Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[mathonihah]

Wow, you say it pretty darn good all right........ it's certainly what I have experienced and noticed and even participated in when I thought being "valiant in the testimony of Jesus" was doing apologetics. The more I see it now, the more convinced I am that it harms. God has absolutely no need of it. Why on earth is there apologetics after all? I mean, what, can't God find a vastly superior way? Obviously he doesn't seem to be able to. Apologetics seems to me to think that since they have thought through some things, they have the actual truth of it. But apologetics, as I have discovered and said, goes at it precisely backwards. It begins with the answer, then amasses evidence to fit the evidence. The shoe doesn't fit, so chop up the foot, mash it, do anything you can to make it fit. The shoe is true, everything HAS to be forced into it. It just doesn't work is all. It has no bearing on truth, it's just that apologetics doesn't work. It's assumptions are untested, it's method is ridiculous, and its evidence is forced fit. It is bankrupt. The church is not bankrupt, apologetics is. Apologetics does not equal the church, or the church being true.

Apologetics correctly defined means defending a religion against attack by its detractors. Its purpose is not to prove that a religion is true, but to demonstrate that a particular line of attack against it is false. It is a defensive strategy, not an offensive one. That was the original meaning of it. Nowadays it has been redefined, by Mormons and non-Mormons alike, to mean just about anything they want it to mean. Anti-Mormons publish hateful literature against Mormonism and call it apologetics. And Mormon scholars write articles which has nothing to do with defending Mormonism against a specific criticism, and call it apologetics. True apologetics, in its classic definition, finds its support in scripture in the following verses:

"For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.

"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;

"And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time." (D&C 71:6–10)

Notice that the key to success given here is not academic or scholarly prowess, but their "faithfulness" to the Lord. In other words, the knowledge and power to succeed and prevail comes by revelation from the Lord, not by book reading and scholarly research alone.

[Kevin Christensen]

What I'm saying is not that things can be known only through direct, personal experience. What I'm saying is that there's no good reason to believe that the "witness of the Spirit" is a reliable way of knowing that things are objectively true.

As what I hope is the last comment I make on this in this thread (though I could get sucked into yet more discussion on it, who knows), I'll go so far as to claim that the belief that the "witness of the Spirit" is a real and valid way of ascertaining objective truth, relies on begging the question (petitio principii, not the common figure of speech).

A: I know the witness of the Spirit is true.

B: How do you know that?

A: The Spirit told me.

I have a similar objection to the Moroni's Challenge in the BoM.

A: read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and if you feel good, that's God telling you it's true.

B: how do I know that is a reliable method of ascertaining whether the Book of Mormon is true?

A: because the Book of Mormon says it is

The problem of self-referential standards occurs in the sciences as well. That is the whole point of Godel, Esher and Bach, in the theme of recurrence, and is also key in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

• [P]aradigms differ in more than substance, for they are directed not only to nature, but also back upon the science that produced them. They are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any time. (Kuhn, 103)
  

• When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm in that paradigm’s defense. (Kuhn, 94)
  

But a bigger problem is that of over-simplification of how the scriptures direct us to find truth, defined as "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come," and not, "being on the right side, thinking orthodox thoughts." I've pointed out at length that the Biblical passages that describe how a person ought to go about finding truth, and the most important Book of Mormon chapter on the topic both the Book of Mormon and the Bible directly address the problem of self-referential standards in the same way that science does.

On the Biblical recommendations (often neglected, it is true, but true also that they are there to consider):

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Seeing_the_truth

On Alma 32 compared to Kuhn, very briefly (see my extended treatments elsewhere):

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Paradigm_debate/Values_Applied

And it's important to recognize that once a person moves past superficial understanding, that Mormon thought openly admits that both truth and revelation are non-exclusive to Mormonism, and that Mormon understanding is an open-ended, ongoing process.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

Couldn't agree more on the last paragraph (except the last sentence). Why don't the leaders of the church come forth and put out maybe a pamphlet to address the issues instead of the apologetics doing all the work?

I have worked for many years as technical writer in the electronics engineering field. And in this field, as in many others, the whole structure is based on using hierarchy to address complexity. In the second installment of his 29 part series on the Book of Abraham in the Improvement Era, Nibley put in a sidebar to address the issue of people who, rather than being taught the issues, background, cultural context, relevent texts from all sources, and explore implications, wanted him to forgo all that work and be like a mathematician who declines to teach, but just says, "I am a mathematician, the answer is 0. Class dismissed."

