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

[Damien the Leper]

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

I haven't been a believer, baptized or not, in a long time. There were times that I tried but nothing came of it. I honestly don't know what I believe. It seems easier to point out that which I don't believe than what I do.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Valentinus

[Teancum]

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.

But honestly it is a personal attack. The idea that the apologetics just are not all that persuasive when vetted out is not considered. The doubters or apostates are flawed. Even above Scott argues, as he has before many times, the apologists task is simply to create a defense or argument that raises to the level that the position they are arguing might be worth praying about. That is it. It is a low bar in my opinion. And if the doubter Is not convinced then it is their fault that they do not have more faith. Robert has also implies in this thread I think a couple times that the now disaffected who may realize they were rash are simply angry and looking for a scapegoat and that they acted immaturely or rashly. This may be true for some but not all nor perhaps the majority.

Further The OP on this thread also questions the integrity of the persons who claim apologetics contributed to their disaffection. And maybe it is accurate. I know few to any who left the church because of apologetics. I think better said is they may not have helped or were not persuasive which I beleive Scott has acknowledged is a better or more acceptable positon that saying "l left because of the nasty apologists." But they strident tone that some apologetics takes certainly could have exacerbated this for some their departure.

Personally when I was involved in reading and doing apologetics I found little strident tone in much of what I read in FAIR papers or FARMS material . Yes there were some that focused more on an author or critic and why they lacked qualification to write about what the critic may have been writing about. I think the Grant Palmer rebuttals were like that perhaps though. Where I think the breakdown and the more strident tones that perhpas the disaffected could rightfully point to is more on message boards like this one or blogs like Dan Petrson maintains now. Honestly the Dan Peterson that wrote papers or other scholarly defenses seems very different than the Dan Peterson on his blog or what he was at times on message boards.

But if I would never send someone to a board like this one if they were asking questions. The tone can be very strident and demeaning and I don't excuse myself from that both when I was a defender and now as a skeptic.

So maybe those who claim apologetics drove them away are thinking more of message boards and blog sites that allow comments..

[saemo]

But honestly it is a personal attack. The idea that the apologetics just are not all that persuasive when vetted out is not considered. The doubters or apostates are flawed. Even above Scott argues, as he has before many times, the apologists task is simply to create a defense or argument that raises to the level that the position they are arguing might be worth praying about. That is it. It is a low bar in my opinion. And if the doubter Is not convinced then it is their fault that they do not have more faith. Robert has also implies in this thread I think a couple times that the now disaffected who may realize they were rash are simply angry and looking for a scapegoat and that they acted immaturely or rashly. This may be true for some but not all nor perhaps the majority.

Further The OP on this thread also questions the integrity of the persons who claim apologetics contributed to their disaffection. And maybe it is accurate. I know few to any who left the church because of apologetics. I think better said is they may not have helped or were not persuasive which I beleive Scott has acknowledged is a better or more acceptable positon that saying "l left because of the nasty apologists." But they strident tone that some apologetics takes certainly could have exacerbated this for some their departure.

Personally when I was involved in reading and doing apologetics I found little strident tone in much of what I read in FAIR papers or FARMS material . Yes there were some that focused more on an author or critic and why they lacked qualification to write about what the critic may have been writing about. I think the Grant Palmer rebuttals were like that perhaps though. Where I think the breakdown and the more strident tones that perhpas the disaffected could rightfully point to is more on message boards like this one or blogs like Dan Petrson maintains now. Honestly the Dan Peterson that wrote papers or other scholarly defenses seems very different than the Dan Peterson on his blog or what he was at times on message boards.

But if I would never send someone to a board like this one if they were asking questions. The tone can be very strident and demeaning and I don't excuse myself from that both when I was a defender and now as a skeptic.

So maybe those who claim apologetics drove them away are thinking more of message boards and blog sites that allow comments..

It just really doesn't affect me in that way. I can't drive other people's cars for them when I'm on the highway. I can't drive what other people think or believe.

