Do the Apologists Resent Uneducated and/or Gullible Members?

[_Some Schmo]

I think a lot of apologists are just dicks who think they know it all and regard being challenged as a knock against them personally, whether it be from critics or chapel Mormons. If they weren't born into Mormon families, they'd be dicks in other communities.

[Guest]

When I attended BYU, I had a Book of Mormon teacher, Reid Bankhead. He was there even when my mother attended many years earlier.

I was impressed by the fact that he literally wore out his Book of Mormon every 4 years or so. He knew the book. He could open to any unique verse within just a few pages. We spent the semester writing paradigms found within the book.

This professor wasn't distracted by anything apologetic. For him it was about wisdom and understanding, miracles and even the teachings of Jesus (imagine that!).

Just before my departure from the church, I was in the process of writing a book of paradigms. Last count, I had 32 specific topics covered by the Book of Mormon ranging from 4 to 15 pages each. It was to be a simple read for the laziest Mormon or for the searcher of Mormon scriptural referenced wisdom/truths. by the way. To my knowledge, there is no such book to date.

Not one topic dealt at all with geographical location theories, tapirs, metalurgy, economics, climate or customs.

What I have found most remarkable about the fools that my former stake president referred me to in order to save my faith was that they (FARMS et al.) demonstrated little to no knowledge of the concepts I regularly taught that strengthened the faith and increased the wisdom of my students.

Apologists are a different church all their own.

Because they think they are learned, they think they are wise. But their wisdom is foolishness because theirs is not wisdom. Wisdom (and true understanding) creates within us a desire to do good. It changes our heart. Apologist wisdom simply fills our unused brain cells with clutter - Distractions from Christlike core values.

[_Ray A]

My apology for getting back to you late, Doctor, but I’ve been in a two hour overseas phone conversation with my niece.

---To what extent is Mopologetic doctrine the same as the doctrine of the Church?

That I haven’t examined, but if I ventured a rough guess I’d say there are similarities, and strong differences. The idea of Moroni hauling gold plates across America over some 37 years, to eventually plant them in “Cumorah”, would be far-fetched to a typical Chapel Mormon. That’s one glaring difference I can think of. The apologist operates on a level where everything needs a “scientific explanation”, to make Mormonism more appealing to rational minds. Their job is to resurrect failing or failed faith through “reason”. And this is perhaps its most serious downfall. The doctrine, itself, may be too fantastic to believe, but trying to provide rational explanations is compounding absurdity upon absurdity. Like trying to find a scientific explanation for the earth resting on the back of a giant turtle. The fact is that apologetics may turn off more people than apologists realize. It may in fact become “checkmate” for the questioning seeking “rational explanations”. I think the leaders understand this, which is why they focus on “basics”. They know that going too deeply into Mormon history or doctrine is likely to result in mass apostasy (Packer). So they leave that task to the apologist (I hope you see my humour here). But if Packer was more observant he’d realize that apologetics does far more harm to the Church than historians like Quinn, who never tried to explain why the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, but only tried to tell us the truth about history. So in almost every case they have the cart before the horse. Honesty in history is a major requirement in generating trust. But instead, we see Quinn banished, and Disneyland apologetics taking his place.

It seems they will never learn.

That said, wouldn't you agree that the apologists rather ironically and hypocritically resent the "submissive" "Sheeple"-type TBMs, as per Barker's posts? I mean, I personally can recall quite a few posts/"missives" from DCP & et al. in which it was announced that there was a great deal "wrong" with the typical Latter-day Saint. As I said: I think that the apologists despise the basic lack of education and gullibility of your garden variety TBM, and yet, on the other hand, I think that they hate/despise even worse the "Sheeple" who dares to challenge Mopologetic orthodoxy. Just for what it's worth.

They no doubt feel they have “more truth”, and “better explanations”, done through “rigourous scientific examination”, and therefore, perhaps, see themselves as some kind of “Light” to Mormonism. “Don’t abandon us, we can explain all.”

Paul said that the gospel is “foolishness”. Then along comes an “apologist” trying to make it reasonable! LOL. I begrudge no one accepting this “foolishness”, especially if it makes them better people, but I cannot accept it. For that, I’m an apostate. To accept Mormonism on “feelgood” terms means that just about any religion can do the same, and it means that Mormonism doesn’t have a monopoly on truth, which can be scary for TBMs, and terrifying to apologists, because they want this “corner on truth”. My guess is that the average “Chapel Mormon” is just attracted to the “Christlike” qualities in Mormonism, and when they read apologetics, they start doubting, or feed growing doubts.

