The problem with LDS apologetics

[Jeff Lebowski]

Jay, the title of this thread is "The problem with LDS apologetics". Suppose you were sitting in the COB in SLC and had free reign to address this issue. What would you do?

[Goatnapper'96]

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 disagree. I don't believe every Church leader is infallible or even inspired by God. I think they can be when the situation needs it but I tend to believe I think those situations are fewer and farther inbetween than many of what you would categorize as testimony type 1. However, I believe I am pretty diligent in doing what they ask me to do even if I am not convinced it came directly from God. I do so for a few reasons:
1.) It is a religious community and they are in charge. I might mock and disagree but after stating my case I will respect their position within the "Chain of Command." Organizations just tend to function better that way IMO. Brainwashed former soldier, perhaps.
2.) I have never believed or been taught or believed it much when I was taught that sustaining a leader means agreeing with them. But I do believe sustaining leaders, by this I mean doing what they ask, develops humility and obedience, both of which are Christlike attributes that I believe we here on earth to attain. Now because I have never been in SoonerCoug's ward I have never been asked to do something by a leader that I thought was flat out wrong. I have been asked to support some things I consider petty and not real conducive to what I believe to be the true objectives of the LDS Church, but I have yet to have a leader dig in when I voice my objections to those issues.
3.) I like the Church and really believe it benefits me and all of mankind.

The older I get the more I tend to conclude there are a lot more type 2's out there but similar to pretending we no longer listen to Led Zeppelin when we are called as High Councilors we pretend to be type 1's because there is a perception that being a type 1 is an instiutitonal expectation.

[Goatnapper'96]

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

With each generation that fear will dissipate. It is more a function of their age and how they grasp the Church than it is the Church or the gospel/belief system the LDS Church promulgates.

[jay santos]

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!"

The issues I bring up that are being addressed by apologists are not whether or not Joseph and Brigham were human, they are issues that question indirectly or directly the basic beliefs that are the foundation for the LDS church.

--Did the First Vision happen?
--Did the gold plates exist and were they a record of actual ancient people that Joseph Translated?
--to lesser extent and LDS specific issue, but you can throw this in there too: Did the miraculous events of the New Testament that testify of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God actually happen?

There are some really tough historical and scientific facts out there that appear to do some damage to the faithful view of these religious truths.

How do you react to this?

1. Ignore completely
2. Explore the issues but stop short of explaining them, writing it off to "I don't know the answer but I trust God there must be some answer".
3. Explore the issues and come up with an integrated view of the church and the historical/scientific facts that preserve both. In this case, I believe you are forced to move to type 2 testimony as I explain, because the integrated views the apologists offer up force you to look at the gospel in a type 2 setting.
4. Explore the issues and dump your belief in Mormonism.

So Goat, when you say these don't bother you, which of these four do you fall in?

I think in many ways option 2 above is better than option 3, which is why I think apologetics and inoculation might not be the best approach.

[jay santos]

Jay, the title of this thread is "The problem with LDS apologetics". Suppose you were sitting in the COB in SLC and had free reign to address this issue. What would you do?

That's a lot of responsibility. The question here is after you face the issues, what's your explanation.

from my last post:

2. Explore the issues but stop short of explaining them, writing it off to "I don't know the answer but I trust God there must be some answer".
3. Explore the issues and come up with an integrated view of the church and the historical/scientific facts that preserve both. In this case, I believe you are forced to move to type 2 testimony as I explain, because the integrated views the apologists offer up force you to look at the gospel in a type 2 setting.

If you fall in line with #2, then you proceed mostly status quo, maybe coming up with some apologist type answers for some of the easiest issues, avoiding the tougher ones, and really hammering the point of faith and trust in the face of these difficult historical and scientific facts, maybe even promising future historical and scientific discoveries which will prove us to be right.

If you fall in line with #3, then I think you go Community of Christ.

[Northwestcoug]

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.

That is a good point. Even if the church were to have an honest discussion about all the thorny issues, and a sizable proportion of the membership either left or stopped serving as faithfully as before, it would still be a church of good people. There's different churches all around that don't require nearly the same level of commitment we do, and yet they do good all the time.

It's my bias and personal experience, but I see a definitely see a trend of members gravitating towards group 2. If this continues to happen, we may find ourselves justifying doing good for good's sake, and not because of the infallibility of the church and its leaders. This seems like the main impetus for a lot of churches out there. It may not be a bad place to end up.

[Goatnapper'96]

It's my bias and personal experience, but I see a definitely see a trend of members gravitating towards group 2. If this continues to happen, we may find ourselves justifying doing good for good's sake, and not because of the infallibility of the church and its leaders. This seems like the main impetus for a lot of churches out there. It may not be a bad place to end up.

I agree with this and think the level of committment mormons have is the result of being asked to be that committed more than why many believe they are that committed. I am not so convinced the committment level will change unless the Church stops asking for it.

