My Work Here is Done

[_sock puppet]

Apologetics is a response to critics. No critics = no apologists. There is not a simpler truth than that.

Just like without pickles and sardines there would be no pickle and sardine sandwiches. Doesn't mean we would not still have the munchies.

Pickles on sardine sandwiches? I usually do chopped onions and cucumbers. But I'll give pickles a try.

[_beastie]

I’m home sick today so have a bit of time to waste. If this is a confusing post in anyway, I will blame the severe stomach ailment I’ve suffered in the last four hours.

I don’t pretend to understand everything that Scratch has said and done over the past six years. There have been times when his analysis of online defense of the LDS faith has been remarkably insightful and dead on, in my opinion. There are other times when, again in my opinion, he missed the mark or engaged in so much personal focus that it smelled like a vendetta. I have thought that his intense focus on DCP was more of a vendetta than an analysis. Initially I didn’t think so, but as time went on I did. So I don’t agree with some of his methods, and I disagree that it’s likely the people he targeted have disappeared permanently into near-silence. I think that, instead, some of his behavior has given them a reason to feel martyred and persecuted.

But having said that, I must say this in regard to this portion of Scratch’s comments:

I don't know that I've ever been more disgusted in my entire life. Will Bagley noted rather recently, in his Mormon Expressions podcast, that he very much feels badly about the way he was treated by these figures in Mormon Studies. (He characterized them as "vicious.") I continue to believe that the Mopologists are the most poisonous and evil element in contemporary Mormonism--worse, even, in my view, than anything that the institutional Church does. Being persuaded to give up huge chunks of your time and money under false pretenses is one thing; doing this and then getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth during moments of enormous spiritual pain is quite another.

Now there are some details I would alter, if I were speaking. I wouldn’t say that this has disgusted me more than anything else in my entire life. I have experienced and/or witnessed things far more disgusting than the online behavior of some defenders of the LDS faith. So I would clip that sentence. I would also clip the sentence about online defenders of the faith being the most poisonous and evil element in contemporary Mormonism, worse than anything the institutional church does. I would remove “evil” altogether, but allow “poisonous” with some qualifications. I also think that the work the LDS church has done to ensure the continuation of the unjust second-class citizenry of homosexuals is far more poisonous than what online defenders of the faith do, and with a far larger impact. I also think that the continued obsession with sexual purity, which includes private acts, can have a devastating effect on the sexual development of its young people, and that also has a wider impact than online apologia. As well as the second-class citizenry of its female members, in terms of access to the right to perform sacred ordinances.

Having made those qualifiers, I must say this:

Being persuaded to give up huge chunks of your time and money under false pretenses is one thing; doing this and then getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth during moments of enormous spiritual pain is quite another.

I think this is a true statement, and captures what has bothered me about online apologia for years.

I lost any belief in Mormonism years before I got online. But the process of losing faith was long and incredibly painful for me. I understand it may not be for others, but I think it is long and incredibly painful for many. During that period of intense pain, I was still active in church, although the last year of my church membership I only attended once a month or so. However, by that time I had lost belief and was hanging on simply because I was afraid of the next step. So I think it’s fair to say that during the period in which I was wavering in faith, but had not totally given up my belief in the church, I was active. And reaching out, mainly to my family and members of my ward, and occasionally leadership. The problem was that the vast majority of members had no idea what I was talking about. They didn’t know Joseph’s polyandrous history, for example, which was probably the trigger for my questioning of the faith. There were only two members of my ward that seemed to know about this. One was a sister who told me, basically, that “even though the church may not be what it claims to be, it’s a good place to raise children.” That wasn’t what I was looking for. The second was a respected member who was regarded as a historian. He actually wrote a book about Nauvoo history that was supposedly (according to him) used as a text in some BYU classes. His son went on to achieve notable fame as an author of apologia. (I will not name him. He does not participate anywhere online as far as I know, and is a good person.) He was a rather intimidating fellow and had a reputation for being somewhat dismissive of sisters in particular, so calling him was an act of courage and desperation on my part. I nervously asked him “Have you ever read or learned anything about early church history that was hard to understand or deal with?” (this is a paraphrase, it’s been too long for me to remember my exact words, but that is the gist of it) His answer: no. That was it. No other questioning, like “Sister, is there something you’d like to discuss with me?” Just no. It was obvious he had no interest in further discussion. I was already half afraid of him, so I just thanked him quickly and hung up. But I have never forgotten how lost I felt. He seemed to be the one last lifeline to me, the one person I could think of who MUST have learned these things and yet still found a way to believe, which is what I was trying to do.

