Mopologetic "Bridge Building"
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:32 pm
After reading over Trevor's moving and thought-provoking thread (and after receiving an important tip from an "informant"), I was inspired to comment upon an especially interesting thread from the aptly named MADboard:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 3519&st=20
This thread relates, specifically, to Dr. Peterson's extremely-hard-to-access article on the Trinity. As far as I can tell (unfortunately, due to accessibility issues, I'm unable to access the article), the piece argues that Mormons and Christians should be able to, at the very least, get along on the issue of the Trinity. But that's not quite what interests me here. Just as critics like Trevor (and, to some extent, Beastie) has hinted at the possibility of interacting in a civil manner with apologists, some apologists---here, DCP, though also others like Wade Englund---have been mulling over the notion of "bridge building." Some time earlier, we were introduced to the notion of "Humble Apologetics" (and I confess that I still don't know what that could possibly be), and now we are being given front-row seats to Mopologetic bridge building.
So, what does it look like? Here was a response from Markk to Prof. P.'s post:
Does this seem a hostile reply to you? It suggests a bit of confusion, perhaps. But I, for one, don't detect any hostility here. Only a reluctance to accept the proposition that non-LDS should agree on LDS conceptualizations of God.
Here is the reply:
He then goes on to chide Markk for daring to respond without having read his (nearly impossible to access) article (which, incidentally, he---i.e. DCP---staunchly refuses to summarize):
Is this really what "bridge building" is all about? Let's read on:
Well, okay. The "choir" bit is maybe a tad unnecessary, "bridge-building"-wise. But, then again, it was not Markk who was attempting to "build" the "bridge."
Wow! This is quite snide, no? And look at the way that Markk ends his next post:
Yes, they disagree, but at least Mark has the courtesy to say, "take care."
Later in the thread (on pg. 6), The Good Professor does something unfortunate. I have to ask: have people here seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Do you remember that great, thrilling moment towards the end of the film, where Indy, confronted with evil cult members on either side of the rope bridge, decides that his only option is to take a machete to the bridge's supporting rope, thus severing it in half? Well, as Short Round says, "Hold on, Lady! We goin' for a ride":
Gee whiz. Mark "KKK"?? Is this supposed to be "bridge building"? How---by any stretch of the imagination---is this a wise, "bridge-building" move? It turns out that Markk lets this egregious cheap shot roll right off his back:
Notice the "Love ya" and the "always fun." Can you imagine these utterances coming forth from an apologist? Also, I admire the way that Markk is able to laugh at himself, and to see the silliness in the apologist's behavior. But, as you can imagine, "humor" in the mind of an apologist is subject to very grim and strict regulation:
After this, Pahoran showed up, and so you can imagine that any "bridge building" was completely wiped off the map at that point.
So, what to think of all this? Are the apologists genuinely serious about "building bridges"? What can they possibly mean by this? Is this an attempt to win allies in the war against secular critics? Are the apologists being too selective in terms of who they are trying to "build bridges" with? Are their techniques shoddy? In any case, I have a few pieces of advice---a few axioms---to help them along in their efforts:
1. Try to build bridges with everybody, not just the totally docile, lap-dog types. If you manage to win over the most rabid critics, it will speak volumes about your intentions and motives. And your abilities, bridge-building-wise. If, say, Steve Benson or Tal Bachman or Ed Decker are convinced that you are "Good People," lots of others will follow.
2. Avoid cheap insults (such as "Markkkk"). This doesn't help, and in fact it undermines your agenda.
3. Distance yourself from "mad dog" apologists like Pahoran and Lou Midgley. Association with these individuals will make it seem like your gestures towards "bridge building" are disingenuous.
4. Provide easy access to "articles." Don't promote articles which people will have a difficult---if not outright impossible---time accessing.
5. When asked to provide a summary of your argument, try---with wholeheartedness, generosity, and common decency---to offer up a summary---yes, even if it's hard! When you decline to do this, it makes it seem like you're hiding something.
6. Distance yourself from hostile organizations such as SHIELDS, FAIR, and FARMS. Sure: most of the smart apologists have already given SHIELDS the cold shoulder, but these other entities are going to need to be abandoned as well. It is too late to reform them. They are permanently tainted by past bellicosity. The only viable option is to jump ship entirely and to form a new organization.
7. Always, always be the nicer person. Yes, this will mean that the critics will sometimes get to score some uncontested points, but, unfortunately, that is the cost of building bridges.
Of course, I could be wrong about the apologists' intentions. It could be that they don't care at all about "building bridges," and this is all just a ruse to paint the critics in the most negative light possible. If that's the case, then this is quite a diabolical plan: the apologists get to win over dumb, non-LDS Christians while simultaneously (hopefully) making the critics look hostile and mean....
