Apologetics - the new derogatory term

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is even worse, we currently find that anything written by a Mormon is automatically considered "apologetics," and it doesn't matter what the subject matter may be nor how it is addressed.  That may simply be a strategy designed to consign anything Mormon to the ash-heap even before it is written.  Beyond that, anything written by a non-Mormon and quoted by a Mormon is automatically discounted as biased and tainted.  This is the pre-emptive-strike approach to polemics, and means that basic critical research is wrong by definition, before the fact.  Given those criteria, no discussion is even possible, because the anti-Mormons don't want to be confused by the facts.

One finds the same thing among certain atheists, who dismiss good Biblical scholarship simply because the scholar is Christian.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

One finds the same thing among certain atheists, who dismiss good Biblical scholarship simply because the scholar is Christian.

I've noticed lots of people on all sides tend to simply dismiss things independent of the arguments themselves.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've noticed lots of people on all sides tend to simply dismiss things independent of the arguments themselves.

Anyone who agrees with me should not be dismissed.  If they don't agree with me than their argument is spurious, and their motives and morals are suspect. 

[juliann]

On 8/15/2017 at 2:29 PM, 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.  

 

I am struggling as to what to say to someone who thinks that anything with a label of apologetics isn't admitting a bias. Apologetics, by definition, is a defense of a particular position. It is rather like demanding an abolitionist be "up front" about about their "bias" so that you can know what they are about. This is just downright silly.

As for objectivity, it is the apologists who are continually begging the critics to read Novack's book so they can get over the self-limiting idea that only they are "objective." 

[juliann]

On 8/15/2017 at 2:59 PM, 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.  

And yet FM clearly states that they are giving a faithful perspective in response to accusations. Who the heck are these "apologists" that you are smearing the rest of us with? Would you  use names and stop the broad brushing?

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am struggling as to what to say to someone who thinks that anything with a label of apologetics isn't admitting a bias. Apologetics, by definition, is a defense of a particular position. It is rather like demanding an abolitionist be "up front" about about their "bias" so that you can know what they are about. This is just downright silly.

As for objectivity, it is the apologists who are continually begging the critics to read Novack's book so they can get over the self-limiting idea that only they are "objective." 

Ok, good questions/comments.  I agree with you about objectivity, I haven't read that Novack book, but I'm not under the illusion that any human is perfectly objective.  However, that doesn't mean there aren't degrees of objectivity and degrees of bias.  I also think its important to try and seek as much understanding and objectivity as possible, so just using the lack of perfect objectivity or the fact that there are biases on both sides, is not an excuse and does not make both sides equally invalid.  

To me there is an important distinction.  For example, I'll take a well known scenario in the past where Joseph Fielding Smith took great lengths to hide the 1832 first vision account, or perhaps another example where he denied the use of seer stones.  To me, there are degrees of honesty with respect to disclosing information that obligates a person to be very forthright about the information known, and lying about or hiding information intentionally because it doesn't support the kind of narrative you want t to portray isn't an honest disclosure and I find that kind of apologetics very problematic.  

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

To me there is an important distinction.  For example, I'll take a well known scenario in the past where Joseph Fielding Smith took great lengths to hide the 1832 first vision account, or perhaps another example where he denied the use of seer stones.  To me, there are degrees of honesty with respect to disclosing information that obligates a person to be very forthright about the information known, and lying about or hiding information intentionally because it doesn't support the kind of narrative you want t to portray isn't an honest disclosure and I find that kind of apologetics very problematic.  

So you are talking to "apologists" in the here and now and your example is JFS?? You will be hard pressed to find an "apologist" who is in the business, so to speak, who doesn't discuss the church not giving out the full story. Good grief, FM has had speakers go on about this. The church sponsored Women's History Symposium a few years back went on about this. The church history librarian goes on about this!

I, the apologist, am in another thread trying to convince a critic to use mainstream scholarship when using biblical proof texts. But here I am being told that I lie and hide information merely because the label of "apologist" can be attached to me. It is not appreciated. 

