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

[Thinking]

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.

 

Will you provide an example of a sound-bite criticism that cannot be effectively refuted with a sound-bite response?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Of course not, but it is a tactic often used by those without high moral and ethical standards.  Evangelical Richard Mouw has commented on that tendency repeatedly and plainly doesn't like it.

 

ETA: However, I did give you a rep point for an excellent question.  Such distinctions must be made.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Will you provide an example of a sound-bite criticism that cannot be effectively refuted with a sound-bite response?

It is not always possible, although Rubio used one on Bush the other nite.  Comedians are pretty good at it, since it is their bread and butter.

[Calm]

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. )

It was probably me...I was obsessively reading stuff on the board today practically every time someone posted a post, but not really paying attention to the context with most...we threw a surprise ward birthday party for my husband tonight and I was chewing my gut out wondering if he was playing along or really fooled today and if fooled, if we could make it till 7 PM so was distracting myself when I had too much free time by reading here.  I am not good with surprises usually.  This one was perfect.  And now I will never have to do another one thank goodness.  

[Thinking]

It is not always possible, although Rubio used one on Bush the other nite.  Comedians are pretty good at it, since it is their bread and butter.

 

What does Bush have to do with Mormon apologetics?

[saemo]

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.

I don't think I was clear. I wasn't talking about empirical evidence but rational argument.

Intent, as I see it, is to rationalize, which is not the same as rational.

[Kenngo1969]

Will you provide an example of a sound-bite criticism that cannot be effectively refuted with a sound-bite response?

No.  If you disagree with my contention, that is your prerogative.  I suspect that if I were to attempt to do so, it would fulfill that old saying about what happens when one wrestles with a pig.

[sjdawg]

Apologists didn't drive me from the Church however I did find their answers lacking.   Nothing truly drove me from the church except the realization that I didn't believe in it and it wasn't making me happy.  

 

Do I think Joseph Smith was a prophet?  No

 

Do I believe JS was commanded to practice polygamy?  No

 

I simply don't accept many of the teachings of the LDS Church.   In my mind it is no better and no worse than most religious organizations.  I did enjoy some of the social aspects but in the end the church didn't represent my beliefs.

 

If there was something that "drove" me out of the church (I don't really like that term and don't believe it is truly accurate) it was likely the church's stance on homosexuality.   I realized that if one of my children was gay I would never forgive myself for raising them in a church that in any way taught them there was something wrong with them.   The church can be very damaging to those who don't fit into the ideal vision of what is being taught day after day.

Edited November 2, 2015 by sjdawg

[Robert F. Smith]

What does Bush have to do with Mormon apologetics?

Ripostes and sound bite responses come in all areas (including politics), but they are not always easy to come up with on the fly. Bush made a preplanned, sound-bite attack, and Rubio immediately hit him hard in return.  Is that what apologetics is all about?  Is everything that simple?

[Thinking]

No.  If you disagree with my contention, that is your prerogative.  I suspect that if I were to attempt to do so, it would fulfill that old saying about what happens when one wrestles with a pig.

 

Nice. You make a general claim, refuse to provide a specific example, then call the petitioner a pig.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Will you provide an example of a sound-bite criticism that cannot be effectively refuted with a sound-bite response?

 

Here's one, taken from an actual critical web site: 'The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism'.

[Kenngo1969]

Nice. You make a general claim, refuse to provide a specific example, then call the petitioner a pig.

Baloney.  I did no such thing.  Your simply asking the question is, to me, evidence that you are unlikely to be persuaded by anything I have to say on the matter anyway.  That's fine.  Why should I be persuaded by your insistence that I should try to dissuade you from your position?  If you're comfortable in that position, more power to you.  I have no desire to change it.

[jkwilliams]

Rereading Dan's article, I'm struck by this:

 

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the complexity of its content and the speed of its dictation, the manifold ways in which it and other revelations given through Joseph Smith seem to fit the ancient milieu that they purport to reflect, the abundant evidence of Joseph’s sincerity and good character, the profundity of his teachings — these and many other things seem so striking that, for us, many other controversies resemble quibbles over whether St. Denis walked a hundred miles or only 99.

