When talking about generalities, there will always be exceptions to be noted and nuances to be missed. Assuming that we can measure how well a generalization fits, there can be a lot of insight gained by generalizing.
Here are some specific proposals of
The Believer and the Apostate, and my thoughts on them.
It is interesting to note some of the defenses against apostasy that have evolved in all traditions over the millennia. Most of the time, the believer utilizes these defenses in a completely unconscious fashion, since to acknowledge the reason for these defenses also raises uncomfortable questions.
Assuming for the moment that the article describes Wade spot-on, it isn’t surprising that he doesn’t believe that this article at all reflects him.
For the first line of defense, apostasy can be reduced by attacking the source – reason and logical thinking. Most religious traditions tend to denigrate independent thought, even going so far as to ascribe it to the Enemy. At the same time, these traditions will emphasize that faith is not only an alternative, but in fact a superior guide to truth.
Certainly, Mormonism teaches that true and sure knowledge comes through the spirit. For example, frequently a believer at MaD will ask the skeptics, “Scientific ‘truth’ is always changing, so how can trust it? Why not turn to God instead, whose truth never changes?”
In addition to casting reason and independent thought in a negative light, a further tactic to minimize apostasy is to prevent access to apostate, or polemical literature directed against the faith... the LDS church frowns upon publications that are not deemed "faith-promoting".
I find that generally, Mormons are too busy with their lives to spend much time studying their faith. The little time they do have for such study is encouraged to be “in the best of books”. So generally, there isn’t a need for a strict rule against avoiding criticisms. Nevertheless, they are usually avoided, as evidenced by a recent thread here about an apologist who believed that members needed more awareness of the criticisms to inoculate their faith. When Mormons do have more time and inclination to study it (i.e. on their missions), they are strictly forbidden from reading material critical of the church.
Thus, the believer often reaches a state of compromise which effectively creates separate mental compartments for faith and the "real world". This strategy, which is quite similar to George Orwell’s "doublethink", allows the believer to accept at face value any pronouncement made within the confines of his own faith, while subjecting any principle that originates outside of his system to rational examination.
This goes overboard. While there is a lot of mental compartmentalization and a lot of acceptance of dogma, Mormons will often try to rationalize their beliefs and will engage in some give and take between their secular knowledge and religious belief. For example if a Mormon is a Ph.D. biologist, he probably believes in evolution and doesn’t believe in the official version of the Fall as taught by the likes of Joseph Fielding McConkie.
Generally, an apologist is easily able to spot the logical flaws and special pleading that exist in rival faiths, but seems completely unable to apply the same analysis to his own tenets. Thus, an apologist will sometimes refute the arguments of a religious opponent, and then use the very same arguments to support their own position.
Mormons often point this out in the arguments of the anti-Mormon Christians. In response the secular anti-Mormons respond “Exactly! Christianity collapses under critical evaluation just as readily as Mormonism does!” The point of the Mormons, though, is something along the likes of, “you live in a glass house too, so don’t throw rocks.”
But beyond that, Mormons tend to believe that that their religious beliefs are on stronger ground than other untenable religions because Mormonism is founded on true revelation.
Also related to this is the idea that God
wants us to believe based on faith rather than reason, and thus meddles with the evidence so that it isn’t conclusive either way.
In the second line of defense, it is important to minimize the potential damage that can be done to the believer’s faith by the apostate. The first frequently employed strategy is also the most obvious – disassociation. Many religious systems will forbid all contact with the apostate. This tenet is usually strictly enforced, even to the point of threatening believers with excommunication if they knowingly consort with apostates.
Of course there is the temple recommend question about associating with apostates, although what specifically that means is unclear. Generally, believers will talk with apostate family members, friends, and work associates as long as religion is kept out of the topic.
Yet another frequently employed tactic is used when a believer does come into contact with an apostate, despite the careful shielding that most traditions erect. This strategy seeks to reduce the believer’s dissonance by assuming that the apostate fell away due to some unacknowledged sin, or some other flaw on the part of the former adherent. It is extremely important, for the believer’s state of mind, that the blame for the apostasy must fall squarely on the shoulders of the apostate himself. It is quite literally unthinkable that the fault could lie with the system itself. This line of reasoning must be avoided at all costs.
What this reminds me of is when Wade said,
A strong case has recently been made by several of my fellow apologist (which I now completely agree with) that LDS apologetics should be a respectful, charitable, and scholarly approach, focused predominately, if not almost exclusively, on providing rational responses directly to ISSUES and ARGUMENTS that have been or will at some point be raised relative to the LDS Church, and thus should avoid as much as possible attacks or criticisms against the persons raising those issues and arguments.
Yet, I also still find myself thoroughly convinced that the real and pressing ISSUE is often the critics, themselves.