To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Kishkumen »

The conversation regarding the Bokovoy-Peterson exchange continues over at "Sic et Non." Young Smoot has shown up to defend himself against Bokovoy's claim that Smoot prefers aggressive apologetics.

Smoot indignantly denies he ever brought up "aggressive apologetics":

Young Smoot wrote:I said positively nothing about "aggressive apologetic tactics." And I said positively nothing about moving away from or returning to said apologetic tactics. Bokovoy is reading into my words something that isn't there. He's constructed a straw man out of my comments.


Bokovoy's assessment of Smoot's perspective was prompted, of course, by Smoot's reference to Jeremy Runnels and John Dehlin as two representatively appropriate targets of apologetic efforts. Smoot, however claims that he is all about the issues, not about the personalities. This means that it is necessary to start with the names of the people who are getting the issues all wrong and then track their activities on Facebook, so that you can cherrypick and distort their words in order to paint them in the least flattering light possible--which is exactly what our own Rollo Tomasi showed that Greg Smith, MD did to John Dehlin in his unfortunate personal attack on Dehlin.

You see, being aggressive is not just about calling your opponent a cotton-headed ninnymuggins. It is also about misrepresenting that person's words and actions so that they are marginalized or even cut off from their own community. If John Dehlin ought to be excommunicated, that is for the Church to determine through its own ecclesiastical process and resources. It is not the job of a Brigham Young University journal to seek volunteers in amassing creepy dossiers on them and then cobbling together a disingenuous portrait of them in order to ensure that everyone, particularly the person's bishop and stake president, has the "right" idea about the sinner. Last time I checked, that mechanism was not in the leadership handbooks or, more importantly, the D&C.

For a very skilled analysis of Greg Smith's hit piece on John Dehlin, go here: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=689282#p689282

Now, Smoot is not stupid. Far from it. Maybe he is forgetful, I don't know. It may also be the case that he is incapable of recognizing that Greg Smith's novella-length eisegesis of John Dehlin is aggressive. We have all seen how the apologists go ballistic when they feel someone here has gotten it wrong. Somehow, however, it never occurred to anyone that misrepresenting Dehlin through carefully edited quotes taken out of context might be offensive or deemed aggressive. Above all, Steve Smoot, who in raising the names of John Dehlin and Jeremy Runnels could have never imagined that he was referring to "aggressive apologetics." Perhaps he is just a very literal kind of guy and needs help imagining how others might feel.

Or does he? Could it be the case, as one might surmise from Smoot's own language, that he wants to have his cake and eat it too?

Young Smoot wrote:It is, in my opinion, ludicrous to think we can help people with faith crises the most optimally without taking the bull by the horns, and directly addressing and confronting the accusations being made and the issues being struggled with. Sometimes that might require a little more "aggression," if only because it means aggressively confronting and exploding anti-Mormon falsehoods or exaggerations.


So, by golly, sometimes it is necessary to get aggressive. Now, Young Smoot would have us think that this simply means countering misinformation with appropriate zeal, but a number of Smith's savvier readers remain unconvinced. Greg Smith's mangling John Dehlin's words is certainly more than simply correcting errors. His claim that Laura Compton is deceived by Satan is not simply a correction of errors she made in her argument. Misrepresenting or labeling your target is, indeed, aggressive.

Then Smoot takes a turn in his argument that I find most misleading:

Young Smoot wrote:Thankfully, the Brethren have had the wisdom not to entertain any such appeasement policies, and have instead opted to take the bull by the horns with the new Gospel Topics essays. The essays are exactly what the doctor ordered when it comes to helping people who struggle with these issues. And they are, in a large degree, exactly the opposite of what the "new direction" and many of its proponents want to do when it comes to apologetics.


I have to hand it to Smoot. The young man can craft a truly skillful deflection.

Let me ask this, how many of these new topics essays focus on the words and actions of individual, living members of the LDS Church? Is there an essay on LDS.org about John Dehlin's doctrinal errors and suspect behavior as revealed from quotes of his Facebook postings? Correct me if I'm wrong, guys. If you can find such a thing, then I think we'll be forced to concede that the Mopologists are right in line with the Brethren in the practice of appropriately addressing incorrect information about the LDS Church.

