Bob Loblaw wrote: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.
Yeah, the church as a whole for the most part just relies on its discouragement of questioning at all to head people off. I often wonder what the response would be if I brought up some of the pillars of apologetic faith in my Gospel Doctrine class. Somehow I don't think people would react well if I tried to convince them that Indians are not, for the most part, descended from Lamanites, or that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the Egyptian scrolls that Joseph said he was translating.
Bob Loblaw wrote: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.
Yeah, the church as a whole for the most part just relies on its discouragement of questioning at all to head people off. I often wonder what the response would be if I brought up some of the pillars of apologetic faith in my Gospel Doctrine class. Somehow I don't think people would react well if I tried to convince them that Indians are not, for the most part, descended from Lamanites, or that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the Egyptian scrolls that Joseph said he was translating.
I've done that. You get invited to have a chat with the Bishop for being disruptive.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Cylon wrote:Yeah, the church as a whole for the most part just relies on its discouragement of questioning at all to head people off. I often wonder what the response would be if I brought up some of the pillars of apologetic faith in my Gospel Doctrine class. Somehow I don't think people would react well if I tried to convince them that Indians are not, for the most part, descended from Lamanites, or that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the Egyptian scrolls that Joseph said he was translating.
I've done that. You get invited to have a chat with the Bishop for being disruptive.
Tobin wrote:I've done that. You get invited to have a chat with the Bishop for being disruptive.
Yes! that's exactly what happens when you venture 'off piste' from the lesson manual.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Cylon wrote:Lol! Maybe I should try it just for kicks!
But that means you have to stay for at least two hours of meetings. Not worth it.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Cicero wrote: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.
Very well put, Cicero (and why wouldn't it be with a name like that?). Many people have mischaracterized my opposition to certain apologetic activities to be an opposition to all apologetics. This is not at all the case. I have no problem with a skilled defense of the faith, and I have pointed to various apologists, including the ones you mention here, as practitioners of apologetics that I think work well and do a real service, or, at the very least, do no harm. What I have taken exception to is the savaging of those who write books, speak, post online, or what have you, in ways that attracts the ire of certain apologists. John Dehlin is just the latest prominent example, but many people have experienced such unwelcome attention from angry apologists to a lesser, or less prominent, degree.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Very well put, Cicero (and why wouldn't it be with a name like that?). Many people have mischaracterized my opposition to certain apologetic activities to an opposition to all apologetics. This is not at all the case. I have no problem with a skilled defense of the faith, and I have pointed to various apologists, including the ones you mention here, as practitioners of apologetics that I think work well and do a real service, or, at the very least, do no harm. What I have taken exception to is the savaging of those who write books, speak, post online, or what have you, in ways that attracts the ire of certain apologists. John Dehlin is just the latest prominent example, but many people have experienced such unwelcome attention from angry apologists to a lesser, or less prominent, degree.
No problem here with apologists who do good work without all the name-calling and derision. Maybe this whole episode is a sign that cooler heads realize that hotheads don't win converts or retain members.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Bob Loblaw wrote:No problem here with apologists who do good work without all the name-calling and derision. Maybe this whole episode is a sign that cooler heads realize that hotheads don't win converts or retain members.
I hope so.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote: No problem here with apologists who do good work without all the name-calling and derision. Maybe this whole episode is a sign that cooler heads realize that hotheads don't win converts or retain members.
Maybe, but the hotheads obviously aren't going away. I was initially surprised at how easily these guys were ignoring the fact that GAs (at least at Pres. Samuelson's level) were involved in DCP's dismissal . . . until I remembered how easily apologists ignore all kinds of statements from prior GAs that don't fit their world view. Maybe their smugness arises from the fact that they know all too well that they are better at mental gymnastics than anyone else out there.
