Apologetics Rocks Bloggernacle
Noted Bloggernacle contributor Clark Goble has kept the apologist/anti-apologist fire burning with his recent Millennial Star post Discussing the Gospel in a Scholarly Way. The fight between DKL and DP was one attraction of that thread, but to my mind the key to the controversy was revealed when an anonymous commentor described the problem with “apologetics” — and, indeed, with discourse in general — in this discussion.
This anon commenter described the following as a characteristic of LDS “apologetics”: “[w]hen winning the argument or proving someone wrong becomes the motivation rather than arriving at truth.” Matt Elggren, another frequent bloggernacle participant, seemed to agree with anon’s observation and stated that “[t]his is apologetics and this is the reason why it fails…it is contrary to spiritual currency and the ideal of the community it seeks to defend.” From this it seems that some critics of LDS apologetics might find that including an ad hominem rhetorical prong in arguing with anti-Mormons (i.e. pointing out their background and possible motivations for publishing what they have published — a relevant endeavor) is de facto uncharitable and therefore illegitimate and, somehow, adverse to the search for truth.
Could it be that some or many of those who view FAIR and FARMS with disdain share a similar view of apologetics when speaking of LDS apologetics? If so, could the problem stem not from the activity of FARMS or FAIR but from a misunderstanding of apologetics more broadly? On Clark’s thread, Mark Butler provided a number of formal definitions of “apologetics” in response to this observation. Providing dictionary definitions of “apologetics” was subsequently dismissed as a valid approach (“Dropping dictionary definitions on this thread is neither helpful no a convincing argument.”).
In a recent email exchange with Roasted Tomatoes, RT added the following as a definition of apologetics (if I may be so bold as to share a quote from a private email): “apologetics is seen as the branch of theology that tries to work out connections between faith and reason.” This sentence, in my mind, much more accurately conveys the meaning of “apologetics” than does the anonymous poster’s observation on Clark’s thread. It also approximates the dictionary definitions provided by Mark B.
Clark rightly pointed out a clear double-standard with regard to the criticism of LDS apologetics, unless those criticizing FARMS and FAIR authors for supposed ad hominem rhetoric are willing to criticize ex and anti-Mormons for their frequent use of ad hominem rhetoric against faithful authors and against Church figures such as Joseph Smith himself. The typical ad hominem claims, for example, that JS was a charlatan, a fraud, a womanizer, etc., are seen as merely investigating the historical record or as a sincere search for truth, but defending against such claims by inquiring into the background of the author of such claims is decried as illegitimate.
This topic of LDS apologetics is oft discussed in the Bloggernacle and will continue to be so discussed. In fact, I would venture that it qualifies as a major topic or meta-theme in the Bloggernacle. Not only does it sponsor numerous threads directly addressing it, but it also underlies a large number of threads that do not necessarily address apologetics itself. These numerous/repeated direct treatments of LDS apologetics, which normally turn into a denigration of the activity of LDS apologetics and, ever defending against such attacks, the responses of pro-LDS-apologists, are fine despite their repetitiveness since the Bloggernacle has a fluid audience, subject as it is to Google searching.
Of the many such discussions, one at the Spinozist Mormon comes to mind as an example of this phenomenon. That thread speculated about whether “FARMS folk” and “hard-core apologists in Peterson’s mold” would be delighted at the emergence of kitsch memorabilia and Mormon “relics” based on the approach these “FARMS folk” take in defending the faith. That is, because it is the habit of FARMS authors to defend Mormonism’s truth claims against the vituperative attacks of ex and antimos (is this really an illegitimate endeavor?), Christian Cardall speculated that “I would not be surprised if hard-core apologists in Peterson’s mold were among those most delighted by these modern celebrations of the transient Nephite artifactual irruptions into the real world that accompanied Mormonism’s birth.” On that thread, Dan Peterson, the ultimate bugbear of LDS apologetics (“LDS apologetics”, by the way, is supposed to invoke eerie music), was again being criticized for his dismissal of some of Vogel’s wilder speculations about JS’s alleged fraud.
My response to CYC’s criticisms of DP and FARMS on that occasion also seems relevant here:
Incidentally, you [CYC] seem to share Dave’s (of DMI) view that FARMS review of books rhetoric, such as that you quoted above in response to Vogel’s book, is somehow illegitimate when the material to which it is responding is often just as dismissive of LDS truth claims. Somehow, it is legitimate for Vogel but not for Peterson. What Peterson wrote in the Vogel review makes valid substantive points against Vogel’s assumptions while at the same time being funny. It is hard to understand what exactly is wrong with that. At least FARMS reviews are attempting humor and not hatred. (emphasis added.)
The problem for the Bloggernacle, in my view, is not that LDS apologetics are repeatedly bashed (and, in response, defended) around here. As I said, since not everyone stumbling across LDS blogs through Google has read every Bloggernacle thread on why LDS apologetics is bad, it merely opens them up to the history of the debate and provides links.
The problem for the Bloggernacle in these situations is something else, from my view as a faithful Latter-day Saint. That is, my observation has been that for all the noise about the depravity of LDS apologists, no one is responding to the actual counterpoints raised by Dan Peterson and his “ilk.” Instead, the conversation is over because DP and some others at FARMS or FAIR attempted to be funny while also exposing weaknesses in the anti-Mormons’ arguments.
For example, in the major Bloggernacle scuffle about LDS apologist Louis Midgley’s response to RT’s response to Midgley’s response to Palmer’s response to Mormonism, no one that I saw actually addressed the difficulties for Palmer’s perspective raised by Midgley in that response, which, as I noted on John Dehlin’s thread about the topic, include the supposed Golden Pot similarities and White Salamander connections, the supposed use of a different Hoffmann translation and the facts surrounding the Carlyle translation, and the coincidence of the Paul Pry pseudonym. The Paul Pry psuedonym should be of the least concern for those following Palmer out of the faith based on anything written in Insider’s View. The points raised by Midgley in that response piece, which echo the points he raised in the FARMS Review piece that RT criticized, are intellectually valid points to make and are in the nature of an undertaking in text-book intellectual history. The closest anyone came to addressing the substance of these counter-arguments that Midgley raised was when John Dehlin just brushed them aside stating that “I don’t feel as though Grant Palmer’s overall mosaic/picture has been discredited at all.” But really, many details discredit it, not least of which is the Carlyle translation issue.
This is typical of flame wars about LDS apologetics in the Bloggernacle. Why is this? Everyone is merely attacking those writing the counter-arguments based on their identity as LDS apologists and the substantive defenses are not addressed. Is the problem the blog medium? Since many of the substantive points raised by these LDS apologists are also not directly addressed in print publications by the anti-Mormons against whom the LDS apologists are defending with their publications, it would seem that the answer is not found in the nature of blogging. Is there no answer to the substantive points and counter-arguments raised by the LDS apologists? If that is the case, then how exactly is that of net detriment to the broader LDS community?
Honestly John, it would help if you got your facts straight before reporting.
The anon poster was not attempting to restate the meaning of apologetics nor did I adopt this as the definition of the word. I simply used his complaint about what kinds of thinks are not conducive to the spirit to further an idea I was developing about the down-side of apologetics.
Do me a favor and reconsider your reporting. In the mean time…I’ll continue reading what I expect to be a fine and otherwise well thought-out post..
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 12, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
Matt, thanks for the note. With all due respect, after quoting the anon’s definition that I provide above, you wrote “This is apologetics and this is the reason why it fails…it is contrary to spiritual currency and the ideal of the community it seeks to defend.” I did not intend to mis-report anything in this post. Your statement just got me to thinking, is all.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
By the way, Dave of DMI’s name came up in the blockquote in the post. To be fair to him, I should also provide his response to that from the Spinozist Mormon thread:
I just didn’t want anyone to get the wrong idea about Dave.
Apparently, as indicated by comment # 1 above, the sentence I quoted from Matt on Clark’s thread might also not fully represent his view of what is wrong with LDS apologetics but I am sure that he will clarify that himself.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
Glad I could help.
Context is important to accuracy, however. So, in what way exactly was Anon’s comment anything more than a complaint and an observation…let alone a definition that I supposedly adopted?
This is important to get clear because as I’ve read further in this post it’s clear to me that you’re using this misconstrual of anon’s comment as the crux of your post.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 12, 2006 @ 9:29 pm
And just to help things along, here’s the full text of the only two comments left by the anon poster:
…followed by…
Where’s the “attempted a restatement of the meaning of “apologetics†for this discussion.” I supposedly adopted?
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 12, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
Matt, you might be right that anon did not mean the sentence to be his or her definition of apologetics but rather a “complaint” about what anon viewed apologetics to be. But what got me to thinking was when you wrote “This is apologetics . . . .” with reference to that exact sentence. This is what makes anon’s “complaint” seem to be a restatement of what LDS apologetics is and why it is bad.
Even if we take the aspect out of this discussion that you endorsed a complaint as a definition, this post still stands. I am fully willing to edit a few sentences to avoid the implication that you believe that anon’s sentence is the definition of LDS apologetics, although I would argue that I am not the only one who understood your comment on Clark’s thread in this way.
To add to your insight into context, I would suggest that the first part of the comment in question adds to the understanding I have expressed in this post. You quoted a sentence from anon and said, “This is not the definition of apologetics, though it is part of what apologists may do to support their work.” Then, you quoted the sentence from anon that I have highlighted in this post and said “This is apologetics . . . .” The context of this assertion coming after the contrary assertion in the same comment enforced the connotation that you were rejecting one statement by anon about what apologetics is in favor of another of anon’s observations of what apologetics is.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Matt, thank you for posting some of anon’s prose from Clark’s thread here. In the shared interest of more complete understanding and context, I will also provide your entire comment 93 from Clark’s thread as it relates to the prose you quoted from anon above:
You wrote
***
93 Just to be clear then, what Drive By Poster refers to in [81] with:
This is not the definition of apologetics, though it is part of what apologists may do to support their work.
But it is the second part:
This is apologetics and this is the reason why it fails…it is contrary to spiritual currency and the ideal of the community it seeks to defend. And the main point is that, though its methods are often times totally valid in the larger world, they undermine the community they seek to defend. (emphasis added)
***
It can’t hurt, I suppose, for anyone not inclined to follow the link to this comment to reproduce it here. Matt, give the word and I will rework my own prose in this post to eliminate the implication that you endorsed a restatement of “apologetics” for use in your arguments against an LDS apologetics.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
No, in context of all other comments made by me, I endorsed the complaint as an example of apologetics, particularly as contrasted with what apologetics is not. There’s a difference though you are free to draw your own conclusions of course.
