Apologetics - the new derogatory term

[stemelbow]

What made apologetics the derogatory term it seems to be in some circles now?  I used to see a ton of people getting all upset at FARMS, Peterson, Hamblin, grouping them all together and they'd say, "That attack-style, defeat the person defense of the Church is bad".  While I'm not sure I agree with all conclusions drawn or ideas shared by anyone that might be considered in that camp, I've never, for instance, felt Dan Peterson is quite the devil some want to make him be. 

I was listening to the Bill Reel podcast earlier on Mormon Stories.  John really tries to paint a group "classic FARMS/FAIR style apologetics" as attackers (Around the 25th minute of the first segment), who only provide bad answers to tough questions--I think he used "illogical" and "unreasonable".  And perhaps for brevity's sake, and for cherry picking for his point, he references really bad/funny things that apologists have said.  The horses are tapirs, and Joseph didn't sleep with all his wives were mentioned.  I'd rather take things one at a time.  Each case, or idea one at a time.  Grouping and labeling feels careless and irresponsible.  I also have never been fond of tying particular arguments to people and then concluding, that person is bad because he/she presented a bad argument--which has happened to apologists for many years. 

I play rather loosey goosey with language sometimes, particularly as they are used for labeling groups.  I can side with and sympathize with Dan Peterson just as I can with John Dehlin (to name a rather explosive at different times, twosome who can't seem to get along). 

But in the midst of that discussion, which I'm happy for anyone who wishes to comment on, a couple of interesting points:

1.  Bill suggested the Church can't survive with it's current narrative (alluding, clearly, to a Bushman quote).  He took it a step further and indicated for nearly every principle or doctrine, I think, this problem will resonate.  You break it down and they each struggle to some degree because of the failing narrative.  And overhaul is needed, or by by to the Church.

2.  His dealings with FAIR suggested, as he points out, that FAIR is so beholden to the failing narrative, it sometimes has to prop up known terrible arguments to defend things, lest if it does not, it'll lose it's connection or favor with the brethren. 

Ok.  There's plenty here.  Let's hear what you have to say.  Thanks.  Keep comments respectful (mostly to me but I guess to others as well, like Dehlin and Reel).

[rpn]

Whatever John Dehlin has to say about apologetics is tainted by his long running and quite personal feud with Dan Peterson.   So I don't pay much mind to that.

And members who think the church narrative cannot survive should take it up with God, feeling free to counsel Him all they wish about how much His leaders are failing.    I doubt it will come as any surprise to Him.

(And how can you overhaul a narrative based on facts you'll never know in this lifetime, anyway?)

[Glenn101]

The church will survive with its current narrative, but as time goes on it will be increasingly assailed from without and within (sadly) to conform to what the world wants it to be, to change with the changing mores of the world. The Second Coming will save the church from annihilation.

Glenn

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, rpn said:

Whatever John Dehlin has to say about apologetics is tainted by his long running and quite personal feud with Dan Peterson.   So I don't pay much mind to that.

And members who think the church narrative cannot survive should take it up with God, feeling free to counsel Him all they wish about how much His leaders are failing.    I doubt it will come as any surprise to Him.

(And how can you overhaul a narrative based on facts you'll never know in this lifetime, anyway?)

Thanks for the response.  I won't comment on your concern about Dehlin. 

Why do you think people, like Bushman, who think the narrative can't survive haven't taken up with God?  Are you saying all the Church leaders do and think are directly a result of God telling them what to do and say? 

"And how can you overhaul a narrative based on facts you'll never know in this lifetime, anyway?)"

I don't know what you mean by this.  But it sounds interesting.  Can you expand?

[Kevin Christensen]

"apologetics" is less a derogatory term than a narrative-defining meme that lets a critic dismiss us without analysis.  This labeling-to-dismiss rather than careful engagement has been going on for a long long time. 

