Sometimes They Miss the Mark: ML on Halverson
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:40 pm
First, I need to say that I am a big fan of Mormonism Live, mostly because of my deep respect for RFM. Bill Reel also brings a lot to the table, but his aims and perspective are very different from mine, so I find myself more often disagreeing with what he has to say. He has, to my mind, a very stereotypical ex-Mo skeptic perspective on things. What makes him listenable is that he does what he does very well. Reel also deserves credit for organizing a real dynamo of content proliferation. He has provided a platform for a lot of people, including RFM and Philo Sofee, two of my favorite people.
I don't always agree with what is said, however. This will come as no surprise to most of you. This episode on Halverson's presentation to LDS youth on dealing with faith struggles or doubt really stood out to me as an example of constructing, presumably inadvertently, a huge straw man. Bill and RFM did not seem to like the fact that Halverson was not doing what they thought he should be doing, which is playing by the usual FARMS/FAIR pattern of dealing with issues of fact in answer to skepticism. Instead, Halverson's discussion took place on a more "meta" level, and the ML guys did not click with it.
Halverson's talk came from the position of the faithful speaking to the faithful, including those wavering in faith. He sought to show that a lot of critics engage in rhetoric that seeks to dislodge people from their faith. His advice to his audience was to see through the rhetoric and realize what is being done. For him, there is no good reason to be bamboozled by the rhetoric.
Bill's complaint was that Halverson was not acknowledging the use of rhetoric among the faithful. I didn't come away with that impression at all. It seems to me that what Bill demands is that the LDS Church turn every question into an equal playing field between skepticism and faith, which is, to my mind, completely ludicrous. Of course those who live a life of faith will, in matters of faith, privilege the faithful point of view over skepticism. If you are a person of faith, and you want to remain a person of faith, there is no need for you to turn every issue of faith into an experiment between faith and skepticism. What you need to realize is that Bill Reel has rejected faith, and his goal is to get you to reject it too.
Is the Church bamboozling people by nurturing their faith? I know that the cynical among us--and many of us are exceedingly cynical--think that this must be the case. The LDS Church is, collectively, seeking to make bank by keeping its members in the dark about the facts. There are a number of things that line up nicely in support of this point of view, among them are the LDS Church's ridiculous stockpile of wealth, their absolute demand that tithing means ten percent of a person's income that God demands from the faithful to go into that huge stockpile, and the fact that the LDS Church has handled criticism so poorly.
If we step back, however, I think it is more reasonable to see the entire church enterprise founded on what was the reasonable presumption that most people in ages past operated according to faith of some kind and simply sought out the best faithful position to live by. This way of looking at the history of religion in the West provides a much better explanation for what we see in Mormonism than "because Joe was a conman." The civilizational tide has begun to turn against faith as something to live by, however, and the faithful are told to provide convincing answers to people who do not accept faith at all. Good luck with that, I say.
Honestly, I don't think the faithful owe those who reject faith anything, and I don't think they need to give skepticism an even playing field. What we are talking about here is two very different ways of looking at the world. People of faith can accommodate science just fine, although it may discomfit them for a time, but ideologues against faith can't tolerate faith at all. Only the destruction of faith by skepticism is acceptable, and skeptics look forward to the day when everyone will be skeptics. Maybe it will happen. Maybe it won't. I doubt it will, but I could be wrong. What I do not think, however, is that skepticism is truly objective and free of its own myths--such as the myth of the beautiful world that has no superstitious people in it. LOL. Ahem.
I certainly think that the LDS Church is there to criticize. If there is one thing that really resonates with me in what Reel and RFM did, it was to identify where clearly Halverson is not leaving room for faith so much as making sure that you not are not only faithful but that you are also obedient to LDS leaders. I see certain aspects of the LDS Church as deeply problematic, and I appreciate when people call out the LDS Church for those things. The consistent "don't rock the boat and obey your leaders" refrain is troubling and off-putting. But that is different, in my view, from saying that faith as a whole is the problem. I think faith is part of the human scene, and that in itself it is not *the* problem.
Bill Reel sees it all as one package, or at least he deals with it all as one package. It is interesting that a lot of ex-LDS people are this way. They go from being people of faith to being skeptics. I don't think that this is the only way to go, but it is fascinating that so many ex-LDS people go that way. Surely it has something to do with the times and their unique circumstances, but maybe it says a lot about the kind of faith they held.
