Addendum to closed thread about alleged Elder Packer request

[BHodges]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True enough, I suppose. 

I just thought it remarkable that two individuals placed on the speakers lineup at that conference apparently to give homage to the notion of “pastoral apologetics” ended up not remaining in the Church. One of them later became so belligerent in his publicly expressed hostility (and this was years before his ultimate excommunication) that his words, identity and even his physical likeness were removed from the archival record of that conference— understandably so, tycker jag.

I don't know what tycker jag means but I am familiar with the concept of association fallacies. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Have no proponents of non-pastoral apologetics ever left the church or committed misdeeds? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, BHodges said:

I don't know what tycker jag means but I am familiar with the concept of association fallacies. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Have no proponents of non-pastoral apologetics ever left the church or committed misdeeds? 

“Tycker jag” is one of my favorite Swedish idioms. It simply means “I think” or “I believe.”

I’ve never heard the term “non-pastoral apologetics” before. I’m not even certain it’s a recognized category. The term itself strikes me as loaded. Who considers himself a “non-pastoral apologist” or a proponent thereof? Nobody I’m aware of. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

I have read most of this thread.

The first thing I want to say is that I suspect that the dichotomy offered by Stemelbow (as he channeled an 80’s rap star) should be met with an internal “yes” and a rejection of the invitation to disagree.

I would say there is a party within Mormonism that sees Holland's speech as a direct affront on the MI.  That was not imagined by me.  That was suggested by Dan Peterson and company.  To these members Holland had announced the displeasure the quorum and first presidency had with the direction it had taken.  it is not necessarily something I'm sold on.  I appreciate Blair's info, because I never saw or got the whole of Holland's talk, and otherwise didn't hear from the whole other side of this.  I hold some regard for Dan and think they were not just spitting out nonsense.  It seemed easy for me to think because my assumption is Holland probably likes direct, even attack oriented approaches to apologetics--his impassioned, I dont' know, rant (for lack of a better word) that seemed directed at the notion that one can see the BoM as scripture and yet not historically accurate seemed to fit the bill on this.  

And frankly I still think there is more to the overall story, but have lost interesting in digging for more.  

17 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

To the extent one was saddened by changes in 2012 and heartened by Elder Holland, yes! Now get back to work.

To the extent one felt 2012 was blown out of proportion and Elder Holland was saying “do better, pray more, keep going!!!,” yes! Now get back to work.

 

 

On to another topic…

I have two questions for folks that might think like the stereotype of Dr. Bradford (I don’t know him at all) AND for those who might think like the real Dr. Peterson (I know him a tiny bit and I suspect folks here know him well).

 

1. Is there not room for calling a critic a critic in the world of perfect, Elder Holland inspired, gospel work.? I have never seen a critic say, “Now I will misrepresent the faith of the CoJCoLDS.” Or “Now I will misrepresent my former faith.” I often see critics of the CoJCoLDS who refuse to say, “Now I will explain why you shouldn’t continue being or shouldn’t become a LDS.” Instead, one must search through past comments to find that “Bishop interviews of youth” was once number 6 or 7 on the list of why one should not sustain the leaders of the CoJCoLDS and only today is the broomstick upon which one “innocently” rides while claiming to be trying to make the church they love better. It seems to me that many who in their heart of hearts desire to weaken or destroy faith in the CoJCoLDS spend a great deal of time largely misrepresenting themselves to try to get past some “I will ignore anti-Mormons filter” that they believe exists (rightly so in some individuals) throughout the church. When believing members offer apologetics, I do not think there is often such deception (of course I am probably biased here).

