Mormon Stories’ New Campaign

[Moksha]

And these claims that John Dehlin is being "unfair", unethical, a tax cheat, a sexual predator, a charlatan .. are getting pretty tiresome. But keep throwing dirt. It won't stick.

So are posters supposed to ignore orders that come down from Church HQ? Nay, they should bruise their shoulders 70x7 in efforts to push along and undermine the Adversary!

[Kishkumen]

So, this probably is off-topic and needs its own thread, but I'm too embarrassed, because I feel stupid asking. What ARE neo-apologetics?

That crap came along much later than when I was in. Even the historical issues weren't really a big thing in the late 90s. Or at least they weren't for me. All I've ever known "apologetics" to be is FARMS and all that. I never got into it. I remember vaguely wondering why, if this stuff really happened, then why isn't it the history of the Americas that we're taught in school? But I didn't have the depth, or the education at the time, to wonder any further than that. It wasn't an issue for me, so I didn't seek out apologetics.

How did apologetics evolve to become "neo"? What makes them "neo"? How is it any different? I saw Givens on the PBS special, which I thought was really well done. It made me nostalgic. I thought he represented Mormonism well, but he didn't sound like what I would have thought was an apologist.

Post-FARMS, post-Maxwell coup apologetics that are not about attacking but more inoculation and showing the “richness” of Mormonism. Basically it is the form of apologetics I was always in favor of. It is also more pastoral in that it is supposed to be compassionate to those who doubt. FARMS was more of a “you must be the problem if you have a problem” approach.

[Philo Sofee]

I thought "Neo"-Apologetics was the Matrix...

[Doctor Scratch]

So, this probably is off-topic and needs its own thread, but I'm too embarrassed, because I feel stupid asking. What ARE neo-apologetics?

That crap came along much later than when I was in. Even the historical issues weren't really a big thing in the late 90s. Or at least they weren't for me. All I've ever known "apologetics" to be is FARMS and all that. I never got into it. I remember vaguely wondering why, if this stuff really happened, then why isn't it the history of the Americas that we're taught in school? But I didn't have the depth, or the education at the time, to wonder any further than that. It wasn't an issue for me, so I didn't seek out apologetics.

How did apologetics evolve to become "neo"? What makes them "neo"? How is it any different? I saw Givens on the PBS special, which I thought was really well done. It made me nostalgic. I thought he represented Mormonism well, but he didn't sound like what I would have thought was an apologist.

Post-FARMS, post-Maxwell coup apologetics that are not about attacking but more inoculation and showing the “richness” of Mormonism. Basically it is the form of apologetics I was always in favor of. It is also more pastoral in that it is supposed to be compassionate to those who doubt. FARMS was more of a “you must be the problem if you have a problem” approach.

Exactly. It's confusingly named because it's not really "new." Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens are both people who embody what "neo-apologetics" is generally about, and they've been engaged in it for decades. I would argue that the approach has its origins in the so-called "new Mormon History" from the 1970s under Leonard Arrington, but there were two "branches" of apologetics that emerged from that: John Welch and DCP's Mopologetics, and the "neo-apologetics" (if you want to call it that) that was, as Kish says, more about compassion and helping people to manage the truth in a gentle way.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Thank you for the explanations. So, do I understand this correctly?

"Traditional apologetics" (or "Mopologetics") focuses on things like trying to prove the Book of Mormon is literally true, written on gold plates by Moroni, and later translated by Joseph Smith. That's where we get things like "horses might have meant tapirs" and "Joseph was too uneducated to write such a long, complex story in such a short period of time," etc. (To the latter, I've got one word for them: NANOWRIMO.)

Traditional apologetics is what I was familiar with, but that held little interest for me (FARMS, etc). It's what the CES Letter so effectively destroyed.

"Neo-apologetics" accepts that the Book of Mormon is not literally true (??), or at least de-emphasizes the importance of literalism, and instead focuses on the spiritual value of the church and its doctrine. It tries to diffuse the faith blowouts that happen when people discover all the problems with church history and the literal interpretation, and tries to offer an alternative for members so that the church still works for them despite all the stuff in the CES Letter.

Do I have that right? If so, I have to agree with Kish that I don't see why Dehlin, or anyone else, would have a problem with that. Dehlin claims that he's not trying to lead anyone out of the church, but simply opposes the lack of "informed consent." So it seems like the "neo" approach would be a natural fit for him. Teach people the truth in such a way that they can give informed consent without feeling like they have to give up their faith, right?

I don't see any reason to be a dick about it, waving the truth in people's faces and implying they're idiots for believing in gold plates and Nephites and Lamanites, etc.

Maybe I should go back and watch the Yelling At Empty Chairs episodes to see what his gripe was all about. I'm not sure about Givens, but I think Bushman still claims to believe in the literal interpretation, which may strike Dehlin as fundamentally dishonest and giving cover to those who perpetuate a dishonest version of American history and church history.

I don't know that I would agree with that. Most, or maybe all, religions have some nutty tenets, but the literal truth of those tenets is emphasized to varying degrees. My partner grew up Protestant, and I don't think he ever felt like it was extremely important that he affirm Christ's LITERAL resurrection from the dead.

When we first met, I was a little nervous about telling him I grew up Mormon. Would he think I was a crazy cultist who believed in polygamy and magic underwear? Then at some point, religion came up, and he confessed that he had never really bought into the whole "Jesus died on the cross and three days later he rose from the dead" bit.

It was time to take the plunge and tell him. I said, "Well, you know where Jesus went those whole three days, don't you?"

