Jump to content

Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith


smac97

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Apologetics and polemics are a dead end.  That should be our main takeaway from all this.

I can't go along with this (at least as to the comment about "apologetics").  I have seen much good come from efforts to defend the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4
Link to post
59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Note D&C 130:6-11, wherein not only does a white pebble or "stone" (cf. Rev 2:17, psephon leuken) become an "Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one," but God and his angels reside on a "great Urim and Thummim" -- "a globe like a sea of glass and fire" -- and that this earth will become a "crystal . . . Urim and Thummim" (in fact, tremendous mass and gravitation make stars crystalline).  Such imagery is familiar from biblical descriptions of the throne of God and the New Jerusalem (Ezk 1 & 10, Dan 7, Rev 4 - 5, 11, 15:2, 20:11, 21 - 22). 

Compare Joseph Smith's Inspired Revision of the Bible at John 1:42, "Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or a stone" (cf. Gen 49:24), with the early Coptic Gnostic Gospel According to Thomas, Logion 19, "If you become disciples to me and hear my words, these stones will minister to you" (Nag Hammadi Codex II Labib, 84:19-21 = II,2, 36:19-21), cognate with Aramaic kefa = NT Greek Cephas, "Stone," which of course is the name given by Jesus to Simon-Peter.

Good morning - Thanks for the exposition. Very interesting.  Me? I think it refers to the Roman trial system where white and black stones were used to show guilt or innocence. If the folks at Pergamum overcame their Satanic cult in their midst and the Nicolaitans teachings that God hated, they would be awarded a white stone by Christ indicating their absolution from guilt. That is much plainer, especially given that Pergamum/Pergamos was a key and large city, a kind of a county seat or municipal government headquarters. The folks there would have been very familiar with the use of the white stone in the Roman court system. Your interpretation is much more elaborate; I just don't see a need to go to such lengths when Christ through John was using simple things familiar to first century convert Christians like manna and a acquittal (white) stone.  I appreciate your reply because it shows different interpretations of the same scripture are possible, which was my primary point. I have simply never heard anyone apply the same exercise to BOM passages. It may simply be that I have never been in a situation or place where different possible interpretations of BOM verses were discussed, except maybe on this forum. My original question was to find out if that kind of thing happens. It doesn't at the ward level in my experience. Maybe in an institute or seminary? I have never been to either. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 12/16/2019 at 4:11 PM, Analytics said:

Your fixation on Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay's theory about "big lists" is really missing the mark here.

I don't think so.

Quote

As a chess analogy, I'm not a very good chess player. At all. But if you put me in the middle of a game with a strong enough position, I could beat any Grand Master or chess supercomputer. The Grand Masters could write hundreds of books about chess, but that wouldn't change the fact that if the pieces are arranged in such a way that even a dimwit like me can see the endgame, I will win.

I don't think Jeremy Runnells (or any other critic) is in such a "strong enough position."  I don't think your analogy is apt.

Quote

As an example of what I mean, our own consiglieri is an extremely well-read ex-apologist now critic. He has a very articulate and accessible podcast called "Radio Free Mormon". A recent episode is called "The Amazingly Subversive Terryl Givens," which goes through Givens's latest book and shows how it is subversive in the sense that it contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a "big list." Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language, but if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud.

First, I would be interested in determining if Terryl Givens would agree with your characterization.

Second, I fail to see your point.  How is Consig or Givens situated in a "strong enough position" to "win" against "any Grand Master or chess supercomputer"?  You are assuming . . . a lot.

Quote

Of course the opinion of some of these other scholars you cite completely contradict the points that Givens make (or more often, completely ignores them). But the point is that regardless of how intelligent and sophisticated these scholars are, the fundamental problems of the religion's basic truth claims are still there.

Not sure what you mean by "fundamental problems."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So I listened to most of the podcast (it's a bit tedious).  

