Christian Apologetic Patterns

[juliann]

42 minutes ago, cinepro said:

You don't need to read it as being sinister.  I was simply pointing out that it was my understanding that at least some GA's are involved in the management of BYU, and while they're obviously not involved in every decision made on the campus, it would certainly seem that for department changes such as those being discussed, they could become involved as they saw necessary.  If they weren't aware of what happened, then obviously they wouldn't get involved.  But if they were aware, even after the fact, then a decision to not get involved would at the very least indicate that the situation didn't bother them enough for them to get involved.

Obviously, those other contributions Dan has made are great, but in this case, the changes made at MI don't appear to have been disturbing enough to get any of Bradford's superiors to correct his course.  I don't' know what it means; I'm just pointing out the obvious.  It doesn't mean they were involved with those actions, but it would seem to indicate they were okay with them (or, perhaps, powerless to do anything; like I said, I don't know all the possible alternatives).

I've always found this reasoning curious. BYU is a very big enterprise. Which "GA" keeps tabs on every going on in every corner? How much power would such a GA have to meddle? Would this happen in other Church enterprises that have employees hired to run them....presumably because they have the expertise? Or are GA's called because they have secret knowledge of the ins and outs of every corner of church business that surpass those hired? I wonder how many expert football coaches we have hidden in our GA population! Is that why the football coach got another job!!??  Most of all...why would they want to get involved in every dispute? This one involved a relatively few people. I'm pretty sure that in hindsight it would have all gone down differently. What I do think is the biggest eyeroll is that anyone would think that the "new guard" at MI wants anything to do with what Salgare is spreading. 

I am most fascinated by those who need this event to stay in the forefront when everyone involved has moved on. I think the Church is pulling the rug out from under some complainers recently and in very big ways. What does a church hater do when faced with directives that we help refugees or when the church is doing the hard work to provide the women's history that has been missing. While they are doing the heavy work, OW is demanding a personal reading of complaints. It's not a good contrast  haven't been happy with some things the church has been slow about and I don't hesitate to talk about it...but I have noticed that there has been silence or utter pettiness when stuff starts happening that silences a favorite criticism. 

 

 

[Daniel Peterson]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

And they will out live you, ouch.

They may well.  At least in certain circles.

 

That's the nature of slander.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

I've always found this reasoning curious. BYU is a very big enterprise. Which "GA" keeps tabs on every going on in every corner? How much power would such a GA have to meddle? Would this happen in other Church enterprises that have employees hired to run them....presumably because they have the expertise? Or are GA's called because they have secret knowledge of the ins and outs of every corner of church business that surpass those hired? I wonder how many expert football coaches we have hidden in our GA population! Is that why the football coach got another job!!??  Most of all...why would they want to get involved in every dispute? This one involved a relatively few people. I'm pretty sure that in hindsight it would have all gone down differently. What I do think is the biggest eyeroll is that anyone would think that the "new guard" at MI wants anything to do with what Salgare is spreading. 

I am most fascinated by those who need this event to stay in the forefront when everyone involved has moved on. I think the Church is pulling the rug out from under some complainers recently and in very big ways. What does a church hater do when faced with directives that we help refugees or when the church is doing the hard work to provide the women's history that has been missing. While they are doing the heavy work, OW is demanding a personal reading of complaints. It's not a good contrast  haven't been happy with some things the church has been slow about and I don't hesitate to talk about it...but I have noticed that there has been silence or utter pettiness when stuff starts happening that silences a favorite criticism. 

 

 

Brava!

[juliann]

27 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Well this thread has taken on a life of its own. My head hurts just trying to follow the discussion here. There is a big difference in Evangelicalism between general apologetics and Mormon apologetics. I am still working on discovering the lay of the land myself. There is a definite tension when it comes to Mormon apologetics. It appears that in the last 20 years or so several theologians have begun to interact with BYU scholars. Many of these theologians have openly disparaged apologists who have written on Mormonism in the past. The earlier apologists tend to view most of these theologians as progressive Evangelicals. This is not without warrant. I recently contacted one of these theologians on Facebook. I told him I had several of Robert Millet's books and asked him for recommendations for understanding Mormonism. Here is what he wrote:
 

He also linked me to this bibliography from a fellow who teaches at Utah Valley State University:

http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/docs/mct15_syllabus.pdf

Good stuff, Steve.  I don't think Millet had near the influence Evangelicals wanted. There seemed to be an expectation that we would become more like them, that was their idea of a need for civility ;-)  We could insert all the grace the EVs wanted and it still wouldn't make Mormonism a way to heaven in their eyes.