Again, here’s the full text of what I wrote:
Now, I agree that if one is predisposed to believe that I am in fact asserting that anon’s statement was the very definition of apologetics…that this can in fact be construed. Nevertheless, it would be a misconstrual…and in fact quite incnosiderate of the context…in short: it’s arguably a somewhat short reach to the conclusion that I was attempting to define a word rather than point out an example…but it is in fact a reach.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 12, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
I have now edited the first four paragraphs of this post to address Matt’s concerns that he was being misrepresented. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I am providing the original paragraphs here for comparison and to provide context about what the argument in these first eight comments has been about:
I hope that the new prose in the main post adequately resolves any concern Matt might have had about accuracy or context and that reproducing the original here will satisfy anyone with concerns about changing the content of main posts mid-stream.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
Dude. While I speculated that those interested in evidence accessible by secular methods might be among those interested in commemorations of tangible relics, there is no way that the claim that my post “made accusations of what one of the agendas of FARMS and LDS apologists supposedly might be (to promote kitsch memorabilia)” is even a remotely plausible reading.
I was trying to be funny while making a point, the way Dan Peterson was in the passage I quoted, but I also expressed some misgivings about my doing so both in the post itself and in the comments.
I sincerely hope readers go read that thread and our exchange in comments for themselves, and not blindly accept the characterization here.
Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — July 12, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Here’s hoping your discussion doesn’t devolve the way mine did. Best of luck.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 12, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
CYC, I was using your post as an example of the phenomenon of how LDS-apologetics-bashing serves as a meta-theme that not only motivates direct treatments in blog posts but also underlies other posts as well. It is interesting that you state that you were only trying to be funny but in the same post blast DP for being funny in his critique of Vogel (in which DP intertwined the humor with valid substantive criticisms).
I also hope that all readers will go to your thread and read the entire thing. It is a very good example of an expression of an LDS-apologist-revulsion that is taken for granted in many areas of the Bloggernacle. That is why I used it here. And the reading is indeed plausible. Your point in writing that post was, as you stated, “I wonder what the FARMS folk think of these newly-forged relics.” After setting up DP for criticism by quoting a few sentences from his remarks on Vogel, you conclude that DP-types would probably be delighted in the emergence of this category of kitsch memorabilia. You wrote of “FARMS folk” and “hard-core apologists in Peterson’s mold”.
And, to be fair, in the comments to that post, you stated that you “didn’t make a definite assertion” about FARMS being delighted about the kitsch relic fad; rather, you merely “said [you] wouldn’t be surprised” about it if “FARMS folk” were happy about it. You were good-natured in response to the comment I quoted in the main post here and told me “But you may well be right that many FARMS folk would roll their eyes at these commemorative relics.” Nothing in this post here implies otherwise. It was based on the content of your main post.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Actually, I see your point CYC. It is not a plausible reading that you made an “accusation” that one “agenda” of LDS apologists is “to promote kitsch memorabilia.” You make a great point and it appears I overstated my case with some strong prose. Therefore, instead of writing
I should more appropriately have written
Thank you for noting this overstatement. I am making the change now.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
John, thank your for the fair hearing and the adjustments…though I did rather like seeing my name up there as opposed to “another … participant”.
Just one more quibble: anon really did not make his/her comment as a complaint about apologetics, but rather about discourse in general. This is quite obvious from the comments so you might want to revise this point as well…
…though I imagine that this only further dilutes the sensational beginning to an otherwise reasonable post.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 12, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
I have now made the further changes you feel were needed to represent your views accurately.
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
…er, reasonable from an apologetics point of view that is.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 12, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
So, anyone interested in the substance?
Comment by john f. — July 12, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
“Clark rightly pointed out a clear double-standard with regard to the criticism of LDS apologetics, unless those criticizing FARMS and FAIR authors for supposed ad hominem rhetoric are willing to criticize ex and anti-Mormons for their frequent use of ad hominem rhetoric against faithful authors and against Church figures such as Joseph Smith himself.”
Contrary to what many believe, not all ad hominems are bad. For instance, those who attempt to prove Joseph Smith’s message by attacking his personal character are indeed speaking to the point. Those who attack the anti’s for having some kind of character flaws are not. They are not the same thing at all.
A couple month ago I posted on the problems which I see with apologetics. I basically argued that apologists are not really engaged in an honest argument because even if all of their arguments and evidence which they use to support their conclusion turned out to be demonstrably wrong, they would still stick to their guns. Thus, they aren’t really arguing, in this case, about the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s claims and Mormonism in general, but are instead disingenuously arguing about the justifications which can or cannot be brought in favor of such a position.
In response to my post, Clark noted that my definition of apologetics wasn’t entirely accurate, and I concede the point. However, this does not change the fact that the things which I criticized apologists for doing are indeed prevalent among religious apologists. Whether my definition of apologists is accurate or not is beside the point. If my definition applies to an apologist, then he should address the issues which I bring against him, and if my criticisms do not apply to him, then good for him. I’m simply not talking about him, but I am talking about MOST apologists which I have come across.
I conclude the post by providing a number of question which a person should ask themselves about any religious debate:
1. Do both parties modestly acknowledge that they might possibly be wrong?
2. Is there anything that could possibly be presented that would convince them that they are wrong and achieve their willing assent?
3. Do both parties accept the burden of rejoinder by properly engaging the arguments of the other side in an honest manner with the intent of furthering the argument?
4. Do both parties seek agreement by way of cooperative argumentation?
5. Do both parties actively seek to understand the other side’s position in order to properly engage it?
6. Do both parties accept the burden of proof in that they must given reasons for their positions, reasons which might themselves be called into question?
7. Does either party immodestly assume the strength of presumption?
Comment by Jeff G — July 12, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
Jeff G wrote:
Again, not the definition of apologetics but definitely an example of a serious problem within apologetics. Glad to see that I and Anon are not the only ones who think so.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 12, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
Jeff wrote For instance, those who attempt to prove Joseph Smith’s message by attacking his personal character are indeed speaking to the point. Those who attack the anti’s for having some kind of character flaws are not. They are not the same thing at all.
This isn’t true. In both cases an ad hominem rhetorical prong is valid.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 12:08 am
Yeah, I know that that isn’t what apologetics are, but that doesn’t mean that religious apologists don’t tend to be characterized by it. While I assume that Matt read my saying this in my comment, I felt that I should reiterate it for anybody who didn’t read my full comment.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 12:09 am
The background of an anti-Mormon in making the claims that are being made is relevant. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see why this is so. Putting someone’s bias on the table is both useful and necessary in such discourse. An ad hominem rhetorical prong is not per se illegitimate or incorrect. One can, however, be unnecessarily mean-spirited in taking that approach (as are the anti-Mormons, for example, in their ad hominem treatment of Joseph Smith).
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 12:14 am
Also, I do not agree with Jeff G.’s judgment of LDS apologists that they are, by definition, arguing “disingenuously” about the “justifications which can or cannot be brought in favor of such a position.” FARMS authors, for example, are respectable scholars, academics with degrees substantiating their capability and exposure to fields of knowledge, who are interested in scholarly discourse about topics in LDS history and ancient history that is relevant to LDS truth claims. Speculations about Joseph Smith’s affair with Fanny Alger, however, does not really fall into this category of discourse, as salacious as it appears on first blush. That LDS “apologists” would continue to believe in Mormonism’s truth claims and argue in favor of them despite such speculations about this one example (Fanny Alger) in no way implies that they are disingenuous in continuing to argue in favor of Mormonism in their respective fields.
The counter could also be said to be true, Jeff. That is, it is the anti-Mormons who are arguing disingenuously that Mormonism is not and cannot be what it claims and that Joseph Smith was a fraud. No matter what evidence or arugment they are presented with, they will never admit that Joseph Smith might have been telling the truth and thus they are, according to your paradigm, being disingenuous.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 12:24 am
John,
While you may think that ad hominem attacks on Joseph are beside the point, the anti’s and most of the people they write for (including church members) do not agree with you in this respect. Their point is that since God would not call a moral degenerate, and since Joseph (for the sake of argument) was a moral degenerate, God did not, therefore call him.
Furthermore, if they can show that Joseph Smith was not trustworthy, they can also responably ask why we should believe his other claims. Since it is “his claims” which a lot of the argument is actually about, again they are not beside the point in bringing up Joseph’s shortcomings.
Yes, I am assuming, incorrectly, that the anti’s are not all that mean-spirited. They clearly tend to be. And yes, “putting someone’s bias on the table” tends to be useful, but the fact is that it is NEVER necessary. Suppose all of the anti’s are lying-pedophiles who have an undying grudge against the church. This says absolutely nothing for or against the subject which is supposed to be at hand, namely the truthfulness of the Mormon claims. The two kinds of personal attacks are clearly not the same.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 12:29 am
Again, I am not accusing the any particular group of anything at all. I don’t want to be sucked into such a debate. I should mention, however, that it is always so easy for us to identify when those of other camps are being disingenuous while those who agree with us are not. Shouldn’t we at least suspect in the beginning that our “apologists” tend to be just as disingenuous in this specific aspect to which I have referred as the apologists in other camps.
With regard to your final point, and following the logic which I just laid out, the anit’s are indeed just as guilty of committing the fallacies which I bring up as well.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 12:36 am
re Jeff G.’s list as applied to ex and anti-Mormons (from my experience of those I’ve run across, i.e. paralleling Jeff G.’s reliance on most apologists he has “run across” in spite of whether a given apologist is found not to fit the mold he has cast for them):
1. Do both parties modestly acknowledge that they might possibly be wrong?
- I have yet to meet an ex or anti-Mormon that fits this criterion. After all, they are in possession of knowledge of concrete historical facts that would cause any rational person to disbelieve Mormonism’s truth claims.
2. Is there anything that could possibly be presented that would convince them that they are wrong and achieve their willing assent?
- Again, this simply fails when asked about ex or anti-Mormons engaging in the debate about whether Mormonism’s claims could be true. After all, they have either left the faith or are fighting it having never been in it.
