Positive Resolutions for LDS Apologetics of Tomorrow

[_Yoda]

Kish and I had the following conversation on the latest Dehlin Drama thread:

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is, however, another audience which has been totally ignored. This is the audience, which, as Kish pointed out, LDS apologists hold more spiritual responsibility for than they may currently realize. This audience consists of earnest members who have conflicting feelings regarding doctrinal tenets and/or who are seeking the truth regarding conflicting accounts of Church history. These people are not anti-Mormons. These people are faithful Latter-Day Saints who are desperate to maintain their faith, and find answers.

It is this audience that needs to be addressed with a completely different voice...a more compassionate voice.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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 don't know if I agree, Liz. I think the main subscribers (or "audience") of something like the FARMS Review is other LDS--these are the main people who read the journal.

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

I'm sure it would be really helpful--and in keeping with the recent requests from Calmoriah and Allen Wyatt--if you would supply a few examples of instances where apologists have displayed a "negative and shrill attitude." If you don't give specific examples, they are likely to assume that you don't have a real point.

[_John Larsen]

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.

[_stemelbow]

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.

You make a good point here. I've felt the same thing after reading a few pieces--at least a little overstated.

[_Bond James Bond]

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.

Mormon critics don't have to "pick apart" the Church. The Church's historical claims fall apart like a house of cards in a gentle breeze. On the message boards I think critics get sucked in a bit by the repetitions of arguments and have to justify the argument with a response lest it go unanswered. If the debate was being held in real life the critics could often just fold their arms and smirk.

The audience of FARMS is obviously faithful members looking to bolster their faith or people interested in reviews and summaries of religious books they might want to read.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Like at the best Theist apologist and emulate their tactics.

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

[_Aristotle Smith]

Something like this post might be a good approach:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... ologetics/

Especially this part:

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.

Not only would this produce more irenic Mormon apologetics, it would produce better arguments. I think FARMS has produced some silly defenses in the past, but they cling to those because arguing for a particular position has made it the only position they will consider. To give just one example of this, I think many of the supposed ancient near eastern parallels in the Book of Mormon fall into this camp.

[_bcspace]

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

I think the negative and shrill attitude of anti Mormons typically far outweighs that of any combination of LDS apologists to say nothing of their straw man arguments. This is born out in the numbers of converts we get directly off anti Mormonism.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Like at the best Theist apologist and emulate their tactics.

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

I think Like = Look

[_Yahoo Bot]

Of course, the anti-apologists, at least on this thread, assume that apologists are all the same. They aren't.

You got your 18 year old geek inactive LDS kid thinking of going on a mission who's pumping out nonsense from his keyboard.

You got your inactive, divorced father with nothing better to do.

You got your ponytailed, foul-mouthed vulgar 40-something guy who may not be all that much of a church goer.

You got your excommunicated or resigned posters who still feel affiliation for the church and post.

You got your Catholics who attend LDS church services once a month.

Nobody's telling them what to do, and they often pop off and are rude.

So, if you're going to attack the monolith, examples of rude behavior might help, and then it might help if you connect them to grand vizier, Dr. Peterson.