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

[Tacenda]

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.

I met Sandra Tanner at a debate recently between Alma Allred and Grant Palmer over the use of the stone in the hat translation. She sat two seats away. She's nothing like I had once heard she was like. Very kind, and she told me how sad she was for LDS members that will come in and talk to her because they don't know where else to turn or need to tell someone, or get answers. I can't remember her exact words, but individuals talk to her all the time feeling so alone in what they've discovered. She was a sweet person, nothing like the description I'd heard years ago.

[Bobbieaware]

I met Sandra Tanner at a debate recently between Alma Allred and Grant Palmer over the use of the stone in the hat translation. She sat two seats away. She's nothing like I had once heard she was like. Very kind, and she told me how sad she was for LDS members that will come in and talk to her because they don't know where else to turn or need to tell someone, or get answers. I can't remember her exact words, but individuals talk to her all the time feeling so alone in what they've discovered. She was a sweet person, nothing like the description I'd heard years ago.

I guess you forgot about the scriptures that warn the adversary can deceive the unwary by very convincingly disguising himself as an angel of light.

[mfbukowski]

Did somebody just mention goading and victimology?

IOU 87 rep points.

[Thinking]

"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.

 

That's fair. I would suggest that the sentiment be reworded as "Apologists didn't help me to stay in the Church."

[Scott Lloyd]

That's fair. I would suggest that the sentiment be reworded as "Apologists didn't help me to stay in the Church."

That doesn't accurately reflect what I see expressed.

 

For example, see John Dehlin's assertions here, where he accuses Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley (and by extension FAIR (now FairMormon) of being "unChristlike" and "thuggish." He claims here that his "survey" of self-selected respondents bears this out. (Of course, I believe Dehlin is off-base here, but I cite this as an example of what I'm talking about.)

 

I've seen others say that when apologists or apologetics organizations were unable to satisfy their doubts, that was the thing that pushed them over the edge.

 

This sort of thing strikes me as being stronger than merely saying "apologists didn't help me stay in the Church."

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On the matter of whether the "first step" is convincing, here is my report appearing in this weekend's Church News of a lecture I covered at last week's Sidney B. Sperry Symposium. It relates to "tangible interactions with Book of Mormon objects." Hard to discount all those witnesses' reports of having handled such objects. And I only touched on a portion of Sweat's lecture, as much as I had space to report.

 

Explaining away such things gets so convoluted that the negative arguments get harder to believe than the original claim: that Joseph received the Book of Mormon plates from an angel and translated them through the gift and power of God.

Looking back at this post from Friday, I see that I had forgotten to include the link.

 

So I've now put the link in, and I'm bumping it so that the article can be accessed.

 

I regret the oversight.

[Thinking]

That doesn't accurately reflect what I see expressed.

 

For example, see John Dehlin's assertions here, where he accuses Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley (and by extension FAIR (now FairMormon) of being "unChristlike" and "thuggish." He claims here that his "survey" of self-selected respondents bears this out. (Of course, I believe Dehlin is off-base here, but I cite this as an example of what I'm talking about.)

 

OK. Thanks for the CFR, even though I didn't ask for it.

 

I think the second part of your response

I've seen others say that when apologists or apologetics organizations were unable to satisfy their doubts, that was the thing that pushed them over the age.

is closer to "Apologists didn't help me to stay in the Church."

 

It should be noted that many who consult apologetics organizations do so because their questions have not been answered by their leaders.

[Scott Lloyd]

OK. Thanks for the CFR, even though I didn't ask for it.

 

I think the second part of your response

is closer to "Apologists didn't help me to stay in the Church."

 

It should be noted that many who consult apologetics organizations do so because their questions have not been answered by their leaders.

Be that as it may, I've seen it expressed more strongly than your preferred restatement of it. I reiterate my suspicion that in at least some cases, it is in furtherance of an effort to demoralize defenders so they won't want to defend anymore, that it is a battle tactic, so to speak. In that respect, it is not unlike propaganda in warfare: Try to get the foe's forces to believe their side is losing, and they'll give up before they are beaten -- or so the rationale goes.

 

Think about it: If someone could be talked into believing that his efforts to defend Mormonism were doing more harm than good, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would cease his efforts?*

 

Or, alluding to Dr. Peterson's example in the newspaper column I linked to, if a pharmaceutical company can be convinced (rightly or wrongly) that their product is harming or killing more people than it is curing, wouldn't they immediately withdraw it from the market?

 

*Edited to add:

 

Frankly, I think that was what was behind Dehlin's villification of Peterson and Midgley. If you took the time to read through the thread I linked to in my prior post, you noticed that, when called on it, Dehlin either declined to or failed to or was unable to provide any specific instances to illustrate their alleged nastiness, other than to denounce a supposed "hit piece" he had never read or even seen and that he falsely asserted was "commissioned" by Dan.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[saemo]

I left Mormonism long before the Internet existed. If there were apologists then, I suppose they would be found in publications at Deseret Book. Like Talmage's "The Great Apostasy" or McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine"?

