Positive Resolutions for LDS Apologetics of Tomorrow

[_Yoda]

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.

But maybe there is a disconnect with apologists as to why LDS members are reading the journal. Maybe the consensus has been that the LDS members who are reading the journal are those who are curious as to how apologists are defending the faith, or fighting the anti-Mormon view.

Maybe it would be wise for LDS apologists to actually direct their remarks to those who are struggling, as Dehlin has done.

I easily admit that I am not as well-read on FARMS as you and Kish are. However, like you and Kish, I have been a victim of the, shall we say amateur apologists on the FAIR/MAD message board (i.e. Will, Crockett, Pahoran) who labeled me as a troll and an anti when all I was attempting to do was earnestly ask questions. I think that we can all agree that this is the type of attitude that has to stop.

It is obvious that Dehlin tapped into a real segment of faithful LDS who are earnestly seeking answers. They are not lazy or stupid. And they love their faith just as much as the apologists do, and have just as high stakes involved in remaining active.

I think that the first step is acknowledgement that this audience segment exists, and has specific needs.

[_Chap]

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.

Of course a community of any kind, including a religious community, is very unlikely to maintain its social coherence by the mere fact that its members all believe in certain factual propositions. One much more important reason why people remain active members of a social group may simply be that they have never been outside it, and cannot conceive a life in which they were not members. That may well apply to people born into a close-knit religious community such as that of Utah Mormonism.

I understand too the role of rituals, broadly understood, in cementing group membership through symbolic affirmation of commitment to membership. Almost all religious groups have more or less codified rituals, and regular performance of these helps members to feel that they are safely in the fold - as well as increasing the investment of time and emotional energy that binds them into the group.

But ... even if the affirmation of factual propositions may not always be important in the life of the group (though they do seem to be a bit important in Mormonism - "I know the Book of Mormon is true, I know that Thomas S. Monson is a living prophet" and so on), there are in many religions factual propositions that may not be denied without the individual risking either expulsion or a fundamental sense of alienation. Thus, for instance, few Muslims would want to say they were still Muslims if they felt intellectually impelled to deny the unity or existence of Allah, or the status of Muhammad as his prophet, even if a life without mosque attendance and the rituals of daily Muslim life would be hard to imagine. After all, it is by the public affirmation of those propositions that one becomes a Muslim.

So if a member is 'troubled', because they no longer believe that the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient text translated by Joseph Smith, or because they doubt whether Smith actually saw God, or that the Book of Abraham is anything other than fiction,or even that there is a God at all, they are surely not foolish for being so troubled. How can one make them untroubled? Perhaps by either:

1. Convincing them that the propositions that they doubt are in fact true. That seems to be the apologists' job, and I don't see how that job can be an easy one, or one conducive to low anxiety or aggression levels, given the obvious implausibility of the factual claims that have to be defended.

2. Convincing them that they can conscientiously remain as Mormons even if they disbelieve in the factual propositions referred to. The problem here seems to be that the resultant fact-free religion appears to be one that does not much resemble that proclaimed by historic or present day church leaders, or one that would be recognized by the average 'untroubled' church member if it was put before them explicitly.

So, while I can see why someone might want to keep doubting church members away from most LDS apologists who post on this and other boards, I cannot see how one can answer such a person without, in effect doing what apologists do, which is to attempt a defense of a group of factual propositions that are ultimately not likely to seem convincing to most people if the evidence is objectively examined.

[_Fence Sitter]

It is obvious that Dehlin tapped into a real segment of faithful LDS who are earnestly seeking answers. They are not lazy or stupid. And they love their faith just as much as the apologists do, and have just as high stakes involved in remaining active.

I think that the first step is acknowledgement that this audience segment exists, and has specific needs.

Liz part of the problem, to me at least, isn't acknowledging these people exist per se, it also means the apologist must accept that some people might not get the same answers faithful members are supposed to get. When the system promises to reward those who are sincere with a confirmation of the truth, any one who questions the system or its results, by definition, is not sincere.

