Positive Resolutions for LDS Apologetics of Tomorrow

[_Kishkumen]

I guess where I differ from most people on this thread is that I am increasingly convinced that this issue should not be framed as one of trying to reform LDS apologetics at all, but rather to somehow convince people to separate those whose primary focus is attacking external critics from dealing with troubled members at all.

The problem begins with the way that the issue is framed. If people continue to see certain factual claims as the sole basis of LDS religious community, then it only seems natural to send troubled members to the same folks who defend against attacks against the factual claims of the Church. Yet we know that in a sense it is rather covenants and rituals that stand at the center of LDS religious community, not a set of factual propositions.

Once members get dragged into arguing with apologists about factual propositions, then they may begin to fall into the role that anti-Mormons play in attacking Mormonism's factual claims as they struggle to try to make sense of things that don't always seem to make sense. Apologists can react to this by treating them like anti-Mormons, and then "game over."

So, I really don't think an apologist, as they are haphazardly "trained" now, are a very good resource for dealing with the problems of struggling members. The argument over facts is naturally contentious and oppositional. Struggling members may think they need to suss out those facts, and I am not saying there is absolutely no room for that, but they need so much more, and that more they need, which is almost always neglected, can be much more important.

Even if every struggling member cannot be "saved" in the sense that they ultimately decide to be reconciled to full participation in the LDS community, the struggling member who is shown compassion, understanding, a spiritual response, and a more holistic set of tools, is far less likely to become bitter about it all and speak of the Church disparagingly after they leave.

I would think that this would be of some value to the LDS Church.

[_Kishkumen]

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

You are, of course, framing the problem in such a way that no one can feasibly come up with a solution so that the ultimate result will be to preserve the status quo. I am not interested in that.

The current culture of apologetics is what it is. John Dehlin did what he did partly because that wasn't working for everyone. Now the response of the apologetic community seems to be one of attacking Dehlin, who has popped off pretty angrily as of late (and I understand why).

As you say, though, not everyone feels the same way about these things. Not only do they not accept the idea that Daniel Peterson is the evil emperor, but they don't particularly want to approach everything the same way he, Bill Hamblin, or Louis Midgley do. We will leave that for the foul-mouthed middle-aged men with pony-tails.

So I say, forget about 'em. Hey, they are there doing what they do if anyone wants to know what Joe Bob thinks about chiasmus or what have you, but when it comes to addressing the pain of loss of faith and questions, they are ill equipped, through no fault of their own, to deal with that. Personally, I think that struggling members should be able to turn to other people who are.

That's what I am saying.

[_Kishkumen]

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

Thanks for starting this thread, liz!

[_Yoda]

There are LDS apologists out there who do a good job of showing compassion and respect for struggling Saints. Don Bradley and David Bokyvoy come to mind. I think that if more apologists adopted their attitude, and actually gave inquirers the benefit of the doubt, it would make a huge difference.

[_Yoda]

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

Thanks for starting this thread, liz!

You are very welcome, Kish!

[_Lucifer]

LDS apologists are doing a wonderful job as is! Please, for everyone's sake (alright, for my sake), don't try to change them.

\m/

[_CaliforniaKid]

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.

To some degree, I think you're right. The secular apologists have alienated a good number of potential converts with their strident rhetoric. But, of course, this doesn't justify the LDS apologists in making the same mistake.

[_Aristotle Smith]

There are LDS apologists out there who do a good job of showing compassion and respect for struggling Saints. Don Bradley and David Bokyvoy come to mind. I think that if more apologists adopted their attitude, and actually gave inquirers the benefit of the doubt, it would make a huge difference.

David Bokovoy has said he no longer is doing apologetics. Don Bradley also doesn't seem interested in apologetics. Any other examples come to mind?

[_Fifth Columnist]

There are LDS apologists out there who do a good job of showing compassion and respect for struggling Saints. Don Bradley and David Bokyvoy come to mind. I think that if more apologists adopted their attitude, and actually gave inquirers the benefit of the doubt, it would make a huge difference.

David Bokovoy has said he no longer is doing apologetics. Don Bradley also doesn't seem interested in apologetics. Any other examples come to mind?

I think Brandt Gardner is a good example. I don't find his apologetics persuasive, but he always comes across as a gentlemen.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Brandt Gardner is a good example. I don't find his apologetics persuasive, but he always comes across as a gentlemen.

Kevin Barney is involved in FAIR. He's cool.

I also really like Kerry Shirts, and I don't find his rebuttals of critics the least bit persuasive, but that doesn't change my sense of his goodness and my sympathy for his spirit of adventure and discovery.