The Obligation to Do Apologetics

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks to Scott Lloyd for his article:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59708/Be-Ready-to-Defend-Faith.html

[why me]

I have this belief that apologetics needs to be taught in classes throughout the lds church. There needs to be a book for people interested in lds apologetics which covers much about what critics claim and the logical response from a lds perspective. It would even be good to have a sunday school class devoted to doctrine apologetics.

But this is not happening. I also have this belief that there are two types of lds apologists: first, the one who has a testimony of steel and offers a logical response to the critics. Second, the one who really doesn't care about what the critics are saying or is influenced by them and offers a logical response for lds beliefs, history and doctrine.

[Joseph Antley]

I have this belief that apologetics needs to be taught in classes throughout the lds church. There needs to be a book for people interested in lds apologetics which covers much about what critics claim and the logical response from a lds perspective. It would even be good to have a sunday school class devoted to doctrine apologetics.

But this is not happening. I also have this belief that there are two types of lds apologists: first, the one who has a testimony of steel and offers a logical response to the critics. Second, the one who really doesn't care about what the critics are saying or is influenced by them and offers a logical response for lds beliefs, history and doctrine.

I disagree that apologetics should be taught in church. Apologetics is too fluid and evolves too much. Officially sponsoring apologetics in church would cause more problems than it would solve.

[yesucan2]

I thought the comment at the end about not spending much time with those that resist was interesting in a way that I had not previously considered.

The years spent on another forum were very instructive. When someone new would show up with "sincere" questions about our beliefs, almost invariably they would turn out to be wolves in sheep's clothing who knew enough about the Church(obviously from Anti sources) to be dangerous but obviously considered themselves now to be experts with an arsenal of damaging artillery to easily eradicate us.

I liked the question you posed on another thread about where was it written that we must always defend.

Finally, I was banned from the site because I was deemed to be disruptive because I got to the point where I insisted that if they wanted to slam our beliefs that they at least do things like support their claims and make valid arguments first. I wonder if my being banned may have had something to do with the fact that those things were something that they seemed to have great difficulty doing.

[yesucan2]

p.s. I thought it was kind of funny and interesting that lds could be blasted for logical fallacies, but when we pointed out theirs, God was suddenly above logic.

[kolipoki09]

I have this belief that apologetics needs to be taught in classes throughout the lds church. There needs to be a book for people interested in lds apologetics which covers much about what critics claim and the logical response from a lds perspective. It would even be good to have a sunday school class devoted to doctrine apologetics.

But this is not happening. I also have this belief that there are two types of lds apologists: first, the one who has a testimony of steel and offers a logical response to the critics. Second, the one who really doesn't care about what the critics are saying or is influenced by them and offers a logical response for lds beliefs, history and doctrine.

I disagree with you for a number of reasons, namely the premise that apologetic arguments FOR the Church aren't being taught in our classes. I teach Gospel Doctrine in a university married ward at BYU-Idaho. I love the class, particularly because of the rich principles of the Old Testament that undergird this year's manual. More and more, rather than deviating from the suggested lesson outline, I look for sources in which those principles (strengthening faith, repentance, forgiveness, charity, obedience, etc) can be highlighted within the lesson. The Church has literally mounds of resources that are very apologetic in nature. Those who have taught or attended Institute are more or less familiar with the Church-produced manuals in association with these classes. Quite simply speaking, one of the best resources I've found has been the CES's Church History in the Fullness of Times

There will always be members of the Church who simply don't care about apologetics, or who simply frown upon it. Last week I had a family member concerned about the fact that I had Terryl Given's By the Hand of Mormon sitting on my nightstand. Because they had never heard of the author, and because it wasn't published by an LDS-affiliated press, they assumed (because of my activity in apologetics) that it was an anti-Mormon book. I think from a young age, probably in my late years in Primary, I had a sense of duty in relation to familiarizing myself with at least a few of the criticisms people may find with my faith. That in and of itself is healthy. After a move to a primarily LDS populated community, the sense of needing to "defend" against criticism weakened. With the advent of the Internet, criticism of the LDS faith wasn't isolated to polemic clergymen and a few tall-tale stories we love to chuckle about. We may have not had any anti-Mormon books in our home, but the sometimes faith-shaking charges were soon just mouse clicks away.