For instance, in my response to Runnells, I quoted this:

Quote

I was amazed to learn that, according to these unofficial apologists, translate doesn’t really mean translate, horses aren’t really horses (they’re tapirs)

Yet if you go to the sources and read carefully, you should notice that the apologists in question did not say what the critic reported:

Quote

If you follow the link he provides in his complaint that to apologists, “horses aren’t really horses,” we come to a Maxwell Institute article⁹² that demonstrates a flexibility of thought and observation that Runnells does not pass along. The article describes some existing evidence for horse bones, which means, the Book of Mormon mention of horses just might be the horses he expects. It also describes the common practice of loan-shift, “well known to historians and anthropologists who study cross-cultural contact.” Runnells misrepresents both the hypotheses and the observations made in the essay, overlooking a clear description of real possibilities in favor of an inaccurate and brittle declaration of unacceptable and unreasonable identity. He filters the flexibility and the reason out of the essay when making his own summary.

I'd previously seen other critics make the same mistake.  For instance, Mark Thomas, in an essay-review for the Journal of Higher Criticism, designed to promote Metcalfe's New Approaches, he'd claimed, as the single paradigm-defining, and therefore, narrative-controlling example, providing his definitive characterization of LDS apologetics, that Sorenson has claimed that horses in the Book of Mormon were tapirs.  Thomas cited Sorenson's Ancient American Setting without even bothering to specify a page number, as if to suggest that this sort of sloppiness characterized the book everywhere.  But if a person like me actually looks on the pages, they find the same distinction that appears in the Maxwell Institute essay:  a suggestion of one possibility, an essential discussion of loan shift as common-place in history as a way to explain the reason for that possibility, and also some discussion of evidence for the horse bones.  The mistake could easily be corrected, if those who make it were more interested in finding truth than in shaping social politics. 

Pounce on the useful story, or check the source?  What to do... what to do?

In another essay, I quoted Sarup on Derrida and Deconstruction:

Quote

One of the ruling illusions of Western metaphysics is that reason can somehow grasp the world without close attention to language and arrive at a pure, self-authenticating truth or method. Derrida’s work draws attention to the ways in which language deflects the philosopher’s project. He does this by focusing on metaphors and other figurative devices in the texts of philosophy…

His method consists of showing how the privileged term is held in place by the force of the dominant metaphor, and not, as it might seem, by any conclusive logic.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/#more-4012

So defining the paradigm, controlling the narrative always comes down to one's choice of which story to select as the representative example, the dominant metaphor.  The stories told manage to hold everything else in place.  So it is not some objective consideration of facts, not following facts to their conclusion, but following a metaphor, and under its guidance select and interpret facts that serve the narrative.

The issue always ought to be be, is that example truly representative?  Do Muslim immigrants and Mexican immigrants typically behave the way that our intellectual giant of a President claims they do, in his sound bites and tweets?  In general, it turns out that immigrants are much more law-abiding and productive than nationals.  Are his stories of violence, even if accurate in an individual case, true when given to justify his generalizations of the vast majority?  And what happens if it turns out, as it has, that his favorite story of a Mexican villain killing an innocent white girl, had a police record that did not actually involve violent crimes or gangs, but rather, border crossing, and the bullet was not directed deliberately her way but bounced off the pavement and flew 80 feet to strike her.  He was on drugs and trying to shoot at seals.  In that specific case, the prosecution actually claimed that it was a deliberate trick shot and first degree murder.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The church will survive with its current narrative, but as time goes on it will be increasingly assailed from without and within (sadly) to conform to what the world wants it to be, to change with the changing mores of the world. The Second Coming will save the church from annihilation.

Glenn

 

Interesting take.  If the narrative changes it'll be a sad thing and that change will be to conform to what the world wants? 

Can you offer me to some references for "The Second Coming will save the church from annihilation"?  Thanks.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

"apologetics" is less a derogatory term than a narrative-defining meme that lets a critic dismiss us without analysis.  This labeling-to-dismiss rather than careful engagement has been going on for a long long time. 

Thanks for the comments.  Great contribution.

I do believe one such criticism of apologetics is that in order to practice such you have to assume the conclusion in no matter what you set out to discover.  In so doing, your research is determined by it.  You fail to find balance or objectivity.   "m not sure it's fair, but what is your take on that? 