Kuhn talked about how one of the values that can apply in paradigm choice is deference to preferred teachers. But doing so is obviously a strategy for dealing with complexity and uncertainty by means of hierarchy, and NOT personal inquiry. Authority is put OUT THERE, rather than the basis for authority experienced personally inside, as Alma 32 invites. Of course, everyone does some of this for inescapable pedagocial reasons, but for something as important as eternity, the more personal knowledge based on personal inquiry and experiment, the more sound the personal understanding, and inner foundation.

If you read the lists of spiritual gifts in the scriptures, you may observe that "administration" is one gift, and "knowledge" is another.

And with that mind, look to John Boyd's influential theories about the OODA loop, and the most efficient kinds of organizations:

Boyd hypothesized that all intelligent organisms and organizations undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. Boyd breaks this cycle down to four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:

• Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses
  
• Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective
  
• Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective
  
• Action: the physical playing-out of decisions
  

Of course, while this is taking place, the situation may be changing. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a planned action in order to meet the changes. This decision cycle is thus known as the OODA loop. Boyd emphasized that this decision cycle is the central mechanism enabling adaptation (apart from natural selection) and is therefore critical to survival.

Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels. In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level. In 2003, this power to the edge concept took the form of a DOD publication "Power to the Edge: Command ... Control ... in the Information Age" by Dr. David S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes. Boyd argued that such a structure creates a flexible "organic whole" that is quicker to adapt to rapidly changing situations. He noted, however, that any such highly decentralized organization would necessitate a high degree of mutual trust and a common outlook that came from prior shared experiences. Headquarters needs to know that the troops are perfectly capable of forming a good plan for taking a specific objective, and the troops need to know that Headquarters does not direct them to achieve certain objectives without good reason.

Apologetics in the LDS community seems to me to work best based on the practice of the power to the edge concept. And that is because the LDS faith is not based on a static, on the shelf orthodoxy and unchanging creeds, but based on the idea of continuing revelation, which carries an explicit admission that we do not know everything, that some of what we think we know is wrong, that others possess truths we do not and can and should embrace, and that that does not matter all that much if the most important things, those adminstered by the church structure, the ordinances and covenants, and those experienced by the individual members, the presence of the Holy Spirit and experience of at-onement, are real.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[mathonihah]

My issue was never the answers. I had those all along. At times in my life when I had faith crisis of varying severity it was founded upon a lack of the questions. I had heard the answers, but no one in church was discussing the questions.

Why should people in the Church be discussing questions which nobody else is interested in except you? If you have questions, it is your job to ask them, not wonder why other people don't.

[Randall57]

Why should people in the Church be discussing questions which nobody else is interested in except you? If you have questions, it is your job to ask them, not wonder why other people don't.

I agree with DB, knowing there are problems and issues, and not discussing them, leads to disfunction and a lost sense of direction. The cohesivness of the church is changing and falling apart before our eyes for this very reason, we are not dealing with the issues. Staying LDS, NOM, and other sites like these are a testimony to my understanding DBM's point.

Sometimes when we say we are not interested in answering questions, it is another way of saying "I do not want my testimony to crack."

[mathonihah]

I agree with DB, knowing there are problems and issues, and not discussing them, leads to disfunction and a lost sense of direction. The cohesivness of the church is changing and falling apart before our eyes for this very reason, ...

LOL! That is not how it looks from where I am looking at it. The Church I am seeing is gaining recognition and momentum, and going from strength to strength. Try a different line, see if that works.

[Tacenda]

I've read other boards where the disillusioned like to portray the leadership of the church as the "man behind the curtain" per the story of "The Wizard of Oz". Maybe we can liken the curtain to the apologetics. Making a covering for the unsavory but factual history. Maybe we need to let the man (church) come out from behind the curtain and speak. They need not worry that it's members will flee. The church should be more confident in that. Of course there are enough faithful that could care less. And the church doesn't need the unfaithful. Maybe the apologetics are the ones who care enough to keep us, whoever, in the faith. Thanks to all of you guys/gals out there that explain and explain over and over again. You have an almost thankless job! It's not your faults, it's a lonely job without "the man" church to help. I've a whole different perspective now.

