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

[filovirus]

The biggest disadvantage that apologetic literature has going against it is it's scholarly approach. There are many people who may have troubles digesting that type of writing if not familiar with it. At times it seems more like a textbook approach as opposed to a scriptural approach, which is much more familiar. People in faith crises want the best of both scholarly writings accompanied with the same feelings they get while reading the scriptures. When they don't get those feelings they feel they were let down.

Anyway, those are my feelings and thoughts on the matter. Obviously it's not always that simple.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Thanks, I  think . . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I wouldn't think so simply because that is the first level of naivete.  After they have left, at the second level of naivete, they get angry when they discover that they left based on false anti-Mormon claims.  Unable to admit their error (cognitive dissonance, you know), they then blame the apologists.  It's the only option left for them, unless they are willing to admit that they made a mistake -- and very few of us can admit that, n'cest pas?

[jkwilliams]

I wouldn't think so simply because that is the first level of naivete. After they have left, at the second level of naivete, they get angry when they discover that they left based on false anti-Mormon claims. Unable to admit their error (cognitive dissonance, you know), they then blame the apologists. It's the only option left for them, unless they are willing to admit that they made a mistake -- and very few of us can admit that, n'cest pas?

I don't know anyone like that. I find that accusation bizarre and, frankly, a little mean-spirited.

[Robert F. Smith]

The biggest disadvantage that apologetic literature has going against it is it's scholarly approach. There are many people who may have troubles digesting that type of writing if not familiar with it. At times it seems more like a textbook approach as opposed to a scriptural approach, which is much more familiar. People in faith crises want the best of both scholarly writings accompanied with the same feelings they get while reading the scriptures. When they don't get those feelings they feel they were let down.

Anyway, those are my feelings and thoughts on the matter. Obviously it's not always that simple.

You may be onto something there, filovirus, and few apologists are so mellifluous and fluid of expression that they can write well and at the same time maintain scholarly accuracy.  Hugh Nibley had the gift, and so does Terryl Givens.  Very few others.

 

The other problem is that such issues are sometimes not amenable to a simplistic explanation.  Archeology and history can be complex matters, particularly when they entail DNA, excavated strata, Carbon-14 dating, ethnography, linguistics, or the like.  Someone in crisis may not have the patience to begin a detailed study of a subject -- the foundation for which should have been laid in school a generation earlier.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know anyone like that. I find that accusation bizarre and, frankly, a little mean-spirited.

You mean you don't believe that someone can be subject to confirmation bias?  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  I see no reason to privilege those who have left the Church over those who remain.  Both are subject to the same naivete.  Why would you think that bizarre or mean-spirited?  That's reality, John.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

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

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 . . .

[jkwilliams]

You mean you don't believe that someone can be subject to confirmation bias? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I see no reason to privilege those who have left the Church over those who remain. Both are subject to the same naivete. Why would you think that bizarre or mean-spirited? That's reality, John.

You suggested that people who leave realize they left for mistaken reasons, and that makes them angry. That is not reality, but I guess it's good to know what you think of people like me.

[Robert F. Smith]

You suggested that people who leave realize they left for mistaken reasons, and that makes them angry. That is not reality, but I guess it's good to know what you think of people like me.

First, John, I don't think that you are an angry one (a special class of very naive folk who left for imaginary reasons, and then get very angry when they discover that they were sold a bill of goods -- buyer's remorse -- and then lash out at their imagined, apologetic enemies).  You are certainly not naive.  You are very intelligent and cultivated.  Not the sort to leave naively.  When you left, you were fully aware of your path, and your book is a powerful reflection on part of that process.

 

Still, you obviously feel somewhat raw when a guy like me makes a freewheeling statement about who leaves the faith and why, and what can happen afterward.  My apologies?  Seems like the wrong phrase.  So, my heartfelt congratulations on being your own man, and being honest with yourself.  So few are able to do that.

 

Moreover, I feel that you have as much right to be here as me, and I don't find you a discordant element.  We desperately need a wide variety of opinions to make this blog work.

 

ETA:  You also obviously don't realize how many rep points I have given you for your frequent, insightful comments.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[cynth]

You suggested that people who leave realize they left for mistaken reasons, and that makes them angry. That is not reality, but I guess it's good to know what you think of people like me.

 

First, John, I don't think that you are an angry one (a special class of very naive folk who left for imaginary reasons, and then get very angry when they discover that they were sold a bill of goods -- buyer's remorse -- and then lash out at their imagined, apologetic enemies).  You are certainly not naive.  You are very intelligent and cultivated.  Not the sort to leave naively.  When you left, you were fully aware of your path, and your book is a powerful reflection on part of that process.

 

Still, you obviously feel somewhat raw when a guy like me makes a freewheeling statement about who leaves the faith and why, and what can happen afterward.  My apologies?  Seems like the wrong phrase.  So, my heartfelt congratulations on being your own man, and being honest with yourself.  So few are able to do that.

 

Moreover, I feel that you have as much right to be here as me, and I don't find you a discordant element.  We desperately need a wide variety of opinions to make this blog work.

8

ETA:  You also obviously don't realize how many rep points I have given you for your frequent, insightful comments.

Appreciate your comments here; I especially appreciate how you acknowledge your 'freewheeling statement' (your term!) might leave someone frustrated, if their feelings after leaving don't fall into the category of buyer's remorse.   Glad you acknowledged jkw's awareness and measured choice of his path, it would certainly help relations across the divide if more were like you in giving individuals credit for making difficult decisions in a thoughtful, honest manner.  

Edited November 1, 2015 by cynth

[mfbukowski]

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.