[thesaint258]

The issues I bring up that are being addressed by apologists are not whether or not Joseph and Brigham were human, they are issues that question indirectly or directly the basic beliefs that are the foundation for the LDS church.

--Did the First Vision happen?
--Did the gold plates exist and were they a record of actual ancient people that Joseph Translated?
--to lesser extent and LDS specific issue, but you can throw this in there too: Did the miraculous events of the New Testament that testify of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God actually happen?

There are some really tough historical and scientific facts out there that appear to do some damage to the faithful view of these religious truths.

How do you react to this?

1. Ignore completely
2. Explore the issues but stop short of explaining them, writing it off to "I don't know the answer but I trust God there must be some answer".
3. Explore the issues and come up with an integrated view of the church and the historical/scientific facts that preserve both. In this case, I believe you are forced to move to type 2 testimony as I explain, because the integrated views the apologists offer up force you to look at the gospel in a type 2 setting.
4. Explore the issues and dump your belief in Mormonism.

So Goat, when you say these don't bother you, which of these four do you fall in?

I think in many ways option 2 above is better than option 3, which is why I think apologetics and inoculation might not be the best approach.

For me, it's probably a mix of 2 and 3. I went through some incredibly tough years that really ruined my testimony. As many of the things I thought I believed melted away, I found core beliefs that I simply cannot deny. I don't actively look for things that contradict my beliefs, but when I encounter something that seem like it could contradict my beliefs, I don't shy away. I'll learn about it, but I do so from that foundational testimony that I have. I don't understand everything about the science or history behind problematic facts, but what I do understand completely is my testimony and how I gained it. If those facts contradict my testimony, I'll choose my testimony. If the facts can be worked in somehow, great. If not, I'll go with option 2. I know that sometimes it can seem like a cop-out, but sometimes we're not going to understand, and we have to trust God.

[jay santos]

I agree with this and think the level of committment mormons have is the result of being asked to be that committed more than why many believe they are that committed. I am not so convinced the committment level will change unless the Church stops asking for it.

I might have a faulty assumption about why Mormons are more extreme in their observance than other faiths. ie mission service, WoW observance, tithing, attending numerous meetings, etc. My assumption is that it is linked to our belief that this is the one and only true church of God.

[Goatnapper'96]

How do you react to this?

1. Ignore completely
2. Explore the issues but stop short of explaining them, writing it off to "I don't know the answer but I trust God there must be some answer".
3. Explore the issues and come up with an integrated view of the church and the historical/scientific facts that preserve both. In this case, I believe you are forced to move to type 2 testimony as I explain, because the integrated views the apologists offer up force you to look at the gospel in a type 2 setting.
4. Explore the issues and dump your belief in Mormonism.

So Goat, when you say these don't bother you, which of these four do you fall in?

I think in many ways option 2 above is better than option 3, which is why I think apologetics and inoculation might not be the best approach.

I would put myself in the option of shallow exploration, when compared to many on this venue, of the issues with the conclusion that the answer is "I don't know." Included in that is the belief that Joseph was called of God but likely did a whole lot of things wrong, although I find no benefit in breaking down the specifics of where he was wrong but if forced I would state I do not believe he was inspired of God in all things. I guess I am a 2 but I don't need to believe everything was of God. In fact as stated I don't. My perspective is the issues really can't be explained wrt having faith in the entire cause. I think that approach is more reflected than perhaps you realize. Just like you expecting the Church to grow over the whole earth, I never expected that or even thought it realistic. Or perhaps I have a different definition of what being over the whole earth means.

[Goatnapper'96]

For me, it's probably a mix of 2 and 3. I went through some incredibly tough years that really ruined my testimony. As many of the things I thought I believed melted away, I found core beliefs that I simply cannot deny. I don't actively look for things that contradict my beliefs, but when I encounter something that seem like it could contradict my beliefs, I don't shy away. I'll learn about it, but I do so from that foundational testimony that I have. I don't understand everything about the science or history behind problematic facts, but what I do understand completely is my testimony and how I gained it. If those facts contradict my testimony, I'll choose my testimony. If the facts can be worked in somehow, great. If not, I'll go with option 2. I know that sometimes it can seem like a cop-out, but sometimes we're not going to understand, and we have to trust God.

I would say this reflects what I am trying to get at. There are many who understand the issues and have sought some effort to reconcile their faith with reason but when they find themselves unable to do so they rely on faith and are not as bothered or need explanations to the issues. That does not neccesarily mean they believe it was all of God, just that they believe God is behind the movement and are willing to exercise faith in that perspective.

What I find interesting is all too often we preach a black and white perspective when I am convinced only a minority of the followers believe it that way.

