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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I'm glad that you recognize such behavior is "not representative of Mormon apologetics."

[jkwilliams]

I'm glad that you recognize such behavior is "not representative of Mormon apologetics."

That was my point.

[TOmNossor]

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.

Analytics,

I wanted to rather directly address a little of what you said.  Having followed things you have said for years, I expect that you have considered your words carefully.  Is it impossible that what you characterize as “don’t look at the man behind the curtain” is really or at least OFTEN something else?

Before I go into that: In defense of Scott’s and Dan’s words, I find the idea that those who know the issues and believe are somehow less “analytic” or less “intelligent” or less … than those who learn the issues and leave to be so beyond reasonable that I seek for another explanation for why this is said so frequently.  And I, like them, frequently come to many negative conclusions about the motivations and/or underlying analytics of those who claim such.

 

Now, let me say that while there are very few issue that I do not think have been address well if not perfectly, I believe the origins of the BOA is in fact one of those issues.  While I might give some information about this thing or that thing that I think offer POTENTIAL explanations for the facts I see concerning the source of the BOA, I think these things no more than create room for belief.  Taken by itself, the origin of the BOA is IMO a clear loser for the apologist and the believer.  This has not changed much in either direction for a long time.

If my friend discovered things about the BOA and found them troubling, I would try to listen.  I would offer some of the potentially mitigating ideas.  I would then say that while I do not have an answer with which I am personally satisfied for the origins of the BOA, I think it fits in a network of strengths and weaknesses.  I find it more difficult to explain the BOM and the CoJCoLDS via naturalistic means than to believe that one of the unlikely BOA origin ideas is a reality.

 

So if the BOA is the man behind the curtain and me asking that the weight of the witnesses of the BOM or the journey of Lehi or … is “don’t look at the man behind the curtain,” I this think may be an understandable MISTAKE in how one looks at what I say.  I don’t think people should look away from the BOA origins as long as they take time to look towards many other things IN ADDITION to that issue.  This is not the man behind the curtain thing.

 

Let me also point out that I said nothing about ones spiritual witness of the truth of the CoJCoLDS.  I have tried to look at these questions as if my spiritual fumblings were non-existent.  I do this so I can ATTEMPT to stand solely on the empirical battlefield first to see where that leaves me and second because that is the battlefield the critics says I should stand upon (I disagree that there is any such “should” about the empirical battlefield, but if you will only play me chess if I cede my queen before we start and yet as a grandmaster …).  I find the critics less able to explain what I think is evidence than I am to able explain the origins of the BOA.  The empirical battlefield is not to be feared as long as defenders do not succumb to the self-sufficiency (or self-aggrandizement) that leads them to believe we the defenders are superior individuals than you the critics.  Our hand is just better <grin>.

 

Finally, while the critics perhaps cannot be asked to humbly acknowledge the gifts from their creator when they enter the empirical battlefield, I think they fail in the all too human way when they suggest they are the “brights” or ….  Perhaps hearing that so many times when you are as intelligent, informed, and thoughtful as Dr. Peterson leads to the ESCAPING of a less than perfectly Christ-like thought about those who are critics.

Charity, TOm

 

P.S. I am not a grandmaster BTW.

Edited October 30, 2015 by TOmNossor

[Teancum]

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.

Of course you are skeptical. The church and its defenders are for you perfect. They can do no wrong. Everyone else lacks integrity and their stories and personal views are suspect. It is a comfortable world view. Nice and cozy.

For me since I was a hobby apologist the apologists did not drive my away. I just came to the conclusion that the defenses I and so many others made were poor and often lacked substance. At least for me I couldn't continue make such poor arguments and feel good about it.

[Storm Rider]

I generally find that very few people are willing to judge their own selves and their own actions and words by the same standard they use to judge everyone and everything else.  I know so few ExMos that are tolerable as basic human beings; I find most to be such egocentric, selfish, demanding people I just don't like to be around them.  On the other hand, I have found past members of the Church who have joined other churches who are wonderful people that are great to be around.  

 

I keep going back to the 13th Article of Faith as a good standard to direct my life and where I spend my time.  If I cannot make an activity with anyone or anything fit within the parameters described in the 13th, then I generally move on or at least limit how much exposure I allow.  