I love Brian Birch, but he is not "mainstream." The best way to understand mainstream Mormon belief is to talk to Mormons, quite frankly. We just aren't a terribly cohesive group when it comes to hard line theology past a certain point. That makes it difficult for comparisons. This theologian you contacted is taking an academic approach, those are the sources he is giving.  That isn't wrong....just not very nuanced. I'll bet 99% of Mormons haven't heard of any of these names.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I talked to a member of President Monson's stake presidency over the fence when he was visiting my neighbor last year.

He told me President Monson is suffering from mental difficulties.

Your source is probably better, though.

Carry on.

And how does this person acquire such knowledge, if not through the violation of a patient's confidentiality rights? I suppose this across the fence neighbor's friend's source  never heard of HIPAA?

[juliann]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

And they will out live you, ouch.

Generally what happens is that events are seen differently after the passage of time.

Have you ever asked yourself if anything about you will outlive you?

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I talked to a member of President Monson's stake presidency over the fence when he was visiting my neighbor last year.

He told me President Monson is suffering from mental difficulties.

Your source is probably better, though.

Carry on.

Item of malicious gossip #2.

An anonymous internet anti-Mormon quoting an anonymous informant about something that is none of the business of either anonymous gossip.

Since Consiglieri has negative credibility, the likelihood of this rumour being true has just diminished. Again.

Poster removed

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

And they will out live you, ouch.

It's such a pity that Sal has been removed from the thread.

I'd love to see him explaining his hypocrisy after so piously denouncing Dan and his colleagues for their "ad hominen."

 

[Steve Noel]

48 minutes ago, juliann said:

Good stuff, Steve.  I don't think Millet had near the influence Evangelicals wanted. There seemed to be an expectation that we would become more like them, that was their idea of a need for civility ;-)  We could insert all the grace the EVs wanted and it still wouldn't make Mormonism a way to heaven in their eyes.

I love Brian Birch, but he is not "mainstream." The best way to understand mainstream Mormon belief is to talk to Mormons, quite frankly. We just aren't a terribly cohesive group when it comes to hard line theology past a certain point. That makes it difficult for comparisons. This theologian you contacted is taking an academic approach, those are the sources he is giving.  That isn't wrong....just not very nuanced. I'll bet 99% of Mormons haven't heard of any of these names.

Thanks. I hadn't heard of Brian Birch before this. Is he a Mormon? I think you are right about the expectations of these theologians. There does seem to be a gap between academic Mormonism and lay Mormonism (I don't know if that is correct terminology). This is not just the case in Mormonism though. The average Evangelical is pretty theologically illiterate as well. I think both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals are struggling with post-modern culture. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Steve Noel

[ERMD]

This thing started out like an article in The National Enquirer.

Edited April 8, 2016 by ERMD

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

There's no way for him to respond since he was thrown out of the thread.  Strikes me as a rather dead issue at this point.

A settled issue would be a more apt characterization of it than a dead issue. Obviously he was quite wrong about it being removed. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks. I hadn't heard of Brian Birch before this. Is he a Mormon? I think you are right about the expectations of these theologians. There does seem to be a gap between academic Mormonism and lay Mormonism (I don't know if that is correct terminology). This is not just the case in Mormonism though. The average Evangelical is pretty theologically illiterate as well. I think both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals are struggling with post-modern culture. 

Yes. He taught for a semester in the Claremont Mormon Studies program and I sat in his philosophy of religion class.

You will see the diversity of Mormonism on this board. We have those I would consider " fundamentalistic" in their thinking. In Mormonism that would mean that they think moving away from the teachings in the past century is disbelief or disloyalty.  We have those who expect accommodation of modern enlightenment....and then everything in between those two positions. Church culture is a leveler but we don't have that here so you will see clashes.  And we always have those who just like to nip and rip. You will not find a group of believing Mormons in a public forum that they don't invade. Ever. It may be the same for you (I assume you are Evangelical?)