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For instance, in my response to Runnells, I quoted this:

Yet if you go to the sources and read carefully, you should notice that the apologists in question did not say what the critic reported:

I'd previously seen other critics make the same mistake. 

Fair enough.  I mean the tapirs thing really has turned into a meme and nothing more. 

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For instance, Mark Thomas, in an essay-review for the Journal of Higher Criticism, designed to promote Metcalfe's New Approaches, he'd claimed, as the single paradigm-defining, and therefore, narrative-controlling example, providing his definitive characterization of LDS apologetics, that Sorenson has claimed that horses in the Book of Mormon were tapirs.  Thomas cited Sorenson's Ancient American Setting without even bothering to specify a page number, as if to suggest that this sort of sloppiness characterized the book everywhere.  But if a person like me actually looks on the pages, they find the same distinction that appears in the Maxwell Institute essay:  a suggestion of one possibility, an essential discussion of loan shift as common-place in history as a way to explain the reason for that possibility, and also some discussion of evidence for the horse bones.  The mistake could easily be corrected, if those who make it were more interested in finding truth than in shaping social politics. 

I will add too here.  I think I'm more on your side.  I think Dehlin's approach in the linked interview to be problematic.  He's being rather dogmatic in dismissing any apologetic all because it is old school and classic FARMS.  I don't find that attack-style very helpful at all, and really counter-productive to his point.  He's complaining about a number of people affiliated in some way with certain groups he doesn't like as being attackers, while summarily dismissing them because they aren't reasonable or logical without addressing each and every one. 

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Pounce on the useful story, or check the source?  What to do... what to do?

In another essay, I quoted Sarup on Derrida and Deconstruction:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/#more-4012

So defining the paradigm, controlling the narrative always comes down to one's choice of which story to select as the representative example, the dominant metaphor.  The stories told manage to hold everything else in place.  So it is not some objective consideration of facts, not following facts to their conclusion, but following a metaphor, and under it's guidance select and interpret facts that serve the narrative.

The issue always ought to be be, is that example truly representative?  Do Muslim immigrants and Mexican immigrants typically behave the way that our intellectual giant of a President claims they do, in his sound bites and tweets?  In general, it turns out that immigrants are much more law-abiding and productive than nationals.  Are his stories of violence, even if accurate in an individual case, true when given to justify his generalizations of the vast majority?  And what happens if it turns out, as it has, that his favorite story of a Mexican villain killing an innocent white girl, had a police record that did not actually involve violent crimes or gangs, but rather, border crossing, and the bullet was not directed deliberately her way but bounced off the pavement and flew 80 feet to strike her.  He was on drugs and trying to shoot at seals.  In that specific case, the prosecution actually claimed that it was a deliberate trick shot and first degree murder.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Thanks.  Well said. 

[Calm]

"  His dealings with FAIR suggested, as he points out, that FAIR is so beholden to the failing narrative"

What is this "failing narrative"?

DB is not, in my experience, a good judge of FairMormon dynamics.  He was too tightly focused on certain ideas in my opinion from what I saw him discussing there and here.

There is a wide range of beliefs held by FairMormon members.  Some of the influential ones may not be known to the general public or even at times by short term FM members because they are not aware of the longterm contributions and interactions of these often quiet members.

It is certainly possible that his primary interaction was with FM members who hold to what he sees as the "failing narrative", but if so, that does not require that FM itself as a whole is locked into what DB sees as our position.  Of course, I would need to know what the claimed narrative is to be sure, if it is an extremely broad, vague one, I suppose it might be possible to be held by all influential FM members  (btw, anyone willing to put significant, purposeful time and effort into building the organization can be influential, it is a grassroots organization).

Identifying what Bushman was actually talking about would be helpful to the conversation as well.  My impression was that he was using it in a more narrow sense than DB does; Bushman, iirc, was referring in part to the Church needing to employ more historically accurate and nuanced stories, for example the Marsh story.  The fuller story of disaffection and return is actually, imo and in the opinion of the FM members who I have seen discussed this, more useful to creating a sustainable, flexible faith.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I do believe one such criticism of apologetics is that in order to practice such you have to assume the conclusion in no matter what you set out to discover.  In so doing, your research is determined by it.  You fail to find balance or objectivity.

