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

[KevinG]

And what of those of us who know Joseph's history as well as you and have judged his actions to be correct and justified by the Holy Ghost?

 

Don't assume I'm merely suspending judgement.  My personal judgement of Joseph is that he was acting as a Prophet of God, even when he took other men's wives to be sealed to himself.

[jkwilliams]

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.

I don't discount your position at all. And my lack of belief is not predicated on the historical practice of plural marriage. It was that when I stopped rationalizing one thing, I stopped all of it.

I am not saying anything about you, just expressing a little annoyance that others seem to believe that it's an eagerness to judge, not 10 years of wrestling with an issue, that leads to a particular conclusion.

[jkwilliams]

And what of those of us who know Joseph's history as well as you and have judged his actions to be correct and justified by the Holy Ghost?

Don't assume I'm merely suspending judgement. My personal judgement of Joseph is that he was acting as a Prophet of God, even when he took other men's wives to be sealed to himself.

Again, I have said nothing about you. I would hope you understand that I respect your conclusions and assign no motivation to you.

[Gervin]

My personal judgement of Joseph is that he was acting as a Prophet of God

You just got done saying no one is equipped to judge Jos. Smith.

[KevinG]

Again, I have said nothing about you. I would hope you understand that I respect your conclusions and assign no motivation to you.

 

Thanks for the clarification.  I misread that as "I have studied this and those who disagree with me are wrong" rather than "I have studied this and made a personal choice I cannot reconcile it".

 

A distinction that can be difficult to ferret out on discussion boards.

[KevinG]

You just got done saying no one is equipped to judge Jos. Smith.

 

BUSTED!  OK- substitute opinion or conclusion for judgement and that will make more sense.

 

I used Judgement in two different contexts and confused the whole thing.

[jkwilliams]

Thanks for the clarification. I misread that as "I have studied this and those who disagree with me are wrong" rather than "I have studied this and made a personal choice I cannot reconcile it".

A distinction that can be difficult to ferret out on discussion boards.

That's exactly the attitude I am disagreeing with, that not only is someone who disagrees wrong but is being judgmental and eager to judge and is not inclined to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt. Edited November 3, 2015 by jkwilliams

[churchistrue]

Jumping in here, kinda late, but I'll share my perspective and personal experience.

 

There are two aspects of the concept that "anti-Mormon literature didn't do it, the apologists were the one that pushed me out of the church".

 

First aspect.  Rough Stone Rolling was the single most powerful piece of literature in my faith journey that led to loss of belief in the historical foundational truth claims of the church.  Anti's present facts and give spin.  Apologists present facts and give spin (or analysis or opinion, whatever less emotionally charged word you want to use).  For a long time, I assumed the facts the anti's were presenting were "anti-Mormon" lies.  Rough Stone Rolling was the first time it hit me that I had been dismissing fact not just spin.  That's not to point fingers at Rough Stone Rolling or anything an apologist does.  Anytime the facts are more widely publicized, they have a chance of damaging testimony.

 

Second aspect.  The aggressive tone that some apologists use.  This can sometimes turn the doubter against the church emotionally, when that emotional tie is the only thing helping them hang on.  I think this might happen, but probably not that often.  In my case, I was in that period when I was starting to doubt, and after getting in various online scraps with (names redacted---you can guess who the personalities might have been in the 2004-2008 time period), I felt very disheartened.  I thought if the truth was on the LDS side, the apologists wouldn't need to act like this.  They'd be more confident in their position and would be leading and explaining in the way I thought a good Mormon should.  So this actually was one more data point in the entire analysis of thousands of data points.

 

This second aspect probably isn't fair to apologists.  It's an unfair expectation, and I was able to move past it.  But it doesn't help.

[KevinG]

Good points churchistrue...  Apologetics is served to remember to defend the faith by responding with fact in charity.  Professional and amateur defender's alike can be tempted to return polemic for polemic, when a more rational approach can be beneficial.