I don’t pretend to know why he just said “no”. I really don’t. As I said, he was not known for social graces and it was rumored treated his wife poorly. She certainly had a negative attitude toward men and power from what I saw, so maybe he gave her the reason for that. But his children, the ones I knew, were extremely nice. Even after I left the church they went out of their way to be friendly to me whenever they saw me. It was just him.

I felt hopeless after that. I felt like I must be the only person in the world who had lost faith in Mormonism due to its history. After all, didn’t most apostates leave the church due to personal sin? I had no personal sin, no desire to sin. Yet I was losing faith in the church. I was all alone.

I was so desperate to reach out to someone, anyone, who could help me, who could understand my pain, that I actually wrote to the author of an “anti-Mormon” book, an EV with whom I clearly disagreed on theological points. He kindly wrote me back and assured me that one day it would get better. That was what I needed to hear.

I have often wondered what would have happened to me had I been online during that period of wavering faith and doubts. No doubt I would have wandered onto a board like MAD, FAIR, or whatever it is called today. And I would have posted my problems with church history. I would have sounded like an apostate in disguise, because I would have brought up all the triggers. And I would have been treated poorly by the people I was looking to for help. I would have been told that it was due to my own laziness and negligence that I only now was learning these things. I would have been scolded for pretending to be the “defender of dead Mormon women.” Some may have called me a liar.

It would have been devastating. Far more devastating than the curt “No” I received from the historian in my ward. It would have been as if he said “no” and then followed up with a long diatribe about everything that was wrong with me.

I am so glad that I wasn’t online during that most painful period of my life. Really glad.

Now I know that believers will argue with this statement:

Being persuaded to give up huge chunks of your time and money under false pretenses is one thing; doing this and then getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth during moments of enormous spiritual pain is quite another.

They don’t think it’s under false pretenses, obviously. But maybe part of them can recognize why someone who no longer believes in the basic claims of Mormonism would see it as false pretenses. They don’t think that people who lose faith are getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth. They think they’re the ones doing the crapping and kicking.

But I ask them to remember this: sincere, decent people can be troubled by what they learn about early Mormon history. Those same sincere, decent people can turn around and ask questions, looking for help, in moments of deep spiritual pain. And maybe those questions are ones that “apostates” ask to provoke members. Maybe you’ve heard those questions a million times, and are sick and tired of online apostates disrespecting your faith.

But remember this: when you choose to react to those questions automatically assuming that a devious apostate is just trying to provoke you, and you engage in a diatribe about what’s wrong with the person asking that question, the truth may be that it is really a wavering member reaching out for help. And you’ve just crapped on him or her and kicked him or her in the teeth.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I think the problem with Mormonism is it's an all or nothing sort of religion. Its Truth Claim is that It's The Truth. You can't be "truthy" and still claim It's The Truth. No one wants to believe in Truthiness. When a member realizes there's a man behind the curtain it's a very difficult thing. It's also very threatening to someone who is very invested in the Church because, for whatever reason, it's not a value-added condition to reject Mormonism. I suspect the Brother who rejected Ms. Beastie's sincere plea was, and is, so invested in Mormonism to even discuss such things simply don't bring value to his life. She was summarily dismissed most likely as a defense mechanism rather than misogyny.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Some Schmo]

beastie, they can't possibly be sympathetic and compassionate when their biggest defense mechanisms are firing in rapid succession.