This assertion was made in a thread I recently participated in. I don't think apologetics requires that, but good research and analysis does yield a good, balanced and objective apologetic argument.

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

"  His dealings with FAIR suggested, as he points out, that FAIR is so beholden to the failing narrative"

What is this "failing narrative"?

DB is not, in my experience, a good judge of FairMormon dynamics.  He was too tightly focused on certain ideas in my opinion from what I saw him discussing there and here.

There is a wide range of beliefs held by FairMormon members.  Some of the influential ones may not be known to the general public or even at times by short term FM members because they are not aware of the longterm contributions and interactions of these often quiet members.

It is certainly possible that his primary interaction was with FM members who hold to what he sees as the "failing narrative", but if so, that does not require that FM itself as a whole is locked into what DB sees as our position.  Of course, I would need to know what the claimed narrative is to be sure, if it is an extremely broad, vague one, I suppose it might be possible to be held by all influential FM members  (btw, anyone willing to put significant, purposeful time and effort into building the organization can be influential, it is a grassroots organization).

Identifying what Bushman was actually talking about would be helpful to the conversation as well.  My impression was that he was using it in a more narrow sense than DB does; Bushman, iirc, was referring in part to the Church needing to employ more historically accurate and nuanced stories, for example the Marsh story.  The fuller story of disaffection and return is actually, imo and in the opinion of the FM members who I have seen discussed this, more useful to creating a sustainable, flexible faith.

Well, in the interview, as I recall, he indicates the problem ultimately for him and FAIR was he was not willing to defend on certain points when he knew and other FAIR members knew the answer was bad.  He indicated there's some room to have differing views in FAIR but one point you can't cross is acknowledge the answers we have in some cases aren't good.  He seemed to say that if FAIR Allowed that, from his perspective, then FAIR would lose it's credibility with the brethren and the Church.  But he just couldn't go along with such a policy--unspoken, or written or not. 

And, he indicated he got a note from FAIR leadership when at one point he acknowledged the answers we have are bad or don't work, saying, " we can't do that.  We have to say it is good, even if we don't believe it" kind of thing (I know that was in quotation marks but I doubt it's a straight quote since I'm going on memory.  So ultimately there had to be separation between the two.  he indicated that some relationships between him and certain members didnt' work.  He said I do believe that some seemed to have harsh feelings towards him for different things--like in one case he was doing the fair podcast and also posting his interviews on his site, which he says he had permission for but FAIR members seemed upset with him over that.  Or something.  You'd have to listen, I guess to get a fuller picture. 

Anyway, this was also in the big discussion about their views of apologists and apologetics. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Apologist is not a derogatory term, any more than defender (which is what apologist means) is a derogatory term.

Some try to make it seem so, in line with their strategy to poison the well. It's a lazy way to attack the Church's defenders without actually engaging their arguments.

And yes, Dehlin has done this a lot.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What made apologetics the derogatory term it seems to be in some circles now?  I used to see a ton of people getting all upset at FARMS, Peterson, Hamblin, grouping them all together and they'd say, "That attack-style, defeat the person defense of the Church is bad".  While I'm not sure I agree with all conclusions drawn or ideas shared by anyone that might be considered in that camp, I've never, for instance, felt Dan Peterson is quite the devil some want to make him be. 

I was listening to the Bill Reel podcast earlier on Mormon Stories.  John really tries to paint a group "classic FARMS/FAIR style apologetics" as attackers (Around the 25th minute of the first segment), who only provide bad answers to tough questions--I think he used "illogical" and "unreasonable".  And perhaps for brevity's sake, and for cherry picking for his point, he references really bad/funny things that apologists have said.  The horses are tapirs, and Joseph didn't sleep with all his wives were mentioned.  I'd rather take things one at a time.  Each case, or idea one at a time.  Grouping and labeling feels careless and irresponsible.  I also have never been fond of tying particular arguments to people and then concluding, that person is bad because he/she presented a bad argument--which has happened to apologists for many years. 