[juliann]

On 8/16/2017 at 9:31 AM, Gray said:

There is some tension between apologetics and critical scholarship in the area of the Bible as well. But, it's important to make the distinction between counter-apologetics and actual critical scholarship. A lot of atheist thinkers are putting out counter-apologetics, which is every bit as beholden to ideological commitments as Christian apologetics. An example of that is the mythicist movement. In Mormon terms, Jeremy Runnells is a counter-apologist.

That is not to say that apologetics cannot make important contributions that even critical scholars value - it can. Depends on who's doing it and how it is done.

At CGU School of Religon, it was about schools of thought. On my first paper, I quoted from here and there and my first critique was to not mix liberal and conservative thinkers.  The problem with mixing i that different schools of thought will take that same concept and run completely different ways. Then you get into the problem of quoting someone whose ultimate thesis is a mile away from yours...and like me, not be aware enough of the schools of thought to know you are quoting someone who is disagreeing with you later on. Unless you aren't going beyond a pericope or two, that can matter. 

CGU is not just liberal, it is radical. And those are the schools most friendly to open thought, in my experience. A couple of the well known professors preached at local churches on occasion.  I freely quoted from Nibley and even BY. And they found their LDS students interesting enough to start the Mormon Studies program. 

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you are talking to "apologists" in the here and now and your example is JFS?? You will be hard pressed to find an "apologist" who is in the business, so to speak, who doesn't discuss the church not giving out the full story. Good grief, FM has had speakers go on about this. The church sponsored Women's History Symposium a few years back went on about this. The church history librarian goes on about this!

I, the apologist, am in another thread trying to convince a critic to use mainstream scholarship when using biblical proof texts. But here I am being told that I lie and hide information merely because the label of "apologist" can be attached to me. It is not appreciated. 

You're taking offense very specifically where none is intended.  I used the JSF example as an extreme that we both could agree was poor apologetic behavior.  So, like I said earlier there are degrees on a spectrum for disclosure of information and being transparent and trying to present a fair argument.  These are all done by degree.  The critique I'm giving it towards those individuals who do this to degrees that many would find disingenuous and even dishonest.

Also, apologetics is not a monolith, I've never claimed it was.  I'm an apologist sometimes to different degrees.  I thought I was clear about not trying to lump everyone together.  That doesn't mean that critique of apologetic tactics isn't a valid discussion. 

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

To me there is an important distinction.  For example, I'll take a well known scenario in the past where Joseph Fielding Smith took great lengths to hide the 1832 first vision account, or perhaps another example where he denied the use of seer stones.  To me, there are degrees of honesty with respect to disclosing information that obligates a person to be very forthright about the information known, and lying about or hiding information intentionally because it doesn't support the kind of narrative you want t to portray isn't an honest disclosure and I find that kind of apologetics very problematic.  

JFS was not an apologist in the contemporary Mormon sense of the term. He was an advocate for only presenting information that helped your case. Good apologetics engages with the evidence. It may still be biased and clearly it's arguing for a particular position. (Although frankly any paper argues for its thesis) But for apologetics to function well it has to engage with the evidence that doubters are encountering.

[juliann]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

 

Also, apologetics is not a monolith, I've never claimed it was.  I'm an apologist sometimes to different degrees.  I thought I was clear about not trying to lump everyone together.  That doesn't mean that critique of apologetic tactics isn't a valid discussion. 

Since when has lumping everybody under a label that is not a monolith considered a "valid discussion?"  If you are not describing all of us then get another label that describes those you are talking about or don't expect us to take you at your word. How in the world can you credibly claim to be defending honesty, objectivity, and accuracy when you won't even apply that to your own labels?

 I think the problem you are facing is quite different, the set of apologists that you object to are so few that they can easily be named and their work specifically cited. As I said before, even Boyce had the decency to do that in that horrible article. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Since when has lumping everybody under a label that is not a monolith considered a "valid discussion?"  If you are not describing all of us then get another label that describes those you are talking about or don't expect us to take you at your word. How in the world can you credibly claim to be defending honesty, objectivity, and accuracy when you won't even apply that to your own labels?