3. Do both parties accept the burden of rejoinder by properly engaging the arguments of the other side in an honest manner with the intent of furthering the argument?
- From my perspective, LDS apologists by and large do this — FARMS in particular. But, as noted a a major element of my main post here, it is the ex and anti-Mormons who do not come back with an answer to LDS apologists’ counter-arguments. This is a point, counter-point, rebuttal/rehabilitation issue. My observation is that the antis make their point, the LDS apologists make their counter-point, but there is no anti rebuttal. That is what is often missing and what has, in part, motivated my post here.
4. Do both parties seek agreement by way of cooperative argumentation?
- This is an odd criterion. In a lawsuit, this would be a great criterion for arriving at a settlement to avoid further costs, but in the search for truth about Mormonism’s truth claims? This doesn’t follow. How should parties seek agreement when the nature of this LDS apologetics endeavor is to defend against very unfavorable attacks by ex and anti-Mormons? With regard to the fight between antis and LDS apologists, the tone is set by those who shoot the first shots, i.e. the antis. From my observation, they are by and large not interested in “cooperative argumentation” but rather in ramming their point down their audience’s throat and in denigrating the faith of Latter-day Saints.
5. Do both parties actively seek to understand the other side’s position in order to properly engage it?
- There is evidence that “FARMS folk,” to quote CYC, do this while the ex and anti-Mormons whose writings are part of the raison d’être of FARMS and FAIR do not. That is, LDS apologists seek to understand the arguments they are attempting to counter while the antis often offer little or no rebuttal to the LDS apologists’ counter-arguments, thus evidencing that they are not willing to “actively seek to understand the other side’s position in order to properly engage it.” Jeff G., tell me honestly, when have you ever observed ex or anti-Mormons who publish about the allegedly fraudulent claims made by the Church about its origins attempting to “understand” the faith of Latter-day Saints or the reasons they believe what they do in order to properly engage it?
6. Do both parties accept the burden of proof in that they must given reasons for their positions, reasons which might themselves be called into question?
- Your main point seems to be focused on this prong. You seem to think that LDS apologists fail this criterion and do not accept this burden of proof. I disagree with that assessment. My observation is that FARMS-types are willing to shoulder their burden of proof on evidentiary matters. In fact, FARMS-types, from what I have observed, do not suppress any evidence but rather acknowledge its existence and offer reasonable arguments for why any such evidence is not inimical to a belief in Mormonism’s truth claims. Both ex and anti-Mormons work with the same evidence and draw different, sometimes contradictory inferences therefrom. The reader must determine which conclusions are more reasonable.
7. Does either party immodestly assume the strength of presumption?
- You seem to posit this with an underlying implication that anti-Mormons do not do this while LDS apologists do. If that is the case, it is really astounding.
I agree that when approaching religious debate, people should do so in good faith. Ferreting out whether someone is approaching the topic in good faith underlies many of the ad hominem rhetorical prongs that are present in LDS apologetic writings. This is a legitimate aspect of argumentation.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 12:45 am
Jeff G., re your 24, you have either misunderstood me or did not read what I said carefully. I never said that ad hominem attacks on Joseph Smith are “beside the point.” Rather, I said precisely the opposite, namely that the ad hominem attacks on Joseph Smith are relevant and valid as are the ad hominem attacks on Church critics. I am saying, contrary to what so many argue around the Bloggernacle, that ad hominem attacks are not invalid per se, that they are valid prongs of larger arguments, and that those who believe their ad hominem attacks on Joseph Smith are valid and appropriate need to realize that LDS apologists’ ad hominem argumentative prongs in response to their attacks on Joseph Smith are also a valid part of the counter-analysis of the inferences they have drawn from whatever exists of the historical record.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 12:49 am
Again, re Jeff’s 24: you state that This says absolutely nothing for or against the subject which is supposed to be at hand, namely the truthfulness of the Mormon claims.
This is not the case. You are assuming, in order to make this statement, that there is a historical record of concrete facts that cannot be disputed that has come down to us intact from the days of the origins of the Church. This has not happened. Rather, there is a spotty collection of what can be construed as “facts” that necessitates the drawing of inferences to create a “history” of what “really” happened if we are unwilling to take Joseph Smith’s and the Church’s version of the events as accurate. Thus, the bias of the author is usually, perhaps always, relevant in this ongoing debate. You are correct that pedophilia would not necessarily have any bearing on an anti-Mormon’s version of Mormonism’s origins, but e.g. a Mormon’s testimony being shaken by what turned out to be a forged letter about Mormon origins is relevant to what inferences and conclusions that particular author has drawn from scanty facts.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 12:54 am
Whoops! Sorry about that. Surely you must agree however that personal attacks are JS are FAR MORE relevant and directly to the point than is anything said about the anti’s. This really seems to me to be quite obvious.
Now, Re: #26,
As the original post which I linked to should make relatively clear, my aims where not at LDS apologists, but actually at Christian apologists if I had any target at all. Thus, it would not surprise me if they didn’t pass the 7 tests I provided very well in the context which you speak, since we are discussing the same people. Nevertheless, I think that you are being more than a little cynical with regards to your “enemies” and more than a little generous when it comes to those you agree with.
Let’s be honest, the FARMS and FAIR people do attack some people who really do acknowledge that they might be wrong and would change their mind given sufficient reason/evidence. (I am thinking here of some of the Signature people.)
The point of the original post which I wrote is that all the “helpful” but ultimately “unnecessary” mud-slinging results from the fact that at least one, but usually both sides are already convinced that they are right in their conclusion and are simply looking for ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING which points in their direction.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 12:59 am
Jeff wrote Let’s be honest, the FARMS and FAIR people do attack some people who really do acknowledge that they might be wrong and would change their mind given sufficient reason/evidence.
I simply haven’t come across any. But if you are adamant that they exist, I am prepared to believe you, notwithstanding my personal life experiences to the contrary.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 1:00 am
In my life experience, however, I have indeed met many FARMS-types who are very open to where the evidence leads them and who reassess their positions based on facts that seem contradictory.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 1:01 am
By the way, I should note that almost all of my experience with LDS apologetics is with FARMS and very, very little is with FAIR. Sorry, Ben S., I just simply haven’t gotten into FAIR at all.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 1:02 am
John,
Surely you must admit that something has gone terribly wrong when an author’s character takes center-stage over and above the evidence and arguments which the author presents. The historical record isn’t THAT sparse.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 1:03 am
I actually agree with 31.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 1:04 am
Well, I agree with your # 33.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 1:06 am
(although I wouldn’t go so far as to say “terribly wrong”; rather, perhaps just a little exaggerated or misguided.)
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 1:07 am
Thanks for including a follow-up excerpt from me in #3, John. It’s not often someone both criticizes me then defends me in the same post.
While simple name-calling or raising irrelevant personal facts about an author can properly be criticized as ad hominem, there are often facts about an author or the context of an article or book that are relevant. Examples include authors who have contradicted their own statements in earlier publications; authors who suppress contrary evidence; authors who don’t disclose biases not immediately apparent to readers; authors who misrepresent their credentials or publications; and so forth.
More prevalent perhaps than ad hominem itself is what we might call the reverse ad hominem whine: when an author or the defenders of an author who is rightfully criticized for one of the failings noted in the prior paragraph chooses to whine about ad hominem rather than respond to legitimate criticism by establishing the author’s propriety or integrity (sometimes not a viable option) or by responding to the merits of a counter-argument (also not always an option). Just as true ad hominem often signals a weak argument, the reverse ad hominem whine signals that one has no adequate response to a criticism. And it’s worth noting that I’ve never seen a FARMS reviewer try to pull a reverse ad hominem whine routine despite a steady stream of personal insults directed their way.
Comment by Dave — July 13, 2006 @ 1:09 am
Dave, very interesting point.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Let me settle one little point:
I do not like kitsch, and don’t advocate its production or consumption.
I also tend to dislike Mormon pop music, pageants, most Mormon art, the bulk of Mormon fiction, etc.
(For anybody out there who may be worried about my possible attitudes on this subject.)
Comment by Daniel Peterson — July 13, 2006 @ 1:58 am
Jeff, I think that some will acknowledge in certain classes of argument that Joseph’s character might matter. Although that clearly depends upon the presuppositions brought to the table and the point being established. It seems though that if we’re discussing say whether the Book of Mormon has Hebrew characteristics then Joseph’s character is beside the point. If we’re arguing about prophethood then I think it a valid concern, although then clearly one can argue over whether this presupposition (prophets are near perfect) is a reasonable one.
So I agree but simultaneously think that one can push this much too far and that many do. Context matters.
Likewise for the issue of “might be wrong.” Depending upon how that is taken it can be almost vacuous. Everyone admits they might be wrong. But it’s hard to reasonably take seriously some claims. You might recall this gets into the issue of whether doubt is something we can will. If someone were to seriously ask me if I’m willing to admit that my wife isn’t really my wife then I’m apt to think them rather silly.
The problem is that the degree of confidence or the possibility of doubt will vary from person to person. Expecting a real expression of possible doubt as what legitimates honest debate is simply unrealistic. The only way to do that is to demand a kind of extreme and thorough-going skepticism that few outside of iconclastic philosophers really entertain.
I can’t recall the details of your post on this, but I think I made some of these points there. But clearly on some facts I think it is more reasonable to entertain doubt. What’s unfortuante is that when someone entertains doubt on one thing (say belief in God) they expect everyone else to do the same. I think that unfair and not a legitimate requirement for conversation and debate to progress.
In my experience on the basic historic facts in dispute beyond more serious matters of faith every apologist I’m familiar with is more than willing to allow for being wrong. They may not allow that with regards to God, Nephites or other such things. But extended my argument, I’m not sure that’s fair to expect of them.
Comment by Clark — July 13, 2006 @ 2:04 am
Jeff: Surely you must admit that something has gone terribly wrong when an author’s character takes center-stage over and above the evidence and arguments which the author presents. The historical record isn’t THAT sparse.
Once again it depends upon the context. Did you read my post on meta-discussions? If so I’m curious as to your views. For instance I don’t find it illegitimate in the least to question Heidegger’s ties to Nazism, Foucault’s ties to the gay S&M underground and AIDS, or so forth. Further sometimes the author’s life is of interest for reasons independent of the narrow arguments at hand. Just as sometimes we analyze politicians independent of the particular policies or policy justifications in debate.