I think the Church is doing a remarkable job at teaching and reiterating fundamental principles of the gospel. With a growing Church, the need to teach and re-teach will never change. Classes grow, and people forget certain things they'd once known. We speak of keeping personal journals or records of things we felt or remembered at certain times in our lives...something that is crucial to building faith and retaining it. Each fast and testimony meeting, I hear "defenses" and "justifications" for belief in the gospel. You can call that "soft-apologetics" but the edification is still there. Testimony building and sharing I believe are inseparably connected with stating various apologies for the faith. The Maxwell Institute, FAIR, and others have taken arguments in defense of and for the faith in a more detailed manner. Our faith has always had apologists and will continue to have them.

Just like we'll always have apologists, we'll have our gadlfly and secular critics that will look for fault in anything. Some have been and are remarkably sincere, while others have not and are not. Going through critical material can be a tedious process. Years ago Daniel Peterson noted to the effect that "reading the same criticisms over and over again" has the potential of driving someone crazy. The singer-critics have changed over the years, but the songs remain ever-present and virtually unchanging. For those who have received temple ordinances and regularly attend, I believe the obligation to do some form of apologetics remain a part of those covenants.

There are those who interpret our call to build up Zion as one of leading by example. Others feel digging into the grit of criticism will help better prepare themselves in strengthening their own faith. There are probably countless other positions on which to place a particular emphasis. I believe I've been most impressed and compelled through the years that have a passion for their faith, who develop personal convictions and a posteriori justifications for that belief. We're not a Church made up of professionally-trained scholars and religionists trained in all the Classics and Philosophies the world can muster (though we certainly have them). Each person contributes their own good to the Church in their own way. I don't think there will ever be a perfect, cookie-cutter lesson manual that will satisfy the spiritual needs and intellects of every member. Sometimes we forget that we're living in a Telestial world and expect everything to be taken care of by the Church.

Recently I created a pamphlet on the Mountain Meadows Massacre as part of a Visual Media class. The class consisted of mostly lifetime members of the Church, the vast majority of whom had never even heard of the event. As shocking as it was for many of them, I think they were relieved to know that Richard Turley had done a much better and thorough job covering the details of the event than I could in a 2007 issue of the Ensign. I've always been a bit annoyed by those who insist that we're trying to "cover up" our history. Many apologetic-related issues (Book of Abraham, Polygamy, Book of Mormon anachronisms, etc) HAVE in fact been published in Church magazines. I have to admit, I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I'd read Tal Bachman's reasons for leaving the Church in relation to the JST and modern biblical scholarship. Bachman undoubtedly had other reasons for his exit from the Church, but just because he failed to do his homework on certain issues does not mean the Church and a "cover-up" are to blame.

I once thought that there should be a religion class at BYU-Idaho dealing directly with apologetics. Yet the more classes I took, the more I found that the issues were already being addressed in the standard curriculum. Professors gladly opened their offices doors for questions or concerns, some taking several minutes of class time discussing issues related to blacks and the Priesthood or other concerns class members had. Looking back on it, I believe my Seminary teachers would have done the same. So while we may feel that some of our intellectual appetites aren't being satisfied in the three hour block, my experience is that if I come with a question or questions (reading the lessons help before attending class) then the class time tends to be much more edifying. Quite frankly, I see apologetics going on everywhere at Church. Its just a matter of recognizing it and recording it when you do find it.

[cinepro]

I disagree that apologetics should be taught in church. Apologetics is too fluid and evolves too much. Officially sponsoring apologetics in church would cause more problems than it would solve.

It's an interesting theory. Would apologetics suffocate if the actual weight of being "official" were placed upon it? Do apologists want the Church to say more about apologetic issues, or less?

For example, do apologists ever pray that President Monson will confirm the true geography for the Book of Mormon via revelation, even if it is the one they don't currently support?

[hooberus]

From the OP article:

He cited 1 Peter 3:15, Paul's admonition to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." The word translated in that passage as "answer" is the Greek word apologia, or apology, Brother Peterson said.

But how can the LDS apologist know that 1 Peter 3:15 above was not itself corrupted?

After all Joseph Smith said,

[Scott Lloyd]

From the OP article:

But how can the LDS apologist know that 1 Peter 3:15 above was not itself corrupted?

After all Joseph Smith said,

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's a lengthy discussion on it from last week.

