Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[churchistrue]

I just finished watching the John Gee presentation today provided online by FairMormon. First of all, thanks for offering that for free. 

I was really disappointed by the presentation. It felt like a punch in the gut. He's not addressing critics. He's addressing faithful non-literalists within Mormonism. He was critical of Mormon scholars who take a middle ground approach, viewing the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham as non-historical or even bracketing historicity. 

A couple years ago Grant Hardy and Patrick Mason gave presentations that were very friendly or conciliatory to Progressive Mormons or "Neo Apologists". I know that term is loaded because John Dehlin popularized the term. But let's not focus on that for this thread please. Let's just allow that to represent faithful Mormons who hold non-literal views of one or all of Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, Old Testament, New Testament, First Vision, etc.

My question: can FairMormon be a big tent allowing people like me or other "Neo Apologists" or Progressive Mormon scholars who defend the church in non-traditional ways? Or is it only for Apologists who defend the Church with the very most traditional perspectives?

He even was vaguely critical of Church leaders who published the essay on the Book of Abraham for including the catalyst theory.

I have non-literal views of things, but it works for me and for a lot of other people. I serve in a calling. I pay tithing. I have a temple recommend. All my kids are active in the church, my three oldest served missions and attend BYU. I'm small potatoes online, but I have many people tell me my perspective has helped them stay in the church, and two Exmormons that resigned from the church that are getting rebaptized have told me my blog was instrumental in turning them around. 

My opinion is that FairMormon could be much more effective if it came from the perspective: here's the traditional Apologist view, here's a slightly more liberal Apologist view, here's a Neo Apologist view, which is even more liberal. Take any that might be helpful for you. Does FairMormon have intention to allow for more liberal voices, or are we retrenching to the old school FARMS?

Thoughts?

 

edit: I know this is not the official FairMormon board, but many people here are tightly integrated with FairMormon and most of the long time posters here have strong overlap with the perspectives of FairMormon

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by churchistrue

[cinepro]

35 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

My opinion is that FairMormon could be much more effective if it came from the perspective: here's the traditional Apologist view, here's a slightly more liberal Apologist view, here's a Neo Apologist view, which is even more liberal. Take any that might be helpful for you. Does FairMormon have intention to allow for more liberal voices, or are we retrenching to the old school FARMS? 

 

Maybe I'm  not totally clear on what these liberal or "neo" voices are saying, but I think to some apologists, saying "The Book of Mormon might not be historically true" is the same as saying "The Church might not be true." 

So someone who is open to that idea isn't on the same team.  They're on the opposing team.

[churchistrue]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

Maybe I'm  not totally clear on what these liberal or "neo" voices are saying, but I think to some apologists, saying "The Book of Mormon might not be historically true" is the same as saying "The Church might not be true." 

So someone who is open to that idea isn't on the same team.  They're on the opposing team.

I think you're right. But, if they sit together in the temple and in church pews and are equally committed to the teachings of the church, why can't they be on the same team?

 

[Glenn101]

He has his opinions on apologetics. Of course your characterization of yourself and others who think sort of like you as "progressive" could be viewed a bit unfavorably by some as it would seem to paint those that are not in your boat as regressive, reactionary, staid, stuck in the mud, or whatever. Thankfully the members on this board so not seem to be of the twitter "firestorm of protest" pile it on mentality.

As for Fair Mormon, I have no idea about what they include and what they reject. It is not really a discussion board. Maybe Calm could provide some information.

Glenn

[churchistrue]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

He has his opinions on apologetics. Of course your characterization of yourself and others who think sort of like you as "progressive" could be viewed a bit unfavorably by some as it would seem to paint those that are not in your boat as regressive, reactionary, staid, stuck in the mud, or whatever. Thankfully the members on this board so not seem to be of the twitter "firestorm of protest" pile it on mentality.

As for Fair Mormon, I have no idea about what they include and what they reject. It is not really a discussion board. Maybe Calm could provide some information.