[Randall57]

LOL! That is not how it looks from where I am looking at it. The Church I am seeing is gaining recognition and momentum, and going from strength to strength. Try a different line, see if that works.

I think your standing firm on there not being a need for addressing questions, and my guess is that you are not in touch with the Saints now struggling with the Church, as they testify on the Web these new sites that are popping up. The brethren see it differently now days and seem to be making an effort to reach out and answer some of these questions you seem to want to ignore.

Please define the "strength to strength" you speak of, and whom is it making momentum and recognition?

[juliann]

I've read other boards where the disillusioned like to portray the leadership of the church as the "man behind the curtain" per the story of "The Wizard of Oz". Maybe we can liken the curtain to the apologetics. Making a covering for the unsavory but factual history. Maybe we need to let the man (church) come out from behind the curtain and speak. They need not worry that it's members will flee. The church should be more confident in that. Of course there are enough faithful that could care less. And the church doesn't need the unfaithful. Maybe the apologetics are the ones who care enough to keep us, whoever, in the faith. Thanks to all of you guys/gals out there that explain and explain over and over again. You have an almost thankless job! It's not your faults, it's a lonely job without "the man" church to help. I've a whole different perspective now.

There is off times a thin line between scholarship and apologetics. Even liberal scholars have been known to "defend" religion and even speak at church services. It was, in fact, very bad form to criticize any religion at the grad school I attended which is probably one of the most radically liberal programs around. People who get into "apologetics" mostly just love talking religion, they are hobbyists who like to talk shop to a fault. Apologetics is an outlet and does something good at the same time. I think the growing rage against it may have something to do with the necessity of having to engage on a very sophisticated level now, an ability to understand scholarship is now a requirement. That is a sword that cuts both ways for both sides....but it is an inescapable fact of life now. When the tactic is to do nothing but vilify an ancient enterprise like apologetics rather than wading into the much more difficult to address problem issues themselves, it should give one pause.

[mathonihah]

I think your standing firm on there not being a need for addressing questions, and my guess is that you are not in touch with the Saints now struggling with the Church, as they testify on the Web these new sites that are popping up. The brethren see it differently now days and seem to be making an effort to reach out and answer some of these questions you seem to want to ignore.

Please define the "strength to strength" you speak of, and whom is it making momentum and recognition?

There have been apostates from the Church from the beginning. There is nothing new about that. But the Church has always grown stronger, and that trend is continuing. The faithfulness of Church members is increasing. Their numbers is growing. The tithing faithfulness of Church members is increasing. Once upon a time the Church was heavily in debt; not any more, thanks to the faithfulness of Church members (and the Lord's blessings on them as a consequence). More temples are being built than ever before—again a reflection of the faithfulness of Latter-day Saints. It has now become a force to be reckoned with in the world. It is being taken more seriously than it has ever been before. It is no longer vilified and misrepresented in the media as it used to be once upon a time. People understand us a lot better now, and a lot of the misunderstandings of the past about the Mormons have disappeared. All aspects of the Church is improving and getting better. We now have better quality and better prepared missionaries than ever before. The quality of the gospel teaching in the Church keeps getting better and better. If some people want to cut themselves off from God's only true Church and apostatise, we are saddened by it obviously, but it is not going to stop the progress and onward march of the Church (as prophesied) in any way.

[juliann]

Your OP is an attack against the Church. It casts doubt on the validity of the Church on the grounds of its failure to stop people from apostatising by failing to address their doubts.

And the discomfort with allowing people to question and express doubt is the genesis of what I think is a growing problem. I do not see that as a failing of the church, I see it as a failing of the members of the church which are then used as proxy targets. Despite his fall from grace, this is one area that Dehlin not only saw clearly, he was a prime example of success coming from being in the right place at the right time with a new idea. (The book Outliers comes to mind.)

Hopefully, we learn from that and refrain from responses like the above in the future.

Edited February 16, 2013 by juliann

[mathonihah]

And the discomfort with allowing people to question and express doubt is the genesis of what I think is a growing problem. I do not see that as a failing of the church, I see it as a failing of the members of the church which are then used as proxy targets. Despite his fall from grace, this is one area that Dehlin not only saw clearly, he was a prime example of success coming from being in the right place at the right time with a new idea. (The book Outliers comes to mind.)