Comment by Clark — July 13, 2006 @ 2:08 am
John F (#26) I agree with most of your comments. Anticipating Jeff, might I say things get more tricky when we move from outright anti-Mormonism into say the naturalistic critics typical of say Signature. I suspect that’s Jeff’s concern. The problem of burden of proof becomes difficult there though since it ends up being the issue of public phenomena versus private phenomena with typically the latter being excluded from consideration? Can the religious believer have a fair chance in that situation?
If we return to the more traditional sense of apologist (following say Plantinga’s writings here) where it’s less just a defense of religion that merely showing how religious belief is rational then I think the religious person can bear the burden of proof.
The problem is what is being proved (or demanded of proof). Is it rationality or public justification?
Yet, there have been quite a few prominent essays in FARMS collections that all acknowledge the religious person can’t through rational argument alone convince the unbeliever of much. Certainly not the existence of Nephites or God. So the question becomes is it right for naturalistic critics to demand that we do?
Comment by Clark — July 13, 2006 @ 2:13 am
Daniel Peterson (#39), this is not the realm of Moroni tie pins or CTR key chains. We’re talking a $295 replica of the brass plates—with certificate of authenticity! Sure you’re not interested?
Comment by Christian Y. Cardall — July 13, 2006 @ 6:58 am
It sounds to me as if we’re all caught up in the questions for the ages with a Mormon/Latter Day Saint bent. Not much has changed in the annals of dissent and free thought, except for the reprecussions of using ones mind. I say we push the envelope in all its forms and really question and get our arms around all aspects of the uncomfortable and debatable. Sure there may be some carnage and collateral damage along the way, but thats the cost of doing business in a free thinking society.
Without the environment to let our ideas and minds roam we’ll forever remain stagnant and mired in the prison of our own thougths. We may end up with the same conclusions of one Greek philosopher, “the more we learn the more we realize we dont know anything.” Peace Out!
Comment by Michael James — July 13, 2006 @ 7:36 am
Clark (# 42), I understand your anticipation of Jeff G.’s concern with how this all affects “naturalistic critics”, as you say, rather than outright anti-Mormons. In many cases I think it can actually be difficult to distinguish the two, although I can see that in some cases the two categorizations will not overlap (but when one is claiming that JS was a fraud, even a pious one, and that the Church is lying ab out its origins, the line between naturalistic criticism and anti-Mormon crusading is pretty blurry). Suffice it to say that I would intend my comments above to apply equally to the “naturalistic critics” as to the blatant anti-Mormons. In my view, “FARMS-types” are doing a better job fulfilling Jeff G.’s criteria than the “detractors,” as a general matter. The better question is why Jeff G.’s criteria should be considered normative in a context such as this.
Comment by john f. — July 13, 2006 @ 9:32 am
I see my questions as picking out the symptoms which can indicate whether those involved are seeking for truth or simply for proof.
This is why I think that most FARMS publications are pretty good while their reviews tend to be less than admirable. When publishing their own ideas, they aren’t terribly sure about their conclusions, and this leads them to a certain degree of humility in their arguments and the way they treat their evidence.
It is in their reviews of those who they are already sure that their conclusions simply MUST be false, that they get into trouble. This is in addition to the fact that in reviewing somebody else’s work, there is actually a somebody to psycho-analyze.
As I commented over at Clark’s site, while I do think that describing an author’s character/motives we can identify the assumption by which they reach their conclusions from their evidence, but it is these assumptions which should take center-stage, not the character/motives themselves.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Jeff, that’s not actually what I was getting at. Further at a certain point we just accept or reject the assumptions based upon our own particular intuitions or so forth. The fact is that ultimately they rest upon metaphysical assumptions. And, as you well know, the arguments for any particular metaphysics at their best are amazingly weak. So to say that these ought take center stage is just to argue that we ought reject the entire endeavor of understanding and just focus on fundamental philosophy. Yet, while I enjoy philosophy, there has been absolutely no consensus or “proof” in that endeavor.
So surely you aren’t really saying this.
But if we reject the pure focus on philosophy and recognize that philosophy won’t lead us to a kind of sure knowledge, what does that leave us with? Well, just our own subjective intuitions upon which we’ll all disagree. At which time understanding the intuitions of the author do become important.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 13, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
Clark,
You shouldn’t take me to be claim too much. I know that we can play the “justify-the-assumption” game ’til the cows come home. But that is not what I am talking about really. I’m simply saying that the anti literature (you are right in assuming that I am here referring to the signature crowd) reaches conclusion from a combination of assumptions and evidence. The character/motives can profitably be used to identify these assumptions, which can themselves be called into question, but there is no reason to suspect that this will usually devolve into a metaphysical free-for-all.
To repeat: it is the specific assumptions which bridge the evidence with the conclusions which should take center-stage, not all assumptions that each person brings to the table.
In case everybody couldn’t tell, I am here advocating an adherence to the rules of informal logic and argumentation. While it is true that such kinds of argumentation makes no claims to sure-truth, the fact that each person believes so strongly that he is right (without refusing to even consider the possibility that he might be in error) is exactly what gives us confidence that when an agreement is reached it probably won’t be all that wrong.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Reviews are, by nature and definition, opinion pieces.
That shouldn’t be forgotten.
And no, I’m DEFINITELY not interested in kitsch that runs $295. Heck, that could almost get me a single-bed room in EUROPE for a night.
Comment by Daniel Peterson — July 13, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
This has been an interesting thread to follow. I believe that Jeff G. simply decides that apologetics, or those who argue apologetically, are not engaging in a good faith discussion because they aren’t open to the possiblity of being wrong. The question I have is: wrong about what? I see apologetics as the task of clearing away bad arguments by showing their fallacies and evidentiary weaknesses. I have done so with both pro- and anti- arguments. Moreover, to suggest that apologists have biases and a committed position from which argue but antis or others don’t is simply a failure to see that all of us come with baggage and all of us have a particular perspective.
The question of the ad hominem argument is very simple: is the character or honesty of the person the crux of the argument? If I am arguing that Joseph Smith engaged in deliberate deception, then instances of deliberate deception by him are not an ad hominem (but only to the extent necessary to show that point). If I am arguing that Grant Palmer is not writing from an insider’s persepctive and that he attempts to gain illegitimate currency by claiming a believer’s position which he doesn’t in truth have, then pointing that out is legitimate. However, impugning one’s interlocutor is always a fallacy.
Further, to the extent that one’s assumptions are not shared by one’s interlocutors (a naturalistic bias and assumption by critics and a revelatory and assurance of spiritual grounding by apologists) they are merely preaching to the choir to base arguments on those assumptions. [By “naturalistic” I mean the epistemological assumption that there is not any revelation and that all knowledge is aquired thru either empirical or rationalistic means). However, it is entirely legitimate to point out that one’s interlocutor makes assumptions that are not proven or shared and that they dictate the outcome of the argument and the validity of the conclusions reached. It is also valid to point out that the assumptions are not shared by those whom they attack. It is also fair to point out that one who makes such naturalistic assumptions is not writing from the perspective of shared faith.
I am particularly chagrined at charges by some in these blog discussions that DP and LM are just dishonest, that they are clowns, that they are not acting in good faith. These are ad hominems that are flawed straight out — and they are made by persons who don’t have 1/10th the candle power of either DP or LM.
The charge by Jeff G. that apologists necessarily engage in the discussion in bad faith is is, in my view, an argument rings true for home only because of his own assumptions that are not shared by his interlocutors. There is a lot of area for discussion and even admitting that one’s evidence and arguments may be wrong or not persuasive without giving up one’s spiritual commitments — pro or con. Let’s make no mistake about it — those who oppose apologists arguments have commitments also and they are also engaging often with egos rather than arguments.
That brings me to my last point. I agree that the attack on DP and LM is often used as an excuse to fail to engage the substance of their comments and arguments. They make telling, compelling and often decisive points — and these arguments are ignored in favor of calling them names. That definitely is the essence of the logical fallacy of both ad honinem argument and bad faith evasion of issues.
Comment by Blake — July 13, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Jeff: . . . but there is no reason to suspect that this will usually devolve into a metaphysical free-for-all.
On the contrary I think I have every reason to believe that, especially having had numerous discussions with many of the major figures from Signature. Ultimately as I see it our differences rest on a different worldview and philosophy. By and large they are trying to explain Joseph Smith and others in terms of those presuppositions. In effect a kind of apologetics, even though they’d not put it in those words. There’s nothing wrong with that I certainly don’t criticism them for that. But I think it inherently valid to call into question the worldview or at least point out what it is.
In effect one is simply contextualizing the texts.
Jeff: .In case everybody couldn’t tell, I am here advocating an adherence to the rules of informal logic and argumentation.
But to do this you are advocating the de-contextualizing of meaning. That is you require that all arguments be de-worlded from that very thing that gives them sense.
The issue is less argumentation than it is hermeneutics.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 13, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Blake,
I never claimed that apologists are necessarily arguing in bad faith. I simply said that many (maybe most) of them tend to, and I do stand by this assertion.
To answer your question: Wrong about the conclusions which are being drawn. The anti’s claim that Joseph was not a prophet in anyway, and for the most part refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. The Mo’s argue that Joseph was a prophet in SOME way, and for the most part utterly refuse to consider that they might be wrong. Let’s be honest, neither side is really simply exploring arguments which can be presented for or against the JS-position. What they are arguing about is in fact the JS-position, not about the arguments in favor or against such.
If the debate is actually about the arguments rather than the conclusion, then ideally, very ideally, we could have a legitimate argument on our hands, but such is simply not the case, if only because both sides are all too able to see what conclusions the arguments which they are supposedly debating lead to. Even if they are not really arguing about the conclusions (big, big “IF”), the fact that they are utterly unwilling to consider that they might be wrong about those conclusions skews the debates surrounding those arguments as well. (It should be kept in mind that by “utterly unwilling…” I mean that they would not give up their conclusion even if all of their supportive arguments and evidence turned out to be demonstrably wrong.)