Glenn

This is why I hate labels. No matter what you call it or try to define it you end up offending people. Robert De Niro looking in the mirror. "You think you're better than me?" No, I don't think I'm better than anyone. Just different.

[carbon dioxide]

5 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I think you're right. But, if they sit together in the temple and in church pews and are equally committed to the teachings of the church, why can't they be on the same team?

 

I am not sure how they can be equality committed.  If somebody believes the Book of Mormon literally occurred in that there was a literal Nephi and Lehi ect  and another says they did not exist.  How can they be on the same team when they disagree on fundamental issues.

[Glenn101]

8 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I think you're right. But, if they sit together in the temple and in church pews and are equally committed to the teachings of the church, why can't they be on the same team?

 

Was there ever a time in your life when you were zealous in your testimony and believed in the claims that the Book of Mormon makes for itself, and the rest of the story?

Glenn

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

My opinion is that FairMormon could be much more effective if it came from the perspective: here's the traditional Apologist view, here's a slightly more liberal Apologist view, here's a Neo Apologist view, which is even more liberal. Take any that might be helpful for you. Does FairMormon have intention to allow for more liberal voices, or are we retrenching to the old school FARMS?

If we look at FairMormon’s mission, it reads:

“FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice”

So I think if different ‘angles’ of providing answers to criticisms provides value, then why not?  If anything, various perspectives or responses can only be helpful.

In faith, sometimes we are trying to show that one thing IS true, and sometimes we are trying to show that one thing COULD BE true.  Some LDS feel more righteous by believing the orthodoxy IS true.

 

 

[churchistrue]

46 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Was there ever a time in your life when you were zealous in your testimony and believed in the claims that the Book of Mormon makes for itself, and the rest of the story?

Glenn

Yes. Up until about 10 years ago or so.

[churchistrue]

54 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am not sure how they can be equality committed.  If somebody believes the Book of Mormon literally occurred in that there was a literal Nephi and Lehi ect  and another says they did not exist.  How can they be on the same team when they disagree on fundamental issues.

Just because it's hard for you to imagine, doesn't mean it's not possible. I'm one. There are many like me. There are even more that might not leave the church if they knew this was an option.

[churchistrue]

36 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If we look at FairMormon’s mission, it reads:

“FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice”

So I think if different ‘angles’ of providing answers to criticisms provides value, then why not?  If anything, various perspectives or responses can only be helpful.

In faith, sometimes we are trying to show that one thing IS true, and sometimes we are trying to show that one thing COULD BE true.  Some LDS feel more righteous by believing the orthodoxy IS true.

 

 

I could say that FairMormon mission statement is my own mission statement. Yet Gee attacks my beliefs in a FairMormon presentation.

 

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, churchistrue said:

I could say that FairMormon mission statement is my own mission statement. Yet Gee attacks my beliefs in a FairMormon presentation.

 

I don’t know Gee at all, so this is not a comment on him.  But generally, I’ve found that sometimes people believe narrow-mindedness is a form of righteousness.

[carbon dioxide]

6 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Just because it's hard for you to imagine, doesn't mean it's not possible. I'm one. There are many like me. There are even more that might not leave the church if they knew this was an option.

I do believe there is room to debate on how literal one should take specific issues like say the Noah flood.  However some things simply have to be taken literal and there can be no exception.  For example to suggest that the resurrection is not literal pretty much blows everything up.  There are some things that simply have to taken literal for anything to work.

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I do believe there is room to debate on how literal one should take specific issues like say the Noah flood. 

The difficulty with your claim is that it is only very recently that LDS tradition seems to have allowed for ambiguity of the reality of the flood. Just 20 years ago, the Ensign stated very clearly that LDS belief is that the flood was literal:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

Has there been later revelation that has revoked or revised this teaching from correlation?

If the LDS position on the historicity of the flood has changed, then why not allow the possibility that things (like the historicity of the Book of Mormon) that are now taught or thought to be absolute truths will one day change?

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Maybe I'm  not totally clear on what these liberal or "neo" voices are saying, but I think to some apologists, saying "The Book of Mormon might not be historically true" is the same as saying "The Church might not be true." 

