The problem with LDS apologetics

[jay santos]

There's more and more talk about this.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53408134-78/church-mormon-history-lds.html.csp?page=1

Here's why I think this is a real problem to try to mass produce LDS apologetics (inoculation).

This is the type of Mormon I was taught to believe and to be. The goal of the church is to produce young people/missionaries with these attributes.

1. literal, fundamental testimony of the gospel. Answers to cultural and historical issues in the world can be found through the gospel. No humans before Adam and Eve. Dispersion of languages and cultures came from the Tower of Babel. America was populated by Lehi and his family. Science and historical facts are important but they are secondary to understanding found in the scriptures and always can be twisted to fit the story.
2. strong testimony in the importance of a prophet, and a desire to follow the prophet at all costs. The prophet speaks to God and is never wrong. Yeah, there might be some weird stuff if you look hard enough with Brigham Young and maybe even Joseph Smith, but it's all taken out of context or said off the record. scripture and prophetic counsel from general conference would be no different if it were God personally delivering it.
3. a strong belief in the importance of the priesthood and the kingdom of God, and a desire to be part of that, and to consecrate your time, your finances, your entire life.
4. the church is destined to fill the Earth. Basically the kingdom of God is rolling forth like a stone cut out of the mountain and you can either help it roll out or be crushed by it.
5. doctrine and answers to gospel questions are complete, perfect, unchanging, and knowable. Everthing from the preexistence, to the nature of God, to the descriptions of the afterlife, and the requirements for such are known at fairly granular level of detail.
6. obedience to all the commandments and counsel found in scripture or from modern prophet is paramount and the unquestioned goal of every Latter Day Saint

This kind of testimony has real power. This kind of faith enables you to do some really tough stuff in the way of sacrifice and obedience.


So then LDS apologetics comes around and deals with various tough issues:
Book of Abraham, peepstone and BOM translation process, multiple first vision accounts, BOM source material, BOM anachronysms, science and history related to the creation, the dispersion of languages and culture, history and anthropology of the Americas, DNA of native Americans, polygamy and polyandry, changing doctrines, possible Masonic influeces on LDS doctrine (and other source material for Joseph's revelations like Swedenborg, etc), Bible textual criticism, Kinderhook plates, etc.

And the LDS apologetics have an answer for everything. That is true. Every single item, they have analysis and theories to explain how it all fits together.

But, and this is a big ugly BUTT, once you process all the apologists' answers for all this and if you decide to accept these answers, then you definitely move away from the view/testimony described above. You end up with what I would describe as a fairly weak, faithless view of Mormonism including.

1. Prophets are not infallible. And that does not mean they occasionally do something wrong like cough without covering their mouth. It means a significant amount of the things they do even in their role as a prophet can be incorrect, ie scripture, revelation, non-canonical teachings, etc.
2. Personal revelation is very important and that's the way God speaks to us, not necessarily through prophets and scripture. The Holy Ghost will testify what is true.
3. Obedience is important only when personal revelation ratifies what the scriptures and the prophet counsel us to do.
4. The church is meant to be a small, insignificant force on the Earth and it has always been so and will always be so.
5. When scripture disagrees with science and history (which is maybe more often than not), then scripture is meant to be figurative not literal.
6. Doctrine and answers to gospel questions are not clear and concise. They change from time to time, and they represent the human family's best guess. We should not be surprised if any of our current doctrine is changed and changed again by future prophets.
7. Don't focus on the LDS church being right on everything, focus on it being a good place that teaches good values.

Personally, I think there is great loss when someone moves from the first type of testimony to the second type of testimony. I think if the church starts to mass produce youth in the second category not in the first category that it will be extremely damaging to the power for good the church has as a whole and at the individual level.

[UtahDan]

Great, thoughtful post Jay. The problem, I think, is that if they do not receive this education at church they will get it from the internet.

[Surfah]

There's more and more talk about this.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53408134-78/church-mormon-history-lds.html.csp?page=1

Here's why I think this is a real problem to try to mass produce LDS apologetics (inoculation).

