Bryce Haymond on Daniel Peterson: Humble Apologist

[Guest]

I thought some of you might enjoy apologist Bryce Haymond's blog post about "humble apologetics," which features a video of our friend, Prof. P., discussing this very same concept. It is interesting to hear the Good Doctor hold forth on this timely topic.

[_Kishkumen]

You might also enjoy Bryce Haymond's stirring use of a President Theodore Roosevelt quote to characterize the heroism of Prof. P.:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

(Theodore Roosevelt. Excerpt from the speech “Citizenship In A Republic” delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910)

ETA: Oh, wait, that was actually a quote that Prof. P. used to characterize apologists like himself. My mistake. I think this is a fine example of humility--to depict yourself as heroic.

[_Bob Loblaw]

ETA: Oh, wait, that was actually a quote that Prof. P. used to characterize apologists like himself. My mistake. I think this is a fine example of humility--to depict yourself as heroic.

It's almost sad that, rather than turn inwardly and reflect on their behavior, they simply blame an anti-Mormon conspiracy for the negative impressions people have of FARMS and apologists. Do they really think their behavior has been above reproach? The reason they are seen by many as attacking, arrogant douchebags is because they have been attacking, arrogant douchebags on many occasions. Whatever "good work" they've done is overshadowed by the angry crap.

[_Kishkumen]

It's almost sad that, rather than turn inwardly and reflect on their behavior, they simply blame an anti-Mormon conspiracy for the negative impressions people have of FARMS and apologists. Do they really think their behavior has been above reproach? The reason they are seen by many as attacking, arrogant douchebags is because they have been attacking, arrogant douchebags on many occasions. Whatever "good work" they've done is overshadowed by the angry s***.

Hey, Bob-

I have no doubt that we only make such comments because we lack the grand aspirations to reach for the stars and whatnot. Who here can say that he has not been moved by the indefatigable Droopy or bcspace, MDB's resident apologetic crash test dummies?

[_Cylon]

They even go so far as to determinedly conclude that it is Mormon apologetics, in fact, that is having a negative influence on the Church, which you’ll notice is completely backwards from its true meaning and purpose. Indeed, they are saying that the defenders are now essentially those doing the damage, which is almost comical in its twistedness.

I agree. It is comical. What's even more comical is how un-self-aware apologists can be about it.

I actually have no idea if apologists damage more people's testimonies than they help, and I doubt that anyone else really knows, either. I just know that when I read apologetics, it usually strengthens my conviction that the church is not what it claims to be, because the arguments are so bad. I don't claim that my experience is universal, but I've heard enough people say the same thing that I'm pretty sure I'm not just an outlier. Even my believing wife doesn't buy half of the apologetic arguments that we discuss.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Hey, Bob-

I have no doubt that we only make such comments because we lack the grand aspirations to reach for the stars and whatnot. Who here can say that he has not been moved by the indefatigable Droopy or bcspace, MDB's resident apologetic crash test dummies?

Don't insult crash-test dummies. At least they know when not to open their mouths.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I agree. It is comical. What's even more comical is how un-self-aware apologists can be about it.

I actually have no idea if apologists damage more people's testimonies than they help, and I doubt that anyone else really knows, either. I just know that when I read apologetics, it usually strengthens my conviction that the church is not what it claims to be, because the arguments are so bad. I don't claim that my experience is universal, but I've heard enough people say the same thing that I'm pretty sure I'm not just an outlier. Even my believing wife doesn't buy half of the apologetic arguments that we discuss.

Apologetics works for people who need to believe and will take any argument, no matter how poorly constructed, as something to prop up their belief. Those who aren't satisfied with the mopologist arguments or who dare question the scholars at FARMS are the ones who get attacked and ridiculed. Those are the people who are finding their way out of the church. in my opinion, the apologists don't give a damn about questioning and struggling members; they're not the target market.

[_Cicero]

For me it's not so much the relative strength of their arguments as much as their tone. Read anything written by Kevin Barney or Teryl Givens and compare that to something written by DCP, Midgley or Hamblin.

"Humble" is not exactly the first word that comes to my mind when reading the latter group. Smug, elitist and condescending are the first words that come to my mind. They nearly always seem inclined to spend more time addressing the faults of the questioner rather than the question itself.

[_Bob Loblaw]

For me it's not so much the relative strength of their arguments as much as their tone. Read anything written by Kevin Barney or Teryl Givens and compare that to something written by DCP, Midgley or Hamblin.

"Humble" is not exactly the first word that comes to my mind when reading the latter group. Smug, elitist and condescending are the first words that come to my mind. They nearly always seem inclined to spend more time addressing the faults of the questioner rather than the question itself.

+100

Do they really not understand this?

[_Drifting]

They nearly always seem inclined to spend more time addressing the faults of the questioner rather than the question itself.

This ^

This is mopologetics...