DiscussMormonism.com

liz3564 wrote:I just wish that everyone involved in this had handled it with more tact, and had basically kept their mouths shut. In my view, this whole incident is one unprofessional mess.

Kish wrote:Well said, liz. But regret only gets us so far. And that ain't very far.

The real questions all of us should be thinking about are why we are here and what we can do to make the situation better.

I think those questions will bring a lot more clarity that stewing in regret will.

I am not accusing you of stewing in regret. I am only trying to keep everyone from getting lost in the negative emotion and division.

I think that, in some ways, there is a real opportunity here. I am stating my position on it, and I hope that everyone who reads me can see that my position is not one of punishment, exclusion, shaming, or anger, but one of seeking reconciliation, a positive solution, the best outcome for all, and a better future for others.

I will continue to say that I am not interested in hurting "enemies." I am interested in seeing how all people involved here can improve our situation, and improve the prospects for the Church dealing with struggling and disaffected members more productively.

Apologetics has a clear and established place in the LDS community. I am saying that it does not have the right tools for handling a number of aspects of the struggles of members. They are, for example, completely unequipped by their lack of training to deal with the emotional and psychological side of the issue. They have do direct spiritual stewardship over the members they counsel, which I believe is another often overlooked issue.

I think the conversation needs to shift into a more constructive mode, because where it is at now will only harden differences and squander whatever opportunity this situation may present.

Liz wrote:I wholeheartedly agree.

Maybe we should start another thread separate from all of the specific Dehlin stuff?

I think this may be an excellent way to get everyone on the same page, and possibly turn this whole incident into a positive rather than a negative.

liz3564 wrote:I thought I would take the opportunity to lead a discussion in putting together some ways that might help today's LDS apologists in their approach. Since it is obvious that they do read here, maybe they will take some of our comments and discussions here to heart.

I'll start by saying that I think that a prime struggle that LDS apologists have is that they are addressing two very different audiences.

The audience that has been their primary focus is that of the truly anti-Mormon. The anti-Mormon scholar has the primary agenda of trying to tear down the Church and pick apart the Church's doctrinal tenets.

I think that the negative and shrill attitude which permeates many apologists is in response to the critiques of the truly anti-Mormon.

John Larsen wrote:Probably the biggest mistake made by apologists is simply overstating their case. The often take a reasonable argument in favor of their position and stretch it out until it is absurd. Like at the best Theist apologist and emulate their tactics.

Their second mistake is to try to take arguments that work for insiders and apply them to outsiders. Know your audience. If you are writing for unsophisticated 50 year old high priests, stay focused. Don't use the same tactics on smarmy secularist who are well read in the philosophical assumptions that your are twisting for the HP.

liz3564 wrote:The audience that has been their primary focus is that of the truly anti-Mormon. The anti-Mormon scholar has the primary agenda of trying to tear down the Church and pick apart the Church's doctrinal tenets.

I think that the negative and shrill attitude which permeates many apologists is in response to the critiques of the truly anti-Mormon.

John Larsen wrote:Like at the best Theist apologist and emulate their tactics.

We need to be careful in our apologetics. We need to be tactful. We are not trying to win an argument. We are not simply trying to show we are right. We are not trying to get someone to change their position for the sake of our perceived integrity. And we are not trying to get someone to realize that they are wrong, just for the sake of the realization. We are trying to get people to bow before Christ. Often, our apologetic defense of the faith can be counter-productive. People’s sinfulness will cause them to solidify in positions that they did not really hold before. Why? Because that is what arguments often do.

I think that the negative and shrill attitude which permeates many apologists is in response to the critiques of the truly anti-Mormon

Aristotle Smith wrote:

John Larsen wrote:Like at the best Theist apologist and emulate their tactics.

Sorry, I just don't understand this sentence. Help please?