- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am branching this off from DBMormon’s intro thread. I thought it might be an interesting topic to explore on its own. Nephite wrote:I, for one, dig Mormon apologetics. It is not always polemic, but if it is, then that’s okay with me. … Ultimately, the Holy Ghost teaches me truth and provides me a testimony, but others provide useful information and explanations.
I would say the same thing, but coming at it from a different perspective. LDS apologetic reasoning can take tremendous intellectual and spiritual effort, and I mean that in a positive way. So does going against the grain in heresy to defy tradition and customs. As some people point out, apologetics in the LDS faith often is a form of heresy in itself. They do not speak in an official capacity for the church, and often present reasoning that goes against teachings and traditions in other ways.
The point I am trying to get at is this: religion and scripture are full of problems. We can view this as a reason to abandon the difficult task of working with the material. That is actually a very reasonable decision (aka leaving the church, abandoning religion completely, etc.)
I take the opposite direction: dive in to the mosh pit and start swinging. I decided to take it as an invitation to wrestle with God, as in the metaphorical story of Jacob. Jacob crossed the river in the desert into a dangerous land. He took all his valuable possessions with him, fully committed, no turning back. He encountered a divine being and fought with “God” until dawn, at which point he demanded to be blessed or he would not release his hold. He walked away blessed, receiving a great reward, but was also damaged and injured. He got pretty banged up in the process.
Apologetics is wrestling with the material. I am no longer convinced that “God” completely cares what answer we get. Well … sure it still matters I suppose, but not the specifics so much. If we don’t come away with something meaningful and useful, then we are merely injured and limping with no “reward.” But even that is wisdom — don’t do it that way, it doesn’t work. You see what I mean? You can’t really lose in the long run. You progress forward one battle at a time. You win some battles. You lose some battles. The important thing is to win the war. I don’t think anyone really knows but “God” where this goes ultimately.
So … I appreciate apologetics for what I see it as: wrestling with “God.” It isn’t my way of diving into the paradoxes and contradictions, the sea of conflicting and competing principles and ideas, but it works great for others. It’s not about the answers. It’s about the struggle, the journey.
I like that Brian. I would have much more respect for apolegetics if the majority of them allowed others to have a different opinion…And step away from pompous rameuptems…and weren’t so hung up on saving the church by pointing fingers at the “wolves in sheep clothing.”
Just my opinion.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
(edit: the following is a bit of a rant based upon recent experiences with some of our apologist friends on another board. Please take it with a grain of salt consistent with the delusional ravings of a crazy old wayfaring fool) i have no respect for apologetics. none. zero.
apologetics, by definition, is defense of the doctrine (dogma) of the church. To defend doctrine is to begin from the position that the doctrine (dogma) is somehow true, and then to selectively find some way among the evidence to either show that the doctrinal premise is true, or if the premise is not provable, then the role of apologetic defense is to cast doubt and uncertainty about the alternatives and those who propose them, so as to have the reader believe that the doctrine is “not false”, because anyone so saying is an idiot or an apostate.
apologetics is the antithesis of seeking the truth. I categorically reject apologetics for it harms the process of openly seeking the truth.
to defend doctrine is absurd, because the idea of an orthodox doctrine seems to have been described as “an abomination” in the First Vision, and the professors of dogma — the apologists, are indeed corrupt because they have allowed their prodigious confirmation bias to alter their view and ability to discern truth through critical thinking.
I hope i am clear on my opinion on this.
(end of rant — please take the quote below as quite serious)
I will let master Chuang Tzu explain the futility of argument and defense as a means to discern truth:
Chuang Tzu wrote:“Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of us wrong? If you and I don’t know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark…
“But waiting for one shifting voice [to pass judgment on] another is the same as waiting for none of them. Harmonize them all with the Heavenly Equality, leave them to their endless changes, and so live out your years. What do I mean by harmonizing them with the Heavenly Equality? Right is not right; so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that there would be no need for argument. Forget the years; forget distinctions. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!”
is it possible to agree with both of you? when your opinions differ so? well, i will try. i agree. apologetics do not seek truth. they seek a security blanket. a false sense of security to help them sleep at night. and if not required, dishonesty or delusion is almost in its DNA…
having said that, i still find use in it. not for myself AS an apologetic… but for someone who seeks knowledge. Apologetics give opinion A., Anti’s give me opinion B… and i can find option C. between them.. or throw them all out as foolish.. or most commonly, simply catalog the little bits of facts and perspective i find of value and move on with my life… until such time i can fit those bits with other bits from other conversations… and find even more meaning.
