The CES Letter

[Northwestcoug]

Here's another voice preaching it. Grant Hardy. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/gra...e-apologetics/

I read most of this. If this is the direction fairmormon is heading, I applaud that. Although I find his line between what is historical and what isn't in the scriptures hard to swallow, at least it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will become more mainstream.

[jay santos]

I think Mormons DO liken the scriptures unto themselves, but not in the way I would hope. Typically it appears to be done in this way, "Brothers and sisters, in these verses, both the Nephites and Lamanites had turned wicket 'like a dog to its vomit' what can we learn from these verses?" And then standard replies seem to be "Well this was written for us, in the last days. So I think it's really important that we, as a people, hold close to our prophets, not listen to Satan, and stay on the straight and narrow." Rather than say, "Well, I think the Book of Mormon people in this case might represent our resistance to change. And how we may from time to time get sucked back into complacency, forget the goals we've set for ourselves, and we slip back into the same habits. I know for me, sometimes all it takes is just one bad night's sleep and I can forget all my goals like that. This is a good reminder that constant vigilance against my natural tendencies is essential to being happy/successful."

Thanks for reading. If you have a bad experience in Mormonism, I can see why this kind of approach wouldn't have value for you. My experience with the church is different. I don't hear people talk like this much in church. It's not all perfect all the time, but the leaders and teachers in my ward would be more likely to have something insightful to say say about a scripture like that.

I think what he says about Bushman being a better apologist than Nibley is certainly true, but apologetics it seems is by definition, intellectually dishonest. Trying to get a square peg to fit in a round hole rather than just admitting that they're different shapes.

Can we get over this two dimensional approach? Do you want people calling you a liar and intellectually dishonest, because I'm sure it could be just as justified as what you're doing here.

[taekwondave]

Thanks for reading. If you have a bad experience in Mormonism, I can see why this kind of approach wouldn't have value for you. My experience with the church is different. I don't hear people talk like this much in church. It's not all perfect all the time, but the leaders and teachers in my ward would be more likely to have something insightful to say say about a scripture like that.

Maybe you didn't mean this but I didn't have a single bad experience in Mormonism, it was many. But not of a bunch of different types. I just could no longer stand going once I took on a purely figurativist (not sure that's a word) approach. Then all of it almost simultaneously became unbearable to listen to. I've tried going back a few times and it's the same thing. Maybe I get a break here and there by a particular speaker or a particular comment but by and large it was just an exercise in keeping myself from rolling my eyes and controlling my tongue. In a sense, I didn't like the spirit I myself brought to the meetings.

Can we get over this two dimensional approach? Do you want people calling you a liar and intellectually dishonest, because I'm sure it could be just as justified as what you're doing here.

I don't know...maybe? I didn't really think that being intellectually dishonest with oneself on one point or another made that person a liar, just biased. I think if you spot some way that you think I'm being intellectually dishonest with myself I would very much like you to point it out so I could examine how much merit that observation has (as best I could, given my own biases and ego of course).

I mean...just because I say I think a particular approach is intellectually dishonest doesn't mean I think I'm immune to that mistake, or immune to a host of others.

[jay santos]

Maybe you didn't mean this but I didn't have a single bad experience in Mormonism, it was many. But not of a bunch of different types. I just could no longer stand going once I took on a purely figurativist (not sure that's a word) approach. Then all of it almost simultaneously became unbearable to listen to. I've tried going back a few times and it's the same thing. Maybe I get a break here and there by a particular speaker or a particular comment but by and large it was just an exercise in keeping myself from rolling my eyes and controlling my tongue. In a sense, I didn't like the spirit I myself brought to the meetings.



I don't know...maybe? I didn't really think that being intellectually dishonest with oneself on one point or another made that person a liar, just biased. I think if you spot some way that you think I'm being intellectually dishonest with myself I would very much like you to point it out so I could examine how much merit that observation has (as best I could, given my own biases and ego of course).

I mean...just because I say I think a particular approach is intellectually dishonest doesn't mean I think I'm immune to that mistake, or immune to a host of others.

Yeah, I got what you meant. I meant "experience" as a totality of your interaction, not just a one time event.

re intellectual dishonesty, You said:

but apologetics it seems is by definition, intellectually dishonest.

Come on, bro. Be real.

[taekwondave]

Yeah, I got what you meant. I meant "experience" as a totality of your interaction, not just a one time event.

re intellectual dishonesty, You said:

Come on, bro. Be real.