My own view is, God calls to everyone, unceasingly, and is their judge. Not I. What is in the heart of someone, when something that could be taken as an offense is expressed, only God knows. We're called to love. Sometimes people have an idea that love should be forceful. We're all a work in progress.

As for the article in the DesNews, I see it as an academic response. A rational, academic response to that response, is not in my skill set. I'm not an academic. I'm not an apologist. I'm not an ante apologist. They don't know me, and whatever negative broad brush is being used, I view as pretentious. So, no skin off my back.

Edited November 1, 2015 by saemo

[Teancum]

It just really doesn't affect me in that way. I can't drive other people's cars for them when I'm on the highway. I can't drive what other people think or believe.

My own view is, God calls to everyone, unceasingly, and is their judge. Not I. What is in the heart of someone, when something that could be taken as an offense is expressed, only God knows. We're called to love. Sometimes people have an idea that love should be forceful. We're all a work in progress.

As for the article in the DesNews, I see it as an academic response. A rational, academic response to that response, is not in my skill set. I'm no an academic.

You take a lovely and kind approach. Thank you for sharing.

[jkwilliams]

Were you ever an apologist JK?

Only in the sense of being a hobbyist and hanging around here and the old alt.religion.mormon board. Not a very good one, obviously. After about 10 years, I went over to the dark side and have been dragging people to hell ever since by claiming victim status and arguing about postmodernism.

Edited November 1, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Guest]

A frequent assertion 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.

Faith is always in flux, for those who are in the growing stage, they seek little for the world of apologetics, unless they are seeking for friends. For those on the downturn they seek for themselves. For those who are drowning in doubt, they often don't know where to look. Then they look to the internet where poor answers are often can be found, instead of to the scriptures, and instead of fasting and prayer combined. Others move to the mind and are and down themselves with "with ifs" until there is little is left by doubt. But blaming loss of belief, or doubt or anguish of any other is an attempt to assign our fate on someone (who most don't even know personally, but only in print) other than ourselves...which is something constant in the human condition. This is an eternal truth, reading scripture and learning the lessons (even if a non-believer) that they contain, help us to learn good and to be good people, and that can never be a good thing. No matter our state in life, all can learn the lessons on how to know, Good and Evil, and understand the difference.

[Calm]

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.

Are you suggesting that Satan has disguised himself as 70ish old woman? Because otherwise I fail to see the relevance of that scripture to what was said.

[Calm]

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

FairMormon provides a range of information, including historical data, so I don't think it is fair to say that at all.

[Honorentheos]

Both Mormon apologetics and Mormon apologists played a role in my disassociation with the Mormon faith.

The Danel Bachman FARMS review of Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness was my first exposure and came after I had read the book and went looking for information online. It left two impressions. There weren't answers, and attacking the author was considered a viable means of discrediting the information in the book. Neither sat well with me, but I considered it was one person's perspective and continued to weigh the issue.

My next exposure was directly with Dr. Peterson via email, which began because we met on a small, now non-existent, message board that seemed to be a spinoff of belief.net's Mormon forums. That exchange solidified my impression from reading the FARMS review. There were no good answers and contempt for those who either don't seek out the true history of the Church or fail to accept an apologetic perspective is perfectly harmonious with being an informed Mormon.

Turns out, that wasn't harmonious with being me.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Many people might say there is much about Christanity in general that does not appeal to the rational mind.

Again, the intent of LDS apologetics, as I see it, is not to prove Mormonism true definitively and empirically, but rather to fend off attacks to the extent that the question is left open. If we can do that much, then mission accomplished, say I.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

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.

 

I'm sure that there are some in both camps. I'll bet there are some other camps that we haven't discussed.

 

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?*

 

How do you quantify whether an apologist's efforts are doing more harm than good?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Thank you for endeavoring to understand me, saemo.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure that there are some in both camps. I'll bet there are some other camps that we haven't discussed.

