Defending Apologetics

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Below is a post I made for my blog a few days ago. The Neal A. Maxwell Institute scandal and dismissal of Daniel C. Peterson was the catalyst to my writing the post. However, I do not mention it in the post nor is that the topic at hand. I would like your suggestions or critiques. You're also welcome to post your comments on my blog (link in signature line).

I apologize (pun intended) in advance for the rambling nature of this post. I have a lot of thoughts in my mind about the topic, and it’s hard to bring them all together in a way is meaningful and flowing. Of course, I welcome (and love!) your comments and perspectives. So, please post your comments to this post.

Defining “Mormon Apologetics”

This blog deals somewhat with Mormon apologetics (if you’re not sure what Mormon apologetics refers to, read

this first and then this). Apologetics refers to not apologizing, but defending a position (taken from the Greek word apologia which means “defense”). A person who is involved in apologetics is an apologist.

I’m an apologist. I’m not a professional. I don’t guess there really are any professional Mormon apologists, although there are some who are quite expert at it such as

Daniel C. Peterson.

There are some great apologetic resources available online for those who are struggling with their faith in the face of criticism. The most visible and helpful organization is called

FAIR which was established in 1997. Years ago as a teenager I turned to FAIR to help me strengthen my faith and overcome doubts. Today I volunteer as one of the apologists who responds to inquiries submitted to “Ask the Apologist” by people who have questions about criticisms of the Church. There is also an amazing wiki run by FAIR volunteers that has tons of information on nearly any and every topic related to Church history, doctrine, and criticisms leveled against the Church. I’ve contributed a tiny bit to the wiki effort including doing most of the translation of the wiki into a Spanish version (it’s a slow work in progress).

I’m not a very expert apologist, but I do defend my faith with reason and argument (not in the sense of “fight” but in the sense of rational persuasion). I believe in apologetics. I know there are many people who feel like trying to defend the Church against criticism or to “contend” over the meaning of scripture and so forth is pointless. Worse, some even suggest that it is “of the devil” since Jesus said that “contention is of the devil!.” I think that’s a misunderstanding of Jesus’ meaning and of apologetics. After all, Jude urged the ancient Saints to “contend for the faith” (verse 3). So, in this post, I wish to be an apologist Mormon apologetics.

So what do we hope to do by engaging in apologetics? What is the goal of an apologist? Commenting on the apologetic work of C. S. Lewis, Austin Farrer said:

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows that ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish (Austin Farrer, “Grete Clerk,” in Light on C. S. Lewis, comp. Jocelyn Gibb (New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1965), 26.).

I believe this is true. Our hope as apologists is not to convince someone that the Church is true or that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but rather to create an environment in which faith can flourish or in which the seed of faith can be planted. Ultimately, apologetics is not about proving that our position is right (or even worse, that someone else is wrong!). It is about sustaining and defending the kingdom of God in a meaningful and articulate way. In other words, apologetics is necessary to 1) maintain faith in the face of criticism and doubt and 2) create an environment where faith can take hold.

Creating an Environment Where Faith can Take Hold

First, let’s talk about a common scenario where apologetics are necessary to create an environment where faith can take hold. You are talking to your very sincere and devout Christian friend about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the restoration of the gospel. She seems receptive to what you are saying and interested. So, you offer her a copy of the Book of Mormon and invite her to read it and pray about it.

Then the crap hits the fan.

She responds by saying that although she appreciates your offer, there can be no more scripture other than the Bible. She has no need to read it to know if it is true since her pastor explained that Revelation 22:18 was written with the Mormons in mind. She also adds that she was taught that the warning in Galatians 1:8 was about the angel Moroni who would bring “another” gospel. This is especially obvious since the Book of Mormon is subtitled “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

Sound familiar? Have you ever had this discussion or one like it? Can you expect her to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon if she can’t believe in the first place that God could even give us more scripture? Are you likely to convince her to read the Book of Mormon by just sharing your testimony that it is true?

If you decide to engage her doubt, or explain why her pastor’s anti-Mormon remarks are misguided, you have engaged in apologetics. Having resolved your friend’s doubt, the seed of faith is given place in her heart and she gains a testimony while reading the Book of Mormon that it is true.“Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” So, you see, everyone who has done any missionary work has probably engaged in apologetics.