 I think the problem you are facing is quite different, the set of apologists that you object to are so few that they can easily be named and their work specifically cited. As I said before, even Boyce had the decency to do that in that horrible article. 

I'm not in control of how people interpret labels, or how sensitive people want to be.  I also consider myself open to feedback and correction when I make mistakes.  Not sure what you mean by applying defending honesty, objectivity and accuracy to my own labels.  Those are aspirational values that not everyone holds as highly on their prioritization list, and in the history of Mormonism we have other values that get placed higher up at times and even top leaders in the church have promoted these values, ideas like not all the truth is useful, or that the ends justify the means kind of rational.  

Those ideas promoted by some church leaders that I personally find ethically problematic, they still exist today and I'm sure are used to justify the kinds of problems that can often give apologetics a bad name.  

[Physics Guy]

On 8/16/2017 at 7:31 AM, mfbukowski said:

And yet here you are, torturing yourself.

Nah. If I don't like something, it doesn't mean I don't like the whole site, because I can just not read things. 

@Clark:

I think it's true that a lot of apologetics is aimed at believers who are wondering about something, and they do indeed have the shared assumptions. So probably a lot of what bugs me is just that apologetics often seems to be addressed to me, a non-Mormon, and yet take for granted assumptions and attitudes that I don't share.

I'm not sure this is just misperception on my part, though. I think that part of the reassurance that apologists offer to wavering believers is the impression of offering arguments that would convince even non-believers. If apologists were to give more cues to indicate that they were really only trying to preach to the back row of the choir, it would undermine their message to wavering believers, by suggesting that the goods on display aren't quite competitive in the opening market after all. So I think there's a bit of subtle subterfuge going on, at least some of the time.

It may not be worth reacting to my particular concerns, because I'm a weird case. As a physics professor who is also a (rather liberal) Christian, I'm interested in how ancient belief systems can remain valid in the modern world. Mormonism may only date from the 19th century, but it seems like a very retro kind of Christian faith that is closer to Moses than Augustine in a lot of ways, and so it's an interesting case for me. I'll be impossible to convert, but it's not impossible at all to convince me that you have a legitimate point of view that is worth a hearing.

That makes me a rather harsh judge of a lot of apologetics, however. The bar could be reached, and it bugs me when it isn't.

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I've noticed lots of people on all sides tend to simply dismiss things independent of the arguments themselves.

I believe that you will find that such people are not Christian.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not in control of how people interpret labels, or how sensitive people want to be.  I also consider myself open to feedback and correction when I make mistakes.  Not sure what you mean by applying defending honesty, objectivity and accuracy to my own labels.  Those are aspirational values that not everyone holds as highly on their prioritization list, and in the history of Mormonism we have other values that get placed higher up at times and even top leaders in the church have promoted these values, ideas like not all the truth is useful, or that the ends justify the means kind of rational.  

Those ideas promoted by some church leaders that I personally find ethically problematic, they still exist today and I'm sure are used to justify the kinds of problems that can often give apologetics a bad name.  

Now you are dodging.  If you want to hold others accountable for accuracy then you need to hold yourself accountable. It is irresponsible to be firing at a fuzzy idea of "apologists" when even you admit it is not a monolithic group. And unless you want to give up being offended over Mormon statements you don't agree with it is not appropriate to be telling me I am taking unnecessary offense when you say demeaning things about "apologists" rather than addressing those individuals and methods that  offend you. 

 

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

Nah. If I don't like something, it doesn't mean I don't like the whole site, because I can just not read things. 

@Clark:

I think it's true that a lot of apologetics is aimed at believers who are wondering about something, and they do indeed have the shared assumptions. So probably a lot of what bugs me is just that apologetics often seems to be addressed to me, a non-Mormon, and yet take for granted assumptions and attitudes that I don't share.

