Individual Apologetics Versus Institutionalized Apologetics

[zerinus]

I am making a distinction between what I will call “individual apologetics” and “institutionalized apologetics”. By individual apologetics I mean when an individual member of the Church attempts to explain or defend the doctrine, principles, history etc. of his religion, such as on an Internet forum for example. By institutionalized apologetics I mean when an institution or organization is set up for the specific purpose of “doing apologetics,” such as with FAIR or FARMS/MI. Whereas the first appears to have divine sanction in scripture, the latter doesn't. St Peter writes:

1 Peter 3:

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and 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:

This is addressed to individual Church members, not to organizations or institutions set up specifically for that purpose. The phrase “give an answer” is sometimes translated in more modern translations as “give a defence” or “make a defence”. The Greek word in this phrase is apologia, which literally means to make a defence; and that is where the world “apologetics” comes from. So it is an admonition of scripture that Church members should always be ready and able to do this. There is also this interesting scripture in modern revelation:

D&C 71:

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

7 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.

8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.

This also appears to be addressed to individual Church members, not to an organization specifically set up for that purpose. Notice that it says, “unto him … it shall be given … even power.” It is addressed to “him” (individually), not collectively to “them;” and it mentions “power,” meaning the power of the Holy Ghost. This work can only be done properly by the power of the Holy Ghost, not by scholarship and secular learning alone; and the power of the Holy Ghost is usually given to individuals, not to organizations and institutions. Peter’s final advice, “with meekness and fear” is also of interest. These are all attributers of individuals, not organizations and institutions.

Here I would like to make another distinction, this time between “doing apologetics,” and providing resources for apologists. There is a subtle distinction between the two, and it is easy to confuse one with the other, or to drift from one into the other. Very often when I am discussing religion on the Internet, I need information to support my side of the argument, and usually have to scour the Internet to find it. It would be nice to have a single source to go to find it. For example, sometime ago I was having a discussion with our friend Rob Bowman, in which I mentioned that the idea of the Great Apostasy had originated with the Protestants, which he would not accept. But I knew that the information was out there, so I searched the Internet, and found a nice little article in a BUY website that supplied that information (although it was not complete, and I had to supplement it with additional information found elsewhere on the Internet). That kind of work is indeed valuable and can be useful; but doing “institutionalized apologetics” is a different matter which seems to me to require a special mandate from the Lord or the Church to be done—and under the strict supervision of the Church. I am not in favour of setting up a “school of Mormon apologetics” for example, or a “department of apologetics” at BYU, whose purpose might be to “train Mormon apologists”. I wouldn’t advocate having an “Apologetics 101” course at BYU for example—unless its content was prepared under the strict supervision of the Church.

I don't' like to call myself a "Mormon apologist" for example, because it "institutionalizes" it too much. If the ability to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” is something that every Church member ought to be able to do, then that makes every Mormon an “apologist” for his faith; and calling myself a “Mormon apologist” would be like setting myself apart from other Church members which I am not.

So the bottom line is, individual apologetics yes, but not institutionalized apologetics. The only body that has the right to do institutionalized apologetics is the Church itself—or a body set up and supervised by the Church for that purpose—not just anybody who decides that it would be a good thing to try.

What do you think?

[Bob Crockett]

This is a tough one. One would have to ask whether there is a scriptural mandate for the Church to do "apologetics". For instance, there is a clear mandate in the D&C to keep a faithful history as a testimony against the Church's opponents, but there is no mandate to publish that history. There is a clear mandate to keep a library of apostate attacks on the Church (Arrington talks about this library and how dusty it was when he examined it), but not to do anything with it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[mercyngrace]

IMO, there's necessary context to that verse from 1 Peter.

Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and 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:

Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.

There's so much here about the way we communicate out faith and the humble, prayerful attitude we are to have. It's beautiful passage which, to me, reiterates the consistent theme of the Old Testament - that God will fight our battles for us, if we are worthy vessels. The hope that is in me has nothing to do with historicity or polyandry or any number of issues. My hope is in the atonement of Christ alone - to paraphrase Joseph Smith, 'the rest of the issues are appendages.' To me, it doesn't require hope to raise a sword in battle - defending oneself is a natural response to attack. It takes hope to suffer unjust attacks with patience and compassion, meekness and reverence and still bear witness of the power of Christ unto the salvation of man. That's what these verses say to me.

