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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

And Analytics' sniping is a good example of exploiting "troubling" and fragmentary information into the bumper-sticker/sound bite argumentation that kenngo described.

 

For the record, here is what the entry in the Gospel Topics essay says on this subject:

 

 

Joseph and Emma

Plural marriage was difficult for all involved. For Joseph Smith’s wife Emma, it was an excruciating ordeal. Records of Emma’s reactions to plural marriage are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts. Joseph and Emma loved and respected each other deeply. After he had entered into plural marriage, he poured out his feelings in his journal for his “beloved Emma,” whom he described as “undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma.” After Joseph’s death, Emma kept a lock of his hair in a locket she wore around her neck.³⁸

Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages in Nauvoo, and she accepted all four of those wives into her household. She may have approved of other marriages as well.³⁹ But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings.⁴⁰ She vacillated in her view of plural marriage, at some points supporting it and at other times denouncing it.

In the summer of 1843, Joseph Smith dictated the revelation on marriage, a lengthy and complex text containing both glorious promises and stern warnings, some directed at Emma.⁴¹ The revelation instructed women and men that they must obey God’s law and commands in order to receive the fulness of His glory.

The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage.⁴² Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said that if the first wife “receive not this law”—the command to practice plural marriage—the husband would be “exempt from the law of Sarah,” presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women.⁴³ After Emma opposed plural marriage, Joseph was placed in an agonizing dilemma, forced to choose between the will of God and the will of his beloved Emma. He may have thought Emma’s rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the law of Sarah. Her decision to “receive not this law” permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent. Because of Joseph’s early death and Emma’s decision to remain in Nauvoo and not discuss plural marriage after the Church moved west, many aspects of their story remain known only to the two of them.

 

There is truth in what you say: It will still be troubling to many people, but those disposed to believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith's call, and that the commandment to institute and practice plural marriage did indeed come from God, will be more inclined to understand.

At any rate, we now have a ready official resource (Gospel Topics essays) to counter the bumper-sticker sniping.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

But as it happens, Analytics obliges us by furnishing an example of a sound-bite criticism.

[jkwilliams]

And Analytics' sniping is a good example of exploiting "troubling" and fragmentary information into the bumper-sticker/sound bite argumentation that kenngo described.

 

For the record, here is what the entry in the Gospel Topics essay says on this subject:

 

 

There is truth in what you say: It will still be troubling to many people, but those disposed to believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith's call, and that the commandment to institute and practice plural marriage did indeed come from God, will be more inclined to understand.

At any rate, we now have a ready official resource (Gospel Topics essays) to counter the bumper-sticker sniping.

 

I know a lot of people (myself included) who were "disposed to believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith's call" and so on, and were mightily troubled by these issues. Being troubled by these issues is not a character flaw or representative of a lack of faith or not being "inclined to understand." If someone was predisposed not to believe, these issues wouldn't be troubling at all. 

 

This just seems to shift the attention away from the troubling issues and onto those who are troubled by these issues. And, frankly, a lot of good, honest people would be hurt and/or angered that they are viewed this way. Again, Analytics was spot-on: I think you have good intentions, but what you posted is completely unhelpful to someone who is struggling.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Kenngo was alluding to this quote from George Bernard Shaw:

 

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

 

And it is very apt as applied to engaging some anti-Mormon critics.

 

[Buckeye]

For debates like this, I find it helpful to ask the "apologists": "please name one fact that if true would cause you to lose faith in the church or its leaders" and likewise to the "critics": "please name one fact that if true would cause you to place faith in the church and its leaders." If the apologist or critic cannot answer, that's all you need to know; they're not in this to find the truth, but to "win" the debate. And it's equally tiresome to me regardless of which base-position they come from.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know a lot of people (myself included) who were "disposed to believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith's call" and so on, and were mightily troubled by these issues. Being troubled by these issues is not a character flaw or representative of a lack of faith or not being "inclined to understand." If someone was predisposed not to believe, these issues wouldn't be troubling at all. 

 

You seem habituated to personalizing these discussions. Well, as a counter to your anecdotal evidence, I'll offer myself as an example of one who, having already received a spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost of the divinity of Jospeh Smith's calling, has been helped toward greater understanding by sources such as the Gospel Topics essay I quoted.

 

This just seems to shift the attention away from the troubling issues and onto those who are troubled by these issues. And, frankly, a lot of good, honest people would be hurt and/or angered that they are viewed this way. Again, Analytics was spot-on: I think you have good intentions, but what you posted is completely unhelpful to someone who is struggling.

 

I'm not disparaging the honesty of anyone who is troubled by the issues, only suggesting that the available information is not sufficient to justify abandoning the faith over them, especially when someone has received personal revelation about the truthfulness of the Restoration.

 

And I stand by my observation that Analytics gave us a textbook example of quick-and-dirty, bumper-sticker, sound-bite style argumentation.