This is the type of Mormon I was taught to believe and to be. The goal of the church is to produce young people/missionaries with these attributes.

1. literal, fundamental testimony of the gospel. Answers to cultural and historical issues in the world can be found through the gospel. No humans before Adam and Eve. Dispersion of languages and cultures came from the Tower of Babel. America was populated by Lehi and his family. Science and historical facts are important but they are secondary to understanding found in the scriptures and always can be twisted to fit the story.
2. strong testimony in the importance of a prophet, and a desire to follow the prophet at all costs. The prophet speaks to God and is never wrong. Yeah, there might be some weird stuff if you look hard enough with Brigham Young and maybe even Joseph Smith, but it's all taken out of context or said off the record. scripture and prophetic counsel from general conference would be no different if it were God personally delivering it.
3. a strong belief in the importance of the priesthood and the kingdom of God, and a desire to be part of that, and to consecrate your time, your finances, your entire life.
4. the church is destined to fill the Earth. Basically the kingdom of God is rolling forth like a stone cut out of the mountain and you can either help it roll out or be crushed by it.
5. doctrine and answers to gospel questions are complete, perfect, unchanging, and knowable. Everthing from the preexistence, to the nature of God, to the descriptions of the afterlife, and the requirements for such are known at fairly granular level of detail.
6. obedience to all the commandments and counsel found in scripture or from modern prophet is paramount and the unquestioned goal of every Latter Day Saint

This kind of testimony has real power. This kind of faith enables you to do some really tough stuff in the way of sacrifice and obedience.


So then LDS apologetics comes around and deals with various tough issues:
Book of Abraham, peepstone and BOM translation process, multiple first vision accounts, BOM source material, BOM anachronysms, science and history related to the creation, the dispersion of languages and culture, history and anthropology of the Americas, DNA of native Americans, polygamy and polyandry, changing doctrines, possible Masonic influeces on LDS doctrine (and other source material for Joseph's revelations like Swedenborg, etc), Bible textual criticism, Kinderhook plates, etc.

And the LDS apologetics have an answer for everything. That is true. Every single item, they have analysis and theories to explain how it all fits together.

But, and this is a big ugly BUTT, once you process all the apologists' answers for all this and if you decide to accept these answers, then you definitely move away from the view/testimony described above. You end up with what I would describe as a fairly weak, faithless view of Mormonism including.

1. Prophets are not infallible. And that does not mean they occasionally do something wrong like cough without covering their mouth. It means a significant amount of the things they do even in their role as a prophet can be incorrect, ie scripture, revelation, non-canonical teachings, etc.
2. Personal revelation is very important and that's the way God speaks to us, not necessarily through prophets and scripture. The Holy Ghost will testify what is true.
3. Obedience is important only when personal revelation ratifies what the scriptures and the prophet counsel us to do.
4. The church is meant to be a small, insignificant force on the Earth and it has always been so and will always be so.
5. When scripture disagrees with science and history (which is maybe more often than not), then scripture is meant to be figurative not literal.
6. Doctrine and answers to gospel questions are not clear and concise. They change from time to time, and they represent the human family's best guess. We should not be surprised if any of our current doctrine is changed and changed again by future prophets.
7. Don't focus on the LDS church being right on everything, focus on it being a good place that teaches good values.

Personally, I think there is great loss when someone moves from the first type of testimony to the second type of testimony. I think if the church starts to mass produce youth in the second category not in the first category that it will be extremely damaging to the power for good the church has as a whole and at the individual level.

In my experience though it seems most people gravitate from the 2nd type of testimony to the 1st type.

In fact in the introduction to the BoM lesson at the beginning of the year our GD teacher (a really good teacher) said that when he converted to the church he had a very logical testimony. He said that was one of the things that attracted him to the Church at first was that it seemed to answer the questions he had. But he said that testimony wouldn't last and it can't last because we're going to run into things logic can't explain. He explained that his testimony now is one based on the Spirit and faith and it is far stronger.