Yeah, they really aren't.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _moksha »

Young Smoot wrote:Thankfully, the Brethren have had the wisdom not to entertain any such appeasement policies, and have instead opted to take the bull by the horns with the new Gospel Topics essays.


Which in turn makes life easier for apologists, when they have less stuff they are compelled to deny.

There is so much mud out there waiting to be crawled through. All the Maxwell Institute needs to do is unleash the apologists.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Uther
_Emeritus
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:57 am

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Uther »

It appears that one side effect of the "mind-gymnastics" that Smooth is conducting is the loss of logic.

Uther
About Joseph Smith.. How do you think his persona was influenced by being the storyteller since childhood? Mastering the art of going pale, changing his voice, and mesmerizing his audience.. How do you think he was influenced by keeping secrets and lying for his wife and the church members for decades?
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Young Smoot wrote:I said positively nothing about "aggressive apologetic tactics" . . .

Maybe he didn't then. . .

Sometimes that might require a little more "aggression," if only because it means aggressively confronting and exploding anti-Mormon falsehoods or exaggerations.

. . . but he sure did now.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

I don’t have many, if any, answers. But I know that attack-style apologetics has driven people away from us, and drawn very few, if any, people to us. Perhaps the most poignant lesson on the need for all of us to be meekly introspective, instead of vainly accusatory, comes from Matthew 26:21-22. How accurately the author of those verses transmitted what might have actually been said cannot be known, but the spirit of the message is undeniable. In those verses, Jesus declares, forlornly we imagine, while he and his 12 disciples eat their final Pesach feast together, that one of them will betray him. In what must have been a shocking and heart-dropping utterance, we read further that the disciples did not jump up and point fingers at one another, declaring, “See, Jesus, I always knew that Andrew was up to no good. He’s always snickering behind your back. I’m so glad I’m not like him. I’m so glad that I’m privileged and favored and that I’ve received my second anointing, and that I’m friends with the old FARMS crew.” Instead, the disciples immediately looked to themselves first, and introspectively asked, “Is it I”?

The sense of “Is it I?” is a quality that has been sorely, obviously lacking in the old apologetics ethos. To the old guard, “Is it I?” never seemed to have come into their “scholarship” ethos. Rather, we got volume after volume of “It’s you! It’s always you! You’re an anti-Mormon even though you claim to be an active, believing Mormon! You’re an apostate according to our definition, even though our definition also means that Joseph, Brigham, Wilford, et al. were apostates! You can never understand what we understand because you don’t have a Ph.D. in whatever-social-science! You’re either with us, or you’re our enemy! You teased John Gee about his combover and Dan about his massively obese weight, so you’re forever banned from being our friend! Aargghh!”

I am glad to see that godly introspection in Mormon Studies is finally getting the official stamp of approval from the faction that actually runs the Church.

In other developments, the telescope I ordered arrived yesterday. It’s a reflector telescope with a six inch aperture on a Dobsonian base. The telescope, like all Newtonian reflectors, functions as a “light bucket”, gathering and concentrating the dim light of the cosmos so it can be usefully magnified with a good eye piece. So, after work, I put together the base and got the scope mounted, the whole while thinking I would have to wait until the weather clears up before actually using it. But, around 11:00 p.m the clouds broke, the temperature plummeted, and the night sky opened up. I went outside with the scope and quickly found the Moon, about hallway illuminated by the sun. Even with the standard 25mm low magnification eyepiece that comes with the scope, the moon looked like I could reach out and write my name in the dust with my finger. You can see individual mountain ranges and the inside features of craters.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Markk »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:I don’t have many, if any, answers. But I know that attack-style apologetics has driven people away from us, and drawn very few, if any, people to us...


I still have to ask the question...who the heck are these guys talking too? Who reads their "works?" Too me it is just a circular "profession" of folks debating each other with nobody really listening...oops, I just described everyone here also?

What's the difference between KG and BC Space going at it on politics...or David B. and DCP going at it over what style Mopolgy to assert.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Zadok
_Emeritus
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:38 am

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Zadok »

I can see how, what do we call them, "Mopologists", can attack the CES letter and it's contents, which becomes an oblique attack on Runnels. Aggressively discussing and defending the issues raised in the CES letter gives Mopologists a form of passive/aggressive action against Runnels.