[jkwilliams]

For debates like this, I find it helpful to ask the "apologists": "please name one fact that if true would cause you to lose faith in the church or its leaders" and likewise to the "critics": "please name one fact that if true would cause you to place faith in the church and its leaders." If the apologist or critic cannot answer, that's all you need to know; they're not in this to find the truth, but to "win" the debate. And it's equally tiresome to me regardless of which base-position they come from.

 

Even after all this time, I would accept pretty much anything I could latch onto, no matter how small. The Book of Mormon talks about a desire to believe, and I suppose I still have that on some level, but I've been disappointed each time I've tried to make it work.

[Scott Lloyd]

For debates like this, I find it helpful to ask the "apologists": "please name one fact that if true would cause you to lose faith in the church or its leaders" and likewise to the "critics": "please name one fact that if true would cause you to place faith in the church and its leaders." If the apologist or critic cannot answer, that's all you need to know; they're not in this to find the truth, but to "win" the debate. And it's equally tiresome to me regardless of which base-position they come from.

Define "fact."

[jkwilliams]

You seem habituated to personalizing these discussions. Well, as a counter to your anecdotal evidence, I'll offer myself as an example of one who, having already received a spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost of the divinity of Jospeh Smith's calling, has been helped toward greater understanding by sources such as the Gospel Topics essay I quoted.

 

I'm not disparaging the honesty of anyone who is troubled by the issues, only suggesting that the available information is not sufficient to justify abandoning the faith over them, especially when someone has received personal revelation about the truthfulness of the Restoration.

 

And I stand by my observation that Analytics gave us a textbook example of quick-and-dirty, bumper-sticker, sound-bite style argumentation.

 

I'm not personalizing this, as it would take a heck of a lot more than this to offend me. I'm just saying this is a perfect example of unwittingly causing hurt and anger. You don't mean to disparage anyone, but I would hope you can see how some people would feel disparaged. 

 

It may not occur to you that other people may reach a point at which they come to question their personal revelation. You may not feel the evidence is sufficient, but they do.

[Thinking]

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.

 

Yes you did.

 

Here is your general statement.

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.

 

Here is my request for an example.

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

 

Here is your rejection and insult.

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.

 

Why don't you attempt to do so and find out if that old saying is fulfilled. It might be that the pig is not who you think.

[Appleseed]

I would be interested in how Scott Lloyd explains Hans Mattson's disaffection. I get the sense, after listening to Mattson, that if anyone was disposed to believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith's call, he was. How do you explain that away? 

[Buckeye]

Even after all this time, I would accept pretty much anything I could latch onto, no matter how small. The Book of Mormon talks about a desire to believe, and I suppose I still have that on some level, but I've been disappointed each time I've tried to make it work.

 

How about the promise that the atonement allows for all harms to be remedied in the eternities (and then some)? I've known people who have received real injuries (e.g., child killed by drunk driver). Belief that the Savior will make amends for such loses allows people to forgive and lead more healthy lives. Trust that justice will come by another's hands allows mercy to work in their hearts.

 

Have you seen anything like this? For me, it's a key part of my testimony.

[jkwilliams]

How about the promise that the atonement allows for all harms to be remedied in the eternities (and then some)? I've known people who have received real injuries (e.g., child killed by drunk driver). Belief that the Savior will make amends for such loses allows people to forgive and lead more healthy lives. Trust that justice will come by another's hands allows mercy to work in their hearts.

 

Have you seen anything like this? For me, it's a key part of my testimony.

 

I would say that has to do with my belief in God, but it's not specific to Mormonism.

[Thinking]

Kenngo was alluding to this quote from George Bernard Shaw:

 

And it is very apt as applied to engaging some anti-Mormon critics.

 

I know the quote, and I'm quite confident that Kenngo was not thinking of himself as the pig.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not personalizing this, as it would take a heck of a lot more than this to offend me.

That's precisely what you are doing. And you do it habitually.

 

I'm just saying this is a perfect example of unwittingly causing hurt and anger. You don't mean to disparage anyone, but I would hope you can see how some people would feel disparaged. 

 

I don't know what to say to the charge that affirming one's own spiritual witness is "causing hurt and anger." It's indeed unfortunate if such is the case, but I don't see that I should assume guilt for expressing my own experience, any more than others should feel guilt for affirming their unbelief in the restored gospel.

 

 

It may not occur to you that other people may reach a point at which they come to question their personal revelation. You may not feel the evidence is sufficient, but they do.

 

A pity, if that is the case, but not my fault.

[Buckeye]

Define "fact."

 

You're avoiding the issue. Try "historical occurrence" or anything else that floats your boat. Here's an example: "I believe that my kids were at school today because they told me so, but if someone showed me in-store video footage of their presence at the corner drug store, I would believe the video over them." 