[pedrotea]

I have thought about these two types of testamony lately. I like what Surfah's GD said. Logic is a good starting point but I think faith cannot be ignored and is a huge part of being a member of the LDS faith.

I don't feel that there will ever be conclusive proof scientifically that the church has all the answers (BoM DNA testing and the like). If concrete evidence could be compiled to proove the truth of the BoM or smooth out the warts of the church's history then faith would no longer be required. And in my opinion faith will always be required.

[TripletDaddy]

In my experience though it seems most people gravitate from the 2nd type of testimony to the 1st type.

In fact in the introduction to the BoM lesson at the beginning of the year our GD teacher (a really good teacher) said that when he converted to the church he had a very logical testimony. He said that was one of the things that attracted him to the Church at first was that it seemed to answer the questions he had. But he said that testimony wouldn't last and it can't last because we're going to run into things logic can't explain. He explained that his testimony now is one based on the Spirit and faith and it is far stronger.

Where people "gravitate" is a function of their point of origin.

The second type of testimony doesn't seem at all conducive to a migration towards the first type. And in fact, per your gospel doctrine account, your teacher didn't seem to be saying that he was a Type 2. He simply was saying that over time his basis for testimony became more reliant on faith. You can still be a type 1 and place your trust in faith. For example, did your gospel doctrine teacher admit that when he first joined the Curch, that he didn't really think the prophet spoke to god and that his leadership was figurative? Did he claim that his logical conversion to the BoM was based on scientific evidence? Of course not.

The type 2 as described above is generally that way specifically because of dwindling faith, not because he or she is gearing up for a burst of faith that will migrate the,m towards type 1. Infallibility of leaders, non literal scriptural accounts, mental gymnastics to explain changing truths....if you think this way as a type 2 you are on your way out, not on your way in.

I have a hunch that when your GD teacher says that his logic based testimony made sense, he was discussing principles of the plan of salvation, not the specific historical issues laid out above. I wasn't there though so I can't be sure, of course.

[Uncle Ted]

Great, thoughtful post Jay. The problem, I think, is that if they do not receive this education at church they will get it from the internet.

[YOUTUBE]OlOJFcjcizE[/YOUTUBE]

[Moliere]

Personally, I think there is great loss when someone moves from the first type of testimony to the second type of testimony. I think if the church starts to mass produce youth in the second category not in the first category that it will be extremely damaging to the power for good the church has as a whole and at the individual level.

I personally think we should teach the second category and that it would keep the church strong and vibrant.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think if the church starts to mass produce youth in the second category not in the first category that it will be extremely damaging to the power for good the church has as a whole and at the individual level.

Help me understand how having more and more of the second type is going to be extremely damaging for the power for good that the church has.

[jay santos]

Help me understand how having more and more of the second type is going to be extremely damaging for the power for good that the church has.

That question seems so obvious to me it's almost shocking one would ask.

I think there's a dramatic difference between those with testimony type 1 and type 2.

--willingness to serve in time consuming callings
--willingness to pay tithing and even pay or donate more
--willingness to serve missions
--desire to preach the gospel, introduce their friends to church, reactive inactives, et.
--level of observance, ie attending of meetings, Sabbath worship, etc.

The first type does everything they are asked to do. The second type may or may not, depending on if they think it's right for them. And since what Mormonism asks is very difficult, it's pretty easy for type 2's to "rationalize" not doing the harder stuff.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I appreciate your efforts, Jay, but I think there's something deeper going on. When somebody genuinely moves to type 2, they are learning to choose truth and fact over dogma (and I could quibble about your use of apologetics here, but that's beside the point).

Faith and spirituality can still be a part of truth for such people, but they will no longer value the LDS Church in the same, absolute sense that they did before. To put it a bit crudely, they will no longer worship the Church or the mortal men who lead it.

They will, though, have the opportunity for spiritual growth that would not have comprehended or appreciated before. They may also continue to appreciate the LDS Church in a more utilitarian way.