 

I use this same standard for who I socialize with and enjoy.  It goes for exmos as well as active LDS or members of any other church or religion.  I like people that inspire and seek after those things qualities the 13th highlights.

[jkwilliams]

Wow, few exmos are tolerable as basic human beings? Good thing they left the church, as no one wants to sit next to someone like that in sacrament meeting.

[Teancum]

I generally find that very few people are willing to judge their own selves and their own actions and words by the same standard they use to judge everyone and everything else.  I know so few ExMos that are tolerable as basic human beings; I find most to be such egocentric, selfish, demanding people I just don't like to be around them.  On the other hand, I have found past members of the Church who have joined other churches who are wonderful people that are great to be around.  

 

.

Really? Perhaps you need to expand your social circles a bit.

[jkwilliams]

Really? Perhaps you need to expand your social circles a bit.

Think about it. Which exmos does he know? You and me, and we both know we're barely tolerable.

[hagoth7]

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

Yikes.

[Tony Frank]

I take joy in the gospel and everything about it. No apologies/apologetics are necessary.

[Sky]

Apologists often behave badly.  Ex-Mormons often behave badly.  Which group behaves worse is in the eye of the beholder.  Can we all agree on that?????

 

The same arguments tend to get recycled over and over again.  

 

Seems to me that if we are secure enough with our position, that we shouldn't always have to be on the defensive!  

 

Live and let live!  Love one another!    

Edited October 31, 2015 by Sky

[filovirus]

"This [the Holy Ghost] must ever be the chief source of evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary to this, the primary and infallible. No arrangement of evidence, however skilfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take it's place...

"To be known, the truth must be stated and the clearer and more complete the statement is, the better opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for testifying to the souls of men that the work is true...

"Secondary evidences in support of truth, like secondary causes in natural phenomena, may be of first rate importance, and mighty factors in the achievement of God's purposes."

Elder B. H. Roberts, 1909

[Robert F. Smith]

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 agree.  I have known many, many apostates, and have not found that they left the LDS Church due to miscreant "apologists," or apologetic organizations -- FARMS, FairMormon, etc.  Indeed, such apologists and good organizations are quite effective in debunking the frequently false claims of the apostates.  This angers the apostates, and their only thought then is to "get even" somehow with those very effective apologists and their organizations.  We saw John Dehlin become apoplectic over such a forthcoming, factual review of his work, and he did everything he could to stop it from publication -- what would an apostate say if someone tried to censor his work?  What would John Dehlin say if someone attempted to stop his podcasts?  This is all about hypocrisy on the part of the apostate crowd.  They don't mind freedom of speech, as long as they are the only ones afforded it.  One can see this also on their blogs:  They censor and remove any effective comments from apologists.

 

The more effective the apologist, the more hatred and vitriol is vented in his direction.  Dan Peterson is a good example of a very effective Mormon apologist, and one who has an unruffled sense of humor.  All the more reason to hate him and vilify him.

 

All the more reason to make the false claim that "apologists drove me from the Church" !!

Edited October 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course you are skeptical. The church and its defenders are for you perfect. They can do no wrong. Everyone else lacks integrity and their stories and personal views are suspect. It is a comfortable world view. Nice and cozy.

For me since I was a hobby apologist the apologists did not drive my away. I just came to the conclusion that the defenses I and so many others made were poor and often lacked substance. At least for me I couldn't continue make such poor arguments and feel good about it.

That's called being honest with yourself.  Would that more people from every walk of life would be at least that honest.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You also say that "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."

 

I have spent many years associated with apologists of various kinds, John, and I find the claim that one would send death threats to anyone for any reason astonishing.  I suppose it depends on what you refer to as an "apologist."  Does this mean any sort of hobbyist or yokel who simply wants to defend the Church and who may be borderline psychotic or bipolar and off his meds?  Or are you referring to serious scholars who actually have degrees and engage in peer-reviewed publication?

 

I knew a hysterical returned LDS missionary once who used to go out and heckle the Tanners wherever they would show up.  Then he lost his faith and began heckling faithful Mormons.  He is today a very well known figure in the anti-Mormon community, and he has mellowed a bit with age and is widely published.  Despite that thin veneer of respectability, I see him as a knowing liar who has never really changed over the years.  I confronted him about his dishonesty many years ago, and he began ranting and raving at me.  There are certainly people like that out there, but I do not tolerate the dishonesty of anti- or pro-Mormons, and have taken people from both sides to task.  The Tanners have done the same from time to time, when a fellow anti-Mormon went too far, lied, stole, or plagiarized something.  We need to keep each other honest.