 

Rough Stone Rolling strengthened my testimony while opening my mind to the complexity and messiness of the early days of the restoration.  Despite learning more of Joseph's struggles, I gained an empathy for what he must have struggled with and came out the other end more appreciative of his work for the Lord.

 

What is hard for me is to respond to those who are passively or even actively aggressive towards the church, and do so in a calm, kind way.  Let's face it there are lots of mean spirited critics and some true anti-mormons out there, and it is hard not to sink to that level in responding to them.

 

On the other hand we create many of our more vociferous enemies by not living up to our own family, and church standards for behavior.  responding to enmity with enmity just escalates things.  My own sarcastic tendencies included.  

[Thinking]

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.

Emphasis mine.

 

I think that it may seem that an unbeliever has rushed to judgement, but I would liken it more to a dam breaking. The unbeliever has questions and tries to reconcile them. More questions emerge. Not enough reconciliation. The unbeliever still wants to be honest and tells his wife and bishop that it would be dishonest to pretend to have a testimony in order to have a temple recommend. His brother is getting married in two months and he has to tell his parents and his brother that he will be waiting outside the temple during the ceremony. To them it seems so sudden, but in reality it's been more than 8 years since the first question emerged. I suggest that believers don't rush to judgement on the motives of the unbeliever.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

I am not pricked in my conscience at all because of what anyone else did, or is reported to have done.

 

Does that make me a monster?

[jkwilliams]

I am not pricked in my conscience at all because of what anyone else did, or is reported to have done.

 

Does that make me a monster?

 

Nope, not at all. My point is that, for some people, rationalizing certain things hurts their conscience. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Nope, not at all. My point is that, for some people, rationalizing certain things hurts their conscience. 

Is that because, finding a rational reason for something goes against their commitment to finding only spiritual reasons, or because finding a fraudulent rational reason for something is a knowing lie?  Not sure which you intend, nor for whom -- the believer or the non-believer.  Whatever the case, knowingly perpetrating a fraud may indeed hurt one's conscience -- provided one has a conscience and is acquainted with Jiminy Cricket.  

 

One frequently hears (or used to hear) that such-and-such couldn't live with the reality, so he rationalized it away, i.e., he found an excuse, whether legitimate or not, which made sense in some fashion.  However, both pro- and anti-Mormons can and have made use of such questionable means, and we sometimes see it on this board.

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited November 4, 2015 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Is that because, finding a rational reason for something goes against their commitment to finding only spiritual reasons, or because finding a fraudulent rational reason for something is a knowing lie? Not sure which you intend, nor for whom -- the believer or the non-believer. Whatever the case, knowingly perpetrating a fraud may indeed hurt one's conscience -- provided one has a conscience and is acquainted with Jiminy Cricket.

One frequently hears (or used to hear) that such-and-such couldn't live with the reality, so he rationalized it away, i.e., he found an excuse, whether legitimate or not, which made sense in some fashion. However, both pro- and anti-Mormons can and have made use of such questionable means, and we sometimes see it on this board.

What bothers people's conscience differs, as do the excuses they make.

[jkwilliams]

And others think everything is interpretation, not "rationalization". Imagine that!

Do you enjoy taunting me? Whatever melts your butter.

[mfbukowski]

Do you enjoy taunting me? Whatever melts your butter.

That was a taunt?

After I realized I was again pointing out your inconsistencies, I deleted it before you responded. I am sorry I hurt your feelings yet again

[Scott Lloyd]

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. 

I wish such people well.

 

However, implicit in your post to  was the message ("you know people who think he was commanded to hide the marriages from Emma? Maybe we do run in different circles") that there is no reasonable way to view Josephs' behavior other than contemptuously. In my post, I endeavored to show that, considering the context of circumstances and relevant factors, one can reasonably regard it with understanding, empathy, tolerance, and with having one's conviction of Joseph's prophetic calling and sterling character intact. I offer myself as an example of one with such an attitude, and I assure you, contrary to insinuations that have been made here, that I am quite comfortable in that understanding and find in it sweet assurance and peace.