I also sent an email to Terryl Givens.  I quoted (verbatim) the second paragraph above, and asked him if he would agree with your characterization/conclusion (that he is conceding that the Pearl of Great Price is "a fraud").  He responded within minutes and categorically rejected your characterization (calling "patently false" your allegation that he believes or implies the PoGP is a "fraud").

Given that Givens is perhaps the world's leading expert on what he believes, and given how massively incorrect you were in reaching a purportedly "inescapabl{e}" conclusion derived from applying "patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying," I think you'll understand which of the two sources I will find more persuasive.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for listening to the podcast and for giving Dr. Givens an opportunity to respond to my characterization. And thank you for considering my views on this. 

I presume you see my point, and with that, I'll bow out of the conversation.

Best.

Link to post
On 12/15/2019 at 11:03 PM, InCognitus said:

It has to be something else, or something more than that.  I grew up in that so called "idealized narrative" era, and it really wasn't as idealized as many make it out to be, or not always intentionally so.  I realize there are more details now that have been made available over time because of projects like the Joseph Smith Papers, but many of the things that people are surprised to find out have always been taught in church publications and seminary and institute manuals using the best information available at the time.  You can learn about a lot of the things just by reading History of the Church, as flawed as that publication may be by today's standards.

For example, I had an ex-member neighbor, at my previous house, and she said one of the things that the church hid from her was that Joseph Smith used a pistol against the mob at Carthage jail at the time of his death, and she thought that I would be shocked to hear about that.  I told her I had learned that in seminary, and showed her where that was taught in my high-school seminary church history manual (The Restored Church, by William Edwin Berrett).  I also showed her pictures I had taken of the pistol on display at the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, from a recent family trip to Utah.  She blamed the church for not teaching her that.  But I blamed her for not studying what the church had made available for her to learn.

But as I mentioned in a previous post (here), I've learned that everyone is different, and people process information and view things differently, and there are complex and diverse reasons that people become disillusioned with the church and its teachings and eventually leave the church. There is no simple answer. 

I actually feel better about the martyrdom than I would have otherwise, knowing that Joseph and Hyrum endeavored to defend themselves and their companions with firearms as opposed to being sitting ducks cowering in the face of a savage and bloodthirsty mob. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He responded within minutes and categorically rejected your characterization (calling "patently false" your allegation that he believes or implies the PoGP is a "fraud").

You get several points for this when I build up a bit of reserve (too many posts today I want to rep).

Well done!  I love the extra mile, go to the source posts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thank you for listening to the podcast and for giving Dr. Givens an opportunity to respond to my characterization. And thank you for considering my views on this. 

I presume you see my point, and with that, I'll bow out of the conversation.

Actually, I'm not sure I have understood your point.  I'll give your posts some further consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't go along with this (at least as to the comment about "apologetics").  I have seen much good come from efforts to defend the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Even polemics has its place. I can conceive of circumstances in which polemics would be appropriate. 

Link to post
7 hours ago, smac97 said:
Quote

Your fixation on Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay's theory about "big lists" is really missing the mark here. As a chess analogy, I'm not a very good chess player. At all. But if you put me in the middle of a game with a strong enough position, I could beat any Grand Master or chess supercomputer. The Grand Masters could write hundreds of books about chess, but that wouldn't change the fact that if the pieces are arranged in such a way that even a dimwit like me can see the endgame, I will win.

As an example of what I mean, our own consiglieri is an extremely well-read ex-apologist now critic. He has a very articulate and accessible podcast called "Radio Free Mormon". A recent episode is called "The Amazingly Subversive Terryl Givens," which goes through Givens's latest book and shows how it is subversive in the sense that it contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a "big list." Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language, but if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud. A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless. Listen to the podcast. 

So I listened to most of the podcast (it's a bit tedious).  

I also sent an email to Terryl Givens.  I quoted (verbatim) the second paragraph above, and asked him if he would agree with your characterization/conclusion (that he is conceding that the Pearl of Great Price is "a fraud").  He responded within minutes and categorically rejected your characterization (calling "patently false" your allegation that he believes or implies the PoGP is a "fraud").

