Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2015 Author Posted October 31, 2015 We used to be decent people until we were angered by all those excellent apologetic answers.Did somebody just mention goading and victimology?
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Did somebody just mention goading and victimology?I was being sarcastic. Lighten up. 1
Calm Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 I suggest Scott saves the "lighten up" for use later. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 FWIW, I have never met anyone who left the church because the effectiveness of apologetic arguments angered them. It's an odd claim, and one I have never heard before. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2015 Author Posted October 31, 2015 FWIW, I have never met anyone who left the church because the effectiveness of apologetic arguments angered them. It's an odd claim, and one I have never heard before.You mean before you encountered HappyJackWagon?
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 You mean before you encountered HappyJackWagon?He is still in the church, I think, but if not, I doubt he would have left because good apologetic arguments made him angry.
Jeanne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 yep. Simple pond scum we are...... Oh...he knows me too!
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Oh...he knows me too!You're playing the victim card, too, huh?
Jeanne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) i would like to give apologists some points here on the board, I stay connected because I have always wanted to know since I left the church..how some people remain. You guys know a lot about the doubts and some of the inconsistencies of doctrine..you listen. You may not always explain things to my own feelings..but you listen. Just before I left the church, I invited to my home the bishopric and my relief society president..because I loved and respected her so much. She would NOT listen and just stated that she was not into deep doctrine..it was like someone plugged her ears while she went "na..na..na..na." For me, that was sad which is why I try to give the church its due in finally opening up about the history. Now some apologists are just a pain in the... Edited October 31, 2015 by Jeanne
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2015 It seems odd to say that people would leave the church because the apologetics were just so good... I would assume it would be the other way around. Us Catholics had the best apologetics... if you don't believe, you'll be tortured and killed! I suggest you Mormons give that a try [/Catholicism stereotype] 5
Jeanne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 You're playing the victim card, too, huh? Of course!!
Jeanne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 It seems odd to say that people would leave the church because the apologetics were just so good... I would assume it would be the other way around. Us Catholics had the best apologetics... if you don't believe, you'll be tortured and killed! I suggest you Mormons give that a try [/Catholicism stereotype]When I left the church..I didn't know anything about apologists. I was so certain that my bishop and stake president would have all the answers.
MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 When I left the church..I didn't know anything about apologists. I was so certain that my bishop and stake president would have all the answers. There are positive and negatives of having lay leaders. I would assume one possible negative is that the lay leader might not be well informed, or might teach his own interpretation of the church. The point of seminary for Catholic priests is "formation" so that the priests understand the doctrine and the church and there is some level of uniformity and a foundation to build on. This isn't quite as true post-Vatican II as it was before, but the ideal is still there. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 It seems odd to say that people would leave the church because the apologetics were just so good... I would assume it would be the other way around.Us Catholics had the best apologetics... if you don't believe, you'll be tortured and killed! I suggest you Mormons give that a try [/Catholicism stereotype]It is indeed a strange thing to say, particularly when it is said to apply to many of us wretched apostates. In my opinion, apologetics strives to place Mormon truth-claims somewhere between possible and plausible. It seems a lot of people believe they have done so and more. I wish I could believe that. In my humble opinion, the good apologists I know have done the best they can with the hand they have been dealt, but it's not a strong hand.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 When I left the church..I didn't know anything about apologists. I was so certain that my bishop and stake president would have all the answers.I had been around apologetics for a long time, and by the time I acknowledged to myself that it didn't work for me, I had no expectation that my local leaders would have answers.
sethpayne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) It seems odd to say that people would leave the church because the apologetics were just so good... I would assume it would be the other way around. Ah! You would think this to be the case. But, given that many who have left the Church have been left unconvinced by apologetic arguments, this apparent weakness actually becomes a strength. It allows *some* to blame the ex-Mormon for being ignorant, unread, or stupid. Brother Smoot's recent "satire" drives this accusation home quite well. "If only you had read more or read the right people you wouldn't have left the Church or lost your testimony. But you probably didn't have a testimony to start with anyway." In this way apologetic arguments almost become articles of faith. If one is truly faithful and diligent, they will accept apologetic arguments as a sign of their belief in the face of doubt. Therefore, those who leave have only themselves to blame. If they they had enough faith, the apologetic argument would have been convincing. Edited October 31, 2015 by sethpayne
Jeanne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 There are positive and negatives of having lay leaders. I would assume one possible negative is that the lay leader might not be well informed, or might teach his own interpretation of the church. The point of seminary for Catholic priests is "formation" so that the priests understand the doctrine and the church and there is some level of uniformity and a foundation to build on. This isn't quite as true post-Vatican II as it was before, but the ideal is still there.Well..my bishop did know about the stone and the hat ...as he described it with his head down and looking into a hat..I just didn't whether to laugh or cry.
MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 sethpayne -- total tangent, but is that the dharmachakra in your avatar picture? It's too small to see, but it looks like it. The 8-fold path and all. Are you Buddhist or do you have Buddhist leanings? I heavily practiced Buddhism (Thai Theravedan Buddhism) for a few years in my pre-Catholic days, when I was on the spiritual quest.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Ah! You would think this to be the case. But, given that many who have left the Church have been left unconvinced by apologetic arguments, this apparent weakness actually becomes a strength. It allows *some* to blame the ex-Mormon for their own ignorance. Brother Smoot's recent "satire" drives this accusation home quite well. "If only you had read more or read the right people you wouldn't have left the Church or lost your testimony. But you probably didn't have a testimony to start with anyway."In this way apologetic arguments almost become articles of faith. If one is truly faithful and diligent, they will accept apologetic arguments as a sign of their belief in the face of doubt. Therefore, those who leave have only themselves to blame. If they they had enough faith, the apologetic argument would have been convincing.Yep, that sounds awfully familiar. A few years back, I started a thread asking what the strongest positive evidence was for the Book of Abraham. Almost immediately, a prominent apologist told me I couldn't have an informed discussion without reading the latest scholarship. I asked for a list, and when it was given, I had read much of it and spent the time to read the stuff I hadn't. When I returned to the conversation, I got nothing but silence.
sethpayne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) sethpayne -- total tangent, but is that the dharmachakra in your avatar picture? It's too small to see, but it looks like it. The 8-fold path and all. Are you Buddhist or do you have Buddhist leanings? I heavily practiced Buddhism (Thai Theravedan Buddhism) for a few years in my pre-Catholic days, when I was on the spiritual quest. Indeed it is. My wife is Buddhist and we practice with a local Soto Zen Sangha. I'm really enjoying learning about Buddhism. Such an interesting way of looking at the world Edited October 31, 2015 by sethpayne
MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Indeed it is. My wife is Buddhist and we practice with a local Sangha. I'm really enjoying learning about Buddhism. Such an interesting way of looking at the world Cool. Buddhism was a big part of my path, especially the monastic part. I did a lot of retreats at various Buddhist monasteries. My favorite was Abhayagiri in northern California, which is quite a traditional Thai monastery, but for westerners. Anyways, monasteries always have had a draw for me, so when Our Lady started calling me it felt quite natural do seek Her and Our Lord at Catholic monasteries. The monastic tradition, in whatever religion, is fascinating and, dare I say, essential to religion. We need people who have removed themselves from most of the cares of the rest of us so that they can give us a more objective look at what we are doing and show us the ways that they have been able to find God.
sethpayne Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Cool. Buddhism was a big part of my path, especially the monastic part. I did a lot of retreats at various Buddhist monasteries. My favorite was Abhayagiri in northern California, which is quite a traditional Thai monastery, but for westerners. Anyways, monasteries always have had a draw for me, so when Our Lady started calling me it felt quite natural do seek Her and Our Lord at Catholic monasteries. The monastic tradition, in whatever religion, is fascinating and, dare I say, essential to religion. We need people who have removed themselves from most of the cares of the rest of us so that they can give us a more objective look at what we are doing and show us the ways that they have been able to find God. I couldn't agree more. We attended a retreat this summer and it was held at a campground owned and operated by Community of Christ. I ended up chatting with one of the guys in the kitchen about the Book of Mormon and other things. Have you read much Thomas Merton? I am very sympathetic to Zen and find Merton's take on the issue of Christianity and mysticism to be on point.
MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 I couldn't agree more. We attended a retreat this summer and it was held at a campground owned and operated by Community of Christ. I ended up chatting with one of the guys in the kitchen about the Book of Mormon and other things. Have you read much Thomas Merton? I am very sympathetic to Zen and find Merton's take on the issue of Christianity and mysticism to be on point. Yes. Thomas Merton was absolutely instrumental in my conversion and his writings remain a dear friend to me today. New Seeds of Contemplation always has something to offer me whenever I pick it up.
carbon dioxide Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 It seems odd to say that people would leave the church because the apologetics were just so good... I would assume it would be the other way around. Us Catholics had the best apologetics... if you don't believe, you'll be tortured and killed! I suggest you Mormons give that a try [/Catholicism stereotype]Actually the ISIS method would be better. They don't mess around and they might find creative ways to kill you.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) "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.Scott is quoting me, of course, and I base my claim on specific examples. Indeed, I mentioned Dan Peterson simply because he has all the appropriate attributes of a very effective apologist: He is a scholar, has actually familiarized himself with the debate subject matter, and has a self-deprecating sense of humor. Yet he is polite, civil, and not an attack-dog. Why then is such a nice guy singled out for particular hatred and opprobrium? Because he is so very effective, unruffled, and humorous. That's why. I also know (and have known) very polite anti-Mormons, such as Rob Bowman -- whom we used to see on this board a good deal. I have met him in person and found him to be delightful. Perhaps because he is also a Christian Evangelical apologist, and realizes what that means. Or maybe because he is just such a decent guy. Not everyone fits those criteria, and it is a shame that ad hominems are often substituted for real argument. Edited October 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith
Recommended Posts