John Dehlin - the core arguments of Mormon neoapologists.

[_aussieguy55]

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... pologists/

and Wheat and Tares response.

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/07/12/re ... pologists/

"I don’t know for sure if Joseph was trying to fool someone or not. I think it’s possible he wasn’t and that he truly thought he was translating Egyptian into English. I also think it’s possible he was participating in a pious fraud. For me it doesn’t matter a lot. Either way, I think Joseph’s revelations could be described better as “Joseph’s best attempt to understand God” than “God’s instructions to Joseph”. The fact that Joseph’s revelations deeply resonated with the early Saints and to this day still deeply resonate with millions of members is an important point. This is not “OK” in the sense that this is a normal process by which God gives specific instructions to man. But it is “OK” in the sense, that this is how religions generally are formed and put together doctrinal teachings that unite the members and give them tools and symbols to connect with God."

These guys are in my opinion twisting themselves into a pretzel.

[_Kishkumen]

Was this written by our friend churchistrue? If so, I would say he seems to me to be pretty fringey for a neo-apologist.

[_Dr. Shades]

Either way, I think Joseph’s revelations could be described better as “Joseph’s best attempt to understand God” than “God’s instructions to Joseph”. The fact that Joseph’s revelations deeply resonated with the early Saints and to this day still deeply resonate with millions of members is an important point. This is not “OK” in the sense that this is a normal process by which God gives specific instructions to man. But it is “OK” in the sense, that this is how religions generally are formed and put together doctrinal teachings that unite the members and give them tools and symbols to connect with God."

In that case, perhaps whoever wrote that can tell us the point of the missionary program.

[_Lemmie]

Was this written by our friend churchistrue? If so, I would say he seems to me to be pretty fringey for a neo-apologist.

Seems so, here was another comment where he summed up and gave some links:

July 12, 2018 at 6:04 pm

To MoHeretetic: No one can really agree on the definitions, which is a big problem. But the general idea is that traditional Mormon Apologists are more likely to: defend the church’s literal truth claims, be very concerned with Book of Mormon and other scripture historicity, be guilty of obfuscating and stretch logic like tapir = horse, and to engage critics and doubters in a harsh way.

Neo Apologists are more likely to: not be concerned with scripture historicity or even reject it themselves, allow for metaphorical views, take unorthodox views on some things like church exclusivity, validate doubters and critics and do pastoral work, and engage in Apologetics in a gentler kinder way.

These two posts go into it in far more detail than you probably want https://wheatandtares.org/2018/03/08/jo ... r-fluhman/ https://wheatandtares.org/2018/03/15/ne ... um-part-2/

[ital. added.]

[_Kishkumen]

If the Givenses and Bushmans are to be considered among the ranks of the neo-apologists, then his statement is flatly untrue. It may be true of him and some others, but not those of an older generation. You know, the ones with real reputation and clout.

[_Lemmie]

Wow Kish I think you're right. I went one step further into churchistrue's neo-apologist essays and found this:

I can find extreme value and meaning in living the Christ-centered Mormon life and believe the Church is true without thinking it is God’s exclusive one, true Church. I can get a temple recommend, teach lessons, and engage in my ward while viewing things metaphorically that others take literally.

But how do we get the message out?

At a point during the interview with the Millers, I actually got a little emotional. I can tell they are good people. Brooke related how she cried as she took a long drive after realizing she had to leave the Church and the heartache she felt over her child not being baptized or serving a mission. I want these people in my church. I don’t want them to leave. It hurts to see good people leaving the Church. They said if they had understood the nuanced perspective earlier before they had made a decision, they might have stayed. They kept expressing shock at some of the things Fluhman told them, when many of these things are really not even that nuanced, and in my opinion, believed by a large portion of members.

How do we reach the Millers BEFORE they read the CES Letter? How do we provide nuanced perspectives to the mainstream church to help people process faith crisis and not cause faith crisis?
https://wheatandtares.org/2018/03/08/jo ... r-fluhman/

[bold added]

So, this neo-nuanced position is that the CES letter issues can be resolved as a matter of persective, allowing one to stay in the church (literally), by believing (only metaphorically)? how can anyone maintain such a convoluted position?

i guess my main question for churchistrue is: why?

[Guest]

So, this neo-nuanced position is that the CES letter issues can be resolved as a matter of persective, allowing one to stay in the church (literally), by believing (only metaphorically)? how can anyone maintain such a convoluted position?

i guess my main question for churchistrue is: why?

For very personal reasons. Because it is the place for him. He wants others like him to feel like it is their place too. What a loss for people to jettison their culture, way of life, and spiritual path!