 

Many people disagree with every one of these assertions, so they would have to resolve these first before getting to the "quibbling" stage. It seems to me, then, that the baseline is accepting the basic premises of the Book of Mormon story. Does skepticism about these foundational claims mean one is acting in bad faith, or is it just a matter of desiring to believe enough to outweigh any skepticism?

[Analytics]

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 …

 

Hi TOmNossor,

 

Thank you for the thoughtful post.  You say a lot here.  I'll try to respond to what pops out most to me.

 

Just to get this out of the way, I don't think that any given "bright" is necessarily that much smarter than any "non-bright", just as I don't think that "Latter-day Saints" are necessary that much more saintly than non-Saints.  Those are just words to identify groups.  I personally know any number of Mormons that would run circles around me on any given intelligence test.  Likewise, I know any number of Saints that are all around better people than I am.  I know when I opinionate about religious beliefs that others hold dear they might take it personally, but it isn't meant that way.

 

Truthfully, I'm not sure how many people really say, "the apologists drove me out of the church."  I know several have said things like, "I had some big doubts, went to the apologists, and then felt confident about my decision to leave the church."  And I know a lot of people say, "What FAIR is doing on issue XYZ will backfire."  I don't believe very many at all said that they wanted to stay but were somehow driven out by apologists.

 

Personally, I think the approach you laid out in your BOA example is ideal.  When somebody is going through a faith crisis, he needs empathy more than answers. 

 

What I think happens most often is that a sincere, good person puts issue after issue on his mental "shelf" as he goes through his life as a Mormon.  Some of the issues have great answers, others don't have satisfactory answers at all, and others are in-between.  When the shelf breaks, the faith crisis begins.  If the doubter engages with an apologist, the apologist will try to address the easy issues, but for every issue he addresses, another issue pops up.  The next issue tends to be harder to deal with, and the apologist becomes frustrated and accuses the doubter of using the "big list" anti-Mormon tactic, and becomes antagonistic.  At that point, the doubter finds two things: first, that the apologist couldn't satisfactorily address the disturbing issues and second, a striking lack of empathy.  At that point, it's easy to find empathy in the exmo world, and the questioner is gone.

 

The sociological aspects of all of this are what I find most interesting.  Most of what happens is really about tribal loyalty.

[stemelbow]

Rereading Dan's article, I'm struck by this:

 

 

 

 

Many people disagree with every one of these assertions, so they would have to resolve these first before getting to the "quibbling" stage. It seems to me, then, that the baseline is accepting the basic premises of the Book of Mormon story. Does skepticism about these foundational claims mean one is acting in bad faith, or is it just a matter of desiring to believe enough to outweigh any skepticism?

That's a good point.

the abundant evidence of Joseph’s sincerity and good character,

That would probably be Dan's biggest challenge. There are plenty, even many faithful LDS who would challenge this to some extent or another. Joseph seemed fairly sincere and of good character to me, until you get into his polygamy. Sincerity and good character tend to get pretty difficult to uphold when a man finds himself with many women. That's the breaks of believing. You can't pin it on Joseph's sincerity and good character. You need something else or you'll be sunk.

[jkwilliams]

 

Personally, I think the approach you laid out in your BOA example is ideal.  When somebody is going through a faith crisis, he needs empathy more than answers. 

 

What I think happens most often is that a sincere, good person puts issue after issue on his mental "shelf" as he goes through his life as a Mormon.  Some of the issues have great answers, others don't have satisfactory answers at all, and others are in-between.  When the shelf breaks, the faith crisis begins.  If the doubter engages with an apologist, the apologist will try to address the easy issues, but for every issue he addresses, another issue pops up.  The next issue tends to be harder to deal with, and the apologist becomes frustrated and accuses the doubter of using the "big list" anti-Mormon tactic, and becomes antagonistic.  At that point, the doubter finds two things: first, that the apologist couldn't satisfactorily address the disturbing issues and second, a striking lack of empathy.  At that point, it's easy to find empathy in the exmo world, and the questioner is gone.