How do you quantify whether an apologist's efforts are doing more harm than good?

Well, there's the rub. When someone says it who clearly detests Mormonism, for me that person's credibility is lacking for reasons I've already explained.

[Honorentheos]

This reminds me of one of the core points Jonathan Haidt makes in his book The Righteous Mind. The TED discussion summarizes it pretty well -

I think there are three basic principles of moral psychology, and I find it helpful to approach any new puzzle by applying them.

The first principle is intuitive primacy: Peoples’ judgments are based primarily on their intuitive reactions — on quick gut feelings, not on reasoning. This is how we make most decisions, and Malcolm Gladwell reviewed this research in Blink. Our feelings guide our subsequent thinking, and in this case there is a vast sea of fear and anger out there caused by the financial crisis, the threat of unemployment, the rewarding of greed and arrogance on Wall Street, and the big changes the Obama administration is trying to implement on many fronts. People who didn’t vote for Obama started off with negative or ambivalent feelings toward him. Independents who may have voted for him without much love are easily turned against him by talk of tax increases, whether true or not. His race may contribute some negativity, for some people. Whatever the source, negative feelings make it easy for people to believe just about any negative proposition given to them about Obama, including conspiracy theories about his birth certificate. Negative feelings make it easy to believe any negative claim about his health care plan, including the stuff about death panels.

The second principle of moral psychology is that moral thinking is for social doing: We engage in moral thinking not to find the truth, but to find arguments that support our intuitive judgments, so that we can defend ourselves if challenged. The crucial insight here comes from psychologist Tom Gilovich at Cornell, who says that when we want to believe a proposition, we ask, “Can I believe it?” — and we look only for evidence that the proposition might be true. If we find a single piece of evidence then we’re done. We stop. We have a reason we can trot out to support our belief. But if we don’t want to believe a proposition, we ask, “Must I believe it?” — and we look for an escape hatch, a single reason why maybe, just maybe, the proposition is false. So people who have a negative intuitive reaction to Obama, or who are fearful about the enormous changes going on, are already inclined to believe rumors against him and his plans. They hear about death panels and forged birth certificates and ask “can I believe it?” The answer is usually yes, particularly if Fox News raises these questions and brings on experts who claim that the propositions are true. Even if Fox News presents both sides, the fact that somebody on TV endorsed a proposition gives viewers permission to believe it, if they want to. Conversely, Democrats can give rebuttals till they’re blue in the face, but if people are asking themselves “must I believe it” about the Democrats’ claims then the answer they will usually reach is “no.” Logic and consistency just aren’t very important when it comes to morality. Reasoning is “the servant of the passions,” as the philosopher David Hume said long ago.

That brings us to the third principle, which is that morality binds and builds. I said in my TEDTalk that morality and politics are team sports. People aren’t just engaging in post-hoc rationalization to justify their individual feelings. Rather, moral reasoning and rationalizing are done in large part to help your team, and to show that you are a good member of your team. Moral teams tend to form around principles held to be sacred. One sacred principle for conservatives since the 1980s, and for libertarians in all eras, is that government is evil, it is a form oppression. Individual liberty, tied to individual responsibility, are good, so nanny states such as those of Europe, which seem so humane to liberals, are reviled as socialist nightmares that are then mistakenly blended with totalitarian nightmares. Hence the Obama equals Hitler comparisons. Of course, people are quite selective about the aspects of government they find oppressive, and many commentators have pointed out the irony of protesters who say, in one case literally, “keep your government hands off of my medicare.” But once again, logic plays little role in our moral lives. Moral claims and arguments function like gang signs — they show others what team you are on, and they let you share emotions with other people, which bonds you more closely together.

In a sense, it is acknowledging the point of apologetics isn't related to truth, but is part of a moral conflict apologists are engaged in.

[Thinking]

Well, there's the rub. When someone says it who clearly detests Mormonism, for me that person's credibility is lacking for reasons I've already explained.