I play rather loosey goosey with language sometimes, particularly as they are used for labeling groups.  I can side with and sympathize with Dan Peterson just as I can with John Dehlin (to name a rather explosive at different times, twosome who can't seem to get along). 

But in the midst of that discussion, which I'm happy for anyone who wishes to comment on, a couple of interesting points:

1.  Bill suggested the Church can't survive with it's current narrative (alluding, clearly, to a Bushman quote).  He took it a step further and indicated for nearly every principle or doctrine, I think, this problem will resonate.  You break it down and they each struggle to some degree because of the failing narrative.  And overhaul is needed, or by by to the Church.

2.  His dealings with FAIR suggested, as he points out, that FAIR is so beholden to the failing narrative, it sometimes has to prop up known terrible arguments to defend things, lest if it does not, it'll lose it's connection or favor with the brethren. 

Ok.  There's plenty here.  Let's hear what you have to say.  Thanks.  Keep comments respectful (mostly to me but I guess to others as well, like Dehlin and Reel).

I've come around more recently than some of the back history of the fights in the Mormon studies world between more conservative and more liberal (theologically speaking) people.  What I've noticed is there is bad blood and emotional baggage with a lot of these groups, including in/out group tribalism just like with any other groups in this world.  I make efforts to not get too caught up in these wars, but its inevitable.  Sometimes I intentionally try to break down the typical critiques that you hear from either side, because its frustrating to hear what really equates to people just parroting the same old arguments over and over, but if I'm honest, I'm sure that I often do the same thing.  But I still try to do this, I think its a goal worthy of having. 

That said, there are certain individuals who play in these waters that I respect more than others.  Dan Peterson is one that I don't respect much at all.  He's a polarizing figure for one, so whenever people discuss him, its seems to illicit quite a bit of emotion and irrationality by many people.  Two, I have seen his comments in social media and on his blog and he can be quite disrespectful and dismissive of people he disagrees with, and he seems to intentionally stir the pot.  I don't like those tactics, and find his style off putting for me.  

As for FAIR, one thing that really helped me to understand their position was to understand their mission statement.  They will support the church, that is their mission statement.  Its not to pursue factual accuracy, or to show the messiness of complex history, their mission is to support the church's narrative as their leaders interpret the church's narrative, and that means even if they have to twist the historical information to do it, they will do it.  Just like some ex-Mormon sources that will always have a negative interpretation of history, FAIR will always have a positive interpretation.  Honest history is not the mission, apologetics is.    

If that is what you're looking for, then go for it, just realize what you're getting as a consumer of these products.  I try to find the most honest most complicated narratives possible.  Its not ever possible to find something without some human bias, because everything is produced by humans, but there are many authors that I find walk that balancing line of fair and open and forthright more than others, and those are the ones I try to put more of my trust in.  I also try to look at people that lean on both sides of those lines, for and against to better understand their perspectives.  This is how I approach these topics.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

The church will survive with its current narrative, but as time goes on it will be increasingly assailed from without and within (sadly) to conform to what the world wants it to be, to change with the changing mores of the world. The Second Coming will save the church from annihilation.

Glenn

 

Wow, and you theists call us agnostics nihilistic.  I still consider myself an optimist, especially in contrast to this kind of view.  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apologist is not a derogatory term, any more than defender (which is what apologist means) is a derogatory term.

Some try to make it seem so, in line with their strategy to poison the well. It's a lazy way to attack the Church's defenders without actually engaging their arguments.

And yes, Dehlin has done this a lot.

 

I agree that apologist is not a negative term, but I think for someone that is seeking a more transparent and open and honest view of the history, a warts and all approach to history, then finding an apologist along the way, especially when the apologist is claiming to be completely objective about their assessment of the history, this is where the apologist gets the negative reputation.  