So someone who is open to that idea isn't on the same team.  They're on the opposing team.

Had a discussion of the distinction between neo-apologetics and apologetics at T&S. (ChurchIsTrue joined in)

I think there's a variety of views and depending upon the text how opposed to literalism people are. I think no one bats an eye if you say Jonah or Job aren't historical or at least shouldn't be read that way. Abraham is a bit trickier, but for those who think it's literal, I think you have to expect criticism of the non-literal position. After all people don't agree on apologetics. I'm going to try and go to the horse lecture tomorrow and I bet I strongly disagree with much that will be said. So I don't think we should always have agreement.

That said, I suspect there's at least some apologists who at minimum are open to the catalyst theory in opposition to John. I favor the historical view although what that means with respect to the Book of Abraham is complicated given all the nuances. The Papyri after all is from the middle Roman period. 

With regards to the Book of Mormon though I think most apologists see "there were no Nephites" as more than a bridge too far. Despite attempts like Taves I just think it undercuts the entire notion of Mormonism. 

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The difficulty with your claim is that it is only very recently that LDS tradition seems to have allowed for ambiguity of the reality of the flood. Just 20 years ago, the Ensign stated very clearly that LDS belief is that the flood was literal:

You should note that the issue isn't whether the flood is literal but whether it was historically accurate to say it covered Mount Everest. While it doesn't take much searching to see the Ensign often supported such a view it also isn't hard to find major figures who didn't adopt that view. Widstoe is the obvious one, although he's actually more of a middle ground. He thought rain covered everything but not oceans - although he never quite explained how it would rain in high mountains rather than snow. Although the important point was his oft quoted statement, "the fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further.”

Anyway, that may seem picky but it is important. Going back to the 90's when this was more of an issue most of the FARMS folk arguing against an universal flood still accepted a literal flood - just a localized one. Even Nibley argued for the possibility of a local flood with his spectator theory. 

The other picky point that I think important is to distinguish between historically accurate and literal. Something can be literal and yet historically inaccurate. Something can be allegorical yet historically accurate. When we conflate the two bad things usually happen.

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The other picky point that I think important is to distinguish between historically accurate and literal. Something can be literal and yet historically inaccurate. Something can be allegorical yet historically accurate. When we conflate the two bad things usually happen.

All good points. But still, do you see any LDS positions on historicity/literalness changing over the years, and if so does that not open the door for current “doctrines” to change in the future as well?

[churchistrue]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

All good points. But still, do you see any LDS positions on historicity/literalness changing over the years, and if so does that not open the door for current “doctrines” to change in the future as well?

Good point. How would have the BOM Expansion Model or BoA catalyst theory played 100 years ago? Or symbolic Adam and Eve? (I'm actually not totally sure if that's still OK with any FairMormon types, is it?) If the point is to defend the church, and it's easily seen that the boundary of what's acceptable in that cause is constantly changing, why take aim at people in the church defending it in a different way than you? 

 

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

All good points. But still, do you see any LDS positions on historicity/literalness changing over the years, and if so does that not open the door for current “doctrines” to change in the future as well?

Again, let's be careful with the term "literal" since that just is typically misleading at best.

By and large few of the brethren had much background in history let along hermeneutics or ancient language. Most of those pushing for so-called "literal" readings did so typically on the basis of fundamentalist Protestant apologetics or simply because that's what they'd heard before. Now some writing in the Ensign like Don Parry did have more background. However I confess I'm not sure the basis for why Parry argued for an universal flood. (He'd written an article on it in the early 80s - although forgive me if I don't go to the trouble of looking it up - he didn't really provide his reasoning in the article as I recall) Most of the FARMS folks took science quite a bit more seriously and read the text closely in terms of what we know  - thus the move away from a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon as well as strong skepticism of an universal flood. They provide the arguments for why they think their readings are right. Typically those arguing against such reasons do so on the basis of tradition. (I'm open for counter-arguments but I just don't see anything in McConkie or his father in law that doesn't come out of questionable Protestant apologetics or tradition)

As for other doctrines, I think the issue is evidence. First off what accepted revelations address the issue. Recognizing that particularly with Joseph Smith, the revelations often aren't had in their originary form but in short notes found in the Joseph Smith Papers. Often texts, like the King Follet Discourse, got "filled out and reconciled" from more fragmentary original sources. We don't typically have texts Joseph edited except in places like the complete Book of Abraham or the version of the D&C completed in Joseph's lifetime.