I honestly thought I was being real. I'm not really sure where we're missing each other on this. I do think apologetics are intellectually dishonest. I don't think intellectual dishonesty is the same as dishonesty itself though. It just seems more like...self deception.

To me it just means starting from the wrong place, or working backwards from an already determined conclusion. To the apologist, the conclusion cannot change, and the facts/questions/concerns/etc that others thrown at it are to be deflected or twisted to fit the conclusion, rather than the other way around.

Is that not your understanding of intellectual honesty vs. apologetics?

[jay santos]

I honestly thought I was being real. I'm not really sure where we're missing each other on this. I do think apologetics are intellectually dishonest. I don't think intellectual dishonesty is the same as dishonesty itself though. It just seems more like...self deception.

To me it just means starting from the wrong place, or working backwards from an already determined conclusion. To the apologist, the conclusion cannot change, and the facts/questions/concerns/etc that others thrown at it are to be deflected or twisted to fit the conclusion, rather than the other way around.

Is that not your understanding of intellectual honesty vs. apologetics?

definition of apologetics when i google: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

Do I think that can be done honestly? Yes, I do.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

definition of apologetics when i google: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

Do I think that can be done honestly? Yes, I do.

But like I'm wondering why did you google that? I mean do you think people that use bing or yahoo or ask jeeves don't think they are getting correct answers when they search?

[jay santos]

But like I'm wondering why did you google that? I mean do you think people that use bing or yahoo or ask jeeves don't think they are getting correct answers when they search?

I checked those, but they didn't give me the answer I had already concluded, so I kept trying until I got what I wanted.

[taekwondave]

definition of apologetics when i google: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

Do I think that can be done honestly? Yes, I do.

I think it can be done honestly as well. I think they honestly believe the church is true and they are trying to prove that. They honestly believe there is no piece of data that could change their view on that, so they honestly twist it. I don't think they're being malicious. I don't think they're lying, but I don't think they're being intellectually honest because they're working backwards, starting with a conclusion and doubting any evidence that seems to suggest otherwise, rather than doubting their conclusion, and considering all the evidence they're presented on its merits.

At some point I have to think you're just trying to play a semantics game with me. I gave you working definitions, being a stickler on a narrow definition is clearly beside the point and I think you get the difference between intellectual honesty and actual honesty too and you're playing dumb to stay in the game. I don't understand why but I think it might be because (drum roll please) you're an apologist.

[CardiacCoug]

The church is what it is because of the weird/magical beliefs that come with it. It's not a social club and it gets stuff done because people really believe in its tenets. I won't say that the church is better than the humanists or the Masons, but when there is a need for a thousand people to go muck houses after a flood there's a reason FEMA calls the church and asks for help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes absolutely the true believers are the ones who keep the Church going. They've got the motivation to get the Church stuff done when the rest of us go golfing or skiing or whatever.

[SeattleUte]

"Pastoral apologetics" reminds me of the advice to Trump that he ignored. Will the LDS Church continue to be the LDS Church?

[Pelado]

But like I'm wondering why did you google that? I mean do you think people that use bing or yahoo or ask jeeves don't think they are getting correct answers when they search?

[jay santos]

I think it can be done honestly as well. I think they honestly believe the church is true and they are trying to prove that. They honestly believe there is no piece of data that could change their view on that, so they honestly twist it. I don't think they're being malicious. I don't think they're lying, but I don't think they're being intellectually honest because they're working backwards, starting with a conclusion and doubting any evidence that seems to suggest otherwise, rather than doubting their conclusion, and considering all the evidence they're presented on its merits.

At some point I have to think you're just trying to play a semantics game with me. I gave you working definitions, being a stickler on a narrow definition is clearly beside the point and I think you get the difference between intellectual honesty and actual honesty too and you're playing dumb to stay in the game. I don't understand why but I think it might be because (drum roll please) you're an apologist.

I could think you're a total dipshiz and think 99% of what you say is moronic, yet in a conversation with another, say about you "his post yesterday was spot on because of x,y,z" That would be an act of apologetics. This is not semantics. This is just me asking you to stop speaking in such absolute, black/white language.

[taekwondave]

I could think you're a total dipshiz and think 99% of what you say is moronic, yet in a conversation with another, say about you "his post yesterday was spot on because of x,y,z" That would be an act of apologetics. This is not semantics. This is just me asking you to stop speaking in such absolute, black/white language.

Well I might be a total dipshiz because I still don't know what point you're trying to make.

[Pelado]

Well I might be a total dipshiz because I still don't know what point you're trying to make.

The world is not black and white. There are at least fifty shades of gray.