If they were genuinely confident in their world view, they could perhaps help those struggling, but they aren't, so they can't. It's hard to feed the hungry when you're scrambling for food yourself.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Beastie--

I think you've often misunderstood me because you tend to think that the best way to deal with Mopologetics is via civil debate. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but my sense is that you've been more interested in dealing with "substantive" issues, like whether or not the Book of Mormon took place in MesoAmerica. While I often find topics like that interesting, my focus has usually tended to be the way that Mopologetics is conducted. Some critics think that simply pointing out bad behavior is effective; others respond with more direct and vulgar insults. I believe that I found a wholly new approach.

[_beastie]

Schmo and Cam - you are certainly correct with some cases. In some believers, it is clearly defense mechanisms running amok.

Scratch -

I'm still not sure I understand your new approach. But yes, I think that civil debate, when possible, is the best way to deal with online defenders of the faith. The problem is that I have very little interest in the topic lately.

[_Simon Belmont]

Beastie--

I think you've often misunderstood me because you tend to think that the best way to deal with Mopologetics is via civil debate.

No, clearly the best way to do things is with 180+ years of attacks, tarring and feathering, extermination orders, vicious verbal and written assaults, and brutal violence.

While I often find topics like that interesting, my focus has usually tended to be the way that Mopologetics is conducted.

And mine has been the way anti-Mormonism has been conducted for the past 180+ years -- with violence, villainy, murder, hate, and endless written and verbal assault. How can anyone justify this?

Some critics think that simply pointing out bad behavior is effective; others respond with more direct and vulgar insults. I believe that I found a wholly new approach.

And what approach is that?

[_Some Schmo]

No, clearly the best way to do things is with 180+ years of attacks, tarring and feathering, extermination orders, vicious verbal and written assaults, and brutal violence.

The force of feeling persecuted is strong with this one.

When are you going to take responsibility for yourself and quit blaming your actions on critics, Simon? Just curious.

[_Buffalo]

No, clearly the best way to do things is with 180+ years of attacks, tarring and feathering, extermination orders, vicious verbal and written assaults, and brutal violence.

And mine has been the way anti-Mormonism has been conducted for the past 180+ years -- with violence, villainy, murder, hate, and endless written and verbal assault. How can anyone justify this?

And what approach is that?

It's hard to take this sort of wallowing in victimization seriously when Mormons killed more non-Mormons than vice-versa.

[_Darth J]

I see. So Mormon apologetics has contested against tireless violence, just not successfully (since successfully contesting against violence would prevent it).

I'm glad you finally understand. It's an ongoing contest, and as long as there are anti-Mormons behaving in the ways in which they wrote the book, there will be apologists to contest their actions and words.

So, now that we have come full circle, are you able to quantify the amount of violence against Mormons that Daniel Peterson has prevented and/or contested?

For example, in what way did Dr. Peterson's article suggesting that the Book of Mormon implicitly refers to Heavenly Mother help "contest" against mob violence against Mormons?

Again, no critics/anti-Mormons = no apologists. If you want apologetics in the LDS church to go away, you know what you and your kind must do.

For our viewers at home: Simon Belmont is begging the question here, since by referring to me as "you and your kind," he is equating my disputing the faith-promoting narrative on an internet message board (that nobody is forced to come to and read) with mobs in the 19th century who committed acts of violence against Mormons. He is further begging the question with the implicit premise that such anti-Mormon violence was solely because of Mormons' religious beliefs, as opposed to socioeconomic reasons.

What you mean by "non sequitur" is that you want to talk about evangelical Christian anti-Mormonism, not secular criticism of Mormon truth claims.

No. What I mean is bringing up Book of Mormon geography in this thread is completely off topic.

The reason it is not off-topic is because your underlying premise is that criticism of Mormonism is ultimately based on Satan and his minions fighting against the One True Church, as opposed to criticism of Mormonism being based on its making fantastical claims grounded in Bible fanfic and Joseph Smith's magical tall tales. It is the inherent implausibility of Mormonism that leads to criticism, and Mormonism is not the only magical thinking-based ideology that is subject to rational criticism.