Dunno, I just didn't believe what the Mormon Church taught me, back then, which isn't necessarily what is taught now.

I read FairMormon, if it is linked in a conversation, but never find it convincing. I don't know the author's so couldn't really comment on them personally. But it shouldn't be taken personally by them that I don't find their work convincing. It isn't even official, so, I'm always thinking its some guy's opinion anyway. Which might, and should change, if they pick up new information.

I don't try to keep up with it.

So no, Mormon apologists weren't the last straw, or even a straw, for me.

The "never had a testimony" is a dumb argument, if even an argument at all. Apologetics should be relevant to outsiders, otherwise, what's the point?

[Scott Lloyd]

I left Mormonism long before the Internet existed. If there were apologists then, I suppose they would be found in publications at Deseret Book. Like Talmage's "The Great Apostasy" or McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine"?

Dunno, I just didn't believe what the Mormon Church taught me, back then, which isn't necessarily what is taught now.

I read FairMormon, if it is linked in a conversation, but never find it convincing. I don't know the author's so couldn't really comment on them personally. But it shouldn't be taken personally by them that I don't find their work convincing. It isn't even official, so, I'm always thinking its some guy's opinion anyway. Which might, and should change, if they pick up new information.

I don't try to keep up with it.

So no, Mormon apologists weren't the last straw, or even a straw, for me.

The "never had a testimony" is a dumb argument, if even an argument at all. Apologetics should be relevant to outsiders, otherwise, what's the point?

I think it fair to say that you're not disposed to be swayed from your present course, so it is hardly surprising that your occasional glances at FairMormon content are not persuasive to you.

 

Furthermore, regarding apologetics being "relevant to outsiders," I don't see LDS apologists as endeavoring to provide definitive proof so much as trying to keep the question open so that an individual may feel it worthwhile to go to God in prayer and seek a spiritual witness. If they can do that, they have succeeded.

 

On that, see the Austin Farrer quote in Daniel Peterson's column I linked to at the beginning of this thread.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

 Apologetics should be relevant to outsiders, otherwise, what's the point?

In what way exactly?

[Robert F. Smith]

I met Sandra Tanner at a debate recently between Alma Allred and Grant Palmer over the use of the stone in the hat translation. She sat two seats away. She's nothing like I had once heard she was like. Very kind, and she told me how sad she was for LDS members that will come in and talk to her because they don't know where else to turn or need to tell someone, or get answers. I can't remember her exact words, but individuals talk to her all the time feeling so alone in what they've discovered. She was a sweet person, nothing like the description I'd heard years ago.

Yes, that is Sandra.  Never had a cross word with her, and I used to see her at her booth at Sunstone symposia.  Even went to her church in SLC, where she sang a solo.  We could agree to disagree on key issues.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

So no, Mormon apologists weren't the last straw, or even a straw, for me.

The "never had a testimony" is a dumb argument, if even an argument at all. Apologetics should be relevant to outsiders, otherwise, what's the point?

I agree, and one may take C. S. Lewis as an example of someone who was positively affected by apologetics. He became a Christian precisely because he bothered to read Christian literature -- which he called "subversive literature" because it caused him to abandon atheism.  He was at the time a professor at Oxford University, and so was nobody's fool.

[sunstoned]

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 . . .

Where are you getting your information, because it doesn't align with an anything I have experienced or observed.  To me this sounds like just another take on the old "they left because their feelings were hurt and they wanted to sin". 

[sunstoned]

I guess you forgot about the scriptures that warn the adversary can deceive the unwary by very convincingly disguising himself as an angel of light.

I know you meant this to be a slam to the Tanners, but this little gem could be used to describe the things JS claimed to have experienced.  Including all versions of his first vision.  Rocks and glass houses.

[Teancum]

Be that as it may, I've seen it expressed more strongly than your preferred restatement of it. I reiterate my suspicion that in at least some cases, it is in furtherance of an effort to demoralize defenders so they won't want to defend anymore, that it is a battle tactic, so to speak. In that respect, it is not unlike propaganda in warfare: Try to get the foe's forces to believe their side is losing, and they'll give up before they are beaten -- or so the rationale goes.

Think about it: If someone could be talked into believing that his efforts to defend Mormonism were doing more harm than good, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would cease his efforts?*

Or, alluding to Dr. Peterson's example in the newspaper column I linked to, if a pharmaceutical company can be convinced (rightly or wrongly) that their product is harming or killing more people than it is curing, wouldn't they immediately withdraw it from the market?

*Edited to add:

Frankly, I think that was what was behind Dehlin's villification of Peterson and Midgley. If you took the time to read through the thread I linked to in my prior post, you noticed that, when called on it, Dehlin either declined to or failed to or was unable to provide any specific instances to illustrate their alleged nastiness, other than to denounce a supposed "hit piece" he had never read or even seen and that he falsely asserted was "commissioned" by Dan.

