Youtube Apologetics

[NeedleinA]

@Hemisphere

I won't speak for others, but I think that "you" and "I" have fundamental differences in what apologetics means. Because our definitions are different, our opinions about it being necessary continues to differ. 

Under your definition of apologetics, you don't think they are useful. Under my definition, I do. We are both members of the church. So why the gap? Perhaps it is simply because we are talking about different things? 
I agree with you: contention is not good, arguing with others does not bring the spirit, service is wonderful, actions speak louder than words, bashing with enemies can be a waste of time, screaming in the market is unappealing, fanatical ranting is unproductive. We agree on these points.

Where perhaps we differ in our definitions: 

I view 3 parties:  1. Members/Believers/Apologist ------------> 2. Fence sitters/confused/undecided--------------->3. Anti/False & Misleading information 

Going in circles arguing between group 1 & 3 is what I agree with you on, 99% of the time a waste. 
Apologetics for me is about helping Group 2, not Group 3. 
If Group 3 tosses out false information, who is there to correct the false information?
Don't take the "density of German" thing personally, but it proves a point. Do I care what country is more densely populated? Nope, not at all.
I do care that I and others have correct/accurate information. I do care that Group 2 has access to correct/accurate information regarding the Gospel, Savior and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What they decide to do with that information is up to them, but at least they are making well informed educated decisions based on correct information. 

Apologetics to me is not about arguing, screaming, fanatical behavior, it is about simply providing correct information, defending the faith and dispelling lies/misleading information produced by Group 3. I don't have to scream to provide this information. I don't have to be the market crying fanatical that you oppose. 

I think we differ on one point perhaps. It appears your course of action is the remain silent and say nothing. My course of action is to speak up hopefully in a polite, civil manner to for the benefit of Group 2. 

[NeedleinA]

dup

Edited August 4, 2016 by NeedleinA

[LeSellers]

6 hours ago, Hemisphere said:

My point being, if he would have done as you lobbied for, they would have found themselves on the very trains. But in doing things in silence, lives could be saved.

This has absolutely nothing to do with apologetics.

Lehi

[Hemisphere]

You think ? You are talking about raising your voices against 8njust comments and other thongs throw at the church. I am making a po7nt that silent derds are a szeobger advocation for a cause

[LeSellers]

5 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

You think ? You are talking about raising your voices against 8njust comments and other thongs throw at the church. I am making a po7nt that silent derds are a szeobger advocation for a cause

First, what are you talking about and to whom are you speaking?

Next, Huh!?! Would you mind going back and editing your comment? I can decipher "8njust" and "po7nt", but "derds" and "szeobger" are incomprehensible.

Lehi

[Hemisphere]

16 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

@Hemisphere

I won't speak for others, but I think that "you" and "I" have fundamental differences in what apologetics means. Because our definitions are different, our opinions about it being necessary continues to differ. 

Under your definition of apologetics, you don't think they are useful. Under my definition, I do. We are both members of the church. So why the gap? Perhaps it is simply because we are talking about different things? 
I agree with you: contention is not good, arguing with others does not bring the spirit, service is wonderful, actions speak louder than words, bashing with enemies can be a waste of time, screaming in the market is unappealing, fanatical ranting is unproductive. We agree on these points.

Where perhaps we differ in our definitions: 

I view 3 parties:  1. Members/Believers/Apologist ------------> 2. Fence sitters/confused/undecided--------------->3. Anti/False & Misleading information 

Going in circles arguing between group 1 & 3 is what I agree with you on, 99% of the time a waste. 
Apologetics for me is about helping Group 2, not Group 3. 
If Group 3 tosses out false information, who is there to correct the false information?
Don't take the "density of German" thing personally, but it proves a point. Do I care what country is more densely populated? Nope, not at all.
I do care that I and others have correct/accurate information. I do care that Group 2 has access to correct/accurate information regarding the Gospel, Savior and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What they decide to do with that information is up to them, but at least they are making well informed educated decisions based on correct information. 

Apologetics to me is not about arguing, screaming, fanatical behavior, it is about simply providing correct information, defending the faith and dispelling lies/misleading information produced by Group 3. I don't have to scream to provide this information. I don't have to be the market crying fanatical that you oppose. 

I think we differ on one point perhaps. It appears your course of action is the remain silent and say nothing. My course of action is to speak up hopefully in a polite, civil manner to for the benefit of Group 2. 

Remain silent and honour the lord with your deeds. To be exact, which in my opinion is more productice. And so what, false information was around since the foundation and we outlived them all. And no, not taking it personal it takes a bit more for that in order to happen. I still consider this a friend discourse.

 

Apologists are not needed. Live the gosple and be a shining example. It will be sufficient for others to see and ask the source when it matters.

[Hemisphere]

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

First, what are you talking about and to whom are you speaking?

Next, Huh!?! Would you mind going back and editing your comment? I can decipher "8njust" and "po7nt", but "derds" and "szeobger" are incomprehensible.

Lehi

My apologies.Typing and sitting in a shakey bus is quite a challenge. Meant to say silent deeds make a stronger case.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Hemisphere said:

Remain silent and honour the lord with your deeds.

Rather than wasting my time building a list without first knowing how much it will take, exactly how many scriptures telling us to speak do you need to balance that out and realize that the Lord expects both of us, each in its time and place?  Because I guarantee you, there is no shortage of scriptures which tell us to speak and teach the truth and counter the lies that others speak (I've got the first list in front of me right now, and can think of ~3 others off the top of my head - of course, if you had a mind to, you could pull up the exact same lists).  And sheer logic should make the need to do so glaringly obvious.

[mordorbund]

Apologetics has already been defined in this thread using a standard definition.

18 hours ago, LeSellers said:

a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.

< Late Latin < Greek: a speaking in defense.

@Hemisphere - (correct me if I'm misunderstanding) You advocate Deeds - Not Words! And just to clarify even more, "not words" means "silence" (as opposed to it meaning deeds should be greater than (non-zero) words). When falsehood is advocated in speech or writing, the solution is not more speech or writing, but true deeds. I'll refer to this position as Unapologetics.

A number of people then come on here and present arguments in favor of apologetics. How does the champion of unapologetics reply? Is it in the silence he advocates? Does he leave the arguments unanswered and reply instead with thunderous action? No! he presents a defense, excuse or justification in writing for his unapologetics. This is apologetics!

So please clarify your position more. When do you consider it better to engage in apologetics and when is it better to respond with unapologetics (deeds, not words)?

[cdowis]

21 hours ago, Hemisphere said:

I think time is better spent dispersing charity amongst the needy . You wanna defend doctrine, live it and show it and don´t deal with time wasters. 

 

Thanks for your advice, and you will agree that each of us will decide for ourselves how to spend our time.  In my particular case, defending the church (apologetics) is a hobby, like chess, photography, etc.  My hobby has taken me to corresponding with the administration of the Smithsonian regarding their letter about the Book of Mormon, historical research in the so-called "man on the moon" statement of Joseph Smith, gaining a better understanding of the creation process, spending time on understanding the doctrines as found in the Bible and other scriptures, one of the very first apologists responding to the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon, gaining a better understanding of the Book of Mormon history and geography, etc etc.

Now you may consider a waste of time, but I do not.  It is time well spent relative to various other forms of entertainment.

So, you go down your path, and I shall continue to follow my path.  Best of regards to you.

Quote

Remain silent and honour the lord with your deeds.

BTW, I do spend time "dispensing charity amongst the needy."  Those who are being poisoned and influenced by the enemies of the church are very needy in an eternal sense of the word.  When I see the needy lying  on the side of the road, I do not pass them in silence, but give them the words of encouagement.  Should missionaries stay silent, should the church leaders be silent in General Conference, should the bishop be silent when he sees a member deep in sin and only show "actions"?