Maintaining Faith in the Face of Criticism and Doubt

The other use for apologetics is to help maintain faith in the face of doubt and criticism. Another scenario: a young man sits down to speak with his Bishop about some concerns he has about church history. He recently found out from his non-Mormon friend that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and that he apparently had married some women without Emma’s knowledge or consent. He is really shaken by this.

What does the Bishop do? What should the Bishop do? Sometimes in situations like this the response is entirely inadequate (e.g., “Don’t worry about it, just read your scriptures and pray;” or “Really? I didn’t know that;” or “That’s not true!;” or “That was just to take care of the poor old widows”).

What happens to the young man who receives little by the way of specific answers or perhaps even incorrect information from his well-meaning Bishop? Sometimes he is overcome by his doubts until he slips away into inactivity, temptation, or even out-right rebellion and apostasy. After all, “what no one shows that ability to defend is quickly abandoned.” Much of this can probably be avoided through apologetics. As stated by Neal A. Maxwell:

Let us be articulate, for while our defense of the kingdom may not stir all hearers, the absence of thoughtful response may cause fledglings among the faithful to falter. What we assert may not be accepted, but unasserted convictions soon become deserted convictions. (

The Neal A. Maxwell Quote Book

, p. 343)

Others Affected by Apologetics

it is important to realize that often there are “innocent by-standers” to all of these conversations. It isn’t usually just a discussion between you and your Bishop or you and your friend. Often there is a wife, a parent, another friend, looking on and listening (or on the Internet/Facebook/Twitter the whole world!). What about them? They are making judgments about our beliefs based on what you say.

A story from my mission in Argentina to illustrate this point: I once got caught up in a somewhat heated exchange with an anti-Mormon in the middle of the down town plaza. The main question at had was the veracity of the Book of Mormon. As this debate went on, people gathered around to listen. There were probably 20-30 people standing in a circle around us listening in. As I needed my hands to flip through the scriptures, I placed my missionary copy of the Book of Mormon on the ground (blue cover type meant for giving away). Needless to say, by the end of the conversation he resorted to making anti-American statements since he ran out of defensible things to say against the Book of Mormon. I had him thoroughly backed into a corner and he was very mad (I was calm and in control, however). Once he stormed off, I bent over to pick up my missionary copy of the Book of Mormon to discover that someone had already taken it. I would like to think that whoever took it did it not for its monetary value (which is practically nothing), but because they had gained an understanding of its potential true value and wanted to read it.

Apologetics, even the “rough and tumble” variety, can have a positive impact indirectly.

Scriptural Mandates

There are clear scriptural precedents and mandates for practicing apologetics. First, we are expected to worship God with all our hearts, mights, minds, and strength. Yes, God does expect us to think and use our intellect even at Church, even during Sunday School and Elders Quorum! But, I digress… The point is that we should not be afraid about engaging our minds, or the minds of others, in pursuit of gospel topics. It’s ok (even good!) to challenge our assumptions, ask difficult questions, and explore the deep things of God. It is, in my view, a form of worship and discipleship.

A very influential early convert to the Church by the name of Ezra Booth apostatized in 1831. He immediately went out and started publishing newspaper articles against the church. He was the first highly visible ex/anti-Mormon. He was causing considerable problems for the church’s missionary efforts in the area.

At this time, Joseph Smith was fully engaged in the very important task of translating the Bible by inspiration with Sidney Rigdon as his scribe. They inquired of the Lord as to what to do about the Ezra Booth situation. The response they received is recorded as

Doctrine and Covenants 71.

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, that the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient in me that you should

open your mouths

…

The command was to temporarily set aside the translation of the Bible and to open their mouths and preach the gospel. How were they to preach?

Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you–there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper.

The Lord expected them to address the critics head on–face to face–in public and in private. He didn’t say “get them to shut their mouths” but “let them bring forth their strong reasons.” In other words, “bring it on!” He didn’t say “ignore them.” While there may be times to “ignore” our critics, there often are times when we need to “open our mouths” and “confound [our] enemies.”

Perhaps the most famous scripture about apologetics is from the New Testament:

“Be ready always to give an answer [Greek:

apologia

, a defense) to every man that asketh you a

reason

of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear [Greek: reverence].” (1 Peter 3:15)

In other words, we need not always be ready to just share our testimony, but to give a defense to those who want a “reason” for our belief.

Example from Church History

I am currently reading “Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism” by Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow. I highly recommend it. In fact, it was something I read in this book last night that sparked my idea for this post. All the information below can be found on pp. 185-191.