[Kishkumen]

The interesting thing is that Givens believes the Book of Mormon is ancient. Bushman probably does too. Grant Hardy was the first scholar-apologist—much to my pleasant surprise—to publicly argue that it should be acceptable not to believe in an ancient so much as spiritually true Book of Mormon. He received a little pushback on that from Mopologist types.

I just think JD has little actual tolerance for people who really support people staying in the LDS Church. I used to believe that he was fine with people staying, but I believe his underlying goal is to convince people to leave. He just won’t be open and upfront about it.

I am ambivalent about JD right now. I still value a lot of what he has done and some of the episodes he has, but I no longer buy his neutrality on church membership. And, honestly, I think that’s too bad. The Mormon Stories brand used to be about people telling their own Mormon story. That’s what I loved about. But JD has spent too much time with the dark side and steep costs of the LDS Church to remain in that place. He has decided to advocate against the LDS Church.

I get it, in a way. I don’t really care for the LDS Church. So many things about it I don’t like. The harm and damage are there. It is very flawed and needs reform. That said, the world is a messy place and there aren’t many clubs I really want to belong to. But I won’t advocate that people leave the LDS Church. I hope people find their best path, and I think they can decide those things for themselves.

[Lem]

Id like to hear the sister missionary’s side of the story. Assuming she’s a real person. Because it doesn’t matter what other people think the value of the question is. The person with the question is the one to assign the level of importance. It’s personal.

That's what bothers me about this story. As it is told, it focuses on abruptly stopping the questioning by asking an odd question. We don't know how the Sister missionary ultimately responded, we only know that her momentary confusion is used to make a point about how questions don't matter. To me, that is an abuse of a very difficult and intimate process. Why focus on that? It seems to me that the only reason to focus on it is to imply that these questions people have ultimately don't "matter." That's a very dismissive approach to take, but one that seems focused on keeping members in, not on forwarding truth. I'm not a fan of Dehlin's approach, but castigating him while giving the comments of other participants a lot of slack seems to be focused on degrading Dehlin, not on understanding the overall situation.

[Kishkumen]

I am glad I am not not castigating Dehlin, then. If he wants to change his brand to one of fighting Neo-apologetics, that’s his business. Whether our household continues to donate to him as he does so is our business. I don’t donate to any Givens efforts, nor will I. Still, I find Givens apologetics relatively anodyne and eirenic compared to Mopologetics, which is not infrequently toxic.

Donating to RFM is looking like a better option for me.

[IHAQ]

Id like to hear the sister missionary’s side of the story. Assuming she’s a real person. Because it doesn’t matter what other people think the value of the question is. The person with the question is the one to assign the level of importance. It’s personal.

That's what bothers me about this story. As it is told, it focuses on abruptly stopping the questioning by asking an odd question. We don't know how the Sister missionary ultimately responded, we only know that her momentary confusion is used to make a point about how questions don't matter. To me, that is an abuse of a very difficult and intimate process. Why focus on that? It seems to me that the only reason to focus on it is to imply that these questions people have ultimately don't "matter." That's a very dismissive approach to take, but one that seems focused on keeping members in, not on forwarding truth. I'm not a fan of Dehlin's approach, but castigating him while giving the comments of other participants a lot of slack seems to be focused on degrading Dehlin, not on understanding the overall situation.

Givens is basically using an anecdote of a struggling member as a humble brag.

[Kishkumen]

Givens is basically using an anecdote of a struggling member as a humble brag.

That’s an interesting and somewhat plausible suggestion, but I think he has a lot more substantial things to brag about, humbly or otherwise. So, I don’t believe, after some reflection, that this is a humble-brag, or was intended to be such. Honestly, I see him reporting a moment between two people struggling with some really tough questions. A moment of earnest searching and release. Givens may ask, genuinely and with some frustration, “but what is the significance of this question?” The honest response of the inquirer is, “You know, I guess it isn’t really that significant, after all.”

An academic like Givens is NOT going to see this as something to brag about. I think it is a genuine story that relieves some of the tension and sorrow members of the LDS Church are experiencing these days as they see loved ones leave the LDS Church.

A tendency here is to see these kinds of things through a jaundiced lens. According to this view, Givens must lack compassion and disregard the seriousness of the problem. But when you read his writings, you really don’t get that sense at all. At least I don’t. He earnestly believes, and he wants to share those things that give him reason to have faith. These things frustrate a lot of people who are going down a kind of epistemological evolution toward non-belief or who have already arrived at a place where the things Givens talks about no longer even count as reasons to believe anything. They place themselves in the position of this sister missionary, when perhaps she was not in that place at all.

I have been in moments with people I am close to that I could have perhaps used to pry them out of the LDS Church. I could see that they were in a vulnerable place but had not really shifted to a new “paradigm.” After a few instances in which my honest questions and thoughts ended up destroying a person’s faith without me intending to do so (I only know because they told me my words had this impact long after the fact), I am much more careful about what I say around people who are in that place. My guess is that a number of people might think I am nuts not to help lead friends and family out of the “cult,” but I have never really believed that the LDS faith is a cult, any more than I believe the Amish community is a cult.

If I see a person who is struggling with their faith, I ask them to weigh the value their faith has had for them over their lives. Usually, they end up returning to the place of healing that they were already long enjoying. If people are truly unhappy in Mormonism, I want them to find out for themselves that this is the case, and I want them to leave because it does not work for them. I do not want to be the person who destroys another person’s solace and hope. At the end of the day, we all will find our own sources of solace and hope, be they philosophical, psychological, mythological, or otherwise. I am not firmly convicted of the idea that my answers are THE answers, and so I read this story accordingly. I think Givens did a decent thing, and, unless I have better evidence to suppose Givens was uncharitable with this sister, I will continue to be charitable with him.