[_Kishkumen]

So if a member is 'troubled', because they no longer believe that the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient text translated by Joseph Smith, or because they doubt whether Smith actually saw God, or that the Book of Abraham is anything other than fiction,or even that there is a God at all, they are surely not foolish for being so troubled. How can one make them untroubled? Perhaps by either:

1. Convincing them that the propositions that they doubt are in fact true. That seems to be the apologists' job, and I don't see how that job can be an easy one, or one conducive to low anxiety or aggression levels, given the obvious implausibility of the factual claims that have to be defended.

2. Convincing them that they can conscientiously remain as Mormons even if they disbelieve in the factual propositions referred to. The problem here seems to be that the resultant fact-free religion appears to be one that does not much resemble that proclaimed by historic or present day church leaders, or one that would be recognized by the average 'untroubled' church member if it was put before them explicitly.

So, while I can see why someone might want to keep doubting church members away from most LDS apologists who post on this and other boards, I cannot see how one can answer such a person without, in effect doing what apologists do, which is to attempt a defense of a group of factual propositions that are ultimately not likely to seem convincing to most people if the evidence is objectively examined.

Well, I don't think I have made myself sufficiently clear here. What I am saying is that, in a sense, I think John Dehlin has some things exactly right. One of those things is that you have to listen to people where they are, accept that their concerns are serious, and don't insist that they come to your point of view. This means, that, unlike the binary you present up there, my view is that you have to understand that above all you don't want people to leave feeling like the community is now their enemy. It isn't good for the person, and it isn't good for the community. There has to be room for an amicable divorce.

Such a thing already does occur, but there are enough people who are upset that I think it makes it worthwhile for the Church to explore the idea of some kind of pastoral effort to deal with troubled members. Those whose concerns can be addressed may be preserved, those who just can't stay will be able to leave without the same anger that causes them to become anti-Mormon.

As things stand, we have apologists who try to persuade people of the facts, and when they see it isn't working, they sometimes turn on the person. I recall hearing one of the apologists appear on Dehlin's show, who in that environment was saying, "hey, I know there are tough issues, but I still think it is worth staying." He wasn't throwing out judgmental, apocalyptic pronouncements about how you had to get with the program or be hewn down in the last day and so forth... I think we all know a couple of folks who prefer that stupid approach.

I thought to myself, "if only every apologist were able to be like that guy."

So, in other words, if you demand that the only worthwhile endeavor is to try to get them back and then dropkick them when they don't cooperate, no, it is not going to be worth it. But if you imagine the possibility that there may be other benefits to helping people transition more gently, to leave without thinking that the group they just left is awful, then I think you have something.

In a way, this is like the homosexuality issue. As things stand, it is difficult for the Church to do anything with the gay Mormon community except to tell them to be celibate and hang in there. At the same time, they try to acknowledge that even those gay people who leave have active family members, and there are those enlightened folk in the leadership who are beginning to see that they risk losing not just the gay person, but the entire family, if they are too unsympathetic. Even if they don't lose the family, it is bad to tear families apart and look like the kind of organization that does such things.

Now, I am not coming down of the LDS Church here, but I think that similar calculations could be made with the possible cost of having people leave ticked off. What happens to their friends and family? What kind of continued stress is it on the family unit to have a rancorous divide within the unit that is supposed to be the core of the Gospel? I would think that they might try to find ways to minimize the suffering of all and look at it as a real bonus for the Church when they succeed. Success can come in different forms:

1) The member went through a rough patch, but proper care, attention, and some explanations addressed their needs such that they stay fully believing and fully active. Family members are not at risk of leaving the Church.

2) The member transitions into a different kind of relationship with the LDS Church. Family harmony is generally preserved, although there are some trials in an adjustment period. In the end most of the family remains firmly within the community.

3) The member decides to leave, but is happy enough to have others in the family stay. Most of the rest of the family remains positive about the family member who has left, and no one is fulminating on a blog or discussion group about how stupid, awful, and cultish the Church is.

4) Obviously there will still be those who are angry and very vocal about it, but there will be fewer of them, and the Church will have a less vociferous ex-member community. It will be more post-Mormon than anti-Mormon.

Personally, I think this is worth a shot. I see it as entirely consistent with the missions of the Church, Christian principles, and the Church's institutional self-interest. I think it is a winner all around.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

But maybe there is a disconnect with apologists as to why LDS members are reading the journal. Maybe the consensus has been that the LDS members who are reading the journal are those who are curious as to how apologists are defending the faith, or fighting the anti-Mormon view.

