well, if not expressed, then at least implied by your constantly thinking out loud on this board.  Just like Joseph Smith, you frequently "reflect" on who you are and where you have been (see his Wentworth Letter phrase "I began to reflect" on page 438 of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith) -- a very healthy exercise indeed.

[mfbukowski]

As you've already astutely pointed out, we don't experience phenomena (especially phenomena having to do with faith or with supernatural aspects) as they are: we experience them as we are.  Thus, to me, what matters most about any such phenomena is not that they differ or how they differ, but, rather, whether they inspire those who experience them to strive to live better lives, and whether those phenomena bear good fruit in the lives of those who experience them.  Good fruit is good fruit, period.

Think of Christianity.

No one can prove a historical resurrection, but look at how powerful the BELIEF in a historical resurrection has been on western culture. The belief is what has made the difference

[mfbukowski]

Yes Scott everyone should challenge what they believe God has told them about supernatural claims.

What assumptions are you making to arrive at that conclusion?

What are your assumptions about the nature of spiritual truth which would cause that assumption itself to be "true"? How would one evaluate that assumption?

[saemo]

Yes, and that is the nub of Lehi's Law of Opposition. There must needs be opposition. Without it, there is no discussion, and without discussion there can be no clarity. In philosophy we say that claims must make a difference. They cannot be neutral. One must be able to theoretically falsify any claim.

So, does the emperor have clothes? By what means do we know? In that case, by simple inspection. Are all cases that simple? No.

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but as I recall the story, the emperor thought he was dressed very finely, but indeed, had no clothes at all. To be more clear and not all analogical, the apologetics I read would like to presents itself as very finely crafted, but to me, not so much. I don't mean to belittle, since I assume the authors are very serious and earnest. But, I can't help noticing what I notice.

To be fair, I notice the same in some Catholic apologetics too, at times. I just think it's a human thing, to present rationalizations, while thinking to oneself, it's all very logical. Also, I'm not immune, since I am human. It's one of the reasons I like inter religious dialogue.

Edited November 3, 2015 by saemo

[Tacenda]

Think of Christianity.

No one can prove a historical resurrection, but look at how powerful the BELIEF in a historical resurrection has been on western culture. The belief is what has made the difference

True, but there is more evidence for it than just belief...we do have The Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited November 3, 2015 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

You know people who think he was commanded to hide the marriages from Emma? Maybe we do run in different circles.

Perhaps not so much that as understanding, based on the fragmentary evidence available, that, finding himself placed in a dilemma, Joseph chose to obey God and, in so doing, acted as he felt he had to do under the circumstances. And based on that nuanced understanding they refuse to rush to judgment -- as some unbelievers are so eager to do -- or to indulge in the black-and-white thinking that detractors would foist upon them.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

True, but there is more evidence for it than just belief...we do have The Dead Sea Scrolls.

And, as pertaining to the Restoration, we have the historic record of contemporaries who had tangible interaction with physical objects associated with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. On this, see my thread about Anthony Sweat's Sperry Symposium lecture.

[Robert F. Smith]

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but as I recall the story, the emperor thought he was dressed very finely, but indeed, had no clothes at all. To be more clear and not all analogical, the apologetics I read would like to presents itself as very finely crafted, but to me, not so much. I don't mean to belittle, since I assume the authors are very serious and earnest. But, I can't help noticing what I notice.

To be fair, I notice the same in some Catholic apologetics too, at times. I just think it's a human thing, to present rationalizations, while thinking to oneself, it's all very logical. Also, I'm not immune, since I am human. It's one of the reasons I like inter religious dialogue.

Of course, the fairy tale of the Emperor with no clothes never happened in real life.  It is an allegory about people who imagine themselves to be something special, all puffed up with pride, when the reality is far more tawdry and disappointing.  And "pride goeth before destruction" (Pr 16:18).  What Hugh Nibley called the "Nephite disease."  Bob Dylan wrote a song about it, "Like a Rolling Stone."

 

And it is certainly true that Roman Catholic and Mormon scholars are subject to blatant rationalization and confirmation bias, even when their arguments seem "logical" and "finely crafted."  Not only inter-religious dialogue, but also dialogue with the irreligious can be important in ferreting out poorly crafted or one-sided arguments.  We keep each other honest.

[Robert F. Smith]

True, but there is more evidence for it than just belief...we do have The Dead Sea Scrolls.

The existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls does provide hard evidence of the existence of a messianic sect of Jews contemporary with Jesus of Nazareth, and they do provide excellent context for the rise of Christianity.  However, they provide no evidence at all for the Resurrection of Jesus, which remains a matter of faith.

[Calm]

True, but there is more evidence for it than just belief...we do have The Dead Sea Scrolls.

How do you see these as evidence for a historic resurrection?

[jkwilliams]

Perhaps not so much that as understanding, based on the fragmentary evidence available, that, finding himself placed in a dilemma, Joseph chose to obey God and, in so doing, acted as he felt he had to do under the circumstances. And based on that nuanced understanding they refuse to rush to judgment -- as some unbelievers are so eager to do -- or to indulge in the black-and-white thinking that detractors would foist upon them.

 

What if they don't rush to judgment? What if someone "gives Joseph a break" for years but finally comes to the conclusion that what Joseph was doing was wrong? It seems as if you believe people are "eager" to judge Joseph negatively, instead of adopting the "nuanced" understanding that other people do. It is quite possible for people to hold onto that nuanced, non-black-and-white thinking for a long time and eventually realize it doesn't work for them. 

[Tacenda]

How do you see these as evidence for a historic resurrection?