The first (quite successful) LDS mission to England came to a close in April 1838 with the departure of Elders Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde with around 2,000 members baptized. The leadership of the mission was transferred to Joseph Fielding.

There was rampant anti-Mormonism during this period. In 1837 Orson Hyde published the first missionary broadside in England in part to combat some of the anti-Mormon claims. However, Joseph Fielding had a different approach. After Elders Kimball and Hyde left, he wrote that “It appears they [the anti-Mormons] want to provoke us to controversy, but we have washed our feet against them all so they may talk and write until they are tired, or till the Lord puts a stop to them.” In other words, he decided it was not worth the energy or effort to respond to the anti-Mormons.

During the time that Joseph Fielding presided and took this approach, there was no real growth of the church in England. It was stagnant.

In early 1840, the second mission in England got underway. Elder Parley P. Pratt, upon arriving, immediately started printing rebuttals of the anti-Mormon publications. He responded to their criticisms with somewhat biting sarcasm and even threw in some of his own criticisms toward them. He went so far as to call the Methodist beliefs of one anti-Mormon “a bundle of nonsense, contradiction and absurdity.” Elder Woodruff recorded that they had distributed around 50,000 such tracts that year alone.

That year, about 5,000 individuals were baptized whereas the previous two years with a “hands-off” approach to criticisms from anti-Mormons resulted in basically no real growth for the Church.

There probably are many reasons there was so much growth after the apostles arrived in England in 1840. However, I don’t think we can discount the effect of the articulate apologetics of Elder Pratt and others during that time.

Likewise, today, I don’t think we can or should discredit the need for strong, vibrant apologetics for defending the Church. I think there can even be danger in building “goodwill” with people of other faiths if we do it at the expense of not declaring our beliefs with firmness and articulate conviction. Perhaps we could learn from the experience of the early apostles in England?

PS. I found this fabulous video this morning that I think is relevant to the topic at hand. Notice that this is an official spokesman for the church who commends FAIR (though he gets the URL wrong. It is www.fairlds.org).

Click here to see it:

Edited July 8, 2012 by DispensatorMysteriorum

[ShawFanX]

The entire NAMI episode, theoretic and observational conceptions of the motives of Gereld Bradford and his associates in an internal purge of NAMI and its redirection from a scholarly institute specializing in apologetic intellectual work to a general religious studies institute specializing in nothing in particular save scholarship centered in religion and religion relevant subjects, and the connection of these events to John Delhin, is a deeply disturbing turn of events.

I see many of the acids, or toxins that have poisened and weakend higher education and, most especially, the traditional mainline Protestant churches, leeching into the LDS intellectual community from the surrounding secular society and beginning to flex its muscles a bit more than it has in prior years. Dialogue, Sunstone, and the writings of scholars such as Anthony Hutchinson are probably the most well known manifestations of this ongoing phenomenon, but the NAMI "hostile takeover" has moved this sub-cultural movement within the LDS intelligentsia to a new level.

What Walter Lippmann once called the "acids of modernity" have made some significant strides, in recent years, and even, it seems, within the apologetic movement itself, which has come to signify, for some, an embarrasing diversion from what is understood to be the real task of LDS religious studies, which is just to study and discuss religion - what other secular scholars have been doing for generations. "Apologetics" is on the verge, among some leading names among the LDS intelligentsia, of being marginalized and silenced as a legetimate intellectual pursuit.

Are we returning to the "faith vs. reason" paragdim of the secular city - even at BYU?

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

ShawFanX,

Welcome to the board! I'm honored that your post was on my thread. I appreciate your thoughts very much

[Evangeline]

DM,

Thank you for this excellent post and thank you for bringing that great video with Michael Otterson to our attention! I find it interesting that an official spokesman for the Church mentioned reading a lot of anti-Mormon material during his conversion process. Apparently he allowed the Holy Ghost to guide him and he used his intellect to reason things out in his mind and come to the conclusion that the anti-Mormon claims were hogwash. A great example of a non-"brainwashed" believer!

