Page 1 of 2
"Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:16 pm
by _consiglieri
In reading a paper delivered at the 2011 FAIR presentation by Steven C. Harper on the different First Vision accounts, I was surprised to find his completely gratuitous comments at the end of his paper on the dangers of apologetics:
Apologetics can easily become arrogant and contentious, and when it does it serves sinister purposes in my opinion. Richard Bushman had just won the Bancroft Prize when he responded with civility and grace to Reverend Walters. When asked why he chose that method, Bushman replied, “Simply as a tactical matter in any kind of controversy, it never serves you well to show scorn towards your opponent. That may make the people who are on your side rejoice and say, ‘kick them again.’ But for those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right, you just alienate them, you just drive them into the hands of your opponent.”
I don’t think that my efforts will convert critics of the first vision. I believe it might meet some of the needs of “those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right.” I don’t want to alienate them. Nor do I want any part in the too human us v. them syndrome. There is only us, the children of God, and we can debate the content of various claims without damaging relationships in the process.
http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... rst-visionI thought it an interesting contrast to Daniel C. Peterson's comments on the same subject from the 2012 Fair Conference.
http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... pologeticsThoughts?
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:34 pm
by _Cicero
I can already see it now. People on this board will (deservedly) agree with and praise what Harper said, which the MDD crowd (and Droopy) will take as evidence that Harper's position is misguided and weak (remember, good apologetics is supposed to be "masculine"). Praising Richard Bushman is a dangerous thing to do among certain apologists.
This looks to me like something Gerald Bradford would say (or Robert Millet for that matter). What he goes on to say is noteworthy as well:
Steven C. Harper wrote:I don’t think that my efforts will convert critics of the first vision. I believe it might meet some of the needs of “those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right.” I don’t want to alienate them. Nor do I want any part in the too human us v. them syndrome. There is only us, the children of God, and we can debate the content of various claims without damaging relationships in the process. I disagree with the a priori assumptions and historical interpretations of the Methodist minister who reproved Joseph, Fawn Brodie, and Reverend Walters. But I do not wish to fight with them. I would love to visit with each of them. They are interesting. And like me they are vulnerable personalities who worked hard to figure out how to relate to Joseph Smith’s first vision. In fundamental ways I am like each of them, and I wish to treat them as I would like to be treated by them. Joseph taught the Relief Society sisters in Nauvoo that “the nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more are we dispos’d to look with compassion on perishing souls—to take them upon our shoulders and cast their sins behind our back. . . . If you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another.
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:55 pm
by _Darth J
I think it is self-explanatory that lack of civility can sometimes distract from the merits of an issue, and that courtesy can help when trying to persuade undecided people. However, that is not the real problem with ad hominem attacks in the Peterson/Hamblin/Nibley/Joseph Smith-himself tradition.
On one level, it's a problem of ethos. Supposedly, Mormon apologists are not just defending intellectual ideas, but the purported Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. They have thus created a double standard for themselves. If the Restored Gospel really is what it claims to be, then one would expect those who have had the mighty change of heart from the Holy Ghost that accompanies conversion, and who defend it on that basis, would act like they are trying to convert people and share the Good News, as revised by Joseph Smith and his claimed successors. But we have learned from sad experience that Moplogists generally do not act that way, and this behavior is itself a commentary on the ethos Mopologists are supposedly defending.
On another level, the problem is that the ad hominem attacks just suck, regardless of their appropriateness. The cadre of Moplogists to whom I am alluding simply are not witty and funny like they imagine themselves to be. I am all for being a smart ass if you are good at it. But when it is the sophomoric "durr, derp" type that we see time and again, that is much less forgivable.
But the real problem is that ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Regardless of the righteousness of doing so, it's one thing to taunt or ridicule an opponent in the course of defeating him or her. It is quite different to taunt or ridicule your opponent instead of defeating him or her. MsJacks Will Schryver/misogyny thread is a good example of the latter. Aside from the vulgarity and whatnot, most of Schryver's sexist remarks are attempted retorts to females who fail to be convinced by his arguments. The take-away is that Schryver is unable to make his case, and so he dismisses females who disagree with him because they are females.
Bill Hamblin does the same thing. He does not make a case for, and often does not even articulate, what errors are committed by those who fail to be dazzled by the self-evident truth value of the faith-promoting narrative. Instead, these people are wrong because they are apostates and anti-Mormons (and here we see the circular reasoning often attached to the ad hominem fallacy).
