Mormon Stories is a production of the Open Stories Foundation and relies solely upon the support of people like you, its listeners.

To help keep the podcast alive or to become a member of the community, please become a monthly subscriber by visiting MormonStories.org and clicking the Donate button on the top right side of the page.

All contributions to Mormon Stories are completely tax deductible and go towards producing the podcast and building communities and programs of support for Mormons like you.

Thanks for your support.

Okay, well if it's okay, let's move to the next section of the interview. Is that all right?

Yeah, feel free.

Okay, so I've seen you, I've seen you mentioned that you don't like the term neo-apologist, but you, but you did say you're sort of a more progressive or nuanced Mormon.

What don't you like about the term neo-apologist?

Geez, let's see, it's not that I necessarily don't like the term. I actually think, John, by you drawing a distinction between one style of apologetics versus another, I agree with that, right?

I think that's fair, you know, for you to distinguish between more pastoral approaches to apologetics versus, you know, more hard line or snarky approaches, maybe an innably style or whatnot.

More Daniel Peterson or Lus Newjali or Greg Prince, right?

Yeah, yeah, I think that's fair, right? And for you to kind of distinguish between different types of Mormon apologists or Mormon scholars, I don't think there's anything wrong with what you're doing.

Sometimes the implication from what I've heard, because there's been pushback on your use of neo-apologist, right?

It's when individuals feel like neo-apologist is now becoming synonymous with maybe unorthodox or with someone who is just trying to put a bow on Mormonism to make it look all pretty at the end of the day and package it in a way that seems appealing, but really isn't addressing some of the problems.

For instance, when it comes to the givens, you know, you would classify them as neo-apologists, but sometimes the term just not necessarily by you, but maybe by other people gets used as an easy way to write off voices within Mormon studies at large or, you know, just Mormonism, right?

It has an orthodox or not fully Mormon. I mean, individuals do the same thing with me where, you know, they say I'm cherry picking or I'm just living, you know, I'm like a cafeteria Mormon, I'm taking what I like and I, you know, I'm leaving what I don't like.

As if our voices don't matter or don't have validity, you know, or our experiences don't have validity or what our efforts are, our approaches aren't legitimate, you know, if we're not legitimate voices within the church, which of course I don't claim to have authority or anything I'm just speaking for myself, but it's an easy way to invalidate someone, right?

And so that's just what I would be hesitant with. I wouldn't want to identify as a fringe Mormon or anything like that, because in a lot of ways, like my views on maybe the Book of Mormon or other elements of Mormon history, they're really not too far off from classical arguments that have been made by different Mormon apologists or Mormon scholars.

Like I don't feel like I'm an orthodox, I don't feel like I'm running directly counter to what's considered orthodoxy. I don't feel like I'm a minority voice, if that makes sense.

When it comes to the givens and Bushmen and, you know, other individuals is just that I think a major aspect of what sets what we could dub, neopologetic Mormonism as is just a desire to, and you've said this yourself, to validate the experiences of individuals who have problems with the church, rather than write them off immediately.

It's a matter of tone, because I am interested in having frank and open and honest discussions with people, rather than having it be a snarky debate where I am, you know, assassinating character or things like that, right?

I don't think that's productive to moving this whole collective conversation forward. I think it actually does more to hurt and entrench people than it does to build bridges. I'm all about building bridges. That's what I do with interfaith.

...