[Mark Beesley]

And, of course, 1 Peter 3:15 must be tempered with 2 Timothy 2:23, "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

And Titus 3:9, "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

[Skywalker]

I disagree that apologetics should be taught in church. Apologetics is too fluid and evolves too much. Officially sponsoring apologetics in church would cause more problems than it would solve.

I agree with this, but how about an apologetics course at LDS Institute?

[why me]

I disagree that apologetics should be taught in church. Apologetics is too fluid and evolves too much. Officially sponsoring apologetics in church would cause more problems than it would solve.

I think that the point would be to teach apologetics without labeling it apologetics. Much can be accomplished in addressing critic claims in such a class and yet, making it very instructive for everyday purposes and in making members stronger and more able to defend the lds church. For example, when discussing the fist vision one can bring the different versions and give a good explanation for the difference and the similiarities of the versions. Or when discussing Joseph and emma, polygamy can be mentioned and why it was practiced at the time of Joseph Smith. One can cover the spiritual experiences of the wives before they consented to be a plural wife.

There are many ways in which apologetics can be taught without labeling it apologetics.

[why me]

I agree with this, but how about an apologetics course at LDS Institute?

That can be very workable. But apologetics need to be done at the grassroots level. For some members discovering certain things that they have never searched out could be a little discomforting but when it is done with good explanations, testimonies can be made stronger and members will be more prepared for the critics.

For example, a recent young adult left the church because she read about the similiarities between the temple endowments and masonic rituals. She got the information from the internet and no one that she asked had a good answer for her. Well, FAIR covers it quite well. But no one knew about FAIR. See my point. She claimed that she was brainwashed because she did not know the 'similiarities'. This can be discussed in class when discussing the temple and a good interpretation can follow.

[why me]

I disagree with you for a number of reasons, namely the premise that apologetic arguments FOR the Church aren't being taught in our classes. I teach Gospel Doctrine in a university married ward at BYU-Idaho.

Apologetics isn't being taught. Here is how apologetics can be taught: First cover some of what the critics are claiming in class and the possible responses. There can be a manual based in apologetics. Fairwiki does a good job in addressing the critics. Members should know that it exists and read it. As I said above, a young adult left the church because she discovered the 'similiarities' between the endowments and the mason rituals. However, FAIR has covered this extensively and if a member knew that it existed, she could have been directed to that site and under supervision the explanation could have been discussed. I think that the answer she would have gotten would have been a positive for her and her membership.

[kolipoki09]

Apologetics isn't being taught. Here is how apologetics can be taught: First cover some of what the critics are claiming in class and the possible responses. There can be a manual based in apologetics. Fairwiki does a good job in addressing the critics. Members should know that it exists and read it. As I said above, a young adult left the church because she discovered the 'similiarities' between the endowments and the mason rituals. However, FAIR has covered this extensively and if a member knew that it existed, she could have been directed to that site and under supervision the explanation could have been discussed. I think that the answer she would have gotten would have been a positive for her and her membership.

I disagree. I think having the boldness to ask some crucial questions is part of the honest inquiry we're all encouraged to have. The fact is, there isn't a huge demand for it. If people have questions related to apologetic issues, they're more than welcome to address them in a class or with those familiar with the subjects of concern. Apologetics is something that is constantly changing. The old adage from Nibley's Sunstone response to Edward Ashment comes to mind. "I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago." Apologetics is very fluid in nature (thanks Joseph Antley) and will change with the arguments. My Church history professor noted that he could give us "multiple versions of the Book of Abraham in relation to apologetics" and still probably be wrong. For those interested in issues such as DNA and the Book of Mormon, if they're TRULY interested, I think they'll find FAIR or the Maxwell Institute. There will always be those who won't care and who are simply looking for a way out regardless of the scholarship. The Church already has its hands full teaching the basics. What I think CAN be done and IS being done is fostering an environment where personal study is encouraged and praised. But, given the fact that many Latter-day Saints are neglecting even the simplest of duties in personal development (personal/family prayer and scripture study) I don't see the Church going out of its way to accommodate those who aren't already taking things seriously. I think the better we understand the basics of the gospel and apply them, the more we'll be inclined to share apologetics in Church and other settings.

