tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4220596194888766281..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Trouble in Zion: Mormon Antibodies Against LDS ApologeticsJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55132856314143111752012-08-27T22:43:36.421-05:002012-08-27T22:43:36.421-05:00I confess to a Tevye-like fluidity as I listen to ...I confess to a Tevye-like fluidity as I listen to both sides. I read some of Dehlin's things, and say "You are right!" I read Peterson's blog and say, "You are right!" I listen to someone explain how I can't believe in both at the same time, I say "You are right!"<br /><br />And yet I find them both valuable in maintaining strength in my beliefs.<br /><br />Mark SteeleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31714671224764414982012-08-06T18:00:16.336-05:002012-08-06T18:00:16.336-05:00It seems to me that without Dan Peterson's exp...It seems to me that without Dan Peterson's expertise in fund raising, NAMI's prospects for the future are rather dim. People supported NAMI mostly because of its apologetic function. I know that I won't be donating any funds to NAMI in the future.Office Staffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07265249940523649425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49740451900887941402012-08-06T13:34:42.182-05:002012-08-06T13:34:42.182-05:00I've been wondering what the recent ruckus in ...I've been wondering what the recent ruckus in the bloggernacle was about. Thanks for the summary. I suspect that this will probably turn out to be a change for the best in the end. I personally think that FARMS was more effective independent of BYU. Whatever else happens, I still know that the gospel and the Church are still true :-).<br /><br />On a different subject, I really enjoyed the Dan Peterson interviews on Dehlin's Mormon Stories blog, but I quickly gave up on the recent Bushman interviews. I have greatly enjoyed everything I've read from Bushman, but there was such a negative vibe coming from the interviewer (Dehlin) that it just didn't sound worth continuing. <br /><br />On yet another topic, I've been reading Grant Hardy's "Understanding the Book of Mormon" lately. It has been great and I feel that it contributes some real and useful insights into the Book of Mormon even though I don't agree with everything. As an academic in the (ill-)liberal arts, I am not surprised to hear that Hardy is rather left-wing. That is okay. So long as we recognize that everyone has their own biases one can route around chaff to lay hold of pearls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28932636116770008102012-08-06T10:48:21.751-05:002012-08-06T10:48:21.751-05:00One of the chief activities of Mormon apologists i...One of the chief activities of Mormon apologists is to limit their apologetic liability by drawing boundaries around what is considered "doctrine" and what isn't. These boundaries often exclude things that the average members of the church regard as doctrinal. We can debate the validity of this practice and its results, but regardless, it inadvertently fosters a kind of cafeteria Mormonism frowned upon by general authorities. That's because its net effect is to cast doubt on whether individual statements by general authorities are revelatory or their own opinions. <br /><br />Once we adopt the criteria for canonicity of apologists, we've eliminated most of what general authorities have said since the publication of the standard works as being non-canonical. This practice is at least partially in conflict with that of the general authorities themselves which seeks to increase members' liability for accepting statements of general authorities as continuing revelation. The reason that this hasn't led to Mormons taking GA's statements less seriously, similarly to how American Catholics view statements by the Pope, is that most Mormons are relatively unaware of the work of apologists. I doubt whether this apologetic practice had anything to do with what happened at the Maxwell institute, but if it did, the GA's have more awareness than I expected.Lachoneusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45866924877880711972012-08-06T10:04:29.282-05:002012-08-06T10:04:29.282-05:00Jeff quite sensibly argues for the practical value...Jeff quite sensibly argues for the practical value of both apologetics and scholarship. On the one hand, genuine scholarship has the potential to persuade people who would never be persuaded by apologetics. On the other hand, the conclusions of the scholar will inevitably be much more modest than the claims of the apologist. (In addition, those conclusions will not always be "theologically correct" and thus might serve to weaken the believer's faith, or at least their orthodoxy.)<br /><br />Apologetics works best for those who already share some or all of the fundamental assumptions of the faith; scholarship works best for those like me who don't. It only makes sense to cover all the bases and use both forms of research to address both kinds of audience. People like me often find ourselves laughing out loud when we read Mormon apologetics, but not when we read Bushman or Givens. Them we can take seriously.<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12360698399455048042012-08-06T08:58:04.835-05:002012-08-06T08:58:04.835-05:00There's an important difference between apolog...There's an important difference between apologetics and scholarship. Scholarship attempts to demonstrate what is probable, while apologetics frequently seeks to demonstrate what is improbable or merely possible. Most scholars readily admit that almost anything is possible, but they're more concerned with what's probable. Claims about angels, for example, are improbable. Even believers can agree on that, right? That's why there's faith, and that's why believers in Joseph Smith's claims don't believe all of Mohammed's claims.<br /><br />This isn't to say that Mormon apologists don't employ scholarly tools, but they just aren't playing the same game as secular scholars. I don't know why the events at the Maxwell Institute occurred, but could they have something to do with this?Anthonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81671821617889350012012-08-06T00:05:14.051-05:002012-08-06T00:05:14.051-05:00Antho,