Given that Givens is perhaps the world's leading expert on what he believes, and given how massively incorrect you were in reaching a purportedly "inescapabl{e}" conclusion derived from applying "patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying," I think you'll understand which of the two sources I will find more persuasive.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I've been musing the last little bit about Consig's and Analytics' assessment of Terryl Givens.  These two are well-seasoned observers of the Church.  They know a lot about the Church.  It is interesting, then, to see them so spectacularly mis-read Givens. 

Consig pubilcly characterizes Givens' latest book as "amazingly subversive."  Roger publicly declares that if "patience and intellect" are used to read Givens' book, "one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud."

Givens himself rebuts these characterizations of his position.  "Patently false," he calls them.

This does not seem like an isolated incident.  I feel like our critics are not really listening to us.  They are not understanding us, or accurately describing or characterizing our position.  It seems like they don't want to listen or understand or charactize us.  They want to make us look bad, so any and every event or story about us must be construed so as to put the Church in a negative light.  

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility (the "hammer"), then every story about the Church can be construed to make us look bad ("as if it were a nail").

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2
Link to post
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't go along with this (at least as to the comment about "apologetics").  I have seen much good come from efforts to defend the Church........................

Apologetics is taught as a major subject in Protestant seminaries and large tomes are written about it.  Evangelicals would no doubt agree with you that they have seen much good come from efforts to defend their version of Christianity -- a "ready defense."  The problem is that a lot of left-leaning-Protestants and anti-Mormons find it built on sophistry, rather than on scholarship.  Rather than take it seriously, they tend to chuck the whole thing as an annoying and endless back-and-forth tennis game or Bible bash.

How do you explain defenders of the faith, like Brent Metcalfe and Consiglieri (you know of many others), who have become anti-Mormon?  Apologetics and polemics are really mirror images of one another.  Many apologists learn just enough to be dangerous, to themselves and to others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But Apologetics is not taught in Latter-day Saint seminaries.  Or at the Church's educational institutions.  Or during Sunday meetings.

Apologetics in our Church are mostly a grassroots effort.

I'm quite willing to address the merits of Latter-day Saint apologetics and faithful scholarship.  Much of it is quite good.  So the biases of "left-leadning-Protestants and anti-Mormons" don't really carry the day for me.

I'm not as interested in their perspective.  I am more interested in whether apologetics can benefit everyday members of the Church in strengthening their faith and improving their ability to defend and explain our beliefs, history, etc. in an increasingly skeptical and hostile world.

So you don't see Mormons as particularly vulnerable to polemic assault on their faith?  They don't learn systematic apologetics the way Protestant students do.  Doesn't that leave them as babes in the woods?

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand your question.  I have never met Brent Metcalfe or Consig (or Kerry Shirts, or David Bokovoy).  I don't pretend to know their inner thoughts.  I can only assess their public writings.

You never crossed swords with consiglieri on this board?  At least Bokovoy is an actual scholar.

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I think it's fair to say that I am a "defender of the faith."  And a long-time consumer of apologetic and scholarly materials.  I have found such scholarly and apologetic materials, in the aggregate, to be very helpful in my faith journey.  I feel like I am a lot more informed than I was in 1995, and a lot more clear-eyed in my perception of and perspective on the Church and its claims.  I am also more appreciative of, and devoted to, the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.  

How do you explain this?.................

I was hoping you could explain to me why someone may be impervious to polemic attacks, and others not so much.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you don't see Mormons as particularly vulnerable to polemic assault on their faith?  They don't learn systematic apologetics the way Protestant students do.  Doesn't that leave them as babes in the woods?

There are all sorts of ways we differ from our Protestant friends.  And in the absence of a professional clergy, we lack "systematic" instruction on lots of things that are addressed by "Protestant students."

Should we have classes in seminary and institute about "apologetics"?  I dunno.  