 

Still, I am very disturbed at the notion that any self-declared "apologist" is the real thing, regardless of sanity or other qualifications.  Perhaps it is the very term "apologist" which is so problematic.  I don't think of myself as an apologist, but as a scholar.  Why?  Because I do scholarship which may sometimes but not necessarily be used by apologists.

[Scott Lloyd]

"The more effective the apologist, the more hatred and vitriol is vented in his direction"

I used to be fairly frequent fodder over on the Mormon Defamation Board. I'm rarely mentioned there anymore. Perhaps I've lost my edge.

[jkwilliams]

I was astonished by what happened, but the last thing I need is that rather deranged person in my life again.

[smac97]

So this has been an interesting thread to read, for a few reasons.  First, I suppose I am an “apologist”.  I didn’t give myself that label.  I didn’t aspire to it.  When I saw may faith’s doctrines, practices, leaders and/or members being profaned or unfairly or inaccurately criticized or slurred, I chose to defend rather than remain silent.  Hence I am an apologist.

 

Second, I think faithful, observant Mormons are, on the whole, a rather nice lot.  When fairly considered, adhering to the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church (love God, love your neighbor, serve others, focus on family, be kind and gentle and longsuffering, etc.) will naturally have that effect.  I should note that it was not without some wincing that I wrote the foregoing statement, as I could foresee any number of sneering, sarcastic responses to it from our more caustic critics.  However, the point is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.  I offer as “Exhibit A” the recent phenomenal success of “The Book of Mormon” musical, the basic premise of which is . . . you guessed it . . . Mormons are nice.  Clueless, deluded and stupid, yes, but also nice.  (For the record, I find this caricature to be more than a bit absurd.  American Mormons who serve missions abroad are well aware of the challenges faced in other parts of the world, having lived there fore substantial periods of time, usually in fairly spartan conditions.  Compared to the average American, I would dare say that RMs are more aware of problems in developing nations, not less.)

 

Third, faithful, observant Mormons are still flawed, imperfect human beings who can and do mess up.  So when they see their faith attacked, they may sometimes do more than merely “defend”, they may go on the offensive.  They may return slights and digs back upon the heads of the critics.  The line between “defense” (apologetics) and “offense” (anti-anti-mormonism) can be difficult to discern at times.  Or else Mormons, with strong emotions aflame from seeing their faith ridiculed or scorned or misrepresented, simply disregard or deliberately cross the line.  That line-crossing can be a sporadic or heat-of-the-moment kind of thing, but it can also become a habit, a default, a knee-jerk or hair-trigger response.

 

Fourth, some critics of the Church, particularly those who still claim membership in the Church, and who and trade on that membership to bolster their “street cred” (Grant Palmer was perhaps the most brazen example of this, but there are, sadly, many others – including some on this very board) have become quite good at combining two techniques: goading and victimology.  That is, a critic will profane or demean or substantially misrepresent an important and/or sacred aspect of LDS belief (sometimes phrasing the slur as a question or concern, a la the CES Letter), and do so with the design and intent of offending and angering any Latter-day Saint within earshot.  This conduct is repeated or maintained until the otherwise nice and easygoing Mormon gets fed up and lashes out in anger.  The critic then complains about being "victimized" by those mean 'ol apologists.  I think that's the most common origin of such stories (although fabricated/distorted stories about interacting with apologists are also fairly common).  I am reminded here of this classic scene from Disney’s Cinderella (skip to the 1:01 mark):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ7Dm4rjSHc

 

The antics of the aptly-named cat, and the unfortunate-and-inappropriate-but-also-understandable reaction of the dog, exemplify the dynamic by which the fatuous "the apologists drove me out of the Church" trope can arise.  The dog shouldn’t have menaced or snarled at the cat, it is true.  But that hardly makes the cat an innocent victim.  The dog, as a “good” character, is held to a higher standard, and rightly so.

 

Let me clarify here that the foregoing remarks do not reflect the only dynamic in play.  There are reasonable, decent people who, acting in good faith, investigate the truth claims of the LDS Church and find them wanting.  I do not agree with their conclusions (and, generally, the methodologies which lead to them), but we can and must allow for reasonable minds to disagree about all sorts of things, including important things like the truth claims of the LDS Church.