Of course, here is exactly where things get more than a little sticky, as we have expored in other threads, for it is simply impossible to debate with another person the validity of private evidence, and private evidence plays a really important role in religious discussions. It is for this reason that I think most apologists unintentionally argue in bad faith. The reasons for why they accept a conclusion is primarily, perhaps even exclusively, private and as such is beyond contestation by another person. But it is this private evidence which is usually appealed to when the apologist is asked to justify his confidence in the conclusion which has been shown to be unsupported by both argument and evidence.
This fact about religious debate makes me wonder is honest and open argumentation can really be engaged in at all.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Regarding ad hominems, I will agree that if Palmer is going to claim to be an insider then all protection from relevant ad hominems is gone. My point, however, is that his being an insider is entirely beside the point, although I realize that most people don’t see it that way.
Regarding assumptions, I am largely in agreement.
“These are ad hominems that are flawed straight out — and they are made by persons who don’t have 1/10th the candle power of either DP or LM.”
I hope you are not referring to me here, since I haven’t accused any individual’s of anything at all.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Clark,
I suppose that metaphysics will indeed play an important role in such discussions if only due to the content. However, I do think that the metaphysics can be held up against eachother so that we can at least figure out which one carries presumption, if not the most evidence/argument in its favor. If the fact that metaphysical claims are underrepresented by evidence is the biggest problem in any apologetic discussion, then I suspect that my post will largely be beside the point. My claim regarding the evidence-to-conclusion assumption bridge was actually geared more toward historical, biological and other kinds of publically available evidence.
I must confess that I am confused by your claim that informal argumentation necessarily de-contextualizes meaning. I simply do not see how using a model of argumentation in which claims must be justified by an appeal to evidence which is necessarily accompanied by assumptions de-contextualizes anything at all.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Jeff G: “I never claimed that apologists are necessarily arguing in bad faith. I simply said that many (maybe most) of them tend to, and I do stand by this assertion.”
But on what conceivable factual basis?
And who, exactly, are you talking about?
I realize that your judgment is likely to include me. If so, I deny it as false and condemn it as shameless slander.
But I’m more curious to know who else your casual “many (maybe most)” includes.
John Butler? David Paulsen? Richard Lloyd Anderson? Jack Welch? Stephen Ricks? William Hamblin? Michael Jibson? Andrew Hedges? Davis Bitton? Mark Ashurst-McGee? John Sorenson? Michael Whiting? John Clark? David McClellan? Kevin Barney?
Who, exactly? And on the basis of what specific charges?
Comment by Daniel Peterson — July 13, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
Actually, I’m thinking of any Mormon apologists at all. (I don’t know if that is an insult or a compliment.
) What I had in mind when I wrote my original post was the anti-evolution apologists. Surely you can also see in my accusations many of the Evangelical-Anti’s as well. To be completely honest, I do recall having read some FARMS reviews some time ago which I felt would fall under this label as well, but I don’t remember who it was, nor do I want to. To be honest, I think that the FAIR stuff tends to fall under this category more often than FARMS does. I think FARMS does a pretty (but not perfect) job at avoiding this kind of stuff.
Again, I can’t think of any particular instances from the Mormon crowd, but then my post wasn’t primarily aimed at the Mormon crowd, so I think accusations of slander are more than a little off base. The point I tried to make to John above was this: Do we have any reason to automatically suspect that Mo-Apologists are any more above my criticisms than the other Apologists are? Maybe the Mo’s are better, but it is difficult to make such a judgment from our admittedly biased perspective.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Again, I can only reiterate: If you feel that my criticisms are aimed at you, then you are the one who must think that the label sticks, for I haven’t so much as suggested any such thing. If you honestly don’t think that they apply to you, then you have nothing to worry about. But if one automatically thinks that I am talking about them, then they can’t be all that clear of the subject.
Don’t worry, I honestly believe that you think I was attacking you based on what the others were saying, combined with the context of the conversation. I’m not trying to psycho-analyze you are anything like that.
Comment by Jeff G — July 13, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Jeff G: “I can only reiterate: If you feel that my criticisms are aimed at you, then you are the one who must think that the label sticks.”
I don’t at all.
But the accusation is leveled at me on a regular basis — and for the past few weeks, has been directed at me several times daily at various public venues. (I’m probably not even aware of all of them.)
So you’ll pardon me, I trust, for the not unreasonable supposition that you were aiming it at me yet again.
I’m still not fond, to put it mildy, of your quite free-wheeling and casual willingness to brand any and all Mormon “apologists” as “arguing in bad faith.” Your breezy explanation that “Actually, I’m thinking of any Mormon apologists at all” doesn’t make me feel even the slightest bit better.
Comment by Daniel Peterson — July 13, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Jeff: However, I do think that the metaphysics can be held up against eachother so that we can at least figure out which one carries presumption, if not the most evidence/argument in its favor.
You’ll quickly become disabused of that notion if you continue in philosophy. If that were true there would be considerably more consensus in philosophy than there is.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 13, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
Jeff: It is the job of an apologist to clear away bad arguments against the faith — full stop. It is the duty of the apologist to recognize good arguments and to see if they require an adjustment of world view. When I encountered evolution as sophomore in HS, I adjusted my world-view to include it because it was a compelling explanation of the evidence to me. I didn’t throw out my faith because I found that my faith could be re-structured to accomodate the evidence. That is also what an apologist does — recognizes evidence (as I did in the DNA argument) and then gives it its due and either corrects the faithful world view to conform to rejects the faith altogether. Of course,because everyone who takes the Book of Mormon seriously had made the adjustment to the limited geography model loong before DNA arguments ever showed up, it didn’t take any adjustment at all beyond what had already been done based on a careful reading of the text.
However, a part of what I include in evey assessment is that when I prayed about Joseph Smith my heart was filled with light, truth, knowledge and love (just as promised). I believe it is set up that way on purpose so that faith is not a matter of public proof and being the most intelligent or getting to win all of the arguments, but about a heart that is open. So I view the evidence also through my life experiences — and so does everyone else.
Apologetics is simply the effort to show that arguments against the faith are not as compelling as it may appear or logically flawed or contra-indicated by evidence — and to suggest creative adaptations that the faith may be able to accomodate without invalidating what most central terms of that faith. If you can point out where any one you claim is an LDS apologist who doesn’t do just that who writes for FARMS or FAIR, then I’d like to see it. It is a perfectly legitimate and honorable endeavor. What is not honorable is to insist that it is not possible for others to have them based on some methodological naturalism (as I defined it). That simply begs the question against the faithful and denies a large part of human experience.
Comment by Blake — July 13, 2006 @ 7:04 pm
To be honest, I think that the FAIR stuff tends to fall under this category more often than FARMS does. I think FARMS does a pretty (but not perfect) job at avoiding this kind of stuff.
Really? While there have been a few FAIR articles I wasn’t happy with by and large I’ve been pretty impressed with them trying to take an even tone and being as fair as possible. Certainly that is impressed upon writers who plan to write for FAIR.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 14, 2006 @ 1:01 am
Interesting comment, Clark. I have never heard any comment on editorial policies of the LDS “apologetic organizations,” but if they do, in fact, direct their contributors to be fair and evenhanded in how they present skeptical arguments and their authors, it would be nice to hear about. Most skeptical authors don’t publish under any sort of editorial supervision — which isn’t to say they are always unfair or underhanded in their approach, but supervision and editing can have a strong influence.
Comment by Dave — July 14, 2006 @ 9:01 am
This thread ran pretty much ran it’s course, but I do want to say a few remarks in conclusion.
Dan,
I still think that you are reading me as being harsher than I actually am. My comments are about potential and common pitfalls of religious apologetics. Not about FARMS or FAIR. Not about you or any other author in particular, let alone “any and all” members of any group. I can assure you that I am not painting with so broad a brush.
Blake,
You say, “It is the job of an apologist to clear away bad arguments against the faith — full stop. It is the duty of the apologist to recognize good arguments and to see if they require an adjustment of world view.” Perhaps this is the “job” and “duty” of the apologist, but my point is that things simply don’t tend to go this way very often. My comment are meant to cast blame on the nature of religious apologetics rather than on those that actually engage in such. (I think that most in this thread have not seen this.) It is because these private evidence and experiences, which I have no reason to call into question, play such an vital role in the mind-set of the apologist that I simply don’t see how any but the most cool-headed and rational of apologists could actually perform their “duty/job”. My point is that because of the nature of religious debate, most walk into the debate being absolutely convinced that certain arguments simply MUST be bad for some yet-to-be discovered reason. I see this as being problematic.
Clark,
I misused the word “metaphysics”. I simply meant “worldview” such as theism/athesim, naturalism/supernaturalism and so forth. That said, you rightfully do point out that it seems like a pipe-dream to say the least that any of these positions will clearly carry presumption and/or evidence in its favor.
Comment by Jeff G — July 14, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
Since I have been rather closely involved since 2002 with the editing that goes on with the FARMS Review, and experienced and assisted a bit in this editing almost from the beginning, I would like to briefly — at least for me — provide an explanation of what we do or try to do.
Every citation is checked and rechecked for accuracy. And every quotation is checked for accuracy and context. We try hard not to allow an author, including me, to quote something out of context. Does anyone imagine that anything like this is done at Sunstone, or Dialogue? Or at Signature Books, or Deseret Book? Does this happen at the Journal of Mormon History? Do we still make mistakes? Unfortunately we do. Just this morning Shirley Ricks, our expert technical editor, showed me a tiny little typographical mistake in “A Mighty Kauri Has Fallen,” FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 337-354. This was my tribute to Hugh Nibley.
Are we corrupt, willing to do anything to score a point, without concern for accuracy or truth? I have no idea what constitutes slander and libel in American courts these days. Others who have posted on this blog will have a much better idea about this than I do. But, given that in the last few days I have seen a rash of really vile things said about apologists in general and about Dan Peterson and me in particular, I have seen what I consider slander and libel.
When we approach a potential author with a proposal for a book review, review essay or an essay, we make a big fuss about tone and style. We insist that there be no snide stuff, no insults, no personal attacks and so forth. I will provide one example. We asked Jan Shipps to review a book by Robert Rimini on Joseph Smith. She was not all that happy with Rimini. So both Shirley Ricks and I said at least twice each that we would not accept an essay in which her objections were not cautiously and moderately set forth. It is not, of course, necessary to warn some authors. David Paulsen, for example, is a real gent all the time and hence one never worries about what David will write. Now that does not mean that we do not make a host of big and little suggestions to authors, including David Paulsen, for we do. Blake Ostler seems to be following this blog and he can report on his experiences with the editing process at the FARMS Review. Of course, not every author is always pleased with the changes or suggestions we make. And there is a process of negotiation that may take place.