In the final analysis, and this is what "apologists" FAIL to understand, people are going to judge them, and their Church, not on apologetics, but on how they behave. And this is where agressive apologetics is a total failure. It's like the last resort of a desperate man.

Apologetics has been a total, abject failure. It has, in fact, become a stepping stone for many to the final exit from Mormonism.

[_Inconceivable]

Ray,

I plan to refer back to your last post for years to come. This is what I've been attempting to explain in my own way.

If there were actually a loving Jesus, I think that in order to recognize Him we must become like Him. Paul and the fictional Moroni define this character trait as Charity. Charity transcends religions and cultures. Apologetics has no knowledge of the one thing - this golden key that unlocks Saint Peter's Pearly Gates.

So what is it that they really have to offer?

[_Pokatator]

Ummmm....I would say dear friend that Mormon apologists do not think of themselves as SPECIAL. NOR do they think of themselves as superior. I would say that Mormon apologists have a standard regard for their CHAPEL Mormon brothers and sisters. For in LDS culture, everyone is a brother and sister.

Surprise I disagree.

HOWEVER, I would say that the Mormon critic absolutely disdains all Mormons. This disdain can be seen on these BOARDS as THEY exhibit a superioity COMplex that is phenominal in SCOPE.

I know you are here to just straighten us out. You are now guilty of what you are accusing everyone here of doing.

I don't in any way, shape or form disdain ALL Mormons, I don't think anyone else here does either. If there is disdain it is for Mormonism not Mormons.

I doubt that you can understand this difference so go ahead and continue with your broken record of straightening us out.

[_silentkid]

The apologist operates on a level where everything needs a “scientific explanation”, to make Mormonism more appealing to rational minds. Their job is to resurrect failing or failed faith through “reason”. And this is perhaps its most serious downfall. The doctrine, itself, may be too fantastic to believe, but trying to provide rational explanations is compounding absurdity upon absurdity. Like trying to find a scientific explanation for the earth resting on the back of a giant turtle. The fact is that apologetics may turn off more people than apologists realize. It may in fact become “checkmate” for the questioning seeking “rational explanations”. I think the leaders understand this, which is why they focus on “basics”. They know that going too deeply into Mormon history or doctrine is likely to result in mass apostasy (Packer). So they leave that task to the apologist (I hope you see my humour here). But if Packer was more observant he’d realize that apologetics does far more harm to the Church than historians like Quinn, who never tried to explain why the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, but only tried to tell us the truth about history. So in almost every case they have the cart before the horse. Honesty in history is a major requirement in generating trust. But instead, we see Quinn banished, and Disneyland apologetics taking his place.

Great post, Ray. This is one of the best explanations of apologetics I have read. The only part I would change is the part I bolded. It should read the chariot before the tapir. I told Scott Lloyd (during a brief but educating excursion to MAD) not to put his chariot before his tapir and he didn't think I was funny. For their "robust and earthy" senses of humor, they really can't take a joke.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I told Scott Lloyd (during a brief but educating excursion to MAD) not to put his chariot before his tapir and he didn't think I was funny. For their "robust and earthy" senses of humor, they really can't take a joke.

Scott Lloyd really is totally devoid of a sense of humor. I have been completely astonished at some of his more recent MAD postings, including one in which he recited some blather from the Brethren about how Jesus Christ: Superstar is inappropriate entertainment for TBMs. Later, he discussed his tastes in music, revealing his penchant for white-picket-fence, 1950s "golden oldies." I guess the likes of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are too infused with Satan for him.

[_Dr. Shades]

I would've liked to reply to this thread, but Ray A beat me to it. The last paragraph of his first post encapsulates the entirety of my thoughts on this matter:

Hate isn't the correct word, and even resent is a bit strong. As long as "Chapel Mormons" follow like sheep there isn't a problem. It's Chapel Mormons like Paul Osborne they resent, and Rodney Meldrum, the ones who challenge them. “Mr.” Meldrum, you remember? So there are two tiers – the submissive and “ignorant” (of apologetics) Chapel Mormon, and the Chapel Mormons who know at least some of their stuff. DCP, I might add, has at times been challenged by Chapel Mormons on FAIR/MAD, not the “sheep-like” types.

[_cinepro]

I think there are two issues here.

First, there is the problem of Faith Promoting Rumors; the trivial stories that are forwarded in emails and passed along (i.e. "Japanese Pilot At Pearl Harbor Couldn't Bomb the Temple; Later Converts"). Even Church leaders have spoken out in frustration about these kinds of stories, such as this quote from Harold Lee:

“I would earnestly urge that no such idle gossip be spread abroad without making certain as to whether or not it is true....As I say, it never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are in broadcasting these sensational stories, or dreams, or visions, some alleged to have been given to Church leaders, past or present, supposedly from some person's private diary, without first verifying the report with proper Church authorities.”