Hopefully, we learn from that and refrain from responses like the above in the future.

I have tried reading that carefully several times, and I haven't been able to fathom exactly what it means, or how it relates to my post which you are replying to.

[DBMormon]

Because it is not the Church's way of doing it. The Church's way of helping those whose faith is wavering is to provide spiritual support through priesthood channels of authority, such as bishops, stake presidents, quorums presidents, home teachers, and so forth (provided that those people actually want to be helped; a lot of the time thy don't want to). Now I am sure DB is going to jump in and say that that hasn't worked, because the bishops etc. do not have the necessary training or qualification to provide the help needed. Sure it hasn't always worked. It is not supposed to always work. God has never stopped anyone from going to hell if that is where they really want to go.

so all who leave the church because the leaders guidance wasn't enough go to hell? Also I won't say it is not working, in fact I'll let Elder Jensen say so for the umpteen time

often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he'll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn't know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, 'Get in line and don't question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.' And that isn't helpful in most cases.

Also your guess at why I wrote the post once again shows you have taken no time to read about my motives or what I seek. you have ignored every thing I shared with you before

You know what is weird. There was a guy named Zerinus who was banned. You seem to have the same message as he did.... and it sounds strangely familiar. you happen to know him?

[Randall57]

There have been apostates from the Church from the beginning. There is nothing new about that. But the Church has always grown stronger, and that trend is continuing. The faithfulness of Church members is increasing. Their numbers is growing. The tithing faithfulness of Church members is increasing. Once upon a time the Church was heavily in debt; not any more, thanks to the faithfulness of Church members (and the Lord's blessings on them as a consequence). More temples are being built than ever before—again a reflection of the faithfulness of Latter-day Saints. It has now become a force to be reckoned with in the world. It is being taken more seriously than it has ever been before. It is no longer vilified and misrepresented in the media as it used to be once upon a time. People understand us a lot better now, and a lot of the misunderstandings of the past about the Mormons have disappeared. All aspects of the Church is improving and getting better. We now have better quality and better prepared missionaries than ever before. The quality of the gospel teaching in the Church keeps getting better and better. If some people want to cut themselves off from God's only true Church and apostatise, we are saddened by it obviously, but it is not going to stop the progress and onward march of the Church (as prophesied) in any way.

Well, that did not answer my questions at all, they are just generalities.

We have no idea how the church is doing financially, if you are privy to the numbers, let me know? I have certainly heard, even if rumors, that cut backs are in place and happening. Church activity is at best 30%

Who are the people that "know understand us allot better now" and how and what do they better understand?

How has it become a force to be reckoned with?

Give me some back up to your claims?

What aspects are improving, please elaborate?

[cdowis]

We have no idea how the church is doing financially, if you are privy to the numbers, let me know? I have certainly heard, even if rumors, that cut backs are in place and happening.

Let me tell you facts. After I joined the church decades ago, there was a major announcement that it would pay 80% of the cost of a new building!!! The local members had to come up with rest. It used to be 60% (I believe). The wards had many fund raising projects and the bishop gave allocations to individual families.

Now it is completely funded by the church.

Another major announcement was made that we no longer have a budget category for contribution. Now the budget is completely funded by the church.

Those are the facts, jack.

[Randall57]

Let me tell you facts. After I joined the church decades ago, there was a major announcement that it would pay 80% of the cost of a new building!!! The local members had to come up with rest. It used to be 60% (I believe). The wards had many fund raising projects and the bishop gave allocations to individual families.

Now it is completely funded by the church.

Another major announcement was made that we no longer have a budget category for contribution. Now the budget is completely funded by the church.

Those are the facts, jack.

The first ward I attended (born into), we basically built, I was to young (early 60s) but the people none the less built it? Not sure how that has anything to do with the questions I asked, and I am not sure why you are offended?

Activity is down percentage wise, the younger generations have more doubts than past generations. The WoW is slipping, at least the way I understand it, and while I do not doubt the church has money to spend, I have no clue how much, or what the plans are, if you do please show me a reference?