However given that there certainly are doctrines that have come under question. Of ones still held to (thus ignoring some of Brigham's teachings that have been rejected or speculations such as by Orson Pratt or Heber C. Kimball) the main one is spirit birth. The evidence for spirit birth just is missing. This actually does have implications, particularly for LGBT issues and the idea of eternal gender - although there are other arguments for spirits having "sex identity" in some sense. (Put in quotes since sex has a scientific sense that may not apply here)

I should note that I accept spirit birth in some sense and pre-mortal gender/sex in some sense. But I am aware of the lack of evidence for these doctrines. So I understand why some, like Jonathan Stapley and others, are skeptical of them.

47 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

How would have the BOM Expansion Model or BoA catalyst theory played 100 years ago? Or symbolic Adam and Eve? (I'm actually not totally sure if that's still OK with any FairMormon types, is it?) If the point is to defend the church, and it's easily seen that the boundary of what's acceptable in that cause is constantly changing, why take aim at people in the church defending it in a different way than you? 

100 years ago prior to the rise of the Talmage/Smith debates I think they'd have been adopted fairly readily. It's more the 20's and 30's where you'd start to see opposition due to a strong backlash to the teachings of the first generation of people educated in eastern universities. Many came back adopting the secular ideas of the time that even the Bible was fiction. That's in large measure what led to Smith adopting fundamentalist apologetics. However it did seem like even then many of the brethren held to such secular views. While there are reasons to distrust Nibley's account, he has McKay shocked that there was evidence for the Book of Mormon suggesting that many of the brethren at the time thought them fiction. That would have been around 1948. (See this thread where Nibley's son confirms the story - which of course isn't the same as confirming it's accuracy)

• Some in this forum have expressed shock that McKay 'questioned the BOM'. But what I was trying to say was that he apparently didn't question a version of the source of the BOM that was popular (exactly how popular and among whom I can't really say) at the time. That version stated that the BOM was inspired fiction, something like Uncle Tom's Cabin, Ben Hur, Dear and Glorious Physician, The Chronicles of Narnia, etcetera, telling stories that were made up, but bore testimony of  the teachings of Jesus and could strengthen testimonies without having to be considered accurate history. 

There's also the controversial writing by B. H. Roberts on the Book of Mormon. It wasn't for the public, but at least some took it as Roberts view. Although that's been debated between apologists and critics. (I tend to favor the idea that it was Roberts listing the problems for apologetics for the Book of Mormon much like I'd acknowledge metal as a problem despite believing in historic Nephites)

So I actually think that in the era from 1900 - 1950 that there probably was much more openness to such views than now. This seems confirmed by some polls in the early 60's that suggested Mormons at the time were far less committed to LDS doctrines than in later decades. (I can get those polls for you if you need - in a hurry now)

Edited August 3, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

FairMormon has a wide variation of beliefs among its members, including how we should talk about faithfulness.

Don't assume each speaker represents the fullness of FM's positions. Not all speakers are members of FM (they tend to be in the minority actually), not all are members of the Church even.  Speakers are chosen because we believe they will provide a venue for useful discussion of current concerns  and not all desired speakers are able to speak each year. Their talks are not preapproved, coorelated, etc from what I can tell.  From what I can tell (and since many FM members don't hang out chatting to each other, there is a big part of them of whom I wouldn't be able to provide nuances of their positions), there is not a lot of consistency on who is the favorite speaker of that year among FM members. We have different interests, different ideas.  We are united in mission, there are certainly things we may not find acceptable as a group if it is believed that position impedes the work of the Church, but we have never had a checklist of required beliefs.  Who knows, if Mason has something new to say next year or if we see his focus as having a high interest for our audience and wants to speak, he might be on the schedule again.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Calm

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Yes. Up until about 10 years ago or so. 