I suspect there is a great struggle with religion in general given our tendency toward skepticism and distrust nowadays. Like Elder Ballard said, the old style teachings just aren't effective anymore but if there is a fix, we are just beginning to look at it.

Edited April 8, 2016 by juliann

[Calm]

See Steve's story in Social Hall under "Hello".

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is another common logical fallacy that is actually a part of the structure of the LDS Church.

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

And we should believe you, why?  Just because you said it?  To the contrary, Mormon theology rejects authoritative statements and puts the Holy Spirit in charge.  As Brother Brigham said in 1862:

Quote

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.  JD IX:150.

Or in 1855:

Quote

Some may say, "Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am." I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied.  JD III:45.

The straw man fallacy is your strongest suit, Counselor.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

And how does this person acquire such knowledge, if not through the violation of a patient's confidentiality rights? I suppose this across the fence neighbor's friend's source  never heard of HIPAA?

Unless it came from someone in the healthcare field HIPAA does not apply to them.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

You don't need to read it as being sinister.  I was simply pointing out that it was my understanding that at least some GA's are involved in the management of BYU, and while they're obviously not involved in every decision made on the campus, it would certainly seem that for department changes such as those being discussed, they could become involved as they saw necessary.  If they weren't aware of what happened, then obviously they wouldn't get involved.  But if they were aware, even after the fact, then a decision to not get involved would at the very least indicate that the situation didn't bother them enough for them to get involved.

Obviously, those other contributions Dan has made are great, but in this case, the changes made at MI don't appear to have been disturbing enough to get any of Bradford's superiors to correct his course.  I don't' know what it means; I'm just pointing out the obvious.  It doesn't mean they were involved with those actions, but it would seem to indicate they were okay with them (or, perhaps, powerless to do anything; like I said, I don't know all the possible alternatives).

Utter nonsense, cinepro.  The Brethren are not a bunch of foolish micromanagers, and certainly don't have time for this sort of twaddle.  If we must speculate, then let us simply observe that things have turned out rather well for certain aggrieved parties, without the intervention of high and mighty lords of the realm.  Those who did not intervene can now congratulate themselves, if they even bother to consider the matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, salgare said:

seriously?  Well someone with some pretty good pull got time to remove it.  Gee I wonder who that was? Memory hole in action!

I said " Never heard of such an incident (perhaps you can cite a source)",  Are you refusing to provide the source?

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Yes. He taught for a semester in the Claremont Mormon Studies program and I sat in his philosophy of religion class.

You will see the diversity of Mormonism on this board. We have those I would consider " fundamentalistic" in their thinking. In Mormonism that would mean that they think moving away from the teachings in the past century is disbelief or disloyalty.  We have those who expect accommodation of modern enlightenment....and then everything in between those two positions. Church culture is a leveler but we don't have that here so you will see clashes.  And we always have those who just like to nip and rip. You will not find a group of believing Mormons in a public forum that they don't invade. Ever. It may be the same for you (I assume you are Evangelical?)

I suspect there is a great struggle with religion in general given our tendency toward skepticism and distrust nowadays. Like Elder Ballard said, the old style teachings just aren't effective anymore but if there is a fix, we are just beginning to look at it.

Thanks for this. You have clarified for me what I have been learning tonight about "fundamentalistic Mormonism" from Sal's posts. I think this is very similar to what I've been seeing from the different Evangelical approaches to Mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, salgare said:

................................Orson and BH are my heros, both renegades to leadership of their day, and neither would recognize what is going on today  .........................................

Roberts and Pratt were not renegades, and would be completely comfortable with what is taking place today.

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

...................................  As for the excommunication statement, what I was trying to say is that if you pushed Rough Stone Rolling and what the Givens are selling now back to say to the 90s' it well could have been the september 8!  And indeed there are topics in Rough Stone Rolling that has gotten other publishers excommuncated for publishing the same information. ............................................................

I have carefully read Rough Stone Rolling and found nothing in it which would have called for discipline, then or now.  Bushman has been around for a long time.  His wife Claudia is also a PhD and her father gave me my own patriarchal blessing many years ago.  These are solid Mormons who don't exist in your fantasy world, salgare.