[jay santos]

I appreciate your efforts, Jay, but I think there's something deeper going on. When somebody genuinely moves to type 2, they are learning to choose truth and fact over dogma (and I could quibble about your use of apologetics here, but that's beside the point).

Faith and spirituality can still be a part of truth for such people, but they will no longer value the LDS Church in the same, absolute sense that they did before. To put it a bit crudely, they will no longer worship the Church or the mortal men who lead it.

They will, though, have the opportunity for spiritual growth that would not have comprehended or appreciated before. They may also continue to appreciate the LDS Church in a more utilitarian way.

Through the institution's eyes, type 2 is a far inferior level of faith. And that's the perspective through which I posited these theories.

You see type 1 as immature and false and type 2 as ideal and true. I see a lot of problems with type 2.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Through the institution's eyes, type 2 is a far inferior level of faith. And that's the perspective through which I posited these theories.

You see type 1 as immature and false and type 2 as ideal and true. I see a lot of problems with type 2.

I agree that you've framed things through the institution's eyes. Your type 1 roughly corresponds to Fowler's stages 2 and 3, with apologists working to strengthen the boundaries between stages 3 and 4, to keep people "within the bubble." When apologists start choosing truth and fact over institutional dogma, though, they move into stage 4. Somebody like Dan Peterson is working to keep people within the bubble (he's on the boundary betweem stages 3 and 4), whereas somebody like Blake Ostler is trying to sort out truth and fact from insitutional dogma (he appears to be in stage 4).

In stage 4 someone might find no truth and no useful facts in their dogma, or in anything spiritual or religious, and that path leads to agnosticism or atheism. If someone finds some of the dogma useful (utilitarian) to a more individual, but faithful end, they start coordinating faith and reason, and become syncretistic in their views. That person arrives at Fowler's stage 5.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm

[Goatnapper'96]

There's more and more talk about this.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53408134-78/church-mormon-history-lds.html.csp?page=1

Here's why I think this is a real problem to try to mass produce LDS apologetics (inoculation).

This is the type of Mormon I was taught to believe and to be. The goal of the church is to produce young people/missionaries with these attributes.

1. literal, fundamental testimony of the gospel. Answers to cultural and historical issues in the world can be found through the gospel. No humans before Adam and Eve. Dispersion of languages and cultures came from the Tower of Babel. America was populated by Lehi and his family. Science and historical facts are important but they are secondary to understanding found in the scriptures and always can be twisted to fit the story.
2. strong testimony in the importance of a prophet, and a desire to follow the prophet at all costs. The prophet speaks to God and is never wrong. Yeah, there might be some weird stuff if you look hard enough with Brigham Young and maybe even Joseph Smith, but it's all taken out of context or said off the record. scripture and prophetic counsel from general conference would be no different if it were God personally delivering it.
3. a strong belief in the importance of the priesthood and the kingdom of God, and a desire to be part of that, and to consecrate your time, your finances, your entire life.
4. the church is destined to fill the Earth. Basically the kingdom of God is rolling forth like a stone cut out of the mountain and you can either help it roll out or be crushed by it.
5. doctrine and answers to gospel questions are complete, perfect, unchanging, and knowable. Everthing from the preexistence, to the nature of God, to the descriptions of the afterlife, and the requirements for such are known at fairly granular level of detail.
6. obedience to all the commandments and counsel found in scripture or from modern prophet is paramount and the unquestioned goal of every Latter Day Saint

This kind of testimony has real power. This kind of faith enables you to do some really tough stuff in the way of sacrifice and obedience.


So then LDS apologetics comes around and deals with various tough issues:
Book of Abraham, peepstone and BOM translation process, multiple first vision accounts, BOM source material, BOM anachronysms, science and history related to the creation, the dispersion of languages and culture, history and anthropology of the Americas, DNA of native Americans, polygamy and polyandry, changing doctrines, possible Masonic influeces on LDS doctrine (and other source material for Joseph's revelations like Swedenborg, etc), Bible textual criticism, Kinderhook plates, etc.