John Dehlin is a slightly different beast however. Because he doesn't raise a specified set of issues. Attacking Dehlin is more like playing apologetic whack-a-mole because the framework of Dehlin's activity examines a constantly changing set of issues. Here, it is required that you make a direct frontal attack on Dehlin, (which they did).

This comes with push back and a certain off-putting tone which is offensive to main line 'turn-the-other-cheak' Mormons. An aggressive frontal attack in the case of Dehlin has the unintended consequence of focusing attention on him personally and his work secondarily.

As long as they are speaking in generalities, I don't see how then can recognize, and strategize the subtle differences in their efforts. In one case it will be not enough, and in the other case it will be too much.
A friendship that requires agreement in all things, is not worthy of the term friendship.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Kishkumen »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:I don’t have many, if any, answers. But I know that attack-style apologetics has driven people away from us, and drawn very few, if any, people to us. Perhaps the most poignant lesson on the need for all of us to be meekly introspective, instead of vainly accusatory, comes from Matthew 26:21-22. How accurately the author of those verses transmitted what might have actually been said cannot be known, but the spirit of the message is undeniable. In those verses, Jesus declares, forlornly we imagine, while he and his 12 disciples eat their final Pesach feast together, that one of them will betray him. In what must have been a shocking and heart-dropping utterance, we read further that the disciples did not jump up and point fingers at one another, declaring, “See, Jesus, I always knew that Andrew was up to no good. He’s always snickering behind your back. I’m so glad I’m not like him. I’m so glad that I’m privileged and favored and that I’ve received my second anointing, and that I’m friends with the old FARMS crew.” Instead, the disciples immediately looked to themselves first, and introspectively asked, “Is it I”?

The sense of “Is it I?” is a quality that has been sorely, obviously lacking in the old apologetics ethos. To the old guard, “Is it I?” never seemed to have come into their “scholarship” ethos. Rather, we got volume after volume of “It’s you! It’s always you! You’re an anti-Mormon even though you claim to be an active, believing Mormon! You’re an apostate according to our definition, even though our definition also means that Joseph, Brigham, Wilford, et al. were apostates! You can never understand what we understand because you don’t have a Ph.D. in whatever-social-science! You’re either with us, or you’re our enemy!


Of all the things, Everybody Wang Chung has written here, this is, in my opinion, the best bit of all.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Maksutov »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
In other developments, the telescope I ordered arrived yesterday. It’s a reflector telescope with a six inch aperture on a Dobsonian base. The telescope, like all Newtonian reflectors, functions as a “light bucket”, gathering and concentrating the dim light of the cosmos so it can be usefully magnified with a good eye piece. So, after work, I put together the base and got the scope mounted, the whole while thinking I would have to wait until the weather clears up before actually using it. But, around 11:00 p.m the clouds broke, the temperature plummeted, and the night sky opened up. I went outside with the scope and quickly found the Moon, about hallway illuminated by the sun. Even with the standard 25mm low magnification eyepiece that comes with the scope, the moon looked like I could reach out and write my name in the dust with my finger. You can see individual mountain ranges and the inside features of craters.


Congratulations on the scope! Point that puppy at the Great Nebula in Orion and at the Milky Way...it will give you great pleasure. The direct experience of the vastness and inhuman beauty is a great shifter of perspective. :smile:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: To Be Agressive Or Not To Be Agressive

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

DCP seems to think that he's stumbled upon the ideal way to argue in favor of classic-FARMS:

My consistent message has been that a wide variety of approaches are appropriate and necessary, and I oppose any declaration that any honest scholarly methodology or approach is in principle out of bounds, either ethically or theologically.


In other words: he's trying to appropriate the "liberal" affection for "diversity"--"See? We favor a diverse range of approaches! It's actually you liberal, secular closet-apostate 'New MI' people who are close-minded." The thing is, he calls for "honest scholarly methodology," and the flat-out fact of the matter is that gossip-mongering, smear campaigns, and ad hominem attack just aren't "scholarly."
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply