NOM

So background--my father and BIL both are custodians for the church corporate offices. Becsuse of the fallout when my brother told my dad of his disbelief years ago, im in the closet as it were about my (lack of testimony) ti my extended family.

Last night, my bil asked me if i had read any of Givens stuff, andi mentioned i had but it was a long time ago and i wasnt impressed by it enough to revisit his appolgetics. He stressed it had "really helped him with his doubts" and asked what appolgist I prefer . I waved it off and said i dobt really like appolgist, since their are foundational problems with the field regardless of which religion/fandom and its not a topic i feel like discussing. Hes since sent me little quotes from Givens asking what i think. I really dont want to get into, since cracking his shelf would mean he loses his job and hurts.my sister and even worse (for me) he might discuss things with my dad, who he views as a "spiritual giant" . Not sure what to do, since he seems fixated on talking to me about it and I really want to let lose and share some further light and knowledge with him just so he'll leave me alone. Help?

I think you should share a little bit with him, but you can tell him that it may be hard to hear first. If he really wants to hear it you should tell him and see how he reacts. The church limits people's agency by keeping them in the dark about the real stories. Let him decide what to do with it.

My dad recently got a job with the church, so I know how you feel about not wanting your friend's life to fall apart. What would you share with him first?

Maybe respond to everything in terms of options. "I can see how it could mean X from a faithful interpretation, but it might also be interpreted as Y." Or express that even though you don't find an answer satisfying you can see how it might be viewed from a faithful perspective.

What would i share first? To break him or gwt him odd my back? first probably that appolgist have two flaws--1 they don't speal for the church. That makes what they say speculation, and we're not suppose to speculate. 2 because they start assuming they are correct, they try to prove they are right instead of find the truth. This means whatever they say at best worthless, at worst false doctrine, and not worth my time.

I get what your saying hagoth, but that starts getting inti specific issues, which is what I want to avoid. My dad would flip if he found out i thought antis had a leg to stand on, and lectures start on how those doubts arw the cause of all thr problems in my life.

What would i share first? To break him or get him off my back? first probably that appolgist have two flaws--1 they don't speal for the church. That makes what they say speculation, and we're not suppose to speculate. 2 because they start assuming they are correct, they try to prove they are right instead of find the truth. This means whatever they say at best worthless, at worst false doctrine, and not worth my time.

I get what your saying hagoth, but that starts getting inti specific issues, which is what I want to avoid. My dad would flip if he found out i thought antis had a leg to stand on, and lectures start on how those doubts arw the cause of all the problems in my life.

Just say John Dehlin and Jeremy Runnells and watch what happens next.

I think I would discuss Givens. He is already far enough into doubt that he finds the, "it doesn't have to be literal," approach helpful. So, if you really do not want to trigger a real faith crisis, then reinforce the idea that he can know the history, and still believe. Maybe you could suddenly discover how what Givens says is brilliant.

Or, next time he brings it up, just get practical and ask him if he wants to keep his job. If he does want to keep the job, he better not go down the doubt road. He needs to stay out of rabbit holes.

You could be blunt and tell him that you are the wrong person to discuss this with, for reasons you would rather not explain.

1st off, I admire the considerate care you’re giving in deciding how to respond to this guy.

You suggested something very profound that I think would be good to tell him... You don’t like apologists because of various reasons - but essentially you should not put your trust in ANY imperfect being as if they were perfect/god.

mooseman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:19 pm What would i share first? To break him or get him off my back? first probably that appolgist have two flaws--1 they don't speal for the church. That makes what they say speculation, and we're not suppose to speculate. 2 because they start assuming they are correct, they try to prove they are right instead of find the truth. This means whatever they say at best worthless, at worst false doctrine, and not worth my time.

I think another flaw the apologists have is that whether they are orthodox or liberal new age apologists (like Givens) they have to invent a new version of Mormonism to make it work in their minds, they have to throw selected scriptural and prophetic statements under the bus to make Mormonism work for them.

This version of Mormonism is completely at odds with what is currently and was in the past preached over the pulpits and in General Conference.

For example, Givens seems to have completely rejected the "one true church mantra" and now speaks of the church's value in terms of goodness and it's his tribe. Even though apologists still attend church and are considered active by TBMs - they no longer believe in the same church/gospel we were all taught in Seminar, Sunday School, RS or Priesthood meeting.

el-asherah wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:46 am I think another flaw the apologists have is that whether they are orthodox or liberal new age apologists (like Givens) they have to invent a new version of Mormonism to make it work in their minds, they have to throw selected scriptural and prophetic statements under the bus to make Mormonism work for them.

This version of Mormonism is completely at odds with what is currently and was in the past preached over the pulpits and in General Conference.

If you can make really this argument well and defend it, it's a very important point. It also won't necessarily feel like an attack or crack his shelf.

Givens seemed like a nice guy when I watched him on Youtube. So does Patrick Mason who heads the Mormon Studies at the Claremont Colleges. They are quite a bit different than those who comprised the old guard of Mopologetics, in that they do not have the army of the dead nor the icy blue eyes of the White Walkers threatening Westeros. Hope that helps.

el-asherah wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:46 am For example, Givens seems to have completely rejected the "one true church mantra" and now speaks of the church's value in terms of goodness and it's his tribe. Even though apologists still attend church and are considered active by TBMs - they no longer believe in the same church/gospel we were all taught in Seminar, Sunday School, RS or Priesthood meeting.

The problem is, that if your pay check, and social affiliations are not reliant on mormonism, then once it loses it's golden ticket status, then it really becomes a net loss in terms of time, money and energy.

alas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:31 am I think I would discuss Givens. He is already far enough into doubt that he finds the, "it doesn't have to be literal," approach helpful. So, if you really do not want to trigger a real faith crisis, then reinforce the idea that he can know the history, and still believe. Maybe you could suddenly discover how what Givens says is brilliant.

Or, next time he brings it up, just get practical and ask him if he wants to keep his job. If he does want to keep the job, he better not go down the doubt road. He needs to stay out of rabbit holes.

You could be blunt and tell him that you are the wrong person to discuss this with, for reasons you would rather not explain.

Thanks. These are good ideas, and I'll keep them in mind.

BriansThoughtMirror wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:03 am

el-asherah wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:46 am I think another flaw the apologists have is that whether they are orthodox or liberal new age apologists (like Givens) they have to invent a new version of Mormonism to make it work in their minds, they have to throw selected scriptural and prophetic statements under the bus to make Mormonism work for them.

This version of Mormonism is completely at odds with what is currently and was in the past preached over the pulpits and in General Conference.

If you can make really this argument well and defend it, it's a very important point. It also won't necessarily feel like an attack or crack his shelf.

It's a hard argument to make since apologist and prophets talk out both sides of their mouth. I'm also afraid of his asking what I've had to shuttle off, and why.

My favorite apologist is Richard Bushman. Then the guy who wrote letter for my wife.