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You never crossed swords with consiglieri on this board? 

Seldom.  I found him to be mostly a provocateur.

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At least Bokovoy is an actual scholar.

Yes.

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was hoping you could explain to me why someone may be impervious to polemic attacks, and others not so much.

I have some ideas, but nothing I'd care to share publicly.  This is particularly so where specific names have been mentioned.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4
Link to post
16 hours ago, Attalus said:

Yes, in ancient Greece, jury members would cast a white stone to signify an acquittal, whereas a black stone proclaimed the defendant guilty. The weakness of this interpretation for Revelation 2:17 is that the stones cast in the courts did not have names inscribed on them.

One of the better-accepted explanations of the white stone has to do with the high priest’s breastplate (referred to as a Urim and Thummim) which contained twelve stones. Each of these stones had the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel engraved on it (Exodus 28:21). As he ministered in the temple, the high priest bore the names of God’s people into God’s presence. In the same way, the “white stone” with the believer’s name written on it could be a reference to our standing in God’s presence.

Some people think the best theory regarding the meaning of the white stone probably has to do with the ancient Roman custom of awarding white stones to the victors of athletic games. The winner of a contest was awarded a white stone with his name inscribed on it. This served as his “ticket” to a special awards banquet. According to this view, Jesus promises the overcomers entrance to the eternal victory celebration in heaven. The “new name” most likely refers to the Holy Spirit’s work of conforming believers to the holiness of Christ (see Romans 8:29; Colossians 3:10).

https://www.gotquestions.org/white-stone-new-name.html

So here we are with several possible explanations of what the white stone in Revelation 2:17 could possibly refer to, and the counsel our Church leaders give us is that we should rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us as we seek to understand.

 

 

Thanks. I completely agree with you. There are a number of possible interpretations as with many scriptures. I always seek to go for the plainest, simplest interpretation. I find it very enjoyable to study the different possibilities for many scriptures. I seek to honor those who arrive at differing interpretations than I do. Where would we be without honoring our differences? Thanks!

Link to post
16 hours ago, Attalus said:

Most members of the Church have a general understanding of why it is very important to rely on the Holy Ghost to guide us when we seek to know the mind and will of God.  We understand the fact that the scriptures can be understood in various ways, even some ways which seem to conflict with other scriptures, so "rightly dividing the word of truth" involves getting the same spirit to guide us in our understanding of the scriptures in the same way that the people who wrote the scriptures had the Holy Spirit to guide them as they wrote the scriptures, so that together we can all have the "mind of Christ."

On this board you'll often see the scholarly approach to studying and understanding the scriptures and the people involved in writing them, but as members of the Church we realize that the most important aspect of gaining a "testimony" from God involves God telling us how to correctly understand the scriptures.  In my experiences it seems to me that the Holy Spirit is mainly concerned in helping us to understand the basic precepts and general ideas for why the scriptures were written, while scholars seek to understand more basic details about the times and places and people involved.

Hi again: I agree with you with one small caveat. I believe that the Holy Spirit led me and leads me to study the Scriptures using every tool at my disposal. A skilled carpenter does not just use a saw. A skilled interpreter of scripture relies on the Spirit to guide him or her using all the means we have in our "toolbox." I recently noticed a talk given in a Sunstone forum using an understanding of linguistic moods, tenses, and voices to better understand the verse in D&C 1: 30 talking about the "only true and living church." The talk was given by a urologist! Ha! I am trying to find a copy of the full presentation. I do not distinguish between the scholarly approach, the testimony approach, or a direct revelation or prompting of the Spirit. They each help me better understand scripture. 

Link to post
22 hours ago, smac97 said:

...............................I have some ideas, but nothing I'd care to share publicly.  This is particularly so where specific names have been mentioned.........................