[why me]

I disagree. I think having the boldness to ask some crucial questions is part of the honest inquiry we're all encouraged to have. The fact is, there isn't a huge demand for it. If people have questions related to apologetic issues, they're more than welcome to address them in a class or with those familiar with the subjects of concern. Apologetics is something that is constantly changing. The old adage from Nibley's Sunstone response to Edward Ashment comes to mind. "I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago." Apologetics is very fluid in nature (thanks Joseph Antley) and will change with the arguments. My Church history professor noted that he could give us "multiple versions of the Book of Abraham in relation to apologetics" and still probably be wrong. For those interested in issues such as DNA and the Book of Mormon, if they're TRULY interested, I think they'll find FAIR or the Maxwell Institute. There will always be those who won't care and who are simply looking for a way out regardless of the scholarship. The Church already has its hands full teaching the basics. What I think CAN be done and IS being done is fostering an environment where personal study is encouraged and praised. But, given the fact that many Latter-day Saints are neglecting even the simplest of duties in personal development (personal/family prayer and scripture study) I don't see the Church going out of its way to accommodate those who aren't already taking things seriously. I think the better we understand the basics of the gospel and apply them, the more we'll be inclined to share apologetics in Church and other settings.

Let me give you another example. Last year I was visiting a friend who introduced me to the church way back in 1974. I told her and her husband that I was defending the church on the internet. Her husband replied that the lds church does not need defending. I then said that when a member is defending the lds church it is called apologetics. They replied: why should mormons apologize?

People need to know what to study if they wish to engage in apologetics. They also must be groomed for the critic arguments and strategies. Most of which is to sow doubt in the mind of the believer since the lds church has never been proven untrue. I guess my point is: the internet can lead people out of the lds church because the critics paint their arguments very well by filling their arguments with bright colors. The understanding behind most of their arguments is innuendo and then to zap the lds member with socalled facts and claim that the lds church is hiding its doctrine and history. It does have an impact. But in apologetics, there are answers to all critic claims and innuendos. And they are very good answers. I know because they saved me from the critics on the internet. Once I realized their (the critics) strategy I was able to search out relevant information and eventually I found this forum and take part in this forum when it was connected to the FAIR site.

[cdowis]

For example, do apologists ever pray that President Monson will confirm the true geography for the Book of Mormon via revelation, even if it is the one they don't currently support?

BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but an intellectual one, subject to factual inquiry.

The prophet has no obligation to answer every foolish question, but to lead us to Christ. Of course, the critics, lacking spiritual understanding, demand a revelation on such issues.

[Mark Beesley]

I disagree that apologetics should be taught in church. Apologetics is too fluid and evolves too much. Officially sponsoring apologetics in church would cause more problems than it would solve.

I think I agree with you. In the formal Church classroom setting, we should simply teach truth without directly addressing the false teachings, the attacks, and the misperceptions that some may have about a particular LDS tenet. Indeed, I find that I get rather uncomfortable in class whenever anyone starts a comment with a phrase such as, "Other churches say . . ." Light dispels darkness without the necessity of defining the darkness.

[Mark Beesley]

I think that the point would be to teach apologetics without labeling it apologetics. Much can be accomplished in addressing critic claims in such a class and yet, making it very instructive for everyday purposes and in making members stronger and more able to defend the lds church. For example, when discussing the fist vision one can bring the different versions and give a good explanation for the difference and the similiarities of the versions. Or when discussing Joseph and emma, polygamy can be mentioned and why it was practiced at the time of Joseph Smith. One can cover the spiritual experiences of the wives before they consented to be a plural wife.

Let's see how well this would fly in a Gospel Doctrine class.

A member asks the question, "Why was polygamy practiced at the time of Joseph Smith?"

What is your response? If it is anything other than, "Because the Lord commanded it," you have likely gone astray from what we know. Too much of apologetics is based on opinion, and as well thought-out as the opinion may be, or as scholarly supportable the opinion may be, it is still opinion, and the last time I checked, the Holy Ghost was not generally confirming the truth of opinions.

[noel00]

LDS neeed someone of the statute of G K Chesterton, C S Lewis and N T Wright. Chesterton was able to debate with G B Shaw and H G Wells and go and have a drink afterwards with them. I hear Wright does the same with Crossman (Jesus Seminar). I like Orthodoxy,Heretics (Chesterton); Fern Seeds, Learning in Wartime,Mer Christianity (Lewis) and Wright's book on Jesus where he responds to Sprong, Wilson and others. Screwtape Letters (Lewis) is currently playing in New York. However if Stephanie Meyers wants to be the new C S Lewis and baptize children's imagination with the LDS Gospel, there have been some vocal critics in Touchstone and The Twilight Gospel: The Spiritual Roots of Stepheni Meyer's Vampire Saga.