Maybe it would be wise for LDS apologists to actually direct their remarks to those who are struggling, as Dehlin has done.

Yeah, you are probably right, provided that this is something they want to do, which is debatable. Those who know Louis Midgley well seem to believe that he is genuinely interested in the "war." Actually helping wavering members is something that gets presented as a cover story. I think that Dan Peterson has shown evidence here and there that he is genuinely interested in helping struggling people, but I think that he's sympathetic to Midgley's views as well, which means that the larger question is: Which view will win out?

I easily admit that I am not as well-read on FARMS as you and Kish are. However, like you and Kish, I have been a victim of the, shall we say amateur apologists on the FAIR/MAD message board (i.e. Will, Crockett, Pahoran) who labeled me as a troll and an anti when all I was attempting to do was earnestly ask questions. I think that we can all agree that this is the type of attitude that has to stop.

Yeah, and I would strongly urge you to read some of the articles in the Review, as I think it would give you a much clearer sense of why Dehlin felt so alarmed at the prospect of a "hit piece," and why many of us (myself, Joe Geisner, and others) thought DCP was being disingenuous when he claimed that it was "just a critique."

I once posted an excerpt of Dan Peterson's "Text and Context" for you, and when you actually read it, you said "That's awful!" or something along those lines. I know you're friends with Dan and want to keep it that way, but I still think you need to spend some time reading the actual reviews so that you have a better sense of the sorts of behavior you're trying to address. I'd definitely recommend the following as a kind of jumping-off point:

Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic"
DCP's "Text and Context", "Questions to Legal Answers," and "The Witchcraft Paradigm"
Gee's review of Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magical World View"
Stephen Robinson's review of "The Word of God"
Midgley's "Prying into Palmer"
Tvedtnes's "Shades of Darkness" (this is actually an attack on Dr. Shades--yes: an attack on Dr. Shades appeared in the FARMS Review)

I admit that I've often been baffled at some of your remarks concerning the apologists, Liz. It seems like you are totally in the dark as to why a number of us have problems with their brand of Mopologetics. I don't mean any offense by this, and really appreciate your admission that you just haven't read very much, but I think it would be a real eye-opener for you, and it would help you to articulate the ways that things could be improved. Just for what it's worth.

[Guest]

I think there are a number of things going on here. I don't know how well I'll be able to sort them out when I should already be in bed but I live an incautious life so here goes.

Mormonism, having moved from a sociologic cult in the earily 1900s to a sect now wants to become a church in the sociologic sense. Forgive me for using the currently antique language by I think the tripartite model works better than the dicothomous New Religious Movements/Established Religions frame work here.

I think it is important to remember some cults have been perfectly willing to remain cults. Spiritualism makes no pretense of become mainstream and is quite happy as it is. Shakers knew they were dying out and thought that was just fine, times had changed, it was important to them individually and as a group to not change even if it meant the end. You could place the FLDS and other fundamentalist, polygamous Mormons in that continuim too, we're small but we're right and if we die it's God's will but we won't because it isn't God's will.

But the LDS church part of Mormonism decided that it was better to switch than fight. But after the Great Accomodation which in archaic sociological terms moved the LDS church from a cult to a sect, it had the choice of remaining a sociologic sect, or keep accomodating and taking its shot at the riches, power and prestige of being a church in the sociologic sense. And why not, it benefited from the Great Accomodation and the move from cult to sect?

I think that move from sect to church is what we are in now. Shipps said this would be a painful move because more people would come to know the quirks of the church and go after them as humans are prone to go after strangeness. Mitt's run in the Mormon Moment is both a manifestation of this shift as well as a cause of it. And the quirks can now be on full display thanks to the internet.*

But this Mormon passage also comes in the internet age. 30 years ago one could anticipate that public communication would change but one could not tell how. However, with the change upon them, Mormon early adopters took to the wild wild West of the internet and Mormonism got DCP. The internet was full of snark and wild accusation and DCP fit right in and relished it.

I don't think Mormonism planned for DCP, he just happened to be among the first to use internet 1.0 and when the church needed someone, well, there he was all fiesty and already posting.