I know that position makes me a fish out of water on a website concerned with apologetics which is why I haven't posted in a while. Still, I have found in my own life, the promised power which confounds those who question me comes in the Lord's due time, as promised, and at His hand rather than at my argument and insistence. I merely have to do what the first and last verses of section 71 advocate:

you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel, the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the scriptures... keep my commandments; they are true and faithful

Edited June 25, 2012 by mercyngrace

[BCSpace]

So the bottom line is, individual apologetics yes, but not institutionalized apologetics. The only body that has the right to do institutionalized apologetics is the Church itself—or a body set up and supervised by the Church for that purpose—not just anybody who decides that it would be a good thing to try.

What do you think?

I agree. A prime example of institutionalized apologetics as defined by you would be the moderation of this board. Such does not allow certain views or topics to be discussed and some topics are forcefully directed (see the pinned thread at the top of this forum) to a certain outcome. Only the Lord's Church has the ultimate authority to define and direct topics vis a vis it's doctrine. "Man's discussion boards" may or may not reflect the Lord's modus operandi and if not, become an institution not of the Lord.

Edited June 25, 2012 by BCSpace

[zerinus]

I agree. A prime example of institutionalized apologetics as defined by you would be the moderation of this board. Such does not allow certain views or topics to be discussed and some topics are forcefully directed (see the pinned thread at the top of this forum) to a certain outcome. Only the Lord's Church has the ultimate authority to define and direct topics vis a vis it's doctrine. "Man's discussion boards" may or may not reflect the Lord's modus operandi and if not, become an institution not of the Lord.

If the purpose of the board was to do "Mormon apologetics," I would agree with you; but I hope that that is not its purpose. It's purpose is, or should be, to provide a venue where Mormons and non-Mormons can engage in respectful dialogue. It should be a blank sheet on which others can write. Its rules should be "faith-neutral". There shouldn't be one set of rules for Mormons and a different set for non-Mormons. And insofar as that is the case, it does not come under the category of "institutionalized apologetics".

Edited June 25, 2012 by zerinus

[rameumptom]

Zerinus, would you then say we should shut down Mormon.org? It does some soft apologetics there, after all.

I personally see no problem with a group of people organizing to share resources and research in order to defend the Church. FAIR and FARMS have provided answers for members to use in their personal defense. Such is very different than in the days of Peter, where a basic understanding of the scriptures was all that was needed back then, and not also a knowledge of history, science, medicine, archaeology, anthropology, etc., are now required.

Most members do not have the time or energy or brainpower to do so much research, in order to answer all the many questions and attacks that are currently out there. To use old scriptures and interpret them to mean only individually, is silly. And meaningless. And obviously pointed at justifying the end of FARMS.

[BCSpace]

If the purpose of the board was to do "Mormon apologetics," I would agree with you; but I hope that that is not its purpose. It's purpose is, or should be, to provide a venue where Mormons and non-Mormons can engage in respectful dialogue.

In my opinion, those are one and the same.

[CV75]

D&C 71:

What do you think?

I too think there is a distinction between indivdual and institutional apologetics.

However, it should be noted that D&C 71 represents specific instructions to the top officers of the Church in addressing “strong reasons” against the Lord.According to the section header, there is an official duty “to allay the unfriendly feelings that had developed against the Church as a result of the publication of some newspaper articles.” This is done by “confounding” or proving the “reasons” and “unfriendly feelings” wrong by those holding the keys of the kingdom.

So to me, D&C 71 seems to point to institutional apologetics. Considering the revelation was given for Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, their methods would include the power of the Spirit as well as reasoned arguments and justifications to prove their case.