 

11 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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

I try to imagine what it would have been like if, upon encountering critical evaluations of the Church, I had nothing to turn to. No Hugh Nibley. No FARMS. No FairMormon. Nothing that directly addressed criticisms, much less attempted to provide an intelligent opposing perspective. For me, my degree of spirituality and my ability to discern spiritual experiences has had some significant ups and downs. If I was at a spiritual low point or simply spiritually confused, and was caught off guard by new and alarming criticisms of the Church, how would I have handled it? I can personally say that my exposure to responsible and informed apologetic information and perspectives has played a significant role in my personal faith journey. Does everyone need that information in their lives? No. But enough people are positively benefited by it, that it seems to be a noble and worthwhile endeavor.

Please consider this very honest and well-informed view of an ex-Mormon:  https://qr.ae/TcDwTu .

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Interesting views. Not sure exactly how you see it tying into the discussion, though. 

In some ways, Ryan, and in shorter compass, Padro skillfully lays out the true nature of the anti-Mormon opposition even better perhaps than Mike Ash in his Shaken Faith Syndrome.  I should have thought that understanding the appeal of those slimey characters would be an advantage for your own analysis of what needs to be said and how to say it.  You yourself said, for example,

Quote

If I was at a spiritual low point or simply spiritually confused, and was caught off guard by new and alarming criticisms of the Church, how would I have handled it? I can personally say that my exposure to responsible and informed apologetic information and perspectives has played a significant role in my personal faith journey. Does everyone need that information in their lives? No. But enough people are positively benefited by it, that it seems to be a noble and worthwhile endeavor.

Manu Padro has an extensive collection of Quora responses dealing with Mormonism and Mormon culture as the very knowledgeable anthropologist that he is.  As an ex-Mormon, he has keen insights and will not tolerate lies about the Latter-day Saints, whom he knows only too well.  You would be wise to follow him in Quora and profit from his powerful knowledge base.  FairMormon should likewise cite him freely.

Go to Manu Padro, “As a Mormon, why do you think there are so many people leaving the church, so much advocacy against it, and so many ‘recovery’ websites for those who leave?” Quora, Oct 3, 2019, online at https://qr.ae/Ti9A4d .  At bottom, where it says "About the author," click on the blue square designated "follow."   That will give you access to his extensive and valuable comments.

Link to post
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In some ways, Ryan, and in shorter compass, Padro skillfully lays out the true nature of the anti-Mormon opposition even better perhaps than Mike Ash in his Shaken Faith Syndrome.  I should have thought that understanding the appeal of those slimey characters would be an advantage for your own analysis of what needs to be said and how to say it.  You yourself said, for example,

 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Manu Padro has an extensive collection of Quora responses dealing with Mormonism and Mormon culture as the very knowledgeable anthropologist that he is.  As an ex-Mormon, he has keen insights and will not tolerate lies about the Latter-day Saints, whom he knows only too well.  You would be wise to follow him in Quora and profit from his powerful knowledge base.  FairMormon should likewise cite him freely.

Go to Manu Padro, “As a Mormon, why do you think there are so many people leaving the church, so much advocacy against it, and so many ‘recovery’ websites for those who leave?” Quora, Oct 3, 2019, online at https://qr.ae/Ti9A4d .  At bottom, where it says "About the author," click on the blue square designated "follow."   That will give you access to his extensive and valuable comments.

Fascinating. Thanks for pointing out this perspective. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/18/2019 at 9:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Please consider this very honest and well-informed view of an ex-Mormon:  https://qr.ae/TcDwTu .

Okay.

The first sentence: "The first perk that ex-Mormonism had for me back in 2001 when I turned 18 and could stop attending church..."  How does this relate to the merits of apologetics and faithful scholarship?  Sounds like this fellow never studied such things.

He goes on to talk about how nice it was, having left the Church, to be "removed" from a political environment he disliked, to "explore Salt Lake City’s Coffeehouse scene," to drink with Jesuits in Mexico and vent his spleen about how much he disliked his former church, etc.  He talks about how he "uncritically accepted the anti-Mormon narrative as true," how this "deeply poisoned" his relationship with the Saint, and that "distanced" him from family and friends.  