Regarding the Dehlin paper by Greg Smith, wasn't it intended to by published in the FARMS review? If yes wasn't Dan Peterson the editor of that publication? If yes would he not at least been involved in its coming forth? Additionally I have heard Dehlin point to FARMS papers on Grant Palmers books as evidence of nastiness and if I recall Lou Midgley was responsible. Dehlin and Midgley also had an unpleasant personal encounter I believe at some UVU event. I do not recall the timing. Edited November 1, 2015 by Teancum

[Bobbieaware]

I know you meant this to be a slam to the Tanners, but this little gem could be used to describe the things JS claimed to have experienced. Including all versions of his first vision. Rocks and glass houses.

And that's another one of the devil powers of deceit -- making that which is good seem evil and that which is evil seem good. Through this means, the adversary convinced the Savior"s enemies that the very God whom they claimed to worship was a nothing more than a desperately wicked mortal man who was wholly possessed by the devil -- and in their own minds they were absolutely convinced they were right. Was the Savior also standing in a glass house when, not long before his atoning sacrifice he accused these same men of being the children of the devil?

Edited November 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Tacenda]

And that's another one of the devil powers of deceit -- making the which is good seem evil and that which is evil seem good. Through this means, the adversary convinced the Savior"s enemies that the very God whom they claimed to worship was a nothing more than a desperately wicked mortal man who was wholly possessed by the devil -- and in their they were absolutely convinced they were right. Was the Savior also standing in a glass house when, not long before his atoning sacrifice, he accused these same men of being the children of the devil?

I wasn't deceived. She may or may not be right, be that doesn't make her evil.

[saemo]

I think it fair to say that you're not disposed to be swayed from your present course, so it is hardly surprising that your occasional glances at FairMormon content are not persuasive to you.

 

Furthermore, regarding apologetics being "relevant to outsiders," I don't see LDS apologists as endeavoring to provide definitive proof so much as trying to keep the question open so that an individual may feel it worthwhile to go to God in prayer and seek a spiritual witness. If they can do that, they have succeeded.

 

On that, see the Austin Farrer quote in Daniel Peterson's column I linked to at the beginning of this thread.

I think it is fair to say, FairMormon does not appeal to the rational mind.

[saemo]

In what way exactly?

Borrowing from the old Catholic encyclopedia at new advent...

"Its aim is to give a scientific presentation of the claims which Christ's revealed religion has on the assent of every rational mind; it seeks to lead the inquirer after truth to recognize, first, the reasonableness and trustworthiness of the Christian revelation as realized in the Catholic Church, and secondly, the corresponding obligation of accepting it. While not compelling faith — for the certitude it offers is not absolute, but moral — it shows that the credentials of the Christian religion amply suffice to vindicate the act of faith as a rational act, and to discredit the estrangement of the sceptic and unbeliever as unwarranted and culpable. Its last word is the answer to the question: Why should I be a Catholic? Apologetics thus leads up to Catholic faith, to the acceptance of the Catholic Church as the divinely authorized organ for preserving and rendering efficacious the saving truths revealed by Christ."

Mormon apologetics is at this time focused on the defense of individual attacks, which is a part of apologetics but not the par excellence. I think in time it might get there.

[Bobbieaware]

I wasn't deceived. She may or may not be right, be that doesn't make her evil.

What better instrument to help destroy the testimonies of troubled Church members who are wavering in the faith than a sweet, kindly and sympathetic grandma?

[sethpayne]

I think it fair to say that you're not disposed to be swayed from your present course, so it is hardly surprising that your occasional glances at FairMormon content are not persuasive to you.

 

 

It is YOUR fault saemo!  It could't be that some apologetic arguments fall flat.  No.  If you had enough faith you would gain a testimony of these apologetic arguments.

[saemo]

It is YOUR fault saemo! It could't be that some apologetic arguments fall flat. No. If you had enough faith you would gain a testimony of these apologetic arguments.

It's ok. I understand the Mormon POV, that it is believed and taught by the Mormon Church, and if you're LDS, why wouldn't you say this is what you believe? I'm fine with people not of my faith expressing their own. I don't take that expression as a personal attack.

Edited November 1, 2015 by saemo

[Damien the Leper]

Apologetics and apologists aren't the reasons I left but they didn't give me enough to justify staying either. Praying about the BoM or JS or apologetics was never going to give me a testimony, at least one that would survive up to death. I'm ok with that. God is ok with that. No biggie.

[Tacenda]

Apologetics and apologists aren't the reasons I left but they didn't give me enough to justify staying either. Praying about the BoM or JS or apologetics was never going to give me a testimony, at least one that would survive up to death. I'm ok with that. God is ok with that. No biggie.

It seemed like overnight that you came to this conclusion. But I know that probably isn't the case.