Edited June 25, 2012 by CV75

[wenglund]

I don't know if there is or isn't a scriptural mandate for "institutional apologetics," nor do I think there needs to be in order for "institutional apologetics" to be appropriate (we need not be commanded in all things). What makes it appropriate is that it "works," particularly in terms of safeguarding and building the kingdom.

As someone who has been actively doing apologetics for decades as an individual, and having seen how certain apologetic institutions have been far more effective than me on a number of levels, I am very glad for their existence and efforts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[3DOP]

I say this with respect to Catholic apologetics. If successful, the professional apologist(s) gains a constituency which expects defense of certain positions with blogs, and books, and conferences. Willingness to reevaluate previously expressed points of view becomes severely hindered because one's income is at stake. I know of one such Catholic man, who has in my mind, caused his family the greatest unnecessary suffering. He had a part in my own conversion, but now he has a need to travel constantly for decreasingly profitable speaking engagements because of the continual revolution of his thinking. I admire his integrity to what he believes, but he would do better to be a janitor somewhere.

Upon my conversion to Catholicism in the mid-'90's, I became intimately acquainted and even friendly with parties of name in Catholic apologetics that encouraged me to "tell my story", giving me to think that I possibly had the potential to join their ranks. I was flattered of course. Whether or not I had the skills and perseverance to be able to do so, I seriously doubt. I am a truck driver. But especially if I had "successfuly" done otherwise, and pursued an apologetics "career" I think it would have meant spiritual disaster for my family and me. I did not have then, nor do I think I do even now, the maturity to be able to live with "celebrity status", without enjoying it too much. I am sooooo vain. Probably nobody goes poking around here more than me to see if he has made any rep points lately! Think what kind of apologist it would take to be unconcerned about the human reward of praise for work that is approved not necessarily because of its beauty or coherence of thought, but maybe just because a party of persons agree with it.

But the worst of it is that I would not have been able to freely refine ideas about Catholic tradition that have since placed me in many respects, at odds with mainstream Catholic apologetics. These are for me some of the reasons why I am thankful I avoided that scene. It seems to me like many of the same dynamics could easily be at play in LDS apologetics circles.

3DOP

[zerinus]

I too think there is a distinction between indivdual and institutional apologetics.

However, it should be noted that D&C 71 represents specific instructions to the top officers of the Church in addressing “strong reasons” against the Lord.According to the section header, there is an official duty “to allay the unfriendly feelings that had developed against the Church as a result of the publication of some newspaper articles.” This is done by “confounding” or proving the “reasons” and “unfriendly feelings” wrong by those holding the keys of the kingdom.

I think the principle of it applicable to all the elders of the Church, not just the leadership.

So to me, D&C 71 seems to point to institutional apologetics. Considering the revelation was given for Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, their methods would include the power of the Spirit as well as reasoned arguments and justifications to prove their case.

it may do, but if it does, that institution is the Church itself, or a body organized and established by the Church, which is what I had advocated in the OP. Read the last paragraph!

Edited June 25, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

This is a tough one. One would have to ask whether there is a scriptural mandate for the Church to do "apologetics". . . .

Yes there is. See the post by CV75, and my reply to him.

Edited June 25, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

In my opinion, those are one and the same.

I don't agree! Individual Mormons may be doing "apologetics" in favor of their own faith; but by the same token, non-Mormons are doing apologetics in favor of their faith! So the board is (or should be) neutral from that point of view. It simply provides a venue for that discussion to take place.

Edited June 25, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Zerinus, would you then say we should shut down Mormon.org? It does some soft apologetics there, after all. . . .

No it doesn't. See my previous posts.

[zerinus]

I say this with respect to Catholic apologetics. If successful, the professional apologist(s) gains a constituency which expects defense of certain positions with blogs, and books, and conferences. Willingness to reevaluate previously expressed points of view becomes severely hindered because one's income is at stake. I know of one such Catholic man, who has in my mind, caused his family the greatest unnecessary suffering. He had a part in my own conversion, but now he has a need to travel constantly for decreasingly profitable speaking engagements because of the continual revolution of his thinking. I admire his integrity to what he believes, but he would do better to be a janitor somewhere.