[Daniel Peterson]

LDS neeed someone of the statute of G K Chesterton, C S Lewis and N T Wright.

That would be nice. In the meantime, though, we blunder along with what we have.

Chesterton was able to debate with G B Shaw and H G Wells and go and have a drink afterwards with them. I hear Wright does the same with Crossman (Jesus Seminar).

"John Dominic Crossan," you mean?

I've debated William Lane Craig. I've gone out to eat or to get a snack or a drink with Paul Owen, Carl Mosser, Richard Abanes, Dennis Wright, Stan Larson, Allen Harrod, etc.

Granted that I'm not C. S. Lewis, none of them is exactly G. B. Shaw, either. But we get along well.

I like Orthodoxy,Heretics (Chesterton); Fern Seeds, Learning in Wartime,Mer Christianity (Lewis) and Wright's book on Jesus where he responds to Sprong [spong?], Wilson and others. Screwtape Letters (Lewis) is currently playing in New York.

I like them all, too.

However if Stephanie Meyers wants to be the new C S Lewis and baptize children's imagination with the LDS Gospel, there have been some vocal critics in Touchstone and The Twilight Gospel: The Spiritual Roots of Stepheni Meyer's Vampire Saga.

Is there any reason to believe that Stephanie Meyer is seeking to do that?

In any event, C. S. Lewis has harsh critics, too.

In fact, I remember a Catholic friend of mine from high school who got into an argument during a New Year's party at nearby Caltech with the legendary Nobel-laureate physicist Richard Feynman. He had professed to love C. S. Lewis's Perelandra trilogy, "except for all that vile religious propaganda." She really took issue with him on that point, which (I still think) took real nerve on the part of a seventeen- or eighteen-year-old.

[handys003]

Well It's an excellent article. However i know so many who have no concept of what "apologetics" entails. Even when explained you still get the "what?" factor.

Second you can lay out all the evidence and there will always and I mean always be someone who will spin it another way and say it's not proof. We got a few here on the board who still are in self-denial, yet they say we are as well.

Jesus Christ was a fine example of this:

1. Luke 4: 24

24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

I promise the man could appear in the sky to all the world at the same time while the battle of Armageddon is raging and the second coming will still be denied. It's foretold in Revelation. Therefore sometimes I feel we just waste our breath.

[hagoth7]

For example, do apologists ever pray that President Monson will confirm the true geography for the Book of Mormon via revelation, even if it is the one they don't currently support?

Yes.

...As long as it is Saskatchewan.

[kolipoki09]

Let me give you another example. Last year I was visiting a friend who introduced me to the church way back in 1974. I told her and her husband that I was defending the church on the internet. Her husband replied that the lds church does not need defending. I then said that when a member is defending the lds church it is called apologetics. They replied: why should mormons apologize?

I never said the Church didn't need defending, though there is a minority that insist that the Church is infallible. I've had several opportunities to publicly express what "apologetics" actually is (not that we're apologizing). So it may take a minute or so to explain what the word "apologia" means. So what?

People need to know what to study if they wish to engage in apologetics. They also must be groomed for the critic arguments and strategies. Most of which is to sow doubt in the mind of the believer since the lds church has never been proven untrue.

For those that are serious about apologetics, I think they already know where to look. Being "groomed for critic arguments and strategies" sounds like a lot of fun (maybe for a Sunday night cottage meeting) but perhaps not the most appropriate for Church. Like I said before, the average run-of-the-mill member already has a difficult time making scripture study and prayer a regular occurrence. I remember speaking with Kerry Shirts at one time on "the best books" related to apologetics. Kerry never skipped a beat and responded to the effect that "the scriptures are the best tools." As familiar as I am with anti-Mormon arguments, (some of which are quite laughable looking back on them) I never regarded going through and dissecting anti-Mormon claims as being something that was a faith-building experience. To quote Bob Millet:

Thirty years ago a colleague and I were asked to read through, analyze, and look for patterns in a massive amount of anti-Mormon propaganda. It was drudgery. It was laborious. It carried a bitter and draining spirit, and consequently I had to just push my way through it to complete the assignment. After a period of addressing certain questions, my partner shook his head and indicated that the constant barrage of issue after issue was simply wearing him down, and that he wasn