If apologists would just admit their bias right up front, say that they are defending the traditional narrative of the faith in a biased way, then the person listening to that apologist could know, ok, I'll listen to this argument knowing that its not attempting to be completely objective, knowing in advance that the apologist will always turn the events of history in a positive light toward the faith tradition, then the explorer wouldn't feel the need to label those apologists in a negative light.  Its up front honesty about the underlying bias that would really help in my opinion.  

 

[clarkgoble]

I think there were some criticisms of FARMS that were justified where things became too personal. However people have ever since dismissed apologetics in general for a few papers with unwise rhetoric. I do hope that apologists remember who their audience is rather than trying to win a debate by getting ones opponent to cry uncle. That's rarely good apologetics if we're trying to make a space for faith so that people have the time to get personal revelation rather than leave. Yet that was always a minority of papers and I think critics of apologetics have always misrepresented what was going on.

To the question of "narrative" I hear that a lot and I honestly don't have a clue what people mean by that. I think they mean that the Church ought become a theologically liberal institution. But ignoring the question of truth (which ought matter a lot) it also is embracing a position that is dying the quickest in terms of demographics. The only group that does better with retention than Mormons are religions with strong ethnic ties of some sort. That's not to say all is well in Zion. Rather it's more a "with friends like these who needs enemies" kind of recognition.

The fact is we need a range of different apologetics because not everyone thinks the same. There's honestly a range of acceptable ways to interpret things in the Church. From a purely practical standpoint, while I'm fairly conservative theologically, I think we have to represent that range of possibilities in order to keep people in the Church. There can't be a single apologetic. (And thankfully there's not) 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that apologist is not a negative term, but I think for someone that is seeking a more transparent and open and honest view of the history, a warts and all approach to history, then finding an apologist along the way, especially when the apologist is claiming to be completely objective about their assessment of the history, this is where the apologist gets the negative reputation.  

If apologists would just admit their bias right up front, say that they are defending the traditional narrative of the faith in a biased way, then the person listening to that apologist could know, ok, I'll listen to this argument knowing that its not attempting to be completely objective, knowing in advance that the apologist will always turn the events of history in a positive light toward the faith tradition, then the explorer wouldn't feel the need to label those apologists in a negative light.  Its up front honesty about the underlying bias that would really help in my opinion.  

 

What apologists claim to be "completely objective"? The prominent ones I've seen (Daniel Peterson is a notable example) assert that complete objectivity is not possible, that everyone has biases.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If apologists would just admit their bias right up front, say that they are defending the traditional narrative of the faith in a biased way, then the person listening to that apologist could know, ok, I'll listen to this argument knowing that its not attempting to be completely objective, knowing in advance that the apologist will always turn the events of history in a positive light toward the faith tradition, then the explorer wouldn't feel the need to label those apologists in a negative light.  Its up front honesty about the underlying bias that would really help in my opinion.  

Earnest question. Who doesn't say that? Almost every apologist I can think of says something similar to that. They might be trying to be as fair to the evidence as they can (not everyone is of course) but that seems a different issue.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What apologist claim to be "completely objective"? The prominent ones I've seen (Daniel Peterson is a notable example) assert that complete objectivity is not possible, that everyone has biases.

I'm not aware of many apologists that make this clear right up front, if Dan Peterson asserts this kind of bias up front, I must have missed it, possibly my fault, I don't know, could you care to point me in that direction?  

I think for the sincere seeker, someone looking for objective historical analysis, that apologists often use that person's naivete to their advantage, and proceed to give their arguments under the auspices of a more objective analysis.  That is my perspective that I've observed.  Now to be fair, this happens on both sides, and I've been caught up in both sides at different times.  It takes a lot of effort and discernment to find those in the middle who try to be more objective, realizing that there are no perfectly objective humans in existence, there are many who come closer to this middle ground.  

[hope_for_things]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Earnest question. Who doesn't say that? Almost every apologist I can think of says something similar to that. They might be trying to be as fair to the evidence as they can (not everyone is of course) but that seems a different issue.

Really, Scott mentioned this as well.  Care you share an example where this kind of up front disclosure is being made by apologists, perhaps I missed it along the way, but this was very unclear to me as I started my faith crisis a few years back and it would have been really helpful to know at the time.  I'm open to enlightenment on this issue if you can show me some examples.  