Please, not Grant Hardy. Do we really nee...Antho, <br /><br />Please, not Grant Hardy. Do we really need to turn our Apologetics into another left-wing arena. His articles in Meridian seem to twist logic far more leftward than it ever was right. I appreciate Bushman very much, however, and feel "Rough Stone Rolling" should be required reading among us all. <br /><br />Great article, as usual, Jeff. I do worry that we will tear ourselves, the church, apart from the inside out. So much criticizing and nitpicking, so little uplifting sometimes--and this from a person who doesn't think in Pollyanna rainbows about most things.MuralMamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933241765451600717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55369833672700297282012-08-05T23:48:14.083-05:002012-08-05T23:48:14.083-05:00Two thoughts. First, I am thankful for the general...Two thoughts. First, I am thankful for the general authorities who are willing to allow those with unorthodox views to stay in the church. As long as they're not preaching their views in sunday school, and aren't committing sins worthy of excommunication, then kudos to them for staying in the church. If at some point in the future I come to the conclusion that I can no longer believe the orthodox line myself, then I think I would still want to stay in the church, simply for the good it gives me and my family. So I hope some general authority would side with me on that. Yes, Dehlin is a bit more in the lime-light because of the podcast, but still, as long as he's not preaching it in sacrament meeting or some other official church venue, is that really grounds for excommunication. Mind you the podcast has had quite a few good mormon apologetics on (although John does seem to taint the tone with his skepticism).<br /><br />Second, I myself am a bit mixed on the new direction of NAMI. I think the new goal is to move away from the Dan Peterson/Gregory Smith style of apologetics, and move more toward a Grant Hardy/Teryl Givens/Richard Bushman style, to get away from the fighting rink and trust that, as Bushman has said, Joseph Smith can stand on his own if we just take him as he really was, to get away from the "truth wars" and just start discussing topics that can engage both believing and non-believing scholars. I guess you might say that style isn't really apologetics but more scholarly discourse, but I think there's not enough of that right now. Grant Hardy's book Understanding the Book of Mormon was a great try at that, and although I think a lot of its elements could be used in apologetic argument, Hardy went out of his way to try to make it accessible to non-believers. I think more of that type of scholarship can have enormous utility in promoting the fact that we have a vibrant and strong faith tradition.<br /><br />At the same time I realize sometimes, to keep people in the fold, we have to take the skeptics head-on, to get in the rink so to say. In that case I appreciate Dan Peterson's style of apologetics. I guess the question then is, should that continue to be NAMI's role, or should there be other venues for that? That I don't know.Anthohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612712527262681473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43892024342109957342012-08-05T23:00:19.824-05:002012-08-05T23:00:19.824-05:00I have a hard time understanding why John Dehlin s...I have a hard time understanding why John Dehlin still has his membership in the church. Is his General Authority friend protecting him? Was it Dehlin's Gen. Auth. friend who was responsible for the shakeup at the Maxwell Inst? If that is the case, I am just going by what Dehlin has said, then a Gen. Auth. protecting an apostate is very disturbing to me. I know for a fact if I did what Dehlin is doing I would be excommunicated before I knew what happened to me. Thank you for the article. I am new to all of this and am trying to get up to speed so maybe my information and understanding is wrong. If a Gen. Auth. is protecting a friend then we are being led astray. And that is enough to shake my faith, not shake my faith in the doctrine, but shake my faith in the Divine calling of our leaders and their continued worthiness to lead. Thank You: from Chile GirlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13653260322831004432012-08-05T21:55:23.943-05:002012-08-05T21:55:23.943-05:00Who-Wa!Who-Wa!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43485672490765444972012-08-05T20:43:13.069-05:002012-08-05T20:43:13.069-05:00Well said and I agree completely.Well said and I agree completely.Joseph Smidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02583891162785742138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71947347800466704042012-08-05T19:58:39.645-05:002012-08-05T19:58:39.645-05:00Jeff, Dan and company have already started a new ...Jeff, Dan and company have already started a new independent apologetics organization:<br /><br />http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com