 

2. What is the proper context for the statement, “If the origins of the Book of Abraham was the only piece of data I evaluated, I would reject the CoJCoLDS?” I have never thought the “two papyri theory is great.” I think the catalyst theory is largely an adhoc creation to explain something that is not explained by data (of course it cannot be disproven, but that is hardly a source of great positive evidence). I say similar things to this on the Catholic board I contribute to when I think it is appropriate. It seems clear to me that the CoJCoLDS does not win all the skirmishes in the battle concerning what is mostly likely true based on data and reason only. On VERY rare occasions, I have seen some Catholic apologists claim that the Catholic understanding of this or that point is not the most clear read of the Bible, but such is rare. To me credibility is enhanced if you can call losing points a losing point. I do not share with my ministering companion the least well answered questions in LDS apologetics (the origins of the BOA, IMO) so when should this be done? I believe “10000 problems do not a doubt make.” I suspect I could say this based on spiritual testimony, but I can also say it based on the fact that I simply cannot explain the origins of the Book of Mormon without appealing to God and this more than adequately supports difficulties with the origins of the BOA, IMO.

 

Charity, TOm

 

[BHodges]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Tycker jag” is one of my favorite Swedish idioms. It simply means “I think” or “I believe.”

I’ve never heard the term “non-pastoral apologetics” before. I’m not even certain it’s a recognized category. The term itself strikes me as loaded. Who considers himself a “non-pastoral apologist” or a proponent thereof? Nobody I’m aware of. 

Ah. The only Swedish I know is the little red fish variety. 

"Non-pastoral" is not a technical term. You mentioned two people (I don't know who they are) as promoting pastoral apologetics and intimated that their departure from the church signals that something is wrong with pastoral apologetics however they conceived it. To be more precise I think any apologetics has the potential to be pastoral, and any apologetics which fails to be pastoral, which is to say apologetics that don't attend in charity and empathy to the particular needs of the sheep, is a failure of apologetics.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, BHodges said:

Ah. The only Swedish I know is the little red fish variety. 

"Non-pastoral" is not a technical term. You mentioned two people (I don't know who they are) as promoting pastoral apologetics and intimated that their departure from the church signals that something is wrong with pastoral apologetics however they conceived it. To be more precise I think any apologetics has the potential to be pastoral, and any apologetics which fails to be pastoral, which is to say apologetics that don't attend in charity and empathy to the particular needs of the sheep, is a failure of apologetics.

I generally agree — which makes me wonder about the usefulness or connotation of the term. Even apologetics that is vigorous and formidable might be regarded as pastoral in that it helps safeguard the vulnerable sheep of the fold of the Shepherd from being misled by  ravening wolves employing specious argumentation or sophistry. 

It is not unreasonable, in considering the implications of the imagery, to conceive of a good shepherd (or under shepherd) as being valiant, even fierce, in protecting the flock against predators. (Bear in mind that the term “pastoral” alludes to shepherding.)

Regarding the two FairMormon Conference speakers I referred to, I didn’t intimate their departure from the faith signals there is something wrong with “pastoral apologetics”; that’s your own inference drawn from what I said. I said I found their subsequent departures remarkable, and I do. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[BHodges]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I generally agree — which makes me wonder about the usefulness or connotation of the term. Even apologetics that is vigorous and formidable might be regarded as pastoral in that it helps safeguard the vulnerable sheep of the fold of the Shepherd from being misled by  ravening wolves employing specious argumentation or sophistry. 

It is not unreasonable, in considering the implications of the imagery, to conceive of a good shepherd (or under shepherd) as being valiant, even fierce, in protecting the flock against predators. (Bear in mind that the term “pastoral” alludes to shepherding.)

Regarding the two FairMormon Conference speakers I referred to, I didn’t intimate their departure from the faith signals there is something wrong with “pastoral apologetics”; that’s your own inference drawn from what I said. I said I found their subsequent departures remarkable, and I do. 

As a term it is as useful as the actual uses it's put to. 

Meekness and kindness can be incredibly formidable and fierce. In terms of aggression, I've seldom seen defenders of that style acknowledge the downsides such methods carry. 

Why would their departures be any more remarkable than any departure of any people who were formerly involved with Fair Mormon? What did that have to do with the discussion? 

Edited January 11, 2019 by BHodges