In my own case, I insist on lots of critical commentary on what I publish. I like this before or after it appears in print. I try hard to deal with issues of tone and style. But I cannot be someone else, and I cannot know that you would not have written that essay or would have done so in a different way. One ought to sense that our preferences cannot dictate to others, especially since they do not even know what they are. The tone issue is an especially difficult one, since it borders on something like whether one likes Green Lip Mussels. I do; you may not. In one sense tone is in two ways much like taste.
Do we make mistakes. Certainly. When the Review was first getting started, I published an essay with the title “Playing with Half a Decker,” FARMS Review [RBBM] 5 (1993): 116-171. I thought that I had come up with a cute, amusing title. I would not do that now. I went after a fellow –- Dean Helland — who had written a doctoral dissertation at Oral Roberts. I had considerable contact with him on the phone and in writing. He helped me flesh out the story of his career. Much like what I did in dealing with Grant Palmer’s book, I wanted to know how Helland got started and who and what influenced him and so forth. Helland was of considerable assistance. In the last few months he has contacted me and again provided me with much more autobiographical information. He has also indicated that he was not offended by what I wrote about him and his dissertation. We are, I believe, friends.
Now I have noticed that something called apologetics and apologists have come under heavy fire. From my perspective none of this makes much sense. Please notice that when john f. posted what I consider a very thoughtful commentary on the recent controversy, he was immediately met with someone who wanted to quibble over some tiny detail and also defend something they had posted. And this same fellow and at least one other person started making assertions about apologists and apologetics and then defending them. Then people pointed to dictionaries and insisted, correctly, that something was wrong with the way those words were being defined. Apologists were defined as bad people and so forth. Then I noticed a spirited defense of what those two or three had done. Now please note the irony. They became apologists for some opinion they held. But the way they defined apologetics, doing such a thing was wrong, unnecessary, harmful to the Church and so forth. There simply must be some fallacy involved in all of this -– something like trying to score a point or make a point by manipulating the definition of a word.
Now one last point. Somewhere I think I noticed people claiming that those who engage in a defense of the faith and the Saints, are somehow outside the categories and norms of the community of Saints. This is not true. Have a look at D&C 123. All of us, all of the time, ought to be honoring God by doing our best, within our capacities, to build and defend the Kingdom in both word and deed. And, as far as possible, our words and deeds should match.
I suppose that I should have attached a warning label: VERBOSE. See, old dogs can learn new tricks.
[admin: typographical errors fixed at author's request]
Comment by Louis Midgley — July 14, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Dave, #62, it’s discussed a fair bit on the internal mailing list. Volunteers who are members of the mailing list respond to questions since to FAIR. Often they discuss tone and so forth. I know Mike Parker does an outstanding job of trying to temper tone and be even handed. I know Mike was particularly hurt by some of the charges by John Dehlin that started off this whole controversy. They certainly don’t reflect why I think Mike and others attempt to convey by FARMS and I don’t think they reflect what most people write. The Forums, as has been discussed, are an other matter. But it’s important to realize most of those posting there aren’t affiliated with FAIR. I personally would prefer they get rid of the Forums, but a lot of people feel it is important for there to be a place for a truly open discussion. But intrinsic to open discussion is the fact that many with fewer social graces get to post.
While I’ll be the first to admit I’ve not had time to contribute as much at FAIR as I’d like, I still do answer a fair number of inquiries related to topics I’m reasonably well versed on. And it does bother me when I think people misrepresent both what we do and what we attempt. That’s partially why I put up the thread of what people want. But often I just feel like people are going on some vague “talking point” and just aren’t familiar with the actual work itself.
That’s not to say I think every paper on the FAIR site is equally good. There are a few, as I said, I’m not as comfortable with. But overall I truly think folks are striving for what I perceive as a very good ideal. As I’ve said I’m very excited about the wiki and sorry I can’t contribute more.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 14, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
Whoops. That should say, “don’t reflect what I think Mike and others attempt to convey by FAIR. . .” Perils of quick typing in the evening.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 14, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Just for the record Mr Midgley, I have a name which was included in the post…and John F found my request of sufficient merit to rewrite the post accordingly. But thank you for your thoughtful though biased restatement.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 14, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
So I guess what I’m saying is that you might want to check your citations (being the professional that you are) or at least read the comments before jumping in with such inaccurate and condescending conclusions.
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 14, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
Matt,
Relax . . . .have a glass of Kool-aid and chill man
Comment by Guy Murray — July 14, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
mmmm…Kool-aid!
Comment by Matt Elggren — July 14, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Apologists and antis all have an axe to grind and will say anything. They all turn my stomach.
Comment by Steve EM — July 16, 2006 @ 11:37 am
I think it’s kind of funny how M* closed their thread and you guys all took your toys elsewhere to fight on.
I have been worried about DKL the last while. You’ve sounded sort of milque-toasty. You just haven’t sounded your usual onery self. You did yourself proud this time.
The one advantage of it being summer (YUCK I HATE SUMMER) is I am so busy I’ve been missing all the fights. Although this fight I don’t even understand the words and personally, I think you’re all taking yourselves too seriously about something that doesn’t matter one bit in the long run.
Not unlike myself at times, but still . . .
Comment by annegb — July 16, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
Annegb, Only one of the M* threads closed down, primarily because of the nasty tone it took by some of the commenters. There is plenty of room for civilized discussion; but comments like Steve EM’s above is what turns the tone rather sour–unfortunately.
I think it does matter though–because there are many, many faithful Church members whose faith is helped by what the authors over at Farms do and publish. Others, of course don’t care for what they do; however, they can say that without the banalities like “they all turn my stomach.”
Comment by Guy Murray — July 16, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
ok, I’ll take your word for it
Comment by annegb — July 16, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Guy,
Both the antis and apologists make me ill. Eunuchville’s apostasy is a typical example of the damage the apologists do. Had the eunuchvilles out there questioned from the get-go, they would probably still be on this journey we call faith. But because these snake oil peddlers of the church pretend we have an answer for everything and every piece of the puzzle has to fit, they set people up for a big fall. Orthodoxy always leads to apostasy.
Comment by Steve EM — July 18, 2006 @ 6:54 am
John,
Forgive me for not reading all responses before adding my two cents, which will probably be redundant.
Why is the bloggenacle response to apologists, like DP and LM, and to FAIR/FARMS so stereotypically knee jerk? I think it is a generation gap. DP/LM/FAIR/FARMS represent the old guard, the previous generation. For the most part they are the age of the fathers and even grandfathers of the bloggernacle regulars. They live mostly in the world of printed pages and journals and their forays into the internet blog world are seen as gauche and outmoded.
Evidence of a generation gap is seen on the opposite end of the LDS philosophical spectrum as well. The bloggernacle response to Sunstone and Dialogue are quite similar to its response to traditional LDS apologetics. They also represent a previous generation and are seen as not quite fitting in.
Comment by KLC — July 18, 2006 @ 10:55 am
I think that it should be pointed out in all fairness to both Annegb as well as KLC that this thread, at least the huge part that I pretty much thread-jacked, hasn’t been about FARMS, FAIR, DP or anyone else. Instead we have been debating the validity and potential pitfalls of religous apologetics in general. I think that while people have misinterpreted my claims to some extent, the conversation has been quite civil as well as instructive. I found myself having to modify my position in very positive ways, and I hope others did as well, at least to some extent.
While Steve’s comments certainly haven’t followed that pattern, his comments shouldn’t be taken as representative of the thread in general.
Comment by Jeff G — July 18, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
Since this thread appears to be open, I want to comment on two features of the conversation that has taken place in this venue and several other blogs. First, I wonder why Roasted Tomatoes has not responded to a single thing I bored the rest of you with in my long response to his spirited attack on me and FARMS that was cast as a criticism of my essay “Prying into Palmer.” I was, as I indicated, pleased that Roasted had actually read my essay and had found a mistake in it. His remarks went beyond the usual opining that I have previously encountered.
Roasted indicated that he was not defending Palmer’s book. Instead, he was having a look at the soundness of something published in the FARMS Review. I have no objection to somehone doing this. Unlike John Dehlin, Roasted did not cast himself as an apologist for Palmer’s book. And unlike John Dehlin and others, Roasted did not present himself as an apologist for attacks on the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon or as a critic of Joseph Smith’s prophetic charisms. He is not part of the Recovery from Mromonism crowd or those at Zarahemla City Limits and so forth. I assume that we are in basic agreement on the crucial issues and on the same side of what I call the Great Divide. (See the next editor’s introduction to the forthcoming FARMS Review for details.) So why has Roasted not responded to my coments on his criticisms of my essay?
The second issue I wish to raise I take from something in Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous Democracy in America. He saw working its mischief on Americans the absurd idea, generated by a debased notion of equality, that any opinion an American might have on any issue that they think it worth their time to opine on is equal if not superior to any other opinion held by anyone. And they often do this without having even a slight idea what they are talking about. What I see on blogs, boards and lists is constant evidence that Tocqueville was right. One only has to visit some of the comments on apologetics on this and other blogs to see evidence of what Tocqueville was talking about.
I have devoted much time to figuring out who the players are in the sectarian countercult world. I know the anti-Mormon element of this dreadful industry about as well as any Latter-day Saint. I know that most of you do not concern yourself with such disgusting things even though they do much harm to the Kingdom. I am, I must admit, even insist, much more interested in the secular side of anti-Mormonism. (Please note that the prefix “anti” simply means against.) If one can compare low things to low things, I have in mind something just a bit highter than say what gets posted on the Recovery Board or on Zarahemla City limits or what I hear goes on in the open FAIR board. (I have never posted there and have only really followed one thread.)
What I have noticed on the blogs I have recently been following is quite a bit of opining coming from those who, for one reason or another have gone missing and who have adopted an essentially secular worldview. These folks just cannot seen to move on. They must, like those on the Recovery Board, keep justifying their having gone missing. Even though they are not a bit impressed by Grant Palmer’s piety, they tend to defend his book because they wrongly believe that he has somehow, with or without Hoffmann’s Golden Pot, pulled the Church from its historical foundations. So the Maxwell Institute (in the form of the FARMS Review) is cast as the mindless, evil enemy that is driving poor cultural Mormons out of the Church. This is just plain nonsense.