 

Generally I find that when pushed apologists will say "I believe my witness of the spirit over anything historical or factual." That's fine; I'd even say it's reasonable. But knowing that helps to frame the conversation. Unless you are the spirit, nothing you can say will convince the apologist to reconsider their views; their purpose is not to discuss or listen, it is (in the words of President Packer) to instruct. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's helpful to know that the apologist is not approaching the conversation on even ground.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would be interested in how Scott Lloyd explains Hans Mattson's disaffection. I get the sense, after listening to Mattson, that if anyone was disposed to believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith's call, he was. How do you explain that away? 

Nope, not going there (it would open me up to all manner of accusations about passing unrighteous judgment) except to say that it is anecdotal information, and there are plenty of anecdotal examples to counter it.

 

As I said the other day, the trouble with an anecdote as evidence is that it only takes one counter-anecdote to neutralize it.

[Buckeye]

I would say that has to do with my belief in God, but it's not specific to Mormonism.

 

That's fair. How about the LDS church's ability to graft members geographically through (i) the missionary program and (ii) force congregation borders. I find these aspects of the church to be fairly unique among religions and also to add great value to the lived experience of members. It's something we do rather well.

[jkwilliams]

That's precisely what you are doing. And you do it habitually.

 

I don't know what to say to the charge that affirming one's own spiritual witness is "causing hurt and anger." It's indeed unfortunate if such is the case, but I don't see that I should assume guilt for expressing my own experience, any more than others should feel guilt for affirming their unbelief in the restored gospel.

 

 

A pity, if that is the case, but not my fault.

I'm not saying it's your fault, and I'm certainly not criticizing you or making a personal attack in any way. I'm saying that hurt feelings and anger are completely predictable when people on either side make assumptions about the nature of the evidence and the ability of others to accept that evidence. Your post was a good example of something well-intentioned that I can easily imagine someone taking the wrong way. It's not that either side is wrong, but we're reading things differently.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're avoiding the issue. Try "historical occurrence" or anything else that floats your boat. Here's an example: "I believe that my kids were at school today because they told me so, but if someone showed me in-store video footage of their presence at the corner drug store, I would believe the video over them." 

 

Generally I find that when pushed apologists will say "I believe my witness of the spirit over anything historical or factual." That's fine; I'd even say it's reasonable. But knowing that helps to frame the conversation. Unless you are the spirit, nothing you can say will convince the apologist to reconsider their views; their purpose is not to discuss or listen, it is (in the words of President Packer) to instruct. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's helpful to know that the apologist is not approaching the conversation on even ground.

I'm not avoiding the issue. Just trying to clarify what you are getting at. If it comes down to playing "what-if" games, I don't see that as very productive.

[jkwilliams]

That's fair. How about the LDS church's ability to graft members geographically through (i) the missionary program and (ii) force congregation borders. I find these aspects of the church to be fairly unique among religions and also to add great value to the lived experience of members. It's something we do rather well.

I've never thought of that before. I think one of the things the church struggles with is the inability to accommodate local culture and practice, instead preferring to make everything into a correlated close of US worship.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not saying it's your fault, and I'm certainly not criticizing you or making a personal attack in any way. I'm saying that hurt feelings and anger are completely predictable when people on either side make assumptions about the nature of the evidence and the ability of others to accept that evidence. Your post was a good example of something well-intentioned that I can easily imagine someone taking the wrong way. It's not that either side is wrong, but we're reading things differently.

People can and do take offense at all manner of things. Doesn't necessarily mean the taking of the offense is justified.

[Appleseed]

Nope, not going there (it would open me up to all manner of accusations about passing unrighteous judgment) except to say that it is anecdotal information, and there are plenty of anecdotal examples to counter it.

 

As I said the other day, the trouble with an anecdote as evidence is that it only takes one counter-anecdote to neutralize it.

What is anecdotal evidence? I am not following you. What does your 'it' refer to?

[Buckeye]

 

I'm not avoiding the issue. Just trying to clarify what you are getting at. If it comes down to playing "what-if" games, I don't see that as very productive.

 

You know what I'm getting at. It would be nice if you could offer something.

 

I'll give you an example from the "critic" side. Suppose that an archaeological dig at an Israeli Tel uncovered a jar ala Dead Seas that contained a 700 BC carbon-dated scroll in hebrew that matched 95% with what we find in the vineyard allegory of Jacob chapter 5. Suppose the scroll purports to record the word of a previously unknown northern kingdom prophet "ZNS." That would be pretty tough for a critic to ignore, don't you think?

 

So, what from the believer's side would do the same thing for you? (And again, I'm mostly on the believers side; my recommend was just renewed).

[jkwilliams]

People can and do take offense at all manner of things. Doesn't necessarily mean the taking of the offense is justified.

Did I say it was justified? Good heavens, Scott, I'm Exhibit A in my ability to unwittingly offend some people. I'm often completely baffled when I say something I think is rather banal and uncontroversial, and someone says I'm attacking all that is good in the world. Heck, I made a silly joke over the weekend, and I was told I was playing the victim card and goading people.

What I am trying to say is that there is a dynamic in these kinds of discussions that has nothing to do with who is right or wrong, who is more effective, and who is kinder and more congenial.