Merton is amazing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks, I think . . .

If he's repurposing something he said to me, I strongly doubt he means it as a compliment. In fact you can consider yourself soundly insulted.

[Teancum]

I wouldn't think so simply because that is the first level of naivete. After they have left, at the second level of naivete, they get angry when they discover that they left based on false anti-Mormon claims. Unable to admit their error (cognitive dissonance, you know), they then blame the apologists. It's the only option left for them, unless they are willing to admit that they made a mistake -- and very few of us can admit that, n'cest pas?

Or perhaps your own cognitive dissonance brings you to this erroneous conclusion at least if you are speaking in broad generalities.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

If he's repurposing something he said to me, I strongly doubt he means it as a compliment. In fact you can consider yourself soundly insulted.

Neither were insults. Simply rebuttals.

[Scott Lloyd]

Neither were insults. Simply rebuttals.

You have a difficult time rebutting without being insulting.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

First, John, I don't think that you are an angry one (a special class of very naive folk who left for imaginary reasons, and then get very angry when they discover that they were sold a bill of goods -- buyer's remorse -- and then lash out at their imagined, apologetic enemies). You are certainly not naive. You are very intelligent and cultivated. Not the sort to leave naively. When you left, you were fully aware of your path, and your book is a powerful reflection on part of that process.

Still, you obviously feel somewhat raw when a guy like me makes a freewheeling statement about who leaves the faith and why, and what can happen afterward. My apologies? Seems like the wrong phrase. So, my heartfelt congratulations on being your own man, and being honest with yourself. So few are able to do that.

Moreover, I feel that you have as much right to be here as me, and I don't find you a discordant element. We desperately need a wide variety of opinions to make this blog work.

ETA: You also obviously don't realize how many rep points I have given you for your frequent, insightful comments.

I appreciate the kind words. I didn't take your comments personally, but I did think they did not reflect what I have seen from people who have been through the agonizing experience of leaving the church.

[Teancum]

You have a difficult rebutting without being insulting.

 

As do you. See above.

 

Really the the whole premise of your thread is insulting to people who make a specific claim.  Because it does not set well with you you essentially called them liars.  When I challenged you on that you find it insulting.  It seems you find most people who challenge you insulting.

 

Really Scott I know you despise me. I am not sure why.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

As do you. See above.

Really the the whole premise of your thread is insulting to people who make a specific claim. Because it does not set well with you you essentially called them liars. When I challenged you on that you find it insulting. It seems you find most people who challenge you insulting.

Really Scott I know you despise me. I am not sure why.

I don't despise you.

I find your posting style harsh, combative, belligerent and at times obnoxious. Half the time I don't bother responding to you

That you would then accuse me of despising you and say you don't know why strikes me as ironic. It might even be a case of projecting.

But this conversation is over. Go ahead and take the last word if you want it.

[Teancum]

I don't despise you.

I find your posting style harsh, combative, belligerent and at times obnoxious. Half the time I don't bother responding to you

That you would then accuse me of despising you and say you don't know why strikes me as ironic. It might even be a case of projecting.

But this conversation is over. Go ahead and take the last word if you want it.

I don't despise you either. I and often find your posting style similar to what you say of mine above. Perhaps we just rub each other the wrong way.

It seems I ebb and flow here. I think I try to be polite and reasonable when I post and then I slip and slide. In the spirit of good will I will consider your comments and work on my posting style once again. Fair enough?

[cynth]

I don't despise you either. I and often find your posting style similar to what you say of mine above. Perhaps we just rub each other the wrong way.

It seems I ebb and flow here. I think I try to be polite and reasonable when I post and then I slip and slide. In the spirit of good will I will consider your comments and work on my posting style once again. Fair enough?

That's very generous Teancum, indicative of your character.  You have the capacity to be self-aware.  From my time here, it is clear that SL has no such awareness, and a definite lack of character.  You will never get an offer of an olive branch from him or any sort of compromise.  I would much rather read your comments than his nasty meanspiritedness.  If a mod sees this and decides to dun me for my comments, it will be my opportunity to ask them why they allow SL to break the rules repeatedly.  Is it because he is the Mormon, and I have non-Mormon opinions? 

Edited November 1, 2015 by cynth

[Teancum]

That's very generous Teancum, indicative of your character.  You have the capacity to be self-aware.  From my time here, it is clear that SL has no such awareness, and a definite lack of character.  I would much rather read your comments than his nasty meanspiritedness.  If a mod sees this and decides to dun me for my comments, it will be my opportunity to ask them why they allow SL to break the rules repeatedly.  Is it because he is the Mormon, and I have non-Mormon opinions?

Thank you. But I know I am at times strident even when I try not to be.

[Thinking]

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 figured that if this was a frequent meme, an internet search would yield some good results.

 

Yahoo! returned two and Google returned one, all linking to this topic. Maybe you are paraphrasing, but you're the one who used quotes.

[Tacenda]

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.

Were you ever an apologist JK?

[Scott Lloyd]

I figured that if this was a frequent meme, an internet search would yield some good results.

Yahoo! returned two and Google returned one, all linking to this topic. Maybe you are paraphrasing, but you're the one who used quotes.

"Meme" is probably the wrong word. I meant it is a sentiment I see frequently expressed in various ways. That Dan Peterson wrote a column about it shows that it's not just my perception. Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Rajah Manchou]

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.

I'm also a big fan of Merton.

Its a bit sad but I think about Merton frequently as I live not far from the Red Cross where he was tragically killed. I'm reminded often of his tremendous life, and unfortunate death.