And the LDS apologetics have an answer for everything. That is true. Every single item, they have analysis and theories to explain how it all fits together.

But, and this is a big ugly BUTT, once you process all the apologists' answers for all this and if you decide to accept these answers, then you definitely move away from the view/testimony described above. You end up with what I would describe as a fairly weak, faithless view of Mormonism including.

1. Prophets are not infallible. And that does not mean they occasionally do something wrong like cough without covering their mouth. It means a significant amount of the things they do even in their role as a prophet can be incorrect, ie scripture, revelation, non-canonical teachings, etc.
2. Personal revelation is very important and that's the way God speaks to us, not necessarily through prophets and scripture. The Holy Ghost will testify what is true.
3. Obedience is important only when personal revelation ratifies what the scriptures and the prophet counsel us to do.
4. The church is meant to be a small, insignificant force on the Earth and it has always been so and will always be so.
5. When scripture disagrees with science and history (which is maybe more often than not), then scripture is meant to be figurative not literal.
6. Doctrine and answers to gospel questions are not clear and concise. They change from time to time, and they represent the human family's best guess. We should not be surprised if any of our current doctrine is changed and changed again by future prophets.
7. Don't focus on the LDS church being right on everything, focus on it being a good place that teaches good values.

Personally, I think there is great loss when someone moves from the first type of testimony to the second type of testimony. I think if the church starts to mass produce youth in the second category not in the first category that it will be extremely damaging to the power for good the church has as a whole and at the individual level.

I have said it before Jay, but I think personality has a huge influence on it. I think folks like you who get charged up about the 21 points of the True Church or Vincenza De Francesca and his Book of Mormon experience in Italy or Australia are going to struggle when faced with historical facts about the many sticky issues in LDS history. However, I do think there is a demographic of people that believe in the truthfullness of the Church but that the 21 true points never really appealed. I am one of those and as I learned about the stickier issues it didn't impact me similarly as it did those who really got charged up about the 21 points of the true church. I think it is not as difficult to bridge a belief about the Restoration while recognizing that Joseph and Brigham were extremely human. In fact I think if we had more details on Noah, Moses or Peter we might discover they had a hell of a lot of issues as well.

At the end of the day what matters is what the belief can do for people's individual lives.

Now, I tend to agree with you about LDS apologetics. Devout faith is not going to be replaced with sophistry in very many people. There is a smaller demographic attracted to that and in the words of the great American Cinematic hero Chris Farley: "well alot of people go to college for 7 years!"

[Jeff Lebowski]

That question seems so obvious to me it's almost shocking one would ask.

I think there's a dramatic difference between those with testimony type 1 and type 2.

--willingness to serve in time consuming callings
--willingness to pay tithing and even pay or donate more
--willingness to serve missions
--desire to preach the gospel, introduce their friends to church, reactive inactives, et.
--level of observance, ie attending of meetings, Sabbath worship, etc.

The first type does everything they are asked to do. The second type may or may not, depending on if they think it's right for them. And since what Mormonism asks is very difficult, it's pretty easy for type 2's to "rationalize" not doing the harder stuff.

I see your point, but I think you are engaging in some exaggeration to make that point. It appears that you have defined "power for good" fairly narrowly and I think you are underselling the second type's willingness to serve and contribute in meaningful ways.

[Sullyute]

I appreciate your efforts, Jay, but I think there's something deeper going on. When somebody genuinely moves to type 2, they are learning to choose truth and fact over dogma (and I could quibble about your use of apologetics here, but that's beside the point).

Faith and spirituality can still be a part of truth for such people, but they will no longer value the LDS Church in the same, absolute sense that they did before. To put it a bit crudely, they will no longer worship the Church or the mortal men who lead it.

They will, though, have the opportunity for spiritual growth that would not have comprehended or appreciated before. They may also continue to appreciate the LDS Church in a more utilitarian way.

I agree whole heartedly and think this is the biggest fear of the brethren.