In any case, it was another interesting podcast and well worth the listen. I disagreed with much of it, but I am glad I listened. It provided good food for thought.
I don't always agree with what is said, however. This will come as no surprise to most of you. This episode on Halverson's presentation to LDS youth on dealing with faith struggles or doubt really stood out to me as an example of constructing, presumably inadvertently, a huge straw man. Bill and RFM did not seem to like the fact that Halverson was not doing what they thought he should be doing, which is playing by the usual FARMS/FAIR pattern of dealing with issues of fact in answer to skepticism. Instead, Halverson's discussion took place on a more "meta" level, and the ML guys did not click with it.
Halverson's talk came from the position of the faithful speaking to the faithful, including those wavering in faith. He sought to show that a lot of critics engage in rhetoric that seeks to dislodge people from their faith. His advice to his audience was to see through the rhetoric and realize what is being done. For him, there is no good reason to be bamboozled by the rhetoric.
Bill's complaint was that Halverson was not acknowledging the use of rhetoric among the faithful. I didn't come away with that impression at all. It seems to me that what Bill demands is that the LDS Church turn every question into an equal playing field between skepticism and faith, which is, to my mind, completely ludicrous. Of course those who live a life of faith will, in matters of faith, privilege the faithful point of view over skepticism. If you are a person of faith, and you want to remain a person of faith, there is no need for you to turn every issue of faith into an experiment between faith and skepticism. What you need to realize is that Bill Reel has rejected faith, and his goal is to get you to reject it too.
Is the Church bamboozling people by nurturing their faith? I know that the cynical among us--and many of us are exceedingly cynical--think that this must be the case. The LDS Church is, collectively, seeking to make bank by keeping its members in the dark about the facts. There are a number of things that line up nicely in support of this point of view, among them are the LDS Church's ridiculous stockpile of wealth, their absolute demand that tithing means ten percent of a person's income that God demands from the faithful to go into that huge stockpile, and the fact that the LDS Church has handled criticism so poorly.
If we step back, however, I think it is more reasonable to see the entire church enterprise founded on what was the reasonable presumption that most people in ages past operated according to faith of some kind and simply sought out the best faithful position to live by. This way of looking at the history of religion in the West provides a much better explanation for what we see in Mormonism than "because Joe was a conman." The civilizational tide has begun to turn against faith as something to live by, however, and the faithful are told to provide convincing answers to people who do not accept faith at all. Good luck with that, I say.
Honestly, I don't think the faithful owe those who reject faith anything, and I don't think they need to give skepticism an even playing field. What we are talking about here is two very different ways of looking at the world. People of faith can accommodate science just fine, although it may discomfit them for a time, but ideologues against faith can't tolerate faith at all. Only the destruction of faith by skepticism is acceptable, and skeptics look forward to the day when everyone will be skeptics. Maybe it will happen. Maybe it won't. I doubt it will, but I could be wrong. What I do not think, however, is that skepticism is truly objective and free of its own myths--such as the myth of the beautiful world that has no superstitious people in it. LOL. Ahem.
I certainly think that the LDS Church is there to criticize. If there is one thing that really resonates with me in what Reel and RFM did, it was to identify where clearly Halverson is not leaving room for faith so much as making sure that you not are not only faithful but that you are also obedient to LDS leaders. I see certain aspects of the LDS Church as deeply problematic, and I appreciate when people call out the LDS Church for those things. The consistent "don't rock the boat and obey your leaders" refrain is troubling and off-putting. But that is different, in my view, from saying that faith as a whole is the problem. I think faith is part of the human scene, and that in itself it is not *the* problem.
Bill Reel sees it all as one package, or at least he deals with it all as one package. It is interesting that a lot of ex-LDS people are this way. They go from being people of faith to being skeptics. I don't think that this is the only way to go, but it is fascinating that so many ex-LDS people go that way. Surely it has something to do with the times and their unique circumstances, but maybe it says a lot about the kind of faith they held.
In any case, it was another interesting podcast and well worth the listen. I disagreed with much of it, but I am glad I listened. It provided good food for thought.