Regarding the need to defend apologetics, I think one of the biggest challenges that some of our best apologists are facing right now is the idea that they are cruel and somehow "un-Christian" in their tone (and this challenge is coming from within the apologetics community I believe). At least online (not thinking of Dr. Bradford here), I don't see a lot of push against the use of apologetics per se, but rather the use of hard-hitting apologetics. Some would like us to believe, for example, that Dr. Peterson uses "violent rhetoric," (i.e. the occasional war metaphor) and that such has "no place in an academic institution." (from http://www.patheos.c...utes-direction/)

Whoever the anonymous bloggers are there, it appears that they want to do away with the "old-school" apologetics and they're being very vocal about it now that Dr. Peterson has been fired and subsequently publicly humiliated. Nothing like kicking someone while they're down.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Evangeline

[Evangeline]

Just to warn you, though, if you choose to enter this battleground (ooohhhh......sorry for my violent rhetoric!) and defend Dr. Peterson and his style, don't be surprised to find yourself TRULY targeted, stalked and bullied by some anonymous posters online in a place I won't name.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Evangeline

[ShawFanX]

Just to warn you, though, if you choose to enter this battleground (ooohhhh......sorry for my violent rhetoric!) and defend Dr. Peterson and his style, don't be surprised to find yourself TRULY targeted, stalked and bullied by some anonymous posters online in a place I won't name.

I know that place. Its the Star Wars bar scene of exmo/post-Mormon criticism.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Back to the topic at hand:

1) Do you think that defending the church (apologetics) is necessary to real sustained growth?

2) Could part of the reason the growth of the church has slowed down in some places (particularly the USA) is because we aren't being vocal enough in defense of our faith?

Express your ideas and feelings.

[Evangeline]

Here's my thoughts:

Answer to question #1: Absolutely, no question in my mind. I think you made a very good case showing the need for apologetics. In fact, the scenario that you gave sounds almost exactly like an experience I once had with a friend of mine:

First, let’s talk about a common scenario where apologetics are necessary to create an environment where faith can take hold. You are talking to your very sincere and devout Christian friend about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the restoration of the gospel. She seems receptive to what you are saying and interested. So, you offer her a copy of the Book of Mormon and invite her to read it and pray about it.

Then the crap hits the fan.

She responds by saying that although she appreciates your offer, there can be no more scripture other than the Bible. She has no need to read it to know if it is true since her pastor explained that Revelation 22:18 was written with the Mormons in mind. She also adds that she was taught that the warning in Galatians 1:8 was about the angel Moroni who would bring “another” gospel. This is especially obvious since the Book of Mormon is subtitled “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

Sound familiar? Have you ever had this discussion or one like it?

Unfortunately, when I had this experience, I was quite young and naive and didn't know how to respond adequately. I bungled it pretty badly, something I still feel embarrassed about. From my limited vantage point, practically every attempt I have made to share the gospel has been disastrous, to the point where I have felt intimidated even to try again. Thankfully, because of the apologetic work of others, I am learning what to say when such opportunities arise again.

I have also had significant issues in my own life, and apologetics has helped me tremendously. (It's not the only thing, but it has undoubtedly helped).

Answer to question #2: Absolutely, there is no question in my mind that many of us are not vocal enough in defense of the faith (I feel that I'm one of them), and this will certainly affect growth rates. I think this is one of the reasons why we are constantly having to be reminded to do missionary work.

[robuchan]

Back to the topic at hand:

1) Do you think that defending the church (apologetics) is necessary to real sustained growth?

2) Could part of the reason the growth of the church has slowed down in some places (particularly the USA) is because we aren't being vocal enough in defense of our faith?

Express your ideas and feelings.

When you've spent 20 years and all you come up with is a twisted LGT and obscure stuff like pulling Asherah and temple ritual in BOM out of a hat, then it might be time to hang it up and find a different approach.

[Evangeline]

When you've spent 20 years and all you come up with is a twisted LGT and obscure stuff like pulling Asherah and temple ritual in BOM out of a hat, then it might be time to hang it up and find a different approach.

Yes, I suppose it would. That's why I don't base my testimony on any of those relatively inconsequential things you mentioned. I don't feel the need to hang anything up because I have more than 20 years of experience showing me that God is real and that He's guiding me on a path that brings me a lot of joy.

[robuchan]

Yes, I suppose it would. That's why I don't base my testimony on any of those relatively inconsequential things you mentioned. I don't feel the need to hang anything up because I have more than 20 years of experience showing me that God is real and that He's guiding me on a path that brings me a lot of joy.

I didn't mean hang it up wrt your church membership. I meant give up on apologetics. Looks like the church agrees. Or maybe they just thought there was incompetency involved in the management of it, and they're starting fresh with new personnel.