They do so because no one can give them compelling reasons to stick with it. All their lives they are presented with stark choices. The “right” choices depend on very shaky foundations. As preached, there is absolutely no way the LDS Church could live up to all of its amazing claims. To insist on putting faith in absurd claims works for children; it is criminal to inculcate the maintenance of a child’s belief in adults.

Mormonism was founded on a magical-Masonic allegory. It was never a literal thing in the first place. It was presented as literal to the uninitiated, sure. No doubt people had miraculous experiences, or perceived they had. But the Book of Mormon, including its discovery, was most definitely a pious hoax along the lines of Christian Rosenkreutz. As such it is really quite a remarkable thing, but it was a movement with real flaws. And, it buried its own roots, partly because it was thought that the little people could not handle the truth.

Now days the LDS Church is so far divorced from its nourishing cultural roots, and so steeped in a culture of corporatism and fundamentalism, that it actively repels the very people who were raised in its bosom. These are people who will not hang on with faith in Santa Claus and they feel like they are in dire need of a lot better spiritual sustenance.

What does churchistrue really have for them? If he says it is all beautiful metaphor, then tell us, we pray, of what? Metaphor is not simply a dodge when something can’t be literally true. Metaphor is the truth that clothed itself imperfectly in stories. It is the stuff of scripture. These are not the things that happened as they happened. They are tales that convey principles through constructed memories.

By insisting that ancient tales be factually accurate in order to place faith in a spiritual system, Mormon teachers doom their own religion. It really isn’t faith so much as obstinate rebellion against good sense. I like that churchistrue sees this is untenable, but what can he do to change it? Until there is something worthwhile to replace the Wonder Bread they’ve been using in the sacrament, his efforts will yield very limited success.

[_grindael]

Lemmie, think: Community of Christ & the Book of Mormon. They made that leap years ago. I think the younger generation of the Utah Branch are headed in that direction. (If they can get out from under the grasp of the old guard). Men like Leonard Arrington tried years ago and failed. But some good came out of all that, but the old guard still has a firm grasp on the reins of power and I don't see that changing anytime soon, because they groom the new members of the Q12 into their form of thinking and then they are in there for life. It is hard to overturn a system like that, and so the "neo-apologists" will only be a fringe group that will have little influence over the direction of the church. It would take some very patient Manchurian member of the 12 to wait it out for many years to get in a position to change anything.

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie, think: Community of Christ & the Book of Mormon. They made that leap years ago. I think the younger generation of the Utah Branch are headed in that direction. (If they can get out from under the grasp of the old guard)....

Mormonism was founded on a magical-Masonic allegory. It was never a literal thing in the first place.... But the Book of Mormon, including its discovery, was most definitely a pious hoax along the lines of Christian Rosenkreutz....
These are people who will not hang on with faith in Santa Claus and they feel like they are in dire need of a lot better spiritual sustenance.

Thanks for the background, guys, both your posts were quite thought-provoking. I excerpted the above because, as I have been thinking about how intelligent, well educated members of my family can continue in their faith with such obvious evidence to the contrary, I ran across this post, on MD&D, from Jarman:

I'm an active member of the church, I love the Book of Mormon, and I teach my family the principles of the gospel that we learn as being part of the church. But I can't pretend the Book of Mormon is something it isn't using the most convoluted explanations.

That's how [ClarkGoble's] last post read to me: convoluted. I can't follow it so I don't even know how to refute it. It's just plainly obvious (it seems to me) that the Book of Mormon is contradicted on so many things by later scripture and revelation. I honestly don't see how an honest person with sufficient knowledge about the subjects can refute that. It's also obvious to me that the Book of Mormon does not describe an ancient people. It just doesn't.

I have every reason in the world to accept the traditional explanation of the Book of Mormon and I've been an avid defender of its historicity for a long time. I still want to defend the message of the Book of Mormon because I think it is inspired scripture. But I'm not going to defend its historicity any more and I think doing so is a dead end for apologetics.

I think it's time for apologists to move on to defending the Book of Mormon message instead.

it's worth noting that he mentions earlier in his post that he came to this point after studying, in particular, Skousen, Carmack and Brant Gardner's work.

In reference to Carmack's work:

...I could only conclude that the entire work was expansion--or in other word--inspired fiction. I didn't come to this conclusion because I was looking for it. On the contrary, I was looking to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon and provide a counter-argument to those who think it is entirely a 19th Century work.

link to Jarman's entire post:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/707 ... 1209836404

Bringing it full circle back to kishkumen's very astute comment:

By insisting that ancient tales be factually accurate in order to place faith in a spiritual system, Mormon teachers doom their own religion. It really isn’t faith so much as obstinate rebellion against good sense.