I guess I skipped the "resurrection" part and went to the "existence" of Christ in my mind, sorry.

 

My earlier post was edited, I had another thought but deleted, but will put back here.  I believe that no matter what, the LDS would believe in this church just as Christianity will believe in the resurrection with no evidence, although I thought we had witnesses on record that were there?  Just as we have witnesses for the gold plates I guess.  So what about those witnesses that Jesus came back to life, MF?      

[Robert F. Smith]

What if they don't rush to judgment? What if someone "gives Joseph a break" for years but finally comes to the conclusion that what Joseph was doing was wrong? It seems as if you believe people are "eager" to judge Joseph negatively, instead of adopting the "nuanced" understanding that other people do. It is quite possible for people to hold onto that nuanced, non-black-and-white thinking for a long time and eventually realize it doesn't work for them. 

Every scholar must be true to himself, and there need be no apology for that.  Even among anthropologists, some are not quite ready and willing to go off and join a remote tribe in the Amazon basin or Borneo, preferring the armchair approach to ethnology.  Getting naked with the natives and engaging in odd, perhaps shocking practices is regarded by some as the only real way to study such peoples.  No place for narrow concepts and modern Western standards of propriety.

 

One may indeed pass judgment on the personal conduct of Joseph Smith Jr, just as one may pass judgment upon any historical person from the Emperor Nero to John Calvin (including being shocked at the horrific executions they each meted out).  There are plenty of examples to call upon and with which to compare illicit behavior of one sort or another, including the blatant homosexual behavior of towering figures in philosophy -- such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle -- or of great, visionary leaders, such as Alexander the Great.  We overlook those aspects of their behavior simply because it seems inappropriate to apply our presentist standards to them.  We can be shocked and disgusted with them, and that is our right, but it might tell more about us than it does about them.

[KevinG]

What if they don't rush to judgment? What if someone "gives Joseph a break" for years but finally comes to the conclusion that what Joseph was doing was wrong? It seems as if you believe people are "eager" to judge Joseph negatively, instead of adopting the "nuanced" understanding that other people do. It is quite possible for people to hold onto that nuanced, non-black-and-white thinking for a long time and eventually realize it doesn't work for them. 

 

None of us are equipped to judge Joseph.  I think attempting to judge the early Saints from here and now is folly anyway.

 

I've been most satisfied and happy in my religion when I practice judging myself against my own covenants.  I am more miserable and crotchety when I try to fit others behavior into my revelations and knowledge.  This includes anyone from early Prophets to contemporary friends who believe differently than I.

 

It would be a great shame if I gave up my blessings and broke my covenants with God because I didn't like what someone in my ward did, or someone in the church did, or especially what someone did in the church 150 years ago, which I have no stewardship over.

Edited November 3, 2015 by KevinG

[jkwilliams]

None of us are equipped to judge Joseph. I think attempting to judge the early Saints from here and now is folly anyway.

I've been most satisfied and happy in my religion when I practice judging myself against my own covenants. I am more miserable and crotchety when I try to fit others behavior into my revelations and knowledge. This includes anyone from early Prophets to contemporary friends who believe differently than I.

It would be a great shame if I gave up my blessings and broke my covenants with God because I didn't like what someone in my ward did, or someone in the church did, or especially what someone did in the church 150 years ago, which I have no stewardship over.

Mark Twain said you can't pray a lie. Most people can only rationalize things that hurt their conscience for a finite amount of time. Seems to me that what one person calls judging Joseph may well be simply following one's own conscience to another. If abstaining from judgment means ignoring your conscience, I would say you should stop abstaining.

[KevinG]

Mark Twain said you can't pray a lie. Most people can only rationalize things that hurt their conscience for a finite amount of time. Seems to me that what one person calls judging Joseph may well be simply following one's own conscience to another. If abstaining from judgment means ignoring your conscience, I would say you should stop abstaining.

 

As soon as I finish perfecting myself I will start working on my homosexual and polygamous neighbors.

 

If you cannot reconcile being affiliated with the Mormons over historical polygamy then you are probably making the right choice to distance yourself from activity in the church you are not aligned with.

 

I on the other hand have prayed and studied rather long and fervently about race and priesthood, polygamy, and the role of women in the church, and have found answers that do not draw me away from full fellowship and belief with the Latter-day Saints.

 

I can respect your position.  I only ask that you do not discount mine because it is different from yours.

Edited November 3, 2015 by KevinG

[jkwilliams]

Every scholar must be true to himself, and there need be no apology for that. Even among anthropologists, some are not quite ready and willing to go off and join a remote tribe in the Amazon basin or Borneo, preferring the armchair approach to ethnology. Getting naked with the natives and engaging in odd, perhaps shocking practices is regarded by some as the only real way to study such peoples. No place for narrow concepts and modern Western standards of propriety.

One may indeed pass judgment on the personal conduct of Joseph Smith Jr, just as one may pass judgment upon any historical person from the Emperor Nero to John Calvin (including being shocked at the horrific executions they each meted out). There are plenty of examples to call upon and with which to compare illicit behavior of one sort or another, including the blatant homosexual behavior of towering figures in philosophy -- such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle -- or of great, visionary leaders, such as Alexander the Great. We overlook those aspects of their behavior simply because it seems inappropriate to apply our presentist standards to them. We can be shocked and disgusted with them, and that is our right, but it might tell more about us than it does about them.

It probably does. It seems to me we are expected not to refrain from judging Joseph but to justify or approve of what he did. Some people can do that, and others can't.

And there's nothing presentist about believing a man should not marry another woman behind his legal wife's back. I am reasonably sure that was frowned upon during Joseph's life.