I understand what you are saying, and I can agree with you.  But it all depends on the situation, does it not?

Edited August 4, 2016 by cdowis

[Hemisphere]

@ mordorbound 

I could almost perceive this as mockery on your part, to give a title that drips with distaste. 

If you look up, I said if you feel to stand up for yourself and your faith, by all means however from the apologetic PERSONAL view ( again, see above ) out of experience, engaging into a meaningless verbal campaign to rectify a falsehood or slight, breeds the opposite of a desired effect and often enough provides people with ammunition against you. just as you are doing right now. I displayed a personal view. I also said, I for one don´t need one because I rather do charity and argument through those means for my faith and conviction. 

I know it is a very beloved american notion that I am offending here, the tradition to defend what is your out of the top of your lungs. but your audience changed and the purpose of statement is not anymore a mutual exchange to found common ground. Arguments are made to deliberately hurt or ridicule people with it to serve the mundane purpose of petty amusement. So why stoop to level and distract yourself from the actual rewarding deeds that the Lord loves. 

I don´t know what you know about the difference in hardships of being a member of our faith in another country is, but I can assure you, what you perceive as sound and natural can else lead to negative effects or in some countries even into trouble. The american way of speaking out is not everyone elses solution. 

So if you give me a title rather call me Chief Skeptic and the part time devils advocate. The only one I champion for is the Lord and his cause and he doesn´t make an electronic medium or youtube channel a requirement to do his bidding. 

[Hemisphere]

4 hours ago, zil said:

Rather than wasting my time building a list without first knowing how much it will take, exactly how many scriptures telling us to speak do you need to balance that out and realize that the Lord expects both of us, each in its time and place?  Because I guarantee you, there is no shortage of scriptures which tell us to speak and teach the truth and counter the lies that others speak (I've got the first list in front of me right now, and can think of ~3 others off the top of my head - of course, if you had a mind to, you could pull up the exact same lists).  And sheer logic should make the need to do so glaringly obvious.

It is well to know the scriptures but scriptures and doctrine only get you so far. It is better to carry the gospel in your heart than on your tongue. 

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Hemisphere said:

by all means. defend them for yourself but do not presume that I need someone for it. 

As for knowing it to be true it is one thing but I don´t believe screaming at the top of my lungs is the way.  my greek ain´t so great so I am gonna stick with latin " Acta, non verba" deeds speak louder and I don´t need youtube jockey souring it up for the rest that do it differently. I believe faith speaks best and loudest by not even dignifying critics with an argument. SImply be christlike. that is all there is to it. 

Well, I kinda see where you're coming from here in one aspect.  Usually apologetics does little to no good against the attackers.  But it does do good for those of the faith who may be weak or at least don't know where to find answers.

All my life I was bombarded by anti-Mormon stuff.  During my weaker years, I found that the answers I sought simply weren't in the scriptures or the Church website.  Answers did not come from anyone I knew.  I came across FairMormon during this phase.  I was pleased to find out that there was another side of the story.  I was pleased to find out that there was actual evidence that the "factual" claims made by anti's were in error.

While I recognize that a true testimony is not based on physical evidence alone, the questions and lack of answers certainly hurt the strength of my already weak testimony during those years.  The apologetics did not strengthen my testimony -- only the Spirit can do that.  But it at least took away the nagging of the error that I came across.  And that allowed me to build my testimony the right way.

[Hemisphere]

14 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Thanks for your advice, and you will agree that each of us will decide for ourselves how to spend our time.  In my particular case, defending the church (apologetics) is a hobby, like chess, photography, etc.  My hobby has taken me to corresponding with the administration of the Smithsonian regarding their letter about the Book of Mormon, historical research in the so-called "man on the moon" statement of Joseph Smith, gaining a better understanding of the creation process, spending time on understanding the doctrines as found in the Bible and other scriptures, one of the very first apologists responding to the DNA argument against the Book of Mormon, gaining a better understanding of the Book of Mormon history and geography, etc etc.

Now you may consider a waste of time, but I do not.  It is time well spent relative to various other forms of entertainment.

So, you go down your path, and I shall continue to follow my path.  Best of regards to you.

BTW, I do spend time "dispensing charity amongst the needy."  Those who are being poisoned and influenced by the enemies of the church are very needy in an eternal sense of the word.  When I see the needy lying  on the side of the road, I do not pass them in silence, but give them the words of encouagement.  Should missionaries stay silent, should the church leaders be silent in General Conference, should the bishop be silent when he sees a member deep in sin and only show "actions"?

You and I see things very differently.

I can very well live with that though I would never manage to bring matters of faith into the field of entertainment. If you can balance that, kudos for you. As for expressing my personal opinion, which I did and a lot people took offense to it, it would be prudent to also accept the fact that some people may not agree ( just like me ) with your entertaining free time activity. 

I am not gonna lie, do actually consider it a waste of time but I am glad I get to know different view points on the matter. However, everything will happen in the Lords good own timetable and I for one prioritize the ease of wanting people by something they can grasp and see as words can not be eaten and a foreign text can mean nothing to them whereas comforting a person with deeds and presence is a surefire way to bring him closer to the Lord. 

I will do squat telling you what each and everyone ought to be doing with your time and what not. However I reserve my opinions and regard this as an american eccentricity that finds little purchase outside the US. If one of you takes offense, accept my apologies but it remains a personal opinion and certainly, this is the internet where things should be taken lightly for what it is: some strangers opinion which you can elect to ignore, like or comment on.  

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

It is well to know the scriptures but scriptures and doctrine only get you so far. It is better to carry the gospel in your heart than on your tongue. 

I see your point that there is some inspiration that comes from seeing someone truly living the gospel.  But the tongue can also inspire.  It depends on the type of person you are.

I was never the person who "radiated" the gospel or the Light of Christ.  But I was blessed with a great mind and the tongue of a public speaker.  No, I'm not trying to boast.  I am thankful for a talents the Lord blessed me with.  When I met my wife, she was drawn to me partially because I had a great doctrinal knowledge.  Her roommates soon took to asking me their doctrinal questions.  When I revealed to them that I really didn't feel like I had the testimony they credited to me, they objected because (I'll paraphrase their words) when I spoke the doctrinal truths that they sought, they felt the Spirit.

So, heart vs. tongue?  Why not both?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Guest

[Hemisphere]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I kinda see where you're coming from here in one aspect.  Usually apologetics does little to no good against the attackers.  But it does do good for those of the faith who may be weak or at least don't know where to find answers.

All my life I was bombarded by anti-Mormon stuff.  During my weaker years, I found that the answers I sought simply weren't in the scriptures or the Church website.  Answers did not come from anyone I knew.  I came across FairMormon during this phase.  I was pleased to find out that there was another side of the story.  I was pleased to find out that there was actual evidence that the "factual" claims made by anti's were in error.

While I recognize that a true testimony is not based on physical evidence alone, the questions and lack of answers certainly hurt the strength of my already weak testimony during those years.  The apologetics did not strengthen my testimony -- only the Spirit can do that.  But it at least took away the nagging of the error that I came across.  And that allowed me to build my testimony the right way.

Dear Carborendum. I can not possibly fathom what it must have been like to grow up like this where your faith is being ridiculed and tested but I do salute you to look for answers and find the Lord's answer from different sources. When I was baptized, I was finding the strongest opposition actually within the church and not from without. Curious thing, really. But then again, I did say that I have a covenant with the Lord and not with the people. Hence me still being here ( plus it is the best way to dismay the people that wanted to run me out in a very unsavory and unchristian yet incompetent manner ) As for the Opposition in question... they never made a strong enough case and their salesman ship is atrocious while their whining about their suffered ( and often perceived ) slights is cheap acting or just that... whining. I can assure you my pillar of strength in my faith is the privilege and duty as a priesthood holder to help prepare the Lords Kingdom. 

Do not despair and take heart that everything good you pass along in his name, is to his pleasing and you are an extension of his love to others. 

Est Deus in nobis; agitante callescimus illo.  : The Lord is within us; he is the fire that lights us. 

It is a proverb that I hold dear. I would love to share it with you. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

When I was baptized, I was finding the strongest opposition actually within the church and not from without. Curious thing, really.

Wow.  That truly is curious.  You mentioned the slights and poor salesmanship and whining.  Was that it?  Or did such behavior lead them to try to sell you on anti-Mormon ideas?

For me growing up, I found the greatest disappointment (among the people in my ward) the fact that they often couldn't even understand my questions much less answer them.  But I never heard any of them try to sell me on anti-stuff.

[Hemisphere]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I see your point that there is some inspiration that comes from seeing someone truly living the gospel.  But the tongue can also inspire.  It depends on the type of person you are.

I was never the person who "radiated" the gospel or the Light of Christ.  But I was blessed with a great mind and the tongue of a public speaker.  No, I'm not trying to boast.  I am thankful for a talents the Lord blessed me with.  When I met my wife, she was drawn to me partially because I had a great doctrinal knowledge.  Her roommates soon took to asking me their doctrinal questions.  When I revealed to them that I really didn't feel like I had the testimony they credited to me, they objected because (I'll paraphrase their words) when I spoke the doctrinal truths that they sought, they felt the Spirit.

So, heart vs. tongue?  Why not both?

While I certainly never grew up an dated in a church environment I can see the blessing of the Lord in this for you. As for me, I am not radiating at all. I am a flawed sinner. I am a scoundrel and a mean dog =) I do love to polarize and I make a poor example but I try my best to be somewhat of a decent person. Growing up in a catholic environment one gets disillusioned about too much foreign tongue into my ear and mind. The type of person like me, lives on the sufferance of the Lords patience ( and my wives ). I can only try to do right while remaining level headed. That is how my wife found pleasure in me ( beats me still, why ). 

[Hemisphere]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Wow.  That truly is curious.  You mentioned the slights and poor salesmanship and whining.  Was that it?  Or did such behavior lead them to try to sell you on anti-Mormon ideas?

For me growing up, I found the greatest disappointment (among the people in my ward) the fact that they often couldn't even understand my questions much less answer them.  But I never heard any of them try to sell me on anti-stuff.

Well, that one was actually easy. Church in Germany has the flaw of bringing along the German need for status. So convert is often and most considered a member second class, while inborn members are "church nobility". At least that is what they would like to believe. And someone who is excited about the faith in a very open manner would destroy their precious status quo in their social sandbox within the church hierarchy. I just never stooped to that level, which makes me very unpopular. But then again, faith is not a contest about who likes you most. The coin that buys you into the heaven is a good heart and the love for your neighbor. (If you wanna be popular, be a victim on American idol, I would say)

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

The type of person like me, lives on the sufferance of the Lords patience ( and my wives ). I can only try to do right while remaining level headed. That is how my wife found pleasure in me ( beats me still, why ). 

Well, that's everyone, isn't it?

8 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

(If you wanna be popular, be a victim on American idol, I would say)

"Victim".  Hah!  I like it.

8 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

... So convert is often and most considered a member second class, while inborn members are "church nobility".

So, you mean that their bad treatment of you was more of a deterrent than anti-Mormon dogma.  I'm sorry you had to go through that.  But in my life there was good and bad in every aspect of my life.  Whatever bad I saw in the Church, I saw it outside the Church as well.  So, I never associated any bad treatment as linked to the Church.

Sorry your experience was different.

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Guest

[Hemisphere]

Funny enough, I had the most and best support in my faith from non- members. Well I didn´t go through that for too long as I went through them and then I established a firm foundation. Funny enough is that some of those clowns left the church themselves ( and no, I wasn´t involved ;-) )

[Hemisphere]

@ all

anyhow, I have taken delight in those intense dialogues with you all and I am very glad for having the means to delve into your perspectives. I can really appreciate the passion behind your arguments and I am also glad we have very different opinions as becoming to homogeneous makes us weak and predictable and it is good that the Lords sees fit to variety.  

[mordorbund]

38 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

@ mordorbound 

I could almost perceive this as mockery on your part, to give a title that drips with distaste. 

It is not mockery and I'm not certain which part led you to think it was.

Quote

If you look up, I said if you feel to stand up for yourself and your faith, by all means however from the apologetic PERSONAL view ( again, see above ) out of experience, engaging into a meaningless verbal campaign to rectify a falsehood or slight, breeds the opposite of a desired effect and often enough provides people with ammunition against you. just as you are doing right now. I displayed a personal view. I also said, I for one don´t need one because I rather do charity and argument through those means for my faith and conviction. 

And yet, rather than doing charity and arguing your cause through that example, you are actively debating and arguing your cause through text on this thread. So there's some distinction that your actions are drawing between engaging in apologetics on the meta topic of defending the faith (where it seems you think it's okay) and engaging in apologetics to actually defend the faith (where you don't think it should be engaged). So I ask again, where are you drawing the line? Or are you even aware of this distinction I'm seeing?

Quote

I know it is a very beloved american notion that I am offending here, the tradition to defend what is your out of the top of your lungs. but your audience changed and the purpose of statement is not anymore a mutual exchange to found common ground. Arguments are made to deliberately hurt or ridicule people with it to serve the mundane purpose of petty amusement. So why stoop to level and distract yourself from the actual rewarding deeds that the Lord loves. 

I don´t know what you know about the difference in hardships of being a member of our faith in another country is, but I can assure you, what you perceive as sound and natural can else lead to negative effects or in some countries even into trouble. The american way of speaking out is not everyone else's solution. 

Let's leave the national stereotypes out of it.

Quote

So if you give me a title rather call me Chief Skeptic and the part time devils advocate. The only one I champion for is the Lord and his cause and he doesn´t make an electronic medium or youtube channel a requirement to do his bidding. 

Is this where the confusion is coming from? I haven't called you anything. I gave a name to the philosophy or practice you espouse to draw attention to the fact that you don't actually live that philosophy, but rather you live the philosophy or practice that you seem to dislike so much.

[Hemisphere]

well mordorbund. I am actually having a very intersting discourse here. I don´t know about you or anyone else but I certainly enjoy the replies in their earnest and serious attitude. It provides me with means to gauge this whole thing and add the disctintiveness to my discussion experiences. 

As for national stereotypes, I don´t think I should, because you can´t either. This >> all around here is the epitome of american achievements and past time and a product of a very American environment. It is ( and I mean no offense by it ) a very American thing as we certainly don´t have it or in that magnitude at all in Europe, unless you could provide me with a source of people I have apparently missed out on in Europe being fervently involved in the same kind of measure as you are if you are also an apologetic.

Well I am glad there was no name calling then as it would certainly sour up the fun I am having here. As for the discourse, I just enjoy taking the position of the opposite side and inserting opinions of mine into it. 

You know, this is the Internet. For all you could care, I am just a fat,pimply unemployed nerd on a keyboard getting a kick out of it while sitting there in underwear and stuffing my face with snacks =) 

So instead of being dead serious about it, you could try to lighten up and evaluate another persons perception and perspective as I do with yours or anyone elses for that matter because I see this as an opportunity to learn something about someone else opinions. After all, I still consider this a mutual exchange of ideas.   

Edited August 4, 2016 by Hemisphere

[LeSellers]

12 hours ago, Hemisphere said:

My apologies.Typing and sitting in a shakey bus is quite a challenge. Meant to say silent deeds make a stronger case.

I can understand. Typing isn't my forte. I am a writer, not a typist.

You know, I hope, that you can edit you comments. It is a rare posting of mine that doesn't get some correction, sooner or later.

Lehi