Your disrespectful and rude drive by comments are getting real old.

[Calm]

Looks like the church agrees.

And yet Brother Otterson promotes apologetics by telling people to use FAIR.....

[Evangeline]

I didn't mean hang it up wrt your church membership. I meant give up on apologetics.

A careful reading of the other posts on this thread will show that apologetics addresses a lot more than a few hobby topics.

[Robert F. Smith]

I didn't mean hang it up wrt your church membership. I meant give up on apologetics. Looks like the church agrees. Or maybe they just thought there was incompetency involved in the management of it, and they're starting fresh with new personnel.

Your disrespectful and rude drive by comments are getting real old.

LDS apologetics has been enormously successful over the last 30 years, quite independent of any centralized "management." While apologists should always be humble enough to ask whether they are consistent, take the proper, respectful approach, and effectively employ real facts, I see no reason for a call for new personnel or a wholly new approach.

What I do see is a demand by the anti-Mormon community that LDS apologetics disappear, or at least cease & desist. They make this demand based on false claims about what the apologists have in fact done, and add the false claim that apologetics is contrary to the wishes of the Brethren. In fact, in recent General Conferences the Brethren have asked for more apologetics, especially on the internet.

The polemicists make their demands that LDS apologists go away simply because they are unable to deal effectively with systematic apologetics. They have been embarrassed by their own failures and want to lash out and punish the imagined source of their embarrassment. Had the polemicists been respectful and up front about the issues, they would not now have any reason for that embarrassment.

[Bill Hamblin]

LDS apologetics has been enormously successful over the last 30 years, quite independent of any centralized "management." While apologists should always be humble enough to ask whether they are consistent, take the proper, respectful approach, and effectively employ real facts, I see no reason for a call for new personnel or a wholly new approach.

What I do see is a demand by the anti-Mormon community that LDS apologetics disappear, or at least cease & desist. They make this demand based on false claims about what the apologists have in fact done, and add the false claim that apologetics is contrary to the wishes of the Brethren. In fact, in recent General Conferences the Brethren have asked for more apologetics, especially on the internet.

The polemicists make their demands that LDS apologists go away simply because they are unable to deal effectively with systematic apologetics. They have been embarrassed by their own failures and want to lash out and punish the imagined source of their embarrassment. Had the polemicists been respectful and up front about the issues, they would not now have any reason for that embarrassment.

Spot on!

[Bill Hamblin]

When you've spent 20 years and all you come up with is a twisted LGT and obscure stuff like pulling Asherah and temple ritual in BOM out of a hat, then it might be time to hang it up and find a different approach.

Another example of most excellent nincompoopery!

[ANACO]

Another example of most excellent nincompoopery!

Other examples most excellent are:

Dr. Nibley and Dr. Sorenson not agreeing as to whether Lehi had animals while traveling from Jerusalem to Bountiful.

Arguing over the Rio Grijalva and the Usamancitas river being the River Sidon.

Arguing over the Guatemala Highlands and the Maya lowlands.

That Niagara Falls should be mentioned in the Book of Mormon if any of it happened in the New York area.

Another is believing initially the Maya and the Nephites were the same but later learning:

it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=738

Another is learning:

Cautiously examining Classic Maya art of a few centuries after the Book of Mormon can thus be useful in order to obtain some ideas about armor several centuries earlier.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=738

But that this should only apply to armor, not to these things such as: religious beliefs, currency, metals, multiple diety worship, ships, calendars, etc.

But what do I know. I just learned these things from reading articles at NAMI, which I really don't find very edifying.

This is because I also learned the First Presidency of the LDS Church learned the geography of the Book of Mormon from a travel book:

Enthusiastic comments published at Nauvoo showed that the Church's leaders, including Joseph Smith, were immensely stimulated by the new information. Within a few weeks of the first notice, they announced they had just discovered, by reading Stephens's book, that the Nephites' prime

homeland must have been in Central, not South, America

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=196

While at the same time declaring the LDS Church doesn't have an official position on the geographical location of the Book of Mormon:

Based upon these criteria, many scholars currently see northern Central America and southern Mexico (Mesoamerica) as the most likely location of Book of Mormon lands. However, such views are private and do not represent an official position of the Church.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=371

But what do I know. To be redundant, I just learned these things from reading articles at NAMI written by LDS Apologists.

King regards!