 

Edited to add:

 

And furthermore, I'm fairly certain my course would not have been altogether different were I in Joseph's place. When you find yourself faced with the contradictory choice between obeying God or pleasing mortals, the only wise course is the former.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Good points churchistrue...  Apologetics is served to remember to defend the faith by responding with fact in charity.  Professional and amateur defender's alike can be tempted to return polemic for polemic, when a more rational approach can be beneficial.

 

Rough Stone Rolling strengthened my testimony while opening my mind to the complexity and messiness of the early days of the restoration.  Despite learning more of Joseph's struggles, I gained an empathy for what he must have struggled with and came out the other end more appreciative of his work for the Lord.

 

What is hard for me is to respond to those who are passively or even actively aggressive towards the church, and do so in a calm, kind way.  Let's face it there are lots of mean spirited critics and some true anti-mormons out there, and it is hard not to sink to that level in responding to them.

 

On the other hand we create many of our more vociferous enemies by not living up to our own family, and church standards for behavior.  responding to enmity with enmity just escalates things.  My own sarcastic tendencies included.  

Apologists sometimes are rather like the schoolyard provocateur's victim who finds himself sitting in the principal's office because he couldn't restrain himself from hitting back.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Apologists sometimes are rather like the schoolyard provocateur's victim who finds himself sitting in the principal's office because he couldn't restrain himself from hitting back.

 

And sometimes they're the provocateurs, especially in this schoolyard.

[Robert F. Smith]

And others think everything is interpretation, not "rationalization". Imagine that!

Do you enjoy taunting me? Whatever melts your butter.

Mark might not be taunting you, John, since interpretation is at the heart of another theory of rationalization:  Brant Gardner quotes non-Mormon scholar Lewis Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion, 114 (in his latest book on The Traditions of the Fathers [Kofford, 2015], 269),

 

         Scholars have come to recognize that ritual can play a vital part in religious life.  Indeed, some argue that ritual precedes all other aspects of religion: people first perform religiously, and then rationalize the process by way of theology.  [italics in original]

 

Rambo is here referring to ritual as the source of myth, which was Hugh Nibley's  central belief -- which he got from the platonistic Cambridge Patternists (Myth-Ritual School), also known as the "Harrison Circle," and which spread with the Uppsala School and Kultgeschichtliche Schule,*  Ritual ➞ Myth.   As the late Robert Graves said:

 

True myth may be defined as the reduction to narrative shorthand of ritual mime performed on public festivals, and in many cases recorded pictorially on temple walls, vases, seals, bowls, mirrors, chests, shields, tapestries, and the like.**

 

*  Collected Works of Hugh Nibley VIII:193-206; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 1 vol. abridged ed. (1922/ 1951); T. H. Gaster, Thespis: Myth, Ritual and Drama in the Near East (1950/1977); S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship (1958); Hooke, ed., Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East (1933); Jane E. Harrison, Ancient Art and Ritual (1913); Harrison, Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion, 1st ed. (1912); 2nd ed. (1927); Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 3rd ed. (1922); Geo Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III) (1950); Alan Watts, Myth and Ritual in Christianity, Myth and Man series, ed. Joseph Campbell (1954).

**  Graves, The Greek Myths, rev. ed., 2 vols. (1960), I:12.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Mark might not be taunting you, John, since interpretation is at the heart of another theory of rationalization: Brant Gardner quotes non-Mormon scholar Lewis Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion, 114 (in his latest book on The Traditions of the Fathers [Kofford, 2015], 269),

Scholars have come to recognize that ritual can play a vital part in religious life. Indeed, some argue that ritual precedes all other aspects of religion: people first perform religiously, and then rationalize the process by way of theology. [italics in original]