 

Finally, I think LDS “apologists” who go on the offensive are fighting a losing battle.  I include myself as among those “apologists” who occasionally cross the line from defense to offense, from explanatory exposition to vitriolic comeback.  This is why I have substantially reduced my participation in online discussions about the Church, including this board.  I will go a step further and make a further admission: I think I have all sorts of patience for people outside the Church who publicly criticize it.  That's the nature of our society now.  Civility and courtesy have largely given way to TMI and the Online Disinhibition Effect.  But my apologetic Kryptonite, the thing that weakens my resolve to be “nice” faster than just about anything, is when members of the Church, people of the covenant, publicly profane or unfairly disparage or malign the Church, its leaders, members, doctrines and practices, and when they try to bolster such efforts by trading on their membership in the Church, or on their family’s pedigree in the Church, or on their status as a returned missionary or being endowed or having a past or present leadership position in this Church.  I recognize that these folks are probably a mixed bunch.  There are some who are truly faithless, who have broken covenants and glory in the worldly adulation that can come from that.  But then there are also some who sincerely believe that “faithful (and public) opposition” to the Church and its leaders is a good thing.  And then there are those who are just feckless, who do not realize they are violating covenants by making freewheeling public remarks or by taking up causes which are partially or entirely incompatible with discipleship.  Nevertheless, all of these folks are my fellow travelers, and I should not attack them.  Defending the Church and others from them may occasionally be necessary, but attacking just doesn’t do much good.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

[Teancum]

Think about it. Which exmos does he know? You and me, and we both know we're barely tolerable.

 

 

yep. Simple pond scum we are......

 

[Teancum]

I take joy in the gospel and everything about it. No apologies/apologetics are necessary.

 

 

Bully for you.  Others life experiences and review of the LDS truth claims, issues related to the issues of evil and suffering, the foundations and Christianity, scientific issues and on and on may result in different answers than you have concluded. That does not make them right or wrong nor are you right or wrong though many here simple think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Based on what you post I would put you in that camp.  And hey if you are happy and it helps you get through this messy thing we call life great, just as long as you don't shove it down anyone else's throat.

[Teancum]

I agree.  I have known many, many apostates, and have not found that they left the LDS Church due to miscreant "apologists," or apologetic organizations -- FARMS, FairMormon, etc.  Indeed, such apologists and good organizations are quite effective in debunking the frequently false claims of the apostates.  This angers the apostates, and their only thought then is to "get even" somehow with those very effective apologists and their organizations.  We saw John Dehlin become apoplectic over such a forthcoming, factual review of his work, and he did everything he could to stop it from publication -- what would an apostate say if someone tried to censor his work?  What would John Dehlin say if someone attempted to stop his podcasts?  This is all about hypocrisy on the part of the apostate crowd.  They don't mind freedom of speech, as long as they are the only ones afforded it.  One can see this also on their blogs:  They censor and remove any effective comments from apologists.

 

The more effective the apologist, the more hatred and vitriol is vented in his direction.  Dan Peterson is a good example of a very effective Mormon apologist, and one who has an unruffled sense of humor.  All the more reason to hate him and vilify him.

 

All the more reason to make the false claim that "apologists drove me from the Church" !!

 

 

Of course you agree. My comments to Scott apply to you as well. 

[Teancum]

That's called being honest with yourself.  Would that more people from every walk of life would be at least that honest.

 

Well thank you. It hasn't made friends for me here though.

[Teancum]

"The more effective the apologist, the more hatred and vitriol is vented in his direction"

I used to be fairly frequent fodder over on the Mormon Defamation Board. I'm rarely mentioned there anymore. Perhaps I've lost my edge.

 

This is simply BS.  You think some you view as effective are targeted for hatred and vitriol?  Perhaps it is their style and how they attach those that they target.  There a couple of LDS apologists who I am sure you admire and out in the camp of "effective."   I have watched them become honestly rather angry and bitter men.  To bad because even with my own disaffection I continued to admire them up until the past year or so.  They have lost their edge as maybe you have as well.

[Senator]

In my view this OP is a prime example of where apologists take a wrong turn.

[jkwilliams]

yep. Simple pond scum we are......

We used to be decent people until we were angered by all those excellent apologetic answers.