(assuming I'm not now banned for backing up all of my statements)

[Robert F. Smith]

Other examples most excellent are:

Dr. Nibley and Dr. Sorenson not agreeing as to whether Lehi had animals while traveling from Jerusalem to Bountiful.

Arguing over the Rio Grijalva and the Usamancitas river being the River Sidon.

Arguing over the Guatemala Highlands and the Maya lowlands.

That Niagara Falls should be mentioned in the Book of Mormon if any of it happened in the New York area.

Another is believing initially the Maya and the Nephites were the same but later learning:

Another is learning:

But that this should only apply to armor, not to these things such as: religious beliefs, currency, metals, multiple diety worship, ships, calendars, etc.

But what do I know. I just learned these things from reading articles at NAMI, which I really don't find very edifying.

This is because I also learned the First Presidency of the LDS Church learned the geography of the Book of Mormon from a travel book:

While at the same time declaring the LDS Church doesn't have an official position on the geographical location of the Book of Mormon:

But what do I know. To be redundant, I just learned these things from reading articles at NAMI written by LDS Apologists.

King regards!

(assuming I'm not now banned for backing up all of my statements)

Does this reflect in any way a sincere reading of LDS apologetics? Does it represent a balanced perspective on any of that reading? Or does it show a disregard for high ethical and moral principle in argument? Does it ignore logic? Is it designed to clarify or obfuscate?

In a real discussion, one expects respectful give and take, along with frank admission when differing points of view seem valid. Surely we can do better than this.

[ShawFanX]

1) Do you think that defending the church (apologetics) is necessary to real sustained growth?

I don't think its necessary. I do think that its a wonderful adjunct, or appendage to sustained growth, but not a necessary component. Growth of the Church is the work of the Spirit; its a work of faith and the centering of real, living testimony of turth within the soul. Intellectual articulation and defense of the Church are one aspect of both its growth and retention of its members, for some people who require such defense and elucidation, but by no means do all LDS who happen upon information that appears to cast the Church in a negative light, or arguments hostile to its truth claims, require an existing scholoarly apologetic framework to negotiate those challenges.

In all frankness, DM, and I'm amazed to hear myself say this, but at this point in my own journey through mortality, the gospel, philosophy, and varioius sustained intellectual interests, I'm beginning to think that apologetics could suffer, and has suffered, from a too intensive focus on a highly academicized approach to apologetics in which critical philosophcal explorations of critic's arguments, combined with the bearing, in various ways, of testimony (which is a part of my ideal reagarding it) are shunted out of the way in preference to a critical-historical approach that tends to professional journal-type dialogue and discourse that, while this too, has its place, is not sufficient to meet the challenges posed by anti-Mormon criticism, and in particular, that coming from both without and within the Church in the form of the "NOM" or "Neo-Orthodox" movement that seeks accomidation between the Church and the secular world.

I would prefer space for a more philosophcal and less historical/textual approach to engaging the critics, and with more room left for actually integrating such intellectual engagment with the critics with the epistemological caveat mentioned in Mormoni 10:4. The real problem I see with Bradford's approach is precisely its over-intellectualization. Intellectual seriousness and scholarly methodology are important, yes, but, as Lao Tzu mentioned, one has to know when to stop.

I also think that, over the years, and sadly, apologetics itself has attracted some to it who's intellectual egos and self regard are such that they have become engaged primarily in promoting various personal intellectual interests and throetical avocations within apologetics, rather than in doing apologetics per se.

2) Could part of the reason the growth of the church has slowed down in some places (particularly the USA) is because we aren't being vocal enough in defense of our faith?

This may come as a shock, even to some in this forum, but I think that we are actually - really - in the last days, and the competition for the minds and hearts of God's children is at a fever pitch, and is not likely to be attenuated in its intensity any time soon. I don't assume that just because we are vocal (and I beleive most faithful LDS are, all things considered), and even if our arguments, in an intellectual sense, are all but water tight under most circumstances, that a substantial number of those hearts and minds are going to be changed in that manner alone. Indeed, one of the threefold missions of the Church is to preach the gospel, but this is not to do apolgetics, per se. Teaching the gospel is not a historical-critical/text critical/logical argumentation kind of thing, at its core, even though elements of all this can be interspersed within such teaching. Teaching the gospel is teaching it; it is telling others what we know because we are witnesses to it. The Saints are not sent to be taught, but to teach the world and raise a warning voice. I think, contra Bradford and some others, that apologetics can seamlessly integrate both the teaching of the gospel and its intellectual, scholarly defense within a single, systemic approach.