Upon my conversion to Catholicism in the mid-'90's, I became intimately acquainted and even friendly with parties of name in Catholic apologetics that encouraged me to "tell my story", giving me to think that I possibly had the potential to join their ranks. I was flattered of course. Whether or not I had the skills and perseverance to be able to do so, I seriously doubt. I am a truck driver. But especially if I had "successfuly" done otherwise, and pursued an apologetics "career" I think it would have meant spiritual disaster for my family and me. I did not have then, nor do I think I do even now, the maturity to be able to live with "celebrity status", without enjoying it too much. I am sooooo vain. Probably nobody goes poking around here more than me to see if he has made any rep points lately! Think what kind of apologist it would take to be unconcerned about the human reward of praise for work that is approved not necessarily because of its beauty or coherence of thought, but maybe just because a party of persons agree with it.

But the worst of it is that I would not have been able to freely refine ideas about Catholic tradition that have since placed me in many respects, at odds with mainstream Catholic apologetics. These are for me some of the reasons why I am thankful I avoided that scene. It seems to me like many of the same dynamics could easily be at play in LDS apologetics circles.

3DOP

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I personally don't like to see "apologetics" as a "profession," as I tried to explain in my OP, but probably not very successfully. In fact, I don't like to see myself as an "apologist" at all. I like to think of myself as someone who is interested in the gospel, and likes to discuss with others. In fact, I tend to disagree with Mormons as much as with anti-Mormons on this board most of the time! But I like to think that I am rather good at it too!

[CV75]

I think the principle of it applicable to all the elders of the Church, not just the leadership.

Of course it does. My point is that it cannot be said to be inapplicable to the Church (via its leadership).

it may do, but if it does, that institution is the Church itself, or a body organized and established by the Church, which is what I had advocated in the OP. Read the last paragraph!

Sorry I kind of phased out by that last paragraph. It is well and good that BYU/MI/FARMS serve as the Church's institutional apologists. Of course, any other pro-LDS apologetic institution falls under the same authority and fashion as do individual apologists (and that means not only elders), so in order to be pleasing to God they would have to operate under the same principles of righteousness as laid out in D&C 71. And obviously such private individuals and institutions may not be pleasing to or effective with many, based on human wisdom alone.

[zerinus]

I don't know if there is or isn't a scriptural mandate for "institutional apologetics," nor do I think there needs to be in order for "institutional apologetics" to be appropriate (we need not be commanded in all things). What makes it appropriate is that it "works," particularly in terms of safeguarding and building the kingdom.

But what happens if the thing starts going awry; who is it answerable to? If it is the Church, or an institution under the supervision of the Church, then the Church is responsible for ensuring that it does not go off the rails; but if it is not, who is going to pull it back on course when it goes off the beaten track?

[zerinus]

Sorry I kind of phased out by that last paragraph. It is well and good that BYU/MI/FARMS serve as the Church's institutional apologists. Of course, any other pro-LDS apologetic institution falls under the same authority and fashion as do individual apologists (and that means not only elders), so in order to be pleasing to God they would have to operate under the same principles of righteousness as laid out in D&C 71. And obviously such private individuals and institutions may not be pleasing to or effective with many, based on human wisdom alone.

But there I see a difference between individual apologetics and institutionalized apologetics. In the case of individual apologetics there is a self-correcting mechanism at work which marginalizes or eliminates bad apologists. They loose too many arguments, or become maginalized in other ways. But if an institution which has built a reputation for itself stops functioning as it should, or fails to change when it needs to, then it is not just the institution that suffers, but the Church for which it has become the "self-appointed" apologist institution. That is why I have made a distinction between individual apologetics and institutional apologetics, and believe that the latter kind should not exist except under the direct supervision of the Church.

Edited June 25, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

But there I see a difference between individual apologetics and institutionalized apologetics. In the case of individual apologetics there is a self-correcting mechanism at work which marginalizes or eliminates bad apologists. They loose too many arguments, or become maginalized in other ways. But if an institution which has built a reputation for itself stops functioning as it should, or fails to change when it needs to, then it is not just the institution that suffers, but the Church for which it has become the "self-appointed" apologist institution. That is why I have made a distinction between individual apologetics and institutional apologetics, and believe that the latter kind should not exist except under the direct supervision of the Church.