[ERCougar]

I agree with Jay that I think the church, its growth, and vitality as an institution depends on having plenty of Type 1/Fowler Stage 3 people. For one, 19 yo's are simply not going to make the same sacrifices in the same numbers without a somewhat magic worldview, as SU puts it. That's not to say that there aren't exceptional 19 yo's who have a more nuanced faith yet are willing to serve nonetheless, or adults who would do the same, but an unquestioning belief is very powerful in its motivation. Do you think the 9/11 perpetrators had a nuanced, personal faith?

However, I don't see a problem with the current course of apologetics. I don't think we should formalize an introduction to difficult issues--most people just really don't care. For those that do, it's pretty easy to find FAIR. I remember hearing Cecil Samuelson at a fireside in med school say something to the effect of, "I have no problem with people reading and studying. Just give equal time to both sides." I like that approach--don't hide anything, but emphasize to people how easily influenced the mind can be, and pay attention to what side of things you're reading.

[FMCoug]

There's more and more talk about this.

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 a problem with the premise here. Obviously there is a spectrum and you are just trying to outline two black and white options, but I would describe myself (and I think I probably fit in with most educated, adult, active member) as this hybrid of both:

From #1
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.

By literal and fundamental I mean that Jesus Christ lives, was resurrected and is our Savior. Joseph Smith really had the "First Vision". Though I don't know and don't care about which account is accurate. The Book of Mormon really is ancient scripture. Whether it is historical fact or not doesn't really matter to me. It is scripture, not a history book.

2. strong testimony in the importance of a prophet, and a desire to follow the prophetat 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.

The prophet has a calling, no different than any other. Human and infallible are mutually exclusive. He speaks for God as he is inspired but is not receiving dictation. The words of the prophets will be colored by their times, experiences, personalities, etc.



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.

No problem with this one at all.


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.

Being "crushed by it" certainly doesn't fit with the gospel I know and love.


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.

From #2

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.

Anybody who believes prophets or GA's are infallible (i.e. perfect) has got to be in a small small minority. At least if they are beyond primary stage.


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.

This is one of the core teachings of the Church. It is the foundation of the missionary discussions. This not being part of #1 puzzles me.


3. Obedience is important only when personal revelation ratifies what the scriptures and the prophet counsel us to do.

See above.

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.


One can believe this is the inevitable result but work mightily to bring to the gospel to all men, realizing that only a small minority will accept it.


5. When scripture disagrees with science and history (which is maybe more often than not), then scripture is meant to be figurative not literal.

Meh. Per my comments above, scripture is spiritual, not a history book. Figurative, literal, allegory, whatever. Doesn't really matter to me. There is a great lesson to be learned from the story of Jonah. Who cares if he was actually swallowed by a whale?

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.

There is another option here. From Joseph Smith:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

7. Don't focus on the LDS church being right on everything, focus on it being a good place that teaches good values.

"Everything" is way too broad here. Every policy that emanates from SLC. Of course not.


The bottom line for me are these questions:

• Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
• Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
• Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
• Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
• Do you live the law of chastity?
• Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
• Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
• Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
• Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
• Are you a full-tithe payer?
• Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?
• Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
• If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
• Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
• Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
• Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

[Goatnapper'96]

Our auditors are here this week. As a consequence of the paucity of eating establishments in our burgh' our local office manager has prepared a delictable cornicopia of lunch items for the auditors and much of our local staff. One such item is shredded cheesy funeral potatoes, made with real life Idaho potatoes for real life Idahoans- save the auditors they come from Brigham City! Both the bitter stringpulling exmos and the priestcraft lovin' apologists can piss off. Today, I dine on many calories and I know my religious subculture is true!

[UtahDan]

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

I'm a Fowler fan so I like your framing. It does seem that most of this discussion is in terms of what is best for the institution. I don't personally think that the dissonance created by religion is good for individuals, though without it you forgo other benefits, IMO. People frequently have to battle out between what dogma tells them and what reason tells them. The choice to chose the dogma, or said another way the quantum of the evidence one must ignore to maintain belief, is one way to think about faith. And it is said that faith is a good thing and that it is good to learn to take things on faith (believe in spite of evidence or lack of evidence). But no one ever says why this is good.

So do you move more in the direction of reducing dissonance, which is a step in the direction of letting evidence and reason inform dogma, or do you retrench. From the perspective of the individual the answer is still not obvious, IMO. This because I believe that when you go too far in the direction of people having reason and evidence as their bottom line (as opposed to faith/authority), while the day to day dissonance comes down, so also do the beliefs in a lot of the most comforting aspects of religion. God is watching over me, he will help me achieve my goals, I am special/exceptional, my group has the answers to the big questions, there is a plan for me, etc. That all begins to be harmed. And switching back to the institutional view for a moment, people like that are much less willing to cross the plains so to speak.

I resolve the issue on the general principle that all truth is useful to an institution (sorry BKP) and to do anything other than be institutionally honest is patronizing and harmful. Hopefully it is obvious why a nation is much worse off not teaching its children about its mistakes as well as its successes. It is true for any institution. Without that, I think the idea that even the institution is better off in the long run is a mirage. The individuals are definitely not, IMO.