Either way, I very much hope the Mopologists take my well-intentioned suggestions. I genuinely think that it could lead to a lot of productive dialog.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 3519&st=20
This thread relates, specifically, to Dr. Peterson's extremely-hard-to-access article on the Trinity. As far as I can tell (unfortunately, due to accessibility issues, I'm unable to access the article), the piece argues that Mormons and Christians should be able to, at the very least, get along on the issue of the Trinity. But that's not quite what interests me here. Just as critics like Trevor (and, to some extent, Beastie) has hinted at the possibility of interacting in a civil manner with apologists, some apologists---here, DCP, though also others like Wade Englund---have been mulling over the notion of "bridge building." Some time earlier, we were introduced to the notion of "Humble Apologetics" (and I confess that I still don't know what that could possibly be), and now we are being given front-row seats to Mopologetic bridge building.
So, what does it look like? Here was a response from Markk to Prof. P.'s post:
Markk wrote:Hi Dan
You wrote:
" Latter-day Saints and other Christians will continue to disagree on many things. But, if I'm correct, the doctrine of the Trinity need not loom quite so large among them."
The understanding of the nature of God has been, and always will be, one of the largest divides between the Christian faith and the LDS faith. Once the LDS understanding of the nature of God is broken down for a Christian that is not knowagable of the core LDS teaching/s of the nature of God, it is not even debatable. One has to factor in the LDS eternal law of progression and that there are countless gods in LDS thought and that these Gods, including Elohim, are not all knowing and are forever progressing.
Not sure where you going with this one Dan.
Thanks
Mark
Does this seem a hostile reply to you? It suggests a bit of confusion, perhaps. But I, for one, don't detect any hostility here. Only a reluctance to accept the proposition that non-LDS should agree on LDS conceptualizations of God.
Here is the reply:
DCP wrote:Your statement makes no sense. Mormonism is a Christian faith.
However, it's definitely true -- and perhaps this is what you were trying to say -- that the nature of God has always been a point of contention between the Latter-day Saints and members of various other Christian denominations.
He then goes on to chide Markk for daring to respond without having read his (nearly impossible to access) article (which, incidentally, he---i.e. DCP---staunchly refuses to summarize):
If, without having read my article, you already knew where I was going with this one, there would have been little point in my writing the article.
Is this really what "bridge building" is all about? Let's read on:
Markk wrote:Hi Dan,
Your making my point, LDS theology is not Christian theology and the nature of God is the main reason for this. Most Christians hold this view and the nature of God is again the main reason that the vast majority of Christians do not view LDS theology as Christian theology. Your thought speaks well to the choir, out side of that it holds no weight.
Thanks
MG
Well, okay. The "choir" bit is maybe a tad unnecessary, "bridge-building"-wise. But, then again, it was not Markk who was attempting to "build" the "bridge."
Daniel Peterson wrote:Markk wrote:Your making my point, LDS theology is not Christian theology and the nature of God is the main reason for this.
I'm unlikely to be making your point when I expressly repudiate it.
Try to make some sense.Markk wrote:Most Christians hold this view and the nature of God is again the main reason that the vast majority of Christians do not view LDS theology as Christian theology.
I've never seen a poll of the entire Christian population of the world, on this or any other topic. Could you please supply the source that you're using for your assertion about what "most Christians" think about this subject?
But you realize, of course, that the truth is not established by opinion polls anyway. (No opinion poll is needed, for instance, to know that the majority of the world's population rejects Christianity altogether, yet somehow I don't think you would grant that that fact, by itself, is enough to refute the claims of the Christian faith.)Markk wrote:
Your thought speaks well to the choir, out side of that it holds no weight.
I've written a book on the question of whether Mormons are Christian, entitled Offenders for a Word. You're welcome to attempt to refute its arguments with solid evidence and logic. Until then, your dogmatic summary assertion that Mormons aren't Christians is worth somewhat less than the electrons you use to post it.
Wow! This is quite snide, no? And look at the way that Markk ends his next post:
Markk wrote:We all know that books written by men mean nothing, if that were true then Ed Decker would be signing his books Deseret Books, I will debate this with you, as we have in the past, but that's your call. I still remember when you told me the Children of God cult were Christians.
Anyway, take care
Mark
John 1:12
Yes, they disagree, but at least Mark has the courtesy to say, "take care."
Later in the thread (on pg. 6), The Good Professor does something unfortunate. I have to ask: have people here seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Do you remember that great, thrilling moment towards the end of the film, where Indy, confronted with evil cult members on either side of the rope bridge, decides that his only option is to take a machete to the bridge's supporting rope, thus severing it in half? Well, as Short Round says, "Hold on, Lady! We goin' for a ride":
Daniel Peterson wrote:Markk wrote:Dan's conclusion . . . show[s] this evolution of LDS theology toward mainstream Christianity.