so, while i think the idea of an Apologetic is inherently flawed, i can still find value in them.
and now, to disagree with all i just said, and be even more contrary, i would submit that to the average person/lds mormon…. they are potentially beyond dangerous…
they present a “factual” not spiritual reason to believe that is like a loose threads on a rug. at some point, they’ll come loose and carry consequences for those not anchored in the right places of the gospel. dangerous. yes indeed. but i still see value in it for myself. more bits and pieces and perspectives and that help me–even it only helping me see how others see things. still has value.
mrtoad4u wrote:is it possible to agree with both of you? when your opinions differ so? well, i will try.
i agree. apologetics do not seek truth. they seek a security blanket. a false sense of security to help them sleep at night. and if not required, dishonesty or delusion is almost in its DNA…
… still has value.
Strychnine and male bovine manure have their value, but not as food.(edit : that is to say that apologetics have a place and usefulness, but….)
wayfarer, we know how you feel about the word “apologetics”. Just be careful. You’re getting dangerously close to a line we can’t cross here – the total rejection of someone else’s “middle way” with regard to how they see efforts to explain things. You’re also coming very close to making someone an offender for a word and letting that word get in the way of stepping back and seeing what they are meaning when they discuss that word. I don’t like the general concept of “apologetics” – but I also do like quite a bit of what is written on sites that are classed as apologetic. Some of it really is thoughtful exploration of difficult, complex issues – and some of it is pure mental gymnastic crap. There is no way I’m going to lump everything together that is called “apologetics” and dismiss or accept is as all the exact same thing.
Fwiw, some classic rock and roll is amazingly good – while some is amazingly stupid and worthless. I don’t love or hate “rock music”; I love, like, dislike and hate various songs within that genre.
I kind of see Mormon apolegetics as the polar opposite of anti mormons. Both extreme, fundamental, and harmful and damaging to the chi. (did I use that correctly this time Wayfarer?)
wayfarer wrote:apologetics is the antithesis of seeking the truth. I categorically reject apologetics for it harms the process of openly seeking the truth.
Exactly! Jacob wrestling with God harmed Jacob. He walked with a limp afterward. Apologists are harmed in their struggle to force the square peg of dogma into the round hole of the Gospel in the cosmic IQ test. They smash their fingers with a hammer until the decide to stop doing that.
From my perspective, apologetics will not lead them to the truth. Bitter apostasy will not lead someone to the truth either (the polar opposite extreme). People bang their heads against the wall until the finally realize what is causing their headache … and they stop struggling.
Again, from my perspective, apologetics will not lead to The Truth (The Way, The Tao, The Gospel, etc.) directly. But like so many other things in life, our failures tell us also where NOT to look, when we are humble and listen. It isn’t the answer, but we narrow down the search through failure as well as successes.
Ray, you make a very good point, and I agree. I will edit my previous post to designated it as rant from a crazy old fool who has tried for years to be civil to LDS militant apologists, and has just recently been burned by yet another encounter with them. I will reluctantly admit that some apologetics are useful, provided they truthfully and openly present the issues as they really are. But then, it isn’t really apologetics in terms of defense, is it?
But then again, that would be an offender for a word, wouldn’t it?
As well, I thought that the purpose of apolologetics per the late Neal Maxwell was to answer false allegations promulgated by antimormons. There is merit in doing so, but once you’re in a mudfight, it’s hard to know when to stop. Some apologists get sick pleasure clowning about the anti sites, and this is simply a waste.
So, I accept your moderation suggestion, apologize to those who find apologetics to be helpful, and concede that there is merit in the nonconfrontational approach to apologetics….
(ouch, that really hurt…).
cwald wrote:I kind of see Mormon apolegetics as the polar opposite of anti mormons. Both extreme, fundamental, and harmful and damaging to the chi.
(did I use that correctly this time Wayfarer?)
Perfectly spoken, and very true. Fighting fire with fire just gets you burned.Brian Johnston wrote:But like so many other things in life, our failures tell us also where NOT to look, when we are humble and listen. It isn’t the answer, but we narrow down the search through failure as well as successes.
Confucius said, “Three men walking, my teachers must be among them. From the good attributes, I learn good things to do, from the bad attributes, I learn things to correct in myself.”But I am not convinced that argument gets us anywhere.
This is a good example of why I love you, wayfarer. 
Not all apologists are the same. Jeff Lindsay is awesome. I think there is a time, place, and manner for apologetics.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.