 

This is exactly the attitude that offends so many who don't believe in mormonism anymore.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

Dehlin's assertion on the thread I linked to was that Daniel "commissioned" the article (he called it a "hit piece," though he had never seen it). That was flat out wrong. Daniel didn't commission it any more than he "commissioned" a host of other articles that the authors undertook on their own initiative and then offered for publication.

 

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.

 

I think I have some recollection of what you are talking about, so I'll endeavor to recount it, welcoming others with better memories than mine to correct or clarify the details, if need be.

 

Midgley wrote a review of Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, a book that was getting some traction at the time. What MIdgley did at the outset was to reveal the backstory. Decades earlier, Palmer, writing under the pseudonym "Paul Pry," had undertaken what amounts to an earlier draft of the book, drawing heavily on what would later turn out to be a forgery (or forgeries) by notorious fraudster and killer Mark Hofmann. Palmer at this time and subsequently was living a sort of double life, drawing a paycheck and ultimately a pension from the Church Educational System, for which he was employed as a seminary teacher.

 

Later, Palmer's book was published, but it suffered greatly because he could no longer rely on the Hofmann forgeries to lend it veracity. As was shown in reviews of the book by Midgley and others, Palmer's theory about the origin of the Book of Mormon -- that Joseph Smith derived the account from E.T.A. Hoffmann's "modern fairy tale" The Golden Pot -- seemed convoluted and contrived and anything but feasible.

 

Undoubtedly Palmer and his devotees would very much have preferred to leave the above information buried securely in the past, but if exposing the backstory behind a popular anti-Mormon book -- shining the light of day on it, as it were -- constitutes "viciousness" or "thuggishness" (and I strongly disagree that it does), then Dehlin and his devotees are likewise vicious and thuggish for faulting the Church for allegedly "whitewashing" or "sanitizing" its history and not bringing to the fore the "warts and all."

 

Dehlin and Midgley also had an unpleasant personal encounter I believe at some UVU event. I do not recall the timing.

 

I don't have a thorough knowledge of or first-hand acquaintance with this incident, but my recollection is that Dehlin was delivering a lecture or a talk, undoubtedly putting Mormonism in an unfavorable light, at a conference on the UVU campus. Midgley, who has never been backward about defending the faith and the saints, approached Dehlin afterward. A conversation ensued, and in the course of that, some incident or other that occurred while Dehlin was on his mission was brought up.

 

Dehlin has never liked being contradicted, and his efforts to vilify Peterson and MIdgley on the thread I linked to -- and before and after -- need to be viewed in light of the history involved.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This is exactly the attitude that offends so many who don't believe in mormonism anymore.

I could see why someone who detests Mormonism wouldn't like it, but I don't see anything inherently offensive about it. What is wrong with being skeptical about an attack from someone who clearly has an axe to grind, who wishes ill toward Mormonism, its leaders and teachings?

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

"Midgley, who has never been backward about defending the faith and the saints, approached Dehlin afterward. A conversation ensued, and in the course of that, some incident or other that occurred while Dehlin was on his mission was brought up."

And from what I have heard from both sides, Dehlin misunderstood what Midgley was talking about and thought he was being accused of something when he wasn't.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

"Midgley, who has never been backward about defending the faith and the saints, approached Dehlin afterward. A conversation ensued, and in the course of that, some incident or other that occurred while Dehlin was on his mission was brought up."

And from what I have heard from both sides, Dehlin misunderstood what Midgley was talking about and thought he was being accused of something when he wasn't.

Interesting.