[Tacenda]

so all who leave the church because the leaders guidance wasn't enough go to hell? Also I won't say it is not working, in fact I'll let Elder Jensen say so for the umpteen time

Also your guess at why I wrote the post once again shows you have taken no time to read about my motives or what I seek. you have ignored every thing I shared with you before

You know what is weird. There was a guy named Zerinus who was banned. You seem to have the same message as he did.... and it sounds strangely familiar. you happen to know him?

I remember Zarinus and his red. font whenever he posted. Could be him or his evil twin. Edited February 17, 2013 by Tacenda

[volgadon]

I remember Zarinus and his red. font. whenever he oosted. Could be him or his evil twin.

Stylistically, it just doesn't feel like him.

[mathonihah]

so all who leave the church because the leaders guidance wasn't enough go to hell?

Those who apostatise from the Church and do not repent will be damned:

“But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.” (D&C 50:8 )

Also I won't say it is not working, in fact I'll let Elder Jensen say so for the umpteen time

Some bishops do a better job than others. Church members with questions have other resources to go to than just the bishop. Elder Jensen is not the be all and end all of correct Church policy.

Also your guess at why I wrote the post once again shows you have taken no time to read about my motives or what I seek. you have ignored every thing I shared with you before

Have read enough to have figured where you are coming from. You can wear a mask for so long you know, without eventually being detected.

You know what is weird. There was a guy named Zerinus who was banned. You seem to have the same message as he did.... and it sounds strangely familiar. you happen to know him?

LOL! He must have been one heck of a smart guy to sound like me. Is that your new intimidation strategy or something? You must be getting pretty desperate, after trying everything else which failed.

Edited February 17, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

Well, that did not answer my questions at all, they are just generalities.

We have no idea how the church is doing financially, if you are privy to the numbers, let me know? I have certainly heard, even if rumors, that cut backs are in place and happening. Church activity is at best 30%

Who are the people that "know understand us allot better now" and how and what do they better understand?

How has it become a force to be reckoned with?

Give me some back up to your claims?

What aspects are improving, please elaborate?

To some people the glass is half empty, to others it is half full. I am an optimist. I see the Church getting stronger, not weaker. Once upon a time the US government sent an army to destroy the Saints. Not likely to happen now.

[mathonihah]

Let me tell you facts. After I joined the church decades ago, there was a major announcement that it would pay 80% of the cost of a new building!!! The local members had to come up with rest. It used to be 60% (I believe). The wards had many fund raising projects and the bishop gave allocations to individual families.

Now it is completely funded by the church.

Another major announcement was made that we no longer have a budget category for contribution. Now the budget is completely funded by the church.

Those are the facts, jack.

Thank you, I agree. The chapel in which I meet was built around 35 years ago, partly funded by the local congregation. Not any more.

[mathonihah]

I remember Zarinus and his red. font whenever he posted. Could be him or his evil twin.

Stylistically, it just doesn't feel like him.

Okay, I have searched past messages, and he does appear to have been a smart guy like me. Was he banned? Why was he banned?

Edited February 17, 2013 by mathonihah

[Tacenda]

Okay, I have searched past messages, and he does appear to have been a smart guy like me. Was he banned? Why was he banned?

No tact. He once told me I could not be LDS even though I told him I was, I guess by the way I posted. So that sort of thing.

[mathonihah]

No tact. He once told me I could not be LDS even though I told him I was, I guess by the way I posted. So that sort of thing.

Oh, he shouldn't have said that without making sure. But sometimes people do masquerade as LDS in order to undermine the faith; and I wouldn't rule it out that some of those may already be here.

Edited February 17, 2013 by mathonihah

[Poly]

So earlier in the thread some one noted that the church did not "abandon" polygamy.... Which is a nice play on semantics, but only serves as a diversion from the topic at hand.

Wilford Woodruff"]I' date=' therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.[/color']

Members of the various polygamist offshoot sects follow the same basic methodology to "know the truth"; have testimonies of the BOM, Joseph Smith, and a living prophet (albeit a different one). They believe that the general body of the church apostatized when it "abandoned" (as in: "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice") the practice of polygamy. Said practice will get you excommunicated, and involvement in it is part of the temple recommend interview.

Same process, different result. Why is one view more legitimate than the other?