Perhaps the church's gospel topics essays would be a good place to start, they are clearly apologetic in nature, are there any disclaimers about their bias that I missed?  The intro to these essays says: 

Quote

The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine, and practices. Ongoing historical research, revisions of the Church’s curriculum, and the use of new technologies allowing a more systematic and thorough study of scriptures have all been pursued by the Church to that end. We again encourage members to study the Gospel Topics essays cited in the links below as they “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

I'm not seeing anything about bias or apologetic approaches to the history, or anything that would alert me that the material isn't fully "accurate" and has a slant towards a positive perspective.  

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not aware of many apologists that make this clear right up front, if Dan Peterson asserts this kind of bias up front, I must have missed it, possibly my fault, I don't know, could you care to point me in that direction?  

I think for the sincere seeker, someone looking for objective historical analysis, that apologists often use that person's naivete to their advantage, and proceed to give their arguments under the auspices of a more objective analysis.  That is my perspective that I've observed.  Now to be fair, this happens on both sides, and I've been caught up in both sides at different times.  It takes a lot of effort and discernment to find those in the middle who try to be more objective, realizing that there are no perfectly objective humans in existence, there are many who come closer to this middle ground.  

I'm not certain what you mean by asserting one's bias upfront, how typical is it for an advocate of any position to do such a thing. I think you are insisting on a procedural standard that few abide by.

Off hand, I can't think of an instance when you've done that in your posts on this board, for example.

[cdowis]

Let me relate an experience of a Christian (non-LDS) apologist.

One evening he had a dream that he was in ancient Rome, sitting in the Coliseum where the Christians were being killed for the entertainment of the masses.   He was  watching with great interest while munching on popcorn.

A voice spoke to him that a similar thing is happening today in the world.  Christians being persecuted for entertainment, and the voice asked him what he was going to do about it.  Just sit and eat popcorn or to stand up and defend them.

This put apologetics in a new light for me.  The hate mongers, and antiMormons want to have the only voice in the narrative, and let the saints sit back and eat popcorn.  What do you expect Dehlin to say about them.

He wants desperately to silence those voices.

Edited August 15, 2017 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Interesting take.  If the narrative changes it'll be a sad thing and that change will be to conform to what the world wants? 

Can you offer me to some references for "The Second Coming will save the church from annihilation"?  Thanks.

 I did not say that if the narrative changes it will be a sad thing. I said that in times to come and even now there is pressure from without and within (which is the sad part) to change the narrative to conform to the changing social standards of the world.

My reasoning for the idea that the church will be saved at the second coming arise from my understanding of what will be going on just before that time. This is based upon my on the Book of Revelation concerning the war against the saints and the Book of Daniel concerning the calamities that will be going on during those last days. Then there is this verse from Daniel 12:1 "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."

Glenn

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, and you theists call us agnostics nihilistic.  I still consider myself an optimist, especially in contrast to this kind of view.  

See my reply to stemelbow for an expansion on the theme.

Glenn

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

He indicated there's some room to have differing views in FAIR but one point you can't cross is acknowledge the answers we have in some cases aren't good.  He seemed to say that if FAIR Allowed that, from his perspective, then FAIR would lose it's credibility with the brethren and the Church.  But he just couldn't go along with such a policy--unspoken, or written or not. 

And, he indicated he got a note from FAIR leadership when at one point he acknowledged the answers we have are bad or don't work, saying, " we can't do that.  We have to say it is good, even if we don't believe it" kind of thing (I know that was in quotation marks but I doubt it's a straight quote since I'm going on memory....

I find it believable that he interpreted something someone said in that fashion, but anyone in leadership actually saying that is beyond my ability to believe.

[cdowis]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find it believable that he interpreted something someone said in that fashion, but anyone in leadership actually saying that is beyond my ability to believe.

Reminds me of the antiMormon claim that BY declared that the sun was inhabited..... you then have to go to the source to see what he really said.