I'm not sure this is just misperception on my part, though. I think that part of the reassurance that apologists offer to wavering believers is the impression of offering arguments that would convince even non-believers. If apologists were to give more cues to indicate that they were really only trying to preach to the back row of the choir, it would undermine their message to wavering believers, by suggesting that the goods on display aren't quite competitive in the opening market after all. So I think there's a bit of subtle subterfuge going on, at least some of the time.

 

 Again, there are many shades of apologists. Can you give examples? FairMormon is a major player in apologetics and the intent was not to convince nonbelievers, it was to provide easily accessible information for Mormons who couldn't go into online forums without being attacked. It was unbelievably ugly in the early days. In other words, FM responds to specific attacks/questions and the attacks have changed dramatically over the past two decades (and have become much more sophisticated.) 

The apologetics for nonbelievers (who are curious rather than attacking) would be standard church stuff. An explanation of beliefs rather than a defense or counter to criticism. But you are correct that we have our own language, probably every insular group develops such.  Even leaders have become more sensitive to speaking in the language of traditional Christianity but you are much more likely to get Mormonspeak on a Mormon message board.

[readstoomuch]

Coming late to the party.  When I have listened to Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens talk, I think you have to define what it is that they are saying as far as a different narrative.  Without the definition, I am not sure that it is the same narrative that Bill Reel would espouse.  Bill Reel is really another complicated and sometimes confusing topic unto himself.  What I have thought that Bushman and Givens were saying, at least to me, is that more accurate and complete history needs to be added to the curriculum.  The curriculum is incomplete and sadly sometimes substandard.  I think the quote from Givens is that many of our manuals are just "awful."  I don't think he is trying to say that he disagrees with the big conclusions about the restored gospel in the manuals, just it could be a better presentation.  I think they would argue for the time we spend in class on Sundays and seminary be spent introducing things more openly.  An example would be teaching 11 year olds about seer stones and the possibility of translation being done through a seer stone with his head in a hate to exclude the light.  If it is somehow brought up after someone  is 19 or 20, sometimes they feel lied to.  I think the gospel topic essays and other manuals are making inroads into the goal that say is needed for a different narrative.

So, is that (Bushman) narrative the narrative that I believe should happen?  Yes, to some degree.  If I understand Bill Reel, the narrative that he is trying/implying is the one that he presents in his podcasts.  If his narrative isn`t adopted then the Church will fail.  I think his statement of including Bushman with his narrative is to make the assumption that he and Bushman have the same narrative and to add weight to his position.  This of course is my opinion, but I have read a bunch of Bushman and Givens works.  After all, I am readstoomuch.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

Now you are dodging.  If you want to hold others accountable for accuracy then you need to hold yourself accountable. It is irresponsible to be firing at a fuzzy idea of "apologists" when even you admit it is not a monolithic group. And unless you want to give up being offended over Mormon statements you don't agree with it is not appropriate to be telling me I am taking unnecessary offense when you say demeaning things about "apologists" rather than addressing those individuals and methods that  offend you. 

 Again, there are many shades of apologists. Can you give examples? FairMormon is a major player in apologetics and the intent was not to convince nonbelievers, it was to provide easily accessible information for Mormons who couldn't go into online forums without being attacked. It was unbelievably ugly in the early days. In other words, FM responds to specific attacks/questions and the attacks have changed dramatically over the past two decades (and have become much more sophisticated.) 

The apologetics for nonbelievers (who are curious rather than attacking) would be standard church stuff. An explanation of beliefs rather than a defense or counter to criticism. But you are correct that we have our own language, probably every insular group develops such.  Even leaders have become more sensitive to speaking in the language of traditional Christianity but you are much more likely to get Mormonspeak on a Mormon message board.