I think we forget this sometimes.

[Mansquatch]

1) Do you think that defending the church (apologetics) is necessary to real sustained growth?

Most definitely it is. The defenses of positions are there and it is extremely useful to bring things to people's knowledge. More truth is always better.

2) Could part of the reason the growth of the church has slowed down in some places (particularly the USA) is because we aren't being vocal enough in defense of our faith?

That is a very interesting question. I would be interested to see if the periods of largest growth for the church have come when members and leaders (the latter more particularly) have been more bold and publicly vocal in defense of positions.

It is my view that the Spirit does the best kind of apologetics when you put the facts in your head. "I wrote a song about it wanna hear it? Here it goes" -> http://thesquatches.bandcamp.com/track/apologetics-2

If you can't tell I am a big fan of apologetics.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I gave Bill Hamblin rep points just for gracing my thread. haha

I like your comments and differing perspectives. My feeling is that defending the faith is necessary not to convert the hard-headed "anti-Mormon" so much as to create an environment where faith can thrive or be planted in the hearts of the sincere. I think if we don't do this, we will have less converts and we will lose more members.

[Evangeline]

1) Do you think that defending the church (apologetics) is necessary to real sustained growth?

I don't think its necessary. I do think that its a wonderful adjunct, or appendage to sustained growth, but not a necessary component. Growth of the Church is the work of the Spirit; its a work of faith and the centering of real, living testimony of turth within the soul. Intellectual articulation and defense of the Church are one aspect of both its growth and retention of its members, for some people who require such defense and elucidation, but by no means do all LDS who happen upon information that appears to cast the Church in a negative light, or arguments hostile to its truth claims, require an existing scholoarly apologetic framework to negotiate those challenges.

In all frankness, DM, and I'm amazed to hear myself say this, but at this point in my own journey through mortality, the gospel, philosophy, and varioius sustained intellectual interests, I'm beginning to think that apologetics could suffer, and has suffered, from a too intensive focus on a highly academicized approach to apologetics in which critical philosophcal explorations of critic's arguments, combined with the bearing, in various ways, of testimony (which is a part of my ideal reagarding it) are shunted out of the way in preference to a critical-historical approach that tends to professional journal-type dialogue and discourse that, while this too, has its place, is not sufficient to meet the challenges posed by anti-Mormon criticism, and in particular, that coming from both without and within the Church in the form of the "NOM" or "Neo-Orthodox" movement that seeks accomidation between the Church and the secular world.

I would prefer space for a more philosophcal and less historical/textual approach to engaging the critics, and with more room left for actually integrating such intellectual engagment with the critics with the epistemological caveat mentioned in Mormoni 10:4. The real problem I see with Bradford's approach is precisely its over-intellectualization. Intellectual seriousness and scholarly methodology are important, yes, but, as Lao Tzu mentioned, one has to know when to stop.

I also think that, over the years, and sadly, apologetics itself has attracted some to it who's intellectual egos and self regard are such that they have become engaged primarily in promoting various personal intellectual interests and throetical avocations within apologetics, rather than in doing apologetics per se.

This may come as a shock, even to some in this forum, but I think that we are actually - really - in the last days, and the competition for the minds and hearts of God's children is at a fever pitch, and is not likely to be attenuated in its intensity any time soon. I don't assume that just because we are vocal (and I beleive most faithful LDS are, all things considered), and even if our arguments, in an intellectual sense, are all but water tight under most circumstances, that a substantial number of those hearts and minds are going to be changed in that manner alone. Indeed, one of the threefold missions of the Church is to preach the gospel, but this is not to do apolgetics, per se. Teaching the gospel is not a historical-critical/text critical/logical argumentation kind of thing, at its core, even though elements of all this can be interspersed within such teaching. Teaching the gospel is teaching it; it is telling others what we know because we are witnesses to it. The Saints are not sent to be taught, but to teach the world and raise a warning voice. I think, contra Bradford and some others, that apologetics can seamlessly integrate both the teaching of the gospel and its intellectual, scholarly defense within a single, systemic approach.

I think we forget this sometimes.

ShawFanX, I appreciate your perspective. I can see how over-intellectualization can become a form of idolatry and is obviously not helpful in terms of promoting faith.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Evangeline