It shows nothing of the sort.
Markkk hasn't read the article. He has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about.Markk wrote:
Again LDS theology is moving closer to "apostate christianity" than it ever was, it doesn't say allot about the restoration.
Markkkk believes that my article, which he hasn't read, is an example of this. Markkkkk doesn't know what he's talking about.
But he's consistent. "We all know," he wrote the other day, "that books written by men mean nothing." And apparently he believes that the same principle applies to articles written by men, too. They mean nothing. He can interpret them and refute them without having ever seen them.
Gee whiz. Mark "KKK"?? Is this supposed to be "bridge building"? How---by any stretch of the imagination---is this a wise, "bridge-building" move? It turns out that Markk lets this egregious cheap shot roll right off his back:
Markk wrote:Hi Dan,
A little cranky tonight?
I can only base it on your conclusion which says..."Latter-day Saints and other Christians will continue to disagree on many things. But, if I'm correct, the doctrine of the Trinity need not loom quite so large among them"
Is that your conclusion to your paper or not, if it's not scratch what I said, geez, and if it isn't then we will just say your incorrect in your papers conclusion? So Bottom line you believe we are still miles apart on our view of the Trinity or we, as your conclusion says, will not be in much disagreement of our two view's. So what is it Dan, are you correct here or incorrect, lets just end the debate here?
"that books written by men mean nothing." Brilliant use of context, is that all you have? Oh yea you can fall back on the good ol'e add K's to Marks name...that one really hurts, I'll teach you to mess with me, here take this Dannnn?
You crack me up.
Love ya Dan, always fun
Take care
Mark
John 1:12
Notice the "Love ya" and the "always fun." Can you imagine these utterances coming forth from an apologist? Also, I admire the way that Markk is able to laugh at himself, and to see the silliness in the apologist's behavior. But, as you can imagine, "humor" in the mind of an apologist is subject to very grim and strict regulation:
DCP wrote: Markkkk, you're not fun.
You're not prepared for genuine conversation.
Your presumption that you can understand, rebut, and dismiss the argument and conclusion of a 43-page academic paper with hundreds of footnotes based solely on having read its rather unspecific -- unspecific unless you've read the paper, which is devoted to specifying precisely what I mean -- final two sentences is merely one illustration of your lack of preparedness. I would fail any student who turned in a book review or article summary after reading only the last two sentences of the article or book s/he was supposed to summarize/critique. And I would do it with gusto.
After this, Pahoran showed up, and so you can imagine that any "bridge building" was completely wiped off the map at that point.
So, what to think of all this? Are the apologists genuinely serious about "building bridges"? What can they possibly mean by this? Is this an attempt to win allies in the war against secular critics? Are the apologists being too selective in terms of who they are trying to "build bridges" with? Are their techniques shoddy? In any case, I have a few pieces of advice---a few axioms---to help them along in their efforts:
1. Try to build bridges with everybody, not just the totally docile, lap-dog types. If you manage to win over the most rabid critics, it will speak volumes about your intentions and motives. And your abilities, bridge-building-wise. If, say, Steve Benson or Tal Bachman or Ed Decker are convinced that you are "Good People," lots of others will follow.
2. Avoid cheap insults (such as "Markkkk"). This doesn't help, and in fact it undermines your agenda.
3. Distance yourself from "mad dog" apologists like Pahoran and Lou Midgley. Association with these individuals will make it seem like your gestures towards "bridge building" are disingenuous.
4. Provide easy access to "articles." Don't promote articles which people will have a difficult---if not outright impossible---time accessing.
5. When asked to provide a summary of your argument, try---with wholeheartedness, generosity, and common decency---to offer up a summary---yes, even if it's hard! When you decline to do this, it makes it seem like you're hiding something.
6. Distance yourself from hostile organizations such as SHIELDS, FAIR, and FARMS. Sure: most of the smart apologists have already given SHIELDS the cold shoulder, but these other entities are going to need to be abandoned as well. It is too late to reform them. They are permanently tainted by past bellicosity. The only viable option is to jump ship entirely and to form a new organization.
7. Always, always be the nicer person. Yes, this will mean that the critics will sometimes get to score some uncontested points, but, unfortunately, that is the cost of building bridges.
Of course, I could be wrong about the apologists' intentions. It could be that they don't care at all about "building bridges," and this is all just a ruse to paint the critics in the most negative light possible. If that's the case, then this is quite a diabolical plan: the apologists get to win over dumb, non-LDS Christians while simultaneously (hopefully) making the critics look hostile and mean....
Either way, I very much hope the Mopologists take my well-intentioned suggestions. I genuinely think that it could lead to a lot of productive dialog.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.