The ad hominem fallacy is also used to speciously bolster Mopologist theories by conflating said theories with Mormonism and/or the LDS Church itself. You think it's ludicrous to assert that Christian Hebrew tapir ranchers in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica borrowed wooden clubs from the Aztecs when there is absolutely no evidence that the Nephites and the Aztecs ever interacted with each other? Well, that's not because the theory is not meritorious. It's because you are an anti-Mormon. This is the real problem with the Mopologist ad hominem thing. It's a feeble attempt to use the persecution card as both a shield and a weapon. But it's not consistent with the true Christianity supposedly being defended, it's not witty or funny, it's not effective, and it's used to disguise fatuous thinking.
But I guess other than that, it's okay.
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:02 pm
by _3sheets2thewind
consiglieri wrote:]Apologetics can easily become arrogant and contentious, and when it does it serves sinister purposes in my opinion. Richard Bushman had just won the Bancroft Prize when he responded with civility and grace to Reverend Walters. When asked why he chose that method, Bushman replied, “Simply as a tactical matter in any kind of controversy, it never serves you well to show scorn towards your opponent. That may make the people who are on your side rejoice and say, ‘kick them again.’ But for those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right, you just alienate them, you just drive them into the hands of your opponent.”
--Consiglieri
Isn't Bushman considered a borderline apostate? So why would any self anointed FAIRisee or Neo-Danite take counsel from Bushman?
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:39 pm
by _consiglieri
Darth J wrote:
But I guess other than that, it's okay.
I perceive, sir, that thou art a wordsmith.
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:50 pm
by _Zelder
Great post consig. The #1 problem with apologetics is the contention that is so prevalent. The arrogant and contentious attitudes are driving people with questions and doubts on out the door. Even when people decide to leave it would be great if we could still be friends. Too many apologists make enemies with unbelievers.
Bushman has my total respect. He is a good man.
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:55 pm
by _consiglieri
Zelder wrote:Great post consig. The #1 problem with apologetics is the contention that is so prevalent. The arrogant and contentious attitudes are driving people with questions and doubts on out the door. Even when people decide to leave it would be great if we could still be friends. Too many apologists make enemies with unbelievers.
Bushman has my total respect. He is a good man.
I think in some ways this is related to the Mormon idea that friendships exist only for pragmatic reasons.
We friendship non-members to teach them the gospel. If they are not interested, we drop the friendship.
Maybe the corrolary is that we are friends with members only so long as they believe like us and act like us. Should they cease being like us, our friendship similarly ceases.
These things ought not so to be.I would like to understand how this attitude can be so prevalent in a church where no leader has ever actually come out and given these instructions in so many words.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:11 am
by _Polygamy-Porter
While engaging in a discussion of Mormon theology, those who do not have a need to believe it will always have the upper hand.
It is not a matter of faith like faith that Jesus Christ actually existed. That happened over 2,000 years ago.
LDS Inc has painted itself and its unwitting adherents into a corner with the black tar of truth claims, many of which occurred well within recorded history.
The first vision is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of believing the version which will keep your ass in the Mormon pew and your 10% income in coffers of LDS Inc.
Perhaps the reason that defending "apologists" become so agitated and arrogant is that this is their defense mechanism to keep the logical side of their mind from destroying the side which understands the need to believe in the indefensible demonstrably false doctrines of LDS theology.
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:17 am
by _RayAgostini
Looking at it another way:
Criticism can easily become arrogant and contentious, and when it does it serves sinister purposes in my opinion. Darth J had just won the Humanitarian Prize when he responded with civility and grace to Daniel Peterson. When asked why he chose that method, Darth J replied, “Simply as a tactical matter in any kind of controversy, it never serves you well to show scorn towards your opponent. That may make the people who are on your side rejoice and say, ‘kick them again.’ But for those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right, you just alienate them, you just drive them into the hands of your opponent.”
I don’t think that my efforts will change apologists. I believe it might meet some of the needs of “those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right.” I don’t want to alienate them. Nor do I want any part in the too human us v. them syndrome. There is only us, the critics, and we can debate the content of various claims without damaging relationships in the process.
Re: "Apologetics Can Easily Become Arrogant"
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:20 am
by _Darth J
Ray, I see that your preference for mischaracterizing what people say continues to Trump your willingness to engage objective reality.
Please carry on with your Taliban cum Seinfeld routine. You know: "a jihad about nothing."