 

The sociological aspects of all of this are what I find most interesting.  Most of what happens is really about tribal loyalty.

 

Well said. I've seen this process play out many, many times, and you are right: it's more about empathy and tribal loyalty than anything else. The "big list" isn't a problem if there isn't a big list of problematic issues in the first place. 

[jkwilliams]

That's a good point.

That would probably be Dan's biggest challenge. There are plenty, even many faithful LDS who would challenge this to some extent or another. Joseph seemed fairly sincere and of good character to me, until you get into his polygamy. Sincerity and good character tend to get pretty difficult to uphold when a man finds himself with many women. That's the breaks of believing. You can't pin it on Joseph's sincerity and good character. You need something else or you'll be sunk.

 

This is actually an excellent example of what Analytics is talking about: to Dan and a lot of others, Joseph Smith's good character goes without saying, as the evidence for it is "abundant." But when people learn about his scrying activities, the Kirtland banking business, and how he practiced polygamy, many begin to question his character. Apologists have answers for these issues (for example, the notion that he had to lie to Emma about his practice of plural marriage because she wouldn't accept it), but if one is already questioning Joseph's character, these answers aren't particularly convincing. When the struggling member explains that he or she isn't comforted by the answers, sometimes apologists respond by calling into question the struggling member's character because, obviously to them, anyone finding Joseph's character problematic is a fault-finder and is looking to be offended, etc. At some point, both the apologist and the struggling member begin to treat each other as antagonists, and the struggler leaves feeling not only that the answers weren't very good but that the apologists are not very nice people. 

 

Notice I said "both," not just the apologist, as I think the frustration arises on both sides, but I think that's what leads to the lingering resentment.

[stemelbow]

This is actually an excellent example of what Analytics is talking about: to Dan and a lot of others, Joseph Smith's good character goes without saying, as the evidence for it is "abundant." But when people learn about his scrying activities, the Kirtland banking business, and how he practiced polygamy, many begin to question his character. Apologists have answers for these issues (for example, the notion that he had to lie to Emma about his practice of plural marriage because she wouldn't accept it), but if one is already questioning Joseph's character, these answers aren't particularly convincing. When the struggling member explains that he or she isn't comforted by the answers, sometimes apologists respond by calling into question the struggling member's character because, obviously to them, anyone finding Joseph's character problematic is a fault-finder and is looking to be offended, etc. At some point, both the apologist and the struggling member begin to treat each other as antagonists, and the struggler leaves feeling not only that the answers weren't very good but that the apologists are not very nice people. 

 

Notice I said "both," not just the apologist, as I think the frustration arises on both sides, but I think that's what leads to the lingering resentment.

Not sure I completely agree, but that's alright. I hear ya. Struggling members are not some victimized people needing someone to save them. We're all people and some of us simply aren't going to believe, no matter how nice another will be. I'm not saying it's okay for an apologist to treat another callously. But I don't see an effort to talk about and address the difficulty as being callous. I find it empathetic as best as such a person can be. But, what's true is, we'll never be able to fully identify with another. Each of us are going to be lacking what it's like to be in another's shoes.

I guess I get tired of hearing about how mean Dan and others are. I find such claims preposterous. He's a nice guy who tries his best. He seems far from a callous observer to me. I'm guessing you agree, but I don't think it's fair to think this starts with an apologist trying to answer and not being empathetic.

[Tacenda]

Which apologists/apologist, for you apologists out there, threw you for a loop when they disaffected? I'm thinking of one that might have, Kerry Shirts.

[jkwilliams]

Not sure I completely agree, but that's alright. I hear ya. Struggling members are not some victimized people needing someone to save them. We're all people and some of us simply aren't going to believe, no matter how nice another will be. I'm not saying it's okay for an apologist to treat another callously. But I don't see an effort to talk about and address the difficulty as being callous. I find it empathetic as best as such a person can be. But, what's true is, we'll never be able to fully identify with another. Each of us are going to be lacking what it's like to be in another's shoes.