The new book on apologetics that Greg Kofford books published recently held a round table discussion with many of the authors, you might find the discussion interesting.

https://gregkofford.com/blogs/authorcast/authorcast-66-authorcast-round-table-discussion

I'm just having a discussion and sharing my opinions, thats the point of a message board isn't it?  Yes, many types of apologetics, I gave an example with JFS as it was a good example of someone hiding the complete picture or denying evidence that the person knows exists when confronted with a question about something that runs counter narrative.  This is something that happens to various degrees in apologetics arguments I've seen, including things that FairMormon produces.  

I'm sure as a participant in FM, you feel like their positions are always justified and are above board.  I guess its natural to come to the defense of the things we're vested in, so I can understand why you feel the way you do.  Doesn't make you objective though.  But I'm not interested in critiquing specific FM claims today, that wasn't the point of this thread.  

[Calm]

"'m sure as a participant in FM, you feel like their positions are always justified and are above board."

What positions are you referring to?

If the leadership of FM ( and a board member would count) instigates change to improve our interactions, materials, etc., then that is pretty clear evidence that we don't always see our positions as justified.  Not sure want you mean "aboveboard"...

 

[Calm]

"The new book on apologetics that Greg Kofford books published recently held a round table discussion with many of the authors, you might find the discussion interesting."

Have you looked at the author list?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"'m sure as a participant in FM, you feel like their positions are always justified and are above board."

What positions are you referring to?

If the leadership of FM ( and a board member would count) instigates change to improve our interactions, materials, etc., then that is pretty clear evidence that we don't always see our positions as justified.  Not sure want you mean "aboveboard"...

 

Apologetic positions (arguments would be a better term) made by FM, on the web site or other publications.   I'm saying that Juliann's bias is to support those arguments without a whole lot of critical thought.  When I say above board, I'm just saying the default bias for someone involved in an institution is for supporting the positions of the institution, although I admit that must be hard with so many different volunteers working in FM, there is bound to be some diversity of opinions and perspectives on arguments made.  

Edited August 18, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"The new book on apologetics that Greg Kofford books published recently held a round table discussion with many of the authors, you might find the discussion interesting."

Have you looked at the author list?

I have the book at home, yes.  Quite the diverse group of authors, I'm impressed that the editors were able to get contributions from these various differing perspectives.  Looking forward to reading it.  

What do you think about the book, have you read it yet?  

[Calm]

"I'm saying that Juliann's bias is to support those arguments without a whole lot of critical thought"

Oh my word, you made me practically bust a gut.

My experience is that many FM are constantly looking at critical arguments against our stuff to see if they hold merit and thus give us ideas on how to improve.  There may be some that are content to rest on the work that has been done and not see any development or improvement needs to be made...but generally they are the members not that involved in constructing arguments in the first place and they contribute in other ways.

Why in the world would we want to put our name on to anything that is not well thought out?  That inherently requires significant critical thought.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have the book at home, yes.  Quite the diverse group of authors, I'm impressed that the editors were able to get contributions from these various differing perspectives.  Looking forward to reading it.  

What do you think about the book, have you read it yet?  

So far just Juliann's chapter.  I helped proof it.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

So far just Juliann's chapter.  I helped proof it.

Cool, I didn't know that she was the same Juliann.  Nice!  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I'm saying that Juliann's bias is to support those arguments without a whole lot of critical thought"

Oh my word, you made me practically bust a gut.

My experience is that many FM are constantly looking at critical arguments against our stuff to see if they hold merit and thus give us ideas on how to improve.  There may be some that are content to rest on the work that has been done and not see any development or improvement needs to be made...but generally they are the members not that involved in constructing arguments in the first place and they contribute in other ways.

Why in the world would we want to put our name on to anything that is not well thought out?  That inherently requires significant critical thought.

Its not to say that they aren't doing these things at all, some critical thought, but within the parameters of the group and the mission statement of FM.  They aren't going to take things down a critical path that goes contrary to those tight parameters.  They will improve arguments incrementally only within the tight constraints of the mission statement. 

Do you really think this is the same as unaffiliated objectivity?