The problem is the Mormon internet passage just happens to coinside with the movement from sect to church and Mitt's Mormon Moment. DCP is not a church person, he's a sect person at best. Midgly is more like a cult person with gigantic boundaries agaisnt "the world." Ask yourself, if the church brought back polygamy, who would be more likely to embrase it first, DCP or Midgley? They share a sense of high social boundries, otherness, persecution and twisted inferiority that is typical of cults and sects. They are both more than willing to strike down any Mormon who too publicly dips his/her toe in that outside word. But Midgley more so.

But what the church needs right now on internet 2.0 is a church person not a cult or a sect person. They just don't have one.

However, DPC is playing out his sect, internet 1.0 role in a world of Mormonism with internet 2.0 that desperately wants to, and probably is becoming a church in the sociological sense. And its not working all that well. DCP, in his way, is as behind the times as Bott was.

On the other hand, as any personnel manager can tell you, you can't just fire everyone. So people need to be moved and cajoled and sometimes it's not pretty. Bott goes on a senior mission, Midgley is probably too old to worry about (sorry Lou) and the most visible problem is DCP.

They've managed to get him out of internet 1.0 and into a blog and a DesNews column. That's an improvement, Edelman Worldwide would be proud. And Edelman is a church move not a sect move. But although DCP is now onto internet 2.0 he is still a sectarian not a church man and it is still a problem.

So when someone, admittedly not DCP, comes up with a hit piece on Dehlin, its a sect move, if not a cult move. And its also an snarky, say whatever you want, internet 1.0 move. But this is a church trying to be a sociological church not a sect in an Edelman burnished internet 2.0 world. The GA's involved know this regardless of how much or how little Dehlin had to do to call their attention to the current issue.

But still, some, most? of the Mopologist crowd are living in a sect/internet 1.0 world and you see it playing out on MD&D and to some extent here. They're not with the "we're a church" in a polished internet 2.0 world where one of our members can run for president. They don't know how to be burnished church men. It doesn't help the church but those Mopologists don't get it yet. And a church in the sociological sense in an Edelman burnished internet 2.0 world would find a better way to present itself on the web.

*Edited in Sat May 12, 2012 10:54 pm

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lulu,

That's an incredibly insightful post. I enjoyed it very much.

[_Kishkumen]

Very insightful and persuasive, indeed.

[_Chap]

Well, I don't think I have made myself sufficiently clear here. What I am saying is that, in a sense, I think John Dehlin has some things exactly right. One of those things is that you have to listen to people where they are, accept that their concerns are serious, and don't insist that they come to your point of view. This means, that, unlike the binary you present up there, my view is that you have to understand that above all you don't want people to leave feeling like the community is now their enemy. It isn't good for the person, and it isn't good for the community. There has to be room for an amicable divorce. ....

OK, I see what you are talking about - the help offered to 'troubled members' would not so much be designed to retain them as believing members - which would involve either dealing with their doubts about the church's truth claims, or persuading them that they could remain members while denying those truth claims - but would be directed to enabling them to complete their journey out of the church without more social and emotional trauma than is inseparable from that journey.

Paradoxically, treating those about to become ex-members with kindness and tolerance would probably do something to decrease the overall rate of membership loss. I suspect that it won't happen, though. While all religions have truth claims near or at their core belief structures that are vulnerable to questioning, those of Mormonism are so very vulnerable, and so very easy to undermine, that the CoJCoLDS can only react by going to the other extreme, and demanding explicit and unquestioning belief in those claims by its members. Once a doubt or question is allowed as legitimate, the risk of collapse of the whole structure is just too great to be tolerated.

So I suspect we shall continue to see doubt amongst members being stigmatized as being the result of sin, laziness, or lack of commitment - anything but stemming from real problems of belief. Although the apologists we see online carry this to often ludicrous extremes of rage and abuse, they are just taking to its logical conclusion the church's basic approach to such matters. That approach is mandated by the 21st century predicament of a church founded by a group of 19th century religious entrepreneurs whose approach may have been successful in their own time and place, but is fundamentally incompatible with the internet age.

[_LDSToronto]

If LDS apologetics focused on facts instead of motives, the field would gain some respect.

H.