I agree. Secular criticism of Mormon truth claims is morally neutral. Therefore, it is absurd to impugn immoral motives to discussing the overwhelming information from various fields of study indicating that Mormonism's truth claims are not credible.

The way in which it is "discussed" is often vile, offensive, and condescending -- people act this way, not information alone. Anti-Mormons wrote the book on this behavior over 180 years ago, and you guys are mad at apologists for taking a small cue from anti-Mormon behavior? That's laughable!

I don't know who "you guys" refers to. What is laughable is that Mormon apologetics has become its own religion of bastardized pseudo-Mormonism.

For our viewers at home: Simon Belmont is begging the question again by referring to "over 180 years" of "anti-Mormons." In the particular version of the First Vision account that the LDS Church decided to canonize, this time Joseph Smith says his vision was in 1820 (other accounts give his experience in other years). The canonized version of this history then has Joseph Smith talking about being persecuted for telling people about his vision. There is no corroborating evidence for this claimed persecution. "Over 180 years" implies earlier than 1830, the year that Joseph Smith's original church---of which the LDS Church is the largest sect by alleged number of members---was legally organized in New York.

You know that master's in philosophy you have that we hear so much about? At any point, did they explain that falsifiability is a principle that applies to claims of fact?

DJ, you're struggling here.

The LDS Church makes claims of fact which are not falsifiable.

The LDS Church also makes claims of fact that ARE falsifiable.

See, the thing is that I didn't try to justify the mobs that attacked early Mormons or anything like that. I am just saying that it is f*****g stupid for you to try to equate disputing the claims of the LDS Church on the internet with tarring and feathering the early Mormons. And it is also f*****g stupid for you to try to lump all questioning of the teachings and practices of the LDS Church with rabid Ed Decker types.

You mean like you and the other anti-apologists do the exact same thing? In other words, when a perceived wrong is done to... I don't know... Meldrum, you believe it is a problem with all LDS apologetics.

I don't particularly care about the tabloid aspects of Mormon apologetics. I am simply stating that Mormon apologetics has become its own religion, which is a bastardized pseudo-Mormonism. Much like you cannot serve God and Mammon, you cannot save your faith in the LDS Church by trusting in the heretical theories of Mormon apologists.

Speaking of grasping at straws, to what extent do you feel that Mormon apologists are justified in contradicting the teachings of the Church in order to (purportedly) defend it?

You're welcome to begin a thread on this off topic subject. I won't be participating, but I am sure the rest of the anti-Mormons here will love to laugh and guffaw with you on such a thread.

I did begin a thread on that on-topic subject. You left out the link when you quoted me, but it's back there in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15412&start=84

You also attempted to respond by turning up the noise to signal ration rather than disproving my case: that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute consistently contradict official LDS teachings. It was right around the time that Wiki Wonka told you I was not quote mining that you bowed out.

The reason that thread is on-topic to this current thread is that your riposte to Scratch is to yet again assert that Mormon apologetics is a necessary response to "anti-Mormonism," your interpretation of which equates satirizing the Church on a voluntary internet message board with the Carthage Greys. Pointing out that yours is a faulty premise is not off-topic. Mormon apologetics does not "defend" LDS doctrine. It creates its own dogma and then pretends that faith in apologetic theories is equivalent to faith in actual LDS doctrine.

P.P.S. Simon, did the existence of this message board prevent you from going to church today?

Yes.

Look, if you are so addicted to this message board that you are skipping church to read it, that is your own fault.

As long as anti-Mormons believe that attaching a Book of Mormon to a rope and dragging it down the street yelling profanities during General Conference is a good way of addressing the Latter-day Saints, I'll be there to confront their work.

1. What you are talking about is not apologetics. It is vigilantism.

2. Lest we forget your selective wrapping yourself in the Constitution, much like you have a constitutional right to believe in the LDS Church, as well as a constitutional right to believe that apologetic theories are the same thing as real Mormonism, the protestors to which you refer also have a constitutional right to the freedom of expression you are describing.