I am hoping that Roasted comes on line and explains where he comes down on these issues. I am, I trust you will understand, hoping to enlist Roasted and the rest of you on my side of these issues. I think that this is possible, since Roasted made it clear that he was not defending Palmer’s book. That is a very good place to begin.
Comment by Louis Midgley — July 24, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Steve EM, I’d suggest that most active Mormons are “orthodox” and don’t seem particularly inclined towards apostasy. Everyone struggles at times and as Br. Midgley pointed out, if in your struggles you seek purely secular answers you will probably fail. There’s simply not answers to everything (as most apologists I’ve read point out quite often) and eventually you have to have a spiritual foundation for your testimony. Without that whether orthodox or not the chances of you staying active diminish greatly. Eventually there will be some trial of faith and you’ll fall away.
At best apologetics offers a “space” to perhaps delay that fall for people without that testimony so they can get it. But to say apologetics aids people falling away mistakes what a testimony is all about, in my opinion.
Comment by Clark Goble — July 24, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Several people have responded to Steve EM and others. They have in a very nice way said what needs to be said. I think that Clark Goble, immediately above, has said what needs to be said. Now I wonder if Steve EM, and those who, for whatever reason, are sympathetic with something like his stance, have moderated their hostilities or have increased their understanding as a result of what has been posted on this and other bogs about this matter. Yes or no?
Comment by Louis Midgley — July 24, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
LM,
I’ve been away and just picked up this thread again. You lost me a long time ago going after Quinn’s homosexuality. I just don’t get the relevance. Quinn doesn’t even seem anti to me, just a straight shooter that guys like you don’t want to deal with. Face it, current active LDS sexual mores are an excessive backlash against polygamy and aren’t normal or healthy. To preempt any attacks, as I commented elsewhere, I’m 100% straight, have only has sex with women, been married decades, have five children (some would say six, but that’s another story), am active and believing. And if you don’t believe I’m am equal opportunity rottweiler against the antis, check this out: http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/21/disciplining-inactives/#comment-223
Want a typical example of apologetic crap that open minded LDS can’t stomach: Section 89, which was meant to be a good common sense practice of dos and don’ts, certainly not a commandment to would preclude someone from the church, has been unfortunately dead for some time, a classic example of orthodoxy always leading to apostasy. In other words, such mistakes are inevitable within any organization, but orthodoxy prevents reform back to the original intent. Hey, section 89 even allows beer; I want my beer!
But seriously, want’s the apologetic party line? That the WofW was voted in by the church as a commandment in BY’s time. Utter rubbish! HJG changed the WofW into four don’ts and made it a barrier to entry into the Kingdom. While I think HJG made a mistake, as barriers to entry, such as circumcision, were done away with in NT times, I don’t get why our church has a problem with the truth on this. HJG was Pres of the church and fully authorize to set such policies. Why make up some bogus history on the subject? Why keep repeating obvious falsehoods?
And then you guys wonder why a guy like eunuchville leaves the church upon learning JS played around with some mummy and associated papyrus and came up with the Book of Abraham, which turns out not to be a translation. When the apologists set naïve people up with a bogus expectation that there’s an answer for everything in the church, it no surprise to me that such individuals can’t deal with it when they realize how full of crap your crowd is. You truly are modern day snake oil peddlers. I’ve even seen apologist attempt a serious explanation of the Zelph thing, when it’s plain as day JS was most likely having fun with some gullible people, or attempting to convey that they had no business grave robbing without being preachy about it (which wouldn’t have gone over well given racial attitudes on JS’s time). See, even I can indulge in apologetics, but it a sane fashion that doesn’t strain credulity.
Recently I mentioned BKP’s past open anti-miscegenation views, and people just come out of the woodwork to defend that embarrassing crap. Next they’ll defend JRC’s open bigotry (unbelievable for an apostle in the mid twentieth century). Yes, you all make me sick!
Comment by Steve EM — July 24, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
That something is supposed to make someone sick is not an argument. How can one respond to such an opinion? I have encountered people who try to control others with this kind of opining. And I wonder exactly what “embarrasing crap” I am supposed to have defended? Perhaps Steve EM just somehow knows that anything I defend must be “embarrasing crap.” How can one reason with someone who opines in this manner. And what, I wonder, does any of Steve EM’s opining have have to do do with my essay on Grant Palmer’s book? Or with attempts to defend the historical foundations of the faith? And what has his urge to proclaim his personal purity and his inclination to tell us how many children, more or less, he has, got to do with any intellectual issue? I must admit that I have exactly no interest in his hostilities or his behavior.
However, I have an impish desire, to which I will yield, to point out that it seems just a bit odd to see Quinn described as “just a straight shooter.” I don’t quite think that straight and Quinn fit in the same sentence.
Comment by Louis Midgley — July 25, 2006 @ 12:34 am
LM,
You asked a question and I answered it.
Most of my comments are about the shortfalls of the apologetic approach in general. Intellectually, I see little difference between the apologists and the antis. Both have an axe to grind and will generally say anything, no matter how nonsensical. Unfortunate, when the gullible faithful on our side realize Nibley and others were/are naked emperors, the damage is often beyond repair. People who approach faith with a healthy skepticism are much better equipped to hang in for the duration. I think back to all the arrows I served with on my mission and how most have left the church. I look around and see most of our twenty-something single people are missing, presumably because there’s no place in the church were sexually active singles are welcome. I know, because a generation ago I was one of them, fortuitously rescued by my active LDS wife-to-be. The GAs are asleep at the switch, content to let most of a generation slip away without a whimper. They’re old and tired and probably don’t even realize that the next generation of GAs will have to deal with a much smaller church. It’s sad were apologetics as brought us to.
BTW, of course I realized the irony of my “straight shooter” line when I wrote it but, again, I don’t see the relevance of Quinn’s sexual orientation, even if it was a choice, which I don’t believe it is, hence why I volunteered my 100% heterosexuality to preempt any attack on my motivation for denouncing your going after Quinn’s sexual orientation.
Comment by Steve EM — July 25, 2006 @ 8:41 am
Lou,
Thanks for your inquiry. I’ve been largely missing in action in recent weeks; I’m finishing final dissertation revisions, worrying my way through university paperwork, and packing for a move across 2/3 of the country. But it’s also my opinion that your comments are interesting and stand on their own. I guess I don’t think every exchange needs to be a debate. I said some things–which I hope were interesting and helped move the conversation forward. You’ve now said some things that I find interesting and that have also helped move the conversation forward. If a response from me is required at this point, it would be that your statements have a bunch of points that are certainly worthwhile and deserve consideration. As you know, treating historical arguments adequately requires a bunch of time–and I haven’t got it right now. So, rather than responding in a half-baked way that doesn’t do your ideas justice, I’m going to let your arguments speak for themselves.
Please don’t interpret my silence as disrespect. Instead, it reflects: (1) my being swamped with other matters, and (2) my opinion that you and your online interlocutors are carrying the conversation quite well in my absence.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — July 25, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Steve EM:
I have had a look at your brawl with Bob McCue. You hit some targets. But one could hardly miss with someone like McCue. You also, though I doubt that you realized it, inflicted some serious wounds on yourself. You would do well to drop words like shit and crap from your vocabulary. The violence of your rhetoric does not increase the plausibility of your opinions and it is, whether you like it or not, terribly offensive.
Perhaps I have not understood your autobiographical remark and you can correct me if I have not seen the point you are trying to make, but I do not think that your post mission antics before you met your faithful wife, who got you back into the Church, a matter to which you seem inclined to draw attention, address any intellectual issue or are evidence for or against apologists or apologetics, though they seem just a tad bit defensive.. I also doubt that this sort of opining will persuade anyone of the soundness of your criticism of the Brethren for not just opening the Church to casual sex among single twenty year old kids. I cannot see how your opinion that profligate behavior by kids in the Church should be tolerated and perhaps celebrated and that those with the right opinion on such matters (orthodoxy) are driving kids and oldies out of the Church makes any sense. At least that kind of opining does not address the issues that I have raised in the things that things I have written.
From what I can make out of what you have posted, your idea of an apologist is someone who you imagine holds an opinion that differs from yours. I do not mind being called an apologist, if I get to explain that I am interested only in defending the historical foundations of my (and your) faith. And the fact is that if the FARMS Review, and not even all the other things that the Maxwell Institute does, did not exist, there would be no defense of the faith and the Saints at all. You do not like Nibley presumably for Sounding Brass and the Myth Makers, but he did these on assignment at a time when the Church had exactly no professional historians and essentially no one who knew the published and unpublished sources either LDS or otherwise. Of course he made some mistakes. He did the best he could. It is just plain absurd to claim that his efforts, however they now appear, drove people from the Church. But Nibley was far more than those apologetic essay. He, more than anyone else, got the Saints, including the Brethren, to take seriously the contents of the Book of Mormon.
Now just right now, without looking something up, try listing say fifteen names of writers who have been published in the FARMS Review. There are more than 220 of them to pick from. You can include my name and Dan Peterson’s name. And then identify the contents of say fifteen essays by those authors and show how they drive people out of the Church. Oh, I forgot, you were generalizing about apologists without necessarily having anyone in mind. And then it was easy to confidently opine that these imaginary apologists are just tearing the Church apart. I was hoping that you would come to realize, with what has been posted on this and other blogs, as a result of my quarrel with Roasted Tomatoes, that these maters are just a bit more complicated than casual, uninformed opinion has them. Others, I note, have in very nice ways suggested that you are wrong and have tried in several ways to advance the conversation, but you just keep repeating a mantra. So when you claim that apologists make you ill, do you mean everyone who defends the faith and the Saints? If not, what exactly is it that you are trying to say?