[Kenngo1969]

I meant to post this here, but it got stuck in another thread.  (It got a rep point there, even though it was irrelevant to that topic. )

 

I've said it before, but, in a sense critics, skeptics, and the disaffected have the advantage: They know that sound-bite criticisms cannot be effectively refuted with soundbite responses; such responses require more depth and detail than many who are disposed to hearken to the other side are willing to invest.  Those who are critical, who are skeptical, and/or who are disaffected know this, and they take full advantage of it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I meant to post this here, but it got stuck in another thread.  (It got a rep point there, even though it was irrelevant to that topic. )

 

I've said it before, but, in a sense critics, skeptics, and the disaffected have the advantage: They know that sound-bite criticisms cannot be effectively refuted with soundbite responses; such responses require more depth and detail than many who are disposed to hearken to the other side are willing to invest.  Those who are critical, who are skeptical, and/or who are disaffected know this, and they take full advantage of it.

A pity you can't transfer rep points, but I'll rep it here.

[MiserereNobis]

 Those who are critical, who are skeptical, and/or who are disaffected know this, and they take full advantage of it.

 

Just to clarify, are you saying that they do it intentionally and with full knowledge?  That all who are "critical, skeptical, and/or disaffected" think to themselves, "I'll just give a soundbite attack because they can't give a soundbite rebuttal."

 

In other words, do you think all of the LDS church's critics, skeptics, and disaffecteds knowingly employ dubious methods that are meant to persuade independent of the truth of their claims?

 

That is quite a charge, honestly.  It certainly sets up the "Mormons = moral high ground arguments" and "anti-Mormons = moral low ground (and who cares about the arguments)".

 

That seems a bit too convenient, in my opinion.

[hagoth7]

...What is wrong with being skeptical about an attack from someone who clearly has an axe to grind, who wishes ill toward Mormonism, its leaders and teachings?

Hi Scott,

 

I don't happen to find most expressions of disbelief as an attack. Honorable, decent people can examine the same evidence and arrive at differing conclusions.

Perhaps I don't feel the need to react defensively to expressions of disbelief because I'm confident in my own beliefs.

And/or perhaps it's also because I wrestled with my own doubts before, and from that experience have some degree of empathy for those who disbelieve now.

 

To add my voice to others, I also find ad hominem attacks in apologetic works to be both out of place and offsetting.

 

Or as honorentheos said in this thread about his reaction to attack-dog approaches in a few apologetic works:

 

....It left two impressions. There weren't answers, and attacking the author was considered a viable means of discrediting the information in the book. Neither sat well with me...

 

I can empathize with those who turned to such sources while struggling, and who only got further disaffected when exposed to such tactics. Such tactics seem neither fair nor honest to some, including me. Such occasional ad hominems can even lead a frank reader to wonder what is being swept under the carpet and why. That is why I much prefer faith-promoting works that stick to the issues.

 

Fortunately, back when I struggled with the truth claims of the Restoration, I didn't give much weight to what mortals said or thought.

Edited November 2, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

Just to clarify, are you saying that they do it intentionally and with full knowledge?  That all who are "critical, skeptical, and/or disaffected" think to themselves, "I'll just give a soundbite attack because they can't give a soundbite rebuttal."

 

In other words, do you think all of the LDS church's critics, skeptics, and disaffecteds knowingly employ dubious methods that are meant to persuade independent of the truth of their claims?

 

That is quite a charge, honestly.  It certainly sets up the "Mormons = moral high ground arguments" and "anti-Mormons = moral low ground (and who cares about the arguments)".

 

That seems a bit too convenient, in my opinion.

 

I don't imagine that's what Kenngo meant. I look forward to his response.

Edited November 2, 2015 by hagoth7

[Kenngo1969]

Those who harbor private doubts are one thing: those who seek out fora to nurture their doubts, to publicize those doubts, and to persuade others to doubt, to criticize, and to become disaffected along with them are quite another.  I don't include many (indeed, I include not hardly any) who post here in the second category.  It is people in the second category who capitalize on the likelihood that those on the fence will be persuaded by sound-bite criticisms, and who are, correspondingly, unlikely to be persuaded by the more substantive responses that likely are necessary to refute such sound bite criticisms.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Kenngo1969