I can appreciate this viewpoint, but I am confident the formal Church institution can weather or undo harm or threat of harm against it caused by “self-appointed” ally individuals and institutions. I see no distinction between the basic underlying principles of success for either individuals or organizations in defending the kingdom against misunderstanding and misrepresentation. You mentioned three: reputation, functionality, flexibility. I’d add to that: financial resources, facility with mass media and effectiveness in message delivery.

This is why I can easily paraphrase your comment to say, “But if an individual who has built a reputation for himself stops functioning as he should, or fails to change when he needs to, then it is not just the individual that suffers, but the Church.” We can identify cases that match this description and what the Church has decided to do about them when it chooses to counsel and discipline them. The Church has requested that members not put up Church websites or publications that appear to formally and offially represent the Church.

I would say it must be more difficult to neutralize a damaging ally organization, just as it an enemy organization, but if the Church can handle diplomacy on national levels, it can do so on organizational levels when it chooses to.

This is why your statement that "the latter kind [the self-appointed apologist institution] should not exist except under the direct supervision of the Church," comes across as reasonable as "the self-appointed apologist should not exist except under the direct supervision of the Church." I think it more reasonable that both should respect the Church as the official representative of itself while doing all they can as an ally, and doing it well, and knowing their limits and limitations.

[CV75]

I do think that as the Church (collectively and individually) learns to “stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world,” apologetics as we know them may become less of a formal necessity.

[Calm]

It would be nice to have a single source to go to find it.

And something like this requires an institution to be able to have enough resources and experts to pull it all together (which is what FAIR is trying to do to a certain extent in that we post the information and provide references to where it can be found, copyright issues does not allow us to post all the resources themselves unfortunately as well as it would take a lot of money to pay for all the webpages required to do so).

And just having the information out there without commentary would be, imo, problematic as not all are trained in effective analysis of the literature, no one is an expert in every field related to apologetics. Having sufficient commentary to give sufficient context for basic understanding for an 'average' reader is important, imo, so that they are able to pull together the information within a reasonable amount of time and not have to wait for years before they feel grounded enough to actually present an informed argument/defense.

[zerinus]

I can appreciate this viewpoint, but I am confident the formal Church institution can weather or undo harm or threat of harm against it caused by “self-appointed” ally individuals and institutions. I see no distinction between the basic underlying principles of success for either individuals or organizations in defending the kingdom against misunderstanding and misrepresentation. You mentioned three: reputation, functionality, flexibility. I’d add to that: financial resources, facility with mass media and effectiveness in message delivery.

This is why I can easily paraphrase your comment to say, “But if an individual who has built a reputation for himself stops functioning as he should, or fails to change when he needs to, then it is not just the individual that suffers, but the Church.” We can identify cases that match this description and what the Church has decided to do about them when it chooses to counsel and discipline them. The Church has requested that members not put up Church websites or publications that appear to formally and offially represent the Church.

I would say it must be more difficult to neutralize a damaging ally organization, just as it an enemy organization, but if the Church can handle diplomacy on national levels, it can do so on organizational levels when it chooses to.

This is why your statement that "the latter kind [the self-appointed apologist institution] should not exist except under the direct supervision of the Church," comes across as reasonable as "the self-appointed apologist should not exist except under the direct supervision of the Church." I think it more reasonable that both should respect the Church as the official representative of itself while doing all they can as an ally, and doing it well, and knowing their limits and limitations.

I started this thread in response to something that Bill Hamblin wrote in his blog, in which he questioned the decision of BYU to acquire FARMS, and then try to change its identity and direction. BYU is owned and operated by the Church. That decision would have been made by the Church, not just BYU. I think that the purpose of its acquisition was in fact to change its direction, which apparently led to resistance from the "old guard," which culminated in the recent events. I think that the Church was acting within its rights, and safeguarding its best interests to acquire FARMS, which in turn means that those who object to that decision (and resulting change in direction) are in error.