I guess I get tired of hearing about how mean Dan and others are. I find such claims preposterous. He's a nice guy who tries his best. He seems far from a callous observer to me. I'm guessing you agree, but I don't think it's fair to think this starts with an apologist trying to answer and not being empathetic.

 

I think maybe you misunderstood my point, which was that a well-intentioned conversation about problematic issues often ends in rancor because the participants are coming at the issues from a different perspective, and what an apologist sees as a reasonable answer may not be an answer at all to a struggling member. I'm certainly not pointing fingers at apologists for being "callous" (far from it) or suggesting that struggling members are victims (that word gets thrown around a lot here). What I'm saying is that it's perfectly understandable that two well-meaning individuals can end up feeling antagonistic simply because one person's answers don't line up with the kinds of answers that work for the other person.

 

As for Dan Peterson, I don't think he's "mean" or "callous." I understand why his approach to apologetics and his sense of humor rub people the wrong way, but I don't think that means he's a bad person. For me, the reason Dan gets so much crap isn't that he's so effective but that a lot of people misread his tone and intent, and of course, he's pretty much the most visible apologist out there. Heaven knows I've met a few unpleasant apologists, but I've always liked Dan.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't have a testimony of the apologists of the church.

[rockpond]

This is actually an excellent example of what Analytics is talking about: to Dan and a lot of others, Joseph Smith's good character goes without saying, as the evidence for it is "abundant." But when people learn about his scrying activities, the Kirtland banking business, and how he practiced polygamy, many begin to question his character. Apologists have answers for these issues (for example, the notion that he had to lie to Emma about his practice of plural marriage because she wouldn't accept it), but if one is already questioning Joseph's character, these answers aren't particularly convincing. When the struggling member explains that he or she isn't comforted by the answers, sometimes apologists respond by calling into question the struggling member's character because, obviously to them, anyone finding Joseph's character problematic is a fault-finder and is looking to be offended, etc. At some point, both the apologist and the struggling member begin to treat each other as antagonists, and the struggler leaves feeling not only that the answers weren't very good but that the apologists are not very nice people. 

 

Notice I said "both," not just the apologist, as I think the frustration arises on both sides, but I think that's what leads to the lingering resentment.

 

Well put.

[Analytics]

That's a good point.

That would probably be Dan's biggest challenge. There are plenty, even many faithful LDS who would challenge this to some extent or another. Joseph seemed fairly sincere and of good character to me, until you get into his polygamy. Sincerity and good character tend to get pretty difficult to uphold when a man finds himself with many women. That's the breaks of believing. You can't pin it on Joseph's sincerity and good character. You need something else or you'll be sunk.

That's the part of Dan's approach that is so unconvincing--his basic argument is that Joseph Smith had excellent character because many of his friends say so. That seems calculated to dodge an examination of the character implications of entering into secret "marriages" behind his wife's back.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's the part of Dan's approach that is so unconvincing--his basic argument is that Joseph Smith had excellent character because many of his friends say so. That seems calculated to dodge an examination of the character implications of entering into secret "marriages" behind his wife's back.

An example of the bumper-sticker/sound bite argumentation that Ken was talking about.

[jkwilliams]

An example of the bumper-sticker/sound bite argumentation that Ken was talking about.

 

Actually, I think it's a pretty good example of what is frustrating to struggling members. Any investigation into Joseph's practice of polygamy is going to show that he concealed at least some of his plural marriages from Emma, and for most people, that is troubling information that speaks to Joseph's character. As I said, some people believe that there are good answers for this concealment, but for most people, it's troubling, and the answers given by apologists (such as, he had to hide it from Emma because she wouldn't let him keep the commandment) are not comforting at all. 

 

So, when those answers aren't satisfying, some apologists assume that it's because the struggling member is predisposed to find fault or condemn, and at the same time, the struggling member may feel the apologist is ignoring his or her concerns. Either way, things can go south pretty quickly from there, no matter the good will of either participant.