Harold B. Lee
"Admonitions for the Priesthood of God," Ensign (January 1973): 105

The more serious problem are the members and leaders of the Church that believe doctrines and teachings that are contradictory to apologetic theories and arguments. These beliefs are not based on emails or rumors, but instead the published words of the Apostles and Prophets. Often these teachings are taught in Church published literature and curriculum.

This puts the apologist in the uncomfortable (but necessary) position of telling members of the Church not to listen to the Prophets and Apostles on matters of doctrine or scriptural interpretation. There are often very good reasons for this (i.e. the Church leader is obviously out of his gourd), but it is an interesting situation nonetheless.

The biggest danger would then be those members of the Church who are familiar with the words of the Prophets, and also are familiar with the apologetic arguments, but chose the words of the Prophets over the apologists.

The apologetic mindset demands that "knowledge" be seen as a continuum, with a progression from "simple knowledge" learned in Primary and Church lessons to a more advanced and nuanced understanding as revealed by the apologists, scholars and scientists. So they see themselves as providing a valuable, helpful service to the Church. And they see themselves as being totally in harmony with the Lord and the doctrines of the Church. This means any reasonably intelligent church member will either stay with their "simple knowledge" (totally ignorant of the more advanced apologetic knowledge), or will learn of the apologetic knowledge and progress in that direction.

But the brick through the apologetic plate glass windows is the intelligent Church member who learns of the apologetic arguments, but rejects them as being contradictory to the doctrines and teachings of the Church. There is no place in the apologetic worldview for a member of the Church who has a spiritual confirmation of a doctrine that totally contradicts an apologetic theory.

The two most glaring example of this phenomenon are the LDS teachings of "No physical death before the Fall of Adam anywhere on Earth" and the literal, worldwide flood of Noah. Both of these are clearly taught by the Church, and both are totally contradictory to modern science (and hence, modern apologetic theories).

A good example of someone standing their ground can be found at my new favorite blog: No Death Before The Fall

[_why me]

That I haven’t examined, but if I ventured a rough guess I’d say there are similarities, and strong differences. The idea of Moroni hauling gold plates across America over some 37 years, to eventually plant them in “Cumorah”, would be far-fetched to a typical Chapel Mormon. That’s one glaring difference I can think of. The apologist operates on a level where everything needs a “scientific explanation”, to make Mormonism more appealing to rational minds. Their job is to resurrect failing or failed faith through “reason”. And this is perhaps its most serious downfall. The doctrine, itself, may be too fantastic to believe, but trying to provide rational explanations is compounding absurdity upon absurdity. Like trying to find a scientific explanation for the earth resting on the back of a giant turtle. The fact is that apologetics may turn off more people than apologists realize. It may in fact become “checkmate” for the questioning seeking “rational explanations”. I think the leaders understand this, which is why they focus on “basics”. They know that going too deeply into Mormon history or doctrine is likely to result in mass apostasy (Packer). So they leave that task to the apologist (I hope you see my humour here). But if Packer was more observant he’d realize that apologetics does far more harm to the Church than historians like Quinn, who never tried to explain why the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, but only tried to tell us the truth about history.

Apologetics has been a total, abject failure. It has, in fact, become a stepping stone for many to the final exit from Mormonism.

I have to disagree with you. Apologists do not attempt to give rational explanations nor do I think rational explanations play a part in apologetics. Now it may be true that people outside of apologetics seek rational explanations to matters of faith but seeking such explanations would be a mistake by the questioner. I do not believe that there can be rational explanations when the subject is faith. How can one explain god and his workings? Most faiths do not respond well to rational explanations.

The main component of faith is doubt. Rational explanations seek to confirm known truths but what known truths can a religion hold when the existence of god as yet been proven. The church leaders focus on basics because this is what Paul also focused on. Many critics call it milk before meat. And if one searches the new testament it can be read that Paul was also teaching 'basics' or milk as he called it.

Apologetics attempts to answer interpretations of history. For example, polygamy, the first vision, the 11 witnesses, persecution, the rumors that were spread at the time of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and who wrote it etc. If one searches FARMS or FAIR, many articles and essays deal with historical interpretation.

Apologetics has not been a failure. Has it proven the Book of Mormon true? No. Has it proven that Joseph Smith actually saw the first vision? No. But it has given explanations about why it can be believed. And that is the job of apologetics.