He talks about how "the anti-Mormon narrative" is "crafted as a form of boundary maintenance to try to drive a wedge between people and their former church and alienate them from those who remain," and also to "stigmatize people who choose to be Mormon, which it does pretty effectively." 

He speaks of this "anti-Mormon narrative" as being motivated my the idea that "{i}t isn’t enough to convince someone their religion is fake, the truly intolerant will always try to convince you that your religion is uniquely evil, even when it is not," and that this is a "pity" because it "causes an undue ammount of suffering and mental health issues as it destroys people’s social networks and they are forced to build new ones," and that family members "{have} to deal with an unexpected wave of negativity from someone they love."

He spends quite a bit of time criticizing the Tanners, "MormonThink" ("It is always a horrendously bad sign when authors won’t tell you who they are. That tanks their credibility immediately.").

He notes some substantive disagreements he has with the Church on social/legal issues, but also gives the Church credit where it is due ("None the less the university of hard knocks has forced me to conclude that a lot of their lifestyle advice is pretty solid. Not all of it, but a very sizable chunk of it.").  

Overall, he has some very poignant things to say about common courtesy and respect.  I very much value that.

That said, he has next to nothing to say about the truth claims of the Church, or about apologetics and faithful scholarship.  He gives no indication that he has ever read any such materials.  And that is unfortunate, as I could see him to be a valuable contributor to the Church.

Thanks

-Smac

 

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

The first sentence: "The first perk that ex-Mormonism had for me back in 2001 when I turned 18 and could stop attending church..."  How does this relate to the merits of apologetics and faithful scholarship?  Sounds like this fellow never studied such things.

He goes on to talk about how nice it was, having left the Church, to be "removed" from a political environment he disliked, to "explore Salt Lake City’s Coffeehouse scene," to drink with Jesuits in Mexico and vent his spleen about how much he disliked his former church, etc.  He talks about how he "uncritically accepted the anti-Mormon narrative as true," how this "deeply poisoned" his relationship with the Saint, and that "distanced" him from family and friends. 

He is very honest and reflective on his youthful rebellion and shallow assumptions.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

He talks about how "the anti-Mormon narrative" is "crafted as a form of boundary maintenance to try to drive a wedge between people and their former church and alienate them from those who remain," and also to "stigmatize people who choose to be Mormon, which it does pretty effectively." 

He speaks of this "anti-Mormon narrative" as being motivated my the idea that "{i}t isn’t enough to convince someone their religion is fake, the truly intolerant will always try to convince you that your religion is uniquely evil, even when it is not," and that this is a "pity" because it "causes an undue ammount of suffering and mental health issues as it destroys people’s social networks and they are forced to build new ones," and that family members "{have} to deal with an unexpected wave of negativity from someone they love."

He spends quite a bit of time criticizing the Tanners, "MormonThink" ("It is always a horrendously bad sign when authors won’t tell you who they are. That tanks their credibility immediately.").

He notes some substantive disagreements he has with the Church on social/legal issues, but also gives the Church credit where it is due ("None the less the university of hard knocks has forced me to conclude that a lot of their lifestyle advice is pretty solid. Not all of it, but a very sizable chunk of it.").  

Overall, he has some very poignant things to say about common courtesy and respect.  I very much value that.

That said, he has next to nothing to say about the truth claims of the Church, or about apologetics and faithful scholarship.  He gives no indication that he has ever read any such materials.  And that is unfortunate, as I could see him to be a valuable contributor to the Church......................

He actually writes regularly about every aspect of Mormonism.  As an anthropologist, he has brilliant insights into our culture and history.  Despite no longer being a member of the LDS Church, he is what some might see as an apologist for it.  He left the Church, but he can't leave it alone.

See, for another example, Manu Padro, “What does Manu Padro think about the ‘LDS Personal Faith Crisis’ report?” Quora, Aug 18, 2019 (updated), online at https://qr.ae/TSNgHw

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...