.........................................  I spent quite some time here trying to pin you and MFB down on this whole New Mormonism.  Mum is obviously the word even around here.

Mark Bukowski and I are old men who have been talking like this for a long time.  You are too young to recall.

  As I have noted already, the church supports them by allowing them to continue with their "rescue" firesides pushing their pragmatical views, which are so foreign to old school, or correlated members, even those whom are regulars here.

I love the Givens and am glad to see their work, but they are only a small increment of the many Mormons who regularly deliver firesides across the country.  The points of view represented cover the broadest possible range, and are under local control.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

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

You will see the diversity of Mormonism on this board. We have those I would consider " fundamentalistic" in their thinking. In Mormonism that would mean that they think moving away from the teachings in the past century is disbelief or disloyalty.  We have those who expect accommodation of modern enlightenment....and then everything in between those two positions. Church culture is a leveler but we don't have that here so you will see clashes.  And we always have those who just like to nip and rip. You will not find a group of believing Mormons in a public forum that they don't invade. Ever. It may be the same for you (I assume you are Evangelical?)

I suspect there is a great struggle with religion in general given our tendency toward skepticism and distrust nowadays. Like Elder Ballard said, the old style teachings just aren't effective anymore but if there is a fix, we are just beginning to look at it.

The problem with using a term like "fundamentalist" (or any of its permutations) within Mormonism is that it is used exclusively to refer to polygynist sectarians (which are anathema in the LDS community), while evangelicals  and fundamentalist Christians can walk hand in hand.  Steve Noel is very likely to get confused.

I would recommend that, when attributing a position to a General Authority, you actually quote him. My experience is that false positions are often attributed to GAs.  consigliere does that all the time.

Read what Elder Ballard actually has to say here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive , and here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/using-new-media-to-support-the-work-of-the-church .

Edited April 8, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Damien the Leper]

I don't see this thread as productive. Not even a little. Dr. Peterson has spoken on this issue at length. Speculation on the events of Dr. Peterson's removal is mediocre tabloid material. It's quite juvenile.

I've read many back issues of FARMS and I have never seen malicious or seedy apologetics. I love reading Kevin's contributions. They're always insightful.

Though we are not on each other's favorite lists, Russell C. McGregor's apologetic response, co-authored with Kerry Shirts, to "Dr." James White was compelling and amusing at the same time. It has Russell's snark.    

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You, sir, are old. 

[Steve Noel]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem with using a term like "fundamentalist" (or any of its permutations) within Mormonism is that it is used exclusively to refer to polygynist sectarians (which are anathema in the LDS community), while evangelicals  and fundamentalist Christians can walk hand in hand.  Steve Noel is very likely to get confused.

I would recommend that, when attributing a position to a General Authority, you actually quote him. My experience is that false positions are often attributed to GAs.  consigliere does that all the time.

Read what Elder Ballard actually has to say here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive , and here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/using-new-media-to-support-the-work-of-the-church .

The FLDS didn't even cross my mind. I realized that she was using "fundamentalist" in the sense that it is used to describe certain Evangelicals. I see how that could be confusing though. I know that the FLDS Church is not part of the LDS Church.

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, USU78 said:

And how does this person acquire such knowledge, if not through the violation of a patient's confidentiality rights? I suppose this across the fence neighbor's friend's source  never heard of HIPAA?

You may have made an unwarranted assumption here . . .

[flameburns623]

14 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Well this thread has taken on a life of its own. My head hurts just trying to follow the discussion here. There is a big difference in Evangelicalism between general apologetics and Mormon apologetics. I am still working on discovering the lay of the land myself. There is a definite tension when it comes to Mormon apologetics. It appears that in the last 20 years or so several theologians have begun to interact with BYU scholars. Many of these theologians have openly disparaged apologists who have written on Mormonism in the past. The earlier apologists tend to view most of these theologians as progressive Evangelicals. This is not without warrant. I recently contacted one of these theologians on Facebook. I told him I had several of Robert Millet's books and asked him for recommendations for understanding Mormonism. Here is what he wrote:
 

He also linked me to this bibliography from a fellow who teaches at Utah Valley State University:

http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/docs/mct15_syllabus.pdf

I wish I were rich and had unlimited time so I could acquire and then read all these books