I will admit that some ways of defending the faith bother me. I have been critical of some of these. I have a long history of doing this. I am prepared to identify exactly who wrote these things and why I fault them. I suggest that you leave out your complaints about the Brethren and focus, instead, on challenges to your faith. What if true, would invalidate your faith? Take up that issue. Put another way, what exactly do you find wrong with Grant Palmer’s book? More specifically, do you think that Joseph Smith somehow in 1820-23 borrowed the entire Moroni story from an 1827 translation of one of E. T. A. Hoffmann’s bizarre fairy tales? If not, did I not get something right? And did I not explain how and why Palmer borrowed the other criticisms of Joseph Smith from marginal anti-Mormon sources that now fill An Insider’s View? Is it not useful for those being worked on by those trying to drag them away from their faith to know about these matters? How exactly could “Prying into Palmer” drive anyone out of the Church, unless they had already excommunicated themselves like you realize Simon Southerton had done? Or are you one of those who imagines that the Church is, as they say, big enough to tolerate and celebrate the Simon Southertons who have an urge to opine? We simply must have boundaries or we have no community of faith. If the answer to every question can be either yes or no, we simply have nothing to believe or proclaim and are certainly not witnessing for Jesus as the Messiah or Christ.
Comment by Louis Midgley — July 25, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Steve EM wrote:
I’d be interested to know, Steve, which of Hugh Nibley’s works you’ve read and what your specific criticisms of what he wrote are. You seem very keen on generalizing about “apologists” and Nibley and the Brethren, but I don’t see much from you in the way of specific arguments with which you disagree and why you think they are lacking.
What Nibley have you read? Can you list specific titles? Can you give us specific examples of Nibley’s poor apologetic? I’m not saying he never erred, I’d just like to see some evidence that you’ve actually read him.
Quite the contrary, Steve: The General Authorities speak often and at length on the subject of sexual morality. They (wisely, IMHO) want the Saints to restrict this activity to their spouses, as required by scriptures, revelation, and temple covenants.
If “most of a generation” are “slipping away,” it certainly not without a whimper from the Brethren — it is with a clarion call to avoid the spiritual (and, all too often, physical and emotional) destruction caused by sex outside of marriage.
Comment by Mike Parker — July 25, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Hey, crap isn’t a bad word. It’s modern use is derived from Thomas Crapper, a 19th century Limey plumbing marketer of an improved flush toilet. And to preempt the “Crapper didn’t invent the toilet” crowd, no he didn’t nor did I state otherwise.
As far as the s___ word, after visiting that pig sty McCue calls a website were I couldn’t get through page one without projectile vomiting, I think I used the word in a fitting fashion. The guy is full of it. Did you see where he had the balls to invite me back to read one of his lengthy rants, after I told him until he cleaned things up, my stomach wouldn’t allow me even back to page 1. Also note that I don’t used the s___ word in this forum.
Comment by Steve EM — July 25, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
If the church is a hospital for sinners and we all fall short of the glory of G-d, why shouldn’t fornicators (which includes most single twenty-somethings, be they LDS or not) feel welcome in the church? It’s easy to make sinners feel unconfortable and chase people out of the church, much harder to gather the flock, hence my beef with BKP. Look how many LDS use a WofW problem as an excuse to avoid church activity because they know they’ll be made to feel uncomfortable. And I’m skeptical a WofW problem is a sin anyway; whereas, fornication most definiely is. But fornication is a very common sin, which most cannot repent of outside of marriage, and our church just writes them off like garbage we don’t want to look at.
Comment by Steve EM — July 25, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Steve, I think sinners (of any kind) ought feel welcome at church. The difficulty is the old one of love the sinner and hate the sin. That’s hard for both the sinner and his peers to do in practice. In practice many people see any criticism of acts as criticism of them whether it is intended as such or not. Likewise given all our humanity it is often easy for someone trying to encourage or persuade people to live up to a standard to end up attacking them personally. These are all part and parcel of being human.
What I fear though is that some people’s demand for “feeling welcome” is to stop all discussion of immoral acts or promoting an ideal we all fall short of. Some seem to feel that to be welcoming means to not treat sins as sins at all. That we shouldn’t strive to improve our life at all.
Fornication certainly is a very common sin but I don’t think the church does simply “write them off like garbage.” It has been my experience that some who are fornicators want to be saved in their sins rather than from their sins. Further some seem to enjoy throwing out their past sins so as to get a reaction from others – as a way of taunting them – and show very little inclination to even acknowledge them as sins or feel bad for them.
Comment by Clark — July 25, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
There’s also the problem that LDS speakers often portray a hard line against sin from the pulpit, knowing they (or another LDS leader) can soften the message and emphasize forgiveness in personal interviews, one-on-one. Some leaders have the idea that speaking publicly about forgiveness or softening their condemnation of sin would, in fact, encourage more sinning. That may be true, but it also leads those who listen to words from the pulpit and take them at face value to think there is little or no place for forgiveness in the LDS view. I think the official rhetoric can, in this way, drive people away unnecessarily.
Comment by Dave — July 25, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
Steve EM: “Apologists and antis all have an axe to grind and will say anything. They all turn my stomach.”
Why does anybody take this sort of vacuous blather seriously enough to waste time on it?
Comment by Daniel Peterson — July 25, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
I think that can happen Dave but I think people out looking to justify their sins is much more common. Any slight softening and far too many people use it to justify a lot. I’ve seen it a lot in roommates. And probably even me at times.
Comment by Clark — July 25, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Again, this is the Nacle, not a bunch of sycophantic BYU students readily willing to comment on some profs limited terms like obedient pets panting for a good grade. Man, when I left BYU for Michigan and saw how a real University functions………….
When it comes to matters of faith, I see little difference between many GAs, Nibley and other non-GA apologists and the antis. None are objective or seem to be in an honest pursuit of truth and knowledge. They all try to prove the unprovable and spout ridiculous nonsense from time to time when they think it suits their purposes. There’s a bigoted GA (never retracted his past open bigotry to my knowledge) who’s made a shameful career obsessing about boy’s self pleasure, women’s fashion and making a bogey man out of evolution; what kind of faith promoting legacy is that? What a waste. We have other GAs who take issue with a good part of the church praying in their own language (modern English). Then we have the white shirt and tie cult crowd and their 1920s period clothing uniform imposed on our bike riding missionaries (what is it about religions often falling into the period clothing trap?) But your crowd will defend whatever nonsense any authority of the church might spout off. They have a commission to peach repentance and bring people to Christ; when they misuse their position to promote personal opinion and bully people into compliance, why should objective, open minded people of faith listen? It seems like the antithesis of the faith they’re suppose to be promoting.
I took a Nibley class circa 1980. The guy was a completely incoherent babbling moron, apparently on meds of some sort. I just couldn’t understand all the Nibley groupies after that. It wouldn’t surprise me if what that kid of his says is true. Then there were the Pace groupies until BRM shut down that weird cult. As far as some of the inquiries above regarding “have you read such and such?â€, once I have read or heard someone enough to know they’re a big fake, why should I pursue any of their nonsense further? Do I have to read all the works of Marx and Lenin to know that communism is an evil crock of merde?
Perhaps BKP really has unleashed his minions in an attempt to tame the Nacle into something so boring people will lose interest.
Comment by Steve EM — July 26, 2006 @ 10:25 am
Dave, having been there, your # 90 is on the money. It really is a miracle I’m still on this path we call faith. Fornicators, which are most of our twenty-something singles today are, generally self excommunicate from our church even when they still believe because they know all they’ll hear at church is Satan’s message of despair. It’s even more so the case for the temple endowed who know the church will ex them if they lack the strength to repent. I’m not saying twenty-something single fornicators should be allowed in the temple or called to teach, but there are plenty of callings they could do that would keep them in the faith. Under the current regime, most of a generation has been tossed overboard. By the time the GAs and apologist crowd wakes up and smells the diet coke, this will be a much smaller church than anyone seems to realize.
Comment by Steve EM — July 26, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Fornicators, which are most of our twenty-something singles today are, generally self excommunicate from our church even when they still believe because they know all they’ll hear at church is Satan’s message of despair.
Empirically, I disagree with this statment. First, I disagree that most of our twenty-something singles today in the Church are fornicators. I would suggest that most of our twenty-something singles in the Church are not fornicators. Second, I disagree that Satan’s message of despair is ever preached at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather, the message of the Church is Jesus Christ’s message: to come follow him and to keep his commandments. Repentance for sin, including fornication, is taught as the second principle of the Gospel. This is pleasing to the Lord.
Comment by john f. — July 26, 2006 @ 11:28 am
John,
BYU isn’t the church. Our activity rate for single twenty-somethings today is in the teens. Most of a generation has been kissed goodby. That’s a generation who’s babies won’t be going the primary, etc. That means a smaller church. By the time the stats reflect the loss, the damage has been long done.
Comment by Steve EM — July 26, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Steve EM’s non-response (#93) to my request for Nibley titles he’s actually read (#86) is clear evidence that he is not at all interested in dealing with evidence and arguments, but only in making broad generalizations and caricatures.
Dan Peterson (#91) is right — continuing this discussion with him is a waste of time.
Comment by Mike Parker — July 26, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Mike,
Again, I’m a Nacle commenter, not some sycophantic student who will only comment on some limited scope you attempt to dictate. I’ve read plenty of Nibley’s pedantic rubbish (he really could have used an editor). It was a long time ago. Not being a groupie, why would I remember the titles?
Comment by Steve EM — July 26, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
How about just one, Steve? If you’re qualified to dismiss Nibley as a “naked emperor,” then certainly you could cough up the name of one execrable thing he wrote that is evidence for your claim.
You see, there are a lot of people — Mormons and non-Mormons — who read Nibley’s stuff and think he was brilliant.* George MacRae, the (non-Mormon) former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, once remarked while hearing him lecture, “It is obscene for a man to know that much!”
So I kind of have a hard time taking your dismissal of Nibley seriously. It would help if you actually presented some reason for dismissing him. I don’t suspect you have one, but I’m willing to entertain your evidence.
—
*Although certainly not perfect.
Comment by Mike Parker — July 26, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
I have to concur with most of Steve’s comments. The perfectionist bar set by the scriptures and Brethren unfortunately collides with the demands of biology and the unprepared marital state most 20 somethings find themselves.
The married and well off leaders today I believe are out of touch with the realities facing today’s and tomorrow’s youth. Celibacy while an ideal is difficult to adhere in todays distracting world of technology and distractions. We need more tolerance and love.
Comment by David — July 27, 2006 @ 12:11 am
Thanks to all for an interesting and spirited discussion. There are other Bloggernacle fish for you all to fry, so I think the time is probably right to close the comments here. Again, thanks to all.
Comment by john f. — July 27, 2006 @ 11:45 am