That is what you are going against in many cases when you endeavor to discuss your ideas. There is a divide there, that I see anyway. A divide between people who lead with their testimonies and follow with their intellect  and those who lead with their intellect and follow with their testimonies. There is room in the church for both types (obviously since you still hold a temple recommend, etc.). It can become an uneasy alliance, depending upon the interactions. In my local ward, it seems to be mostly the spiritual first makeup. One would have some pretty strong reactions from many in this ward if he or she were to opine in a discussion that the Book of Mormon was not historically true. Those who cross over into the intellectual side usually just stop coming to church.

My youngest daughter. is one such. Once she decided that she no longer accepted the claims about the Book of Mormon etc. she firstly decided that she could not in good conscience obtain a temple recommend then she decided that there was no rational reason to continue attending church.

Glenn

[Calm]

Quote

A divide between people who lead with their testimonies and follow with their intellect  and those who lead with their intellect and follow with their testimonies

I suspect it is probable that most members do both depending on the circumstances of each situation they find themselves in, some just favor one method in most situations.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Yes. Up until about 10 years ago or so.

I hear this a lot! It was about 10 or so years for me as well.

[churchistrue]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That is what you are going against in many cases when you endeavor to discuss your ideas. There is a divide there, that I see anyway. A divide between people who lead with their testimonies and follow with their intellect  and those who lead with their intellect and follow with their testimonies. There is room in the church for both types (obviously since you still hold a temple recommend, etc.). It can become an uneasy alliance, depending upon the interactions. In my local ward, it seems to be mostly the spiritual first makeup. One would have some pretty strong reactions from many in this ward if he or she were to opine in a discussion that the Book of Mormon was not historically true. Those who cross over into the intellectual side usually just stop coming to church.

My youngest daughter. is one such. Once she decided that she no longer accepted the claims about the Book of Mormon etc. she firstly decided that she could not in good conscience obtain a temple recommend then she decided that there was no rational reason to continue attending church.

Glenn

I don't understand your point. A non-literalist can lead with testimony and follow with intellect the same as a literalist.

FairMormon is an intellectual endeavor. I'm not sure what this testimony vs intellect thing has to do with this discussion.

 

[churchistrue]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

FairMormon has a wide variation of beliefs among its members, including how we should talk about faithfulness.

Don't assume each speaker represents the fullness of FM's positions. Not all speakers are members of FM (they tend to be in the minority actually), not all are members of the Church even.  Speakers are chosen because we believe they will provide a venue for useful discussion of current concerns  and not all desired speakers are able to speak each year. Their talks are not preapproved, coorelated, etc from what I can tell.  From what I can tell (and since many FM members don't hang out chatting to each other, there is a big part of them of whom I wouldn't be able to provide nuances of their positions), there is not a lot of consistency on who is the favorite speaker of that year among FM members. We have different interests, different ideas.  We are united in mission, there are certainly things we may not find acceptable as a group if it is believed that position impedes the work of the Church, but we have never had a checklist of required beliefs.  Who knows, if Mason has something new to say next year or if we see his focus as having a high interest for our audience and wants to speak, he might be on the schedule again.

If you truly have a wide variation of beliefs and want to be known that way, you're not doing a great job showing that to the public. Do you do any polling? I'm in the faith crisis trenches, and I rarely hear "I went through faith crisis and John Gee really helped me." or Hancock or Peterson or other fill in the blank popular FM speaker. I hear a ton of "I went through faith crisis and Givens/Mason/Bushman really helped me." You might not be able to get Givens or Mason or Bushman every year. But there are dozens of second tier people with the same kind of viewpoint. You've got a bunch of second tier speakers in the lineup banging on historicity. You could drop a few of those and bring in new thinking Apologists. It would only help you reputation and broaden your reach.