Rambo is here referring to ritual as the source of myth, which was Hugh Nibley's central belief -- which he got from the platonistic Cambridge Patternists (Myth-Ritual School), also known as the "Harrison Circle," and which spread with the Uppsala School and Kultgeschichtliche Schule,* Ritual ➞ Myth. As the late Robert Graves said:

True myth may be defined as the reduction to narrative shorthand of ritual mime performed on public festivals, and in many cases recorded pictorially on temple walls, vases, seals, bowls, mirrors, chests, shields, tapestries, and the like.**

* Collected Works of Hugh Nibley VIII:193-206; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 1 vol. abridged ed. (1922/ 1951); T. H. Gaster, Thespis: Myth, Ritual and Drama in the Near East (1950/1977); S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship (1958); Hooke, ed., Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East (1933); Jane E. Harrison, Ancient Art and Ritual (1913); Harrison, Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion, 1st ed. (1912); 2nd ed. (1927); Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 3rd ed. (1922); Geo Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III) (1950); Alan Watts, Myth and Ritual in Christianity, Myth and Man series, ed. Joseph Campbell (1954).

** Graves, The Greek Myths, rev. ed., 2 vols. (1960), I:12.

Yes indeed. Ritual creates the sacred and always has. It redefines an action or object by putting it in a sacred context, and by acting as if it is sacred. This redefinition is "making rational" much as language makes rational our experiences. It literally is "rationalization" in the sense of making the object or action rational by giving it a purpose it never had before.

It is organizing reality in a different way and making it rational in a new context. It is making three sticks into a Pythagorean form of the perfect triangle, represented and "incarnated" on earth. Think of transubstantiation.

There is a revival of a thread around now about Ann Taves work in this exact area.

Edited November 4, 2015 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Robert, I think we are using different definitions of "rationalize." I used it in its most common sense of attempting to justify or make excuses for something that bothers your conscience. Either way, I shouldn't have let Mark goad me into a response.

 

ra·tion·al·ize

ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/

verb

 

1. 1.

   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

   "she couldn't rationalize her urge to return to the cottage"

   synonyms: justify, explain, explain away, account for, defend, vindicate, excuse

   "he tried to rationalize his behavior"

 

 

 

I don't think that definition works in the sentence you quoted from Brant:

 

Indeed, some argue that ritual precedes all other aspects of religion: people first perform religiously, and then [excuse] the process by way of theology.

 

Edited November 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Gray]

I think my particular Mormon upbringing is such that I can't try to justify Joseph Smith's actions regarding plural marriage. I can't in good concience say that what he did was right.

 

But, I also spent enough time obsessing over the teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament that I don't feel the need to judge Joseph Smith harshly either. No spiritual teacher will ever fully live up to the ideals of their message. Some fail spectacularly. It's the human experience.

[jkwilliams]

I think my particular Mormon upbringing is such that I can't try to justify Joseph Smith's actions regarding plural marriage. I can't in good concience say that what he did was right.

 

But, I also spent enough time obsessing over the teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament that I don't feel the need to judge Joseph Smith harshly either. No spiritual teacher will ever fully live up to the ideals of their message. Some fail spectacularly. It's the human experience.

 

Well said. For me, it's not that Joseph was some horrible person but that I realized I was justifying things that hurt my conscience. Even then, I have no problem with God working through a flawed prophet. IIRC, it was Wilford Woodruff who said--I'm paraphrasing from memory--that he was glad he saw Joseph's faults and imperfections because, if the Lord could accomplish so great a work through such a man, there was hope for Wilford Woodruff. As someone said earlier in the thread, it probably does say more about me and, to quote you, my particular Mormon upbringing, that I can't justify Joseph's actions.

 

I do believe most people in or out of the church would find Joseph's behavior problematic, though I respect those, such as Scott, who have thought this through and decided that he was justified. My objection was to Scott's suggestion that those of us who haven't reached that conclusion were eager to judge and wanted to find fault. 

Edited November 4, 2015 by jkwilliams