Edited June 25, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

I started this thread in response to something that Bill Hamblin wrote in his blog, in which he questioned the decision of BYU to acquire FARMS, and then try to change its identity and direction. BYU is owned and operated by the Church. That decision would have been made by the Church, not just BYU. I think that the purpose of its acquisition was in fact to change its direction, which apparently led to resistance from the "old guard," which culminated in the recent events. I think that the Church was acting within its rights, and safeguarding its best interests to acquire FARMS, which in turn means that those who object to that decision (and resulting change in direction) are in error.

I'm not into the issue that deeply (I tried to follow the threads for awhile, but they got to be too much). But I appreciate your point that the Church has the right to call the shots within its own span of control.

if I was in a close working realtionship with Church leadership and found something I didn't think was right, I would be inclined to follow the counsel, council and counselling processes articulated in the June Ensign. This is not a very politically savy approach, but I can live with it. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/06/obtaining-the-spirit-through-counseling-together?lang=eng

I have no beef with posters who are close to the situation and affected by it and have found the need to express an alternate view with the information and skill set they possess. Hopefully there will be a satisfactory resolution without turning to a "Mormon Stories" type of venue, which I think is ineffective at getting at the real issues.

I remember in the late 80's a general authority in good faith purchased what turned out to be forged historical documents and he caught a lot of flack for it, despite the far more aggregious collateral damage that resulted from the perpetrator's original dishonesty. I'm sure that there have been other similar lapses in experience, skill, judgment, and mistakes made from time to time. These kinds of things don't undermine the reality that the keys are actively used for the essential purposes for which they were restored. These problems are by comparison a tempest in a teacup, which if taken too far can lead to “jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires"--individually and not too collecively--things I try to avoid. Maybe this is easy for me to say because I've succesfully negotiated such troubles before.

[zerinus]

I'm not into the issue that deeply (I tried to follow the threads for awhile, but they got to be too much). But I appreciate your point that the Church has the right to call the shots within its own span of control.

if I was in a close working realtionship with Church leadership and found something I didn't think was right, I would be inclined to follow the counsel, council and counselling processes articulated in the June Ensign. This is not a very politically savy approach, but I can live with it. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/06/obtaining-the-spirit-through-counseling-together?lang=eng

I have no beef with posters who are close to the situation and affected by it and have found the need to express an alternate view with the information and skill set they possess. Hopefully there will be a satisfactory resolution without turning to a "Mormon Stories" type of venue, which I think is ineffective at getting at the real issues.

I remember in the late 80's a general authority in good faith purchased what turned out to be forged historical documents and he caught a lot of flack for it, despite the far more aggregious collateral damage that resulted from the perpetrator's original dishonesty. I'm sure that there have been other similar lapses in experience, skill, judgment, and mistakes made from time to time. These kinds of things don't undermine the reality that the keys are actively used for the essential purposes for which they were restored. These problems are by comparison a tempest in a teacup, which if taken too far can lead to “jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires"--individually and not too collecively--things I try to avoid. Maybe this is easy for me to say because I've succesfully negotiated such troubles before.

Thank you, that was a good article from the Ensign. According to what Bill wrote in his blog, however, there appears to have been a decade long attempt to make changes at FARMS/MI, while meeting constant resistance from the "old guard," which has culminated in all this. How well it has been handled by all concerned is hard to say; but I think it is wrong to put all the blame poor old Bradford, and ignore the role that lots of others may have been plying in it over these many years.

DCP is a great guy, and a very good Arabic scholar, and a great ambassador for the Church; but he is not a jack of all trades. He should stick to what he is good at (and the great contributions that he can still make), and not be too upset when changes are inevitably made which he may not personally like or agree with. He may think that he is good at "apologetics," but he really isn't--which does not diminish from all the other things that he is good at, and the great contributions that he can still make.

Edited June 26, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

And something like this requires an institution to be able to have enough resources and experts to pull it all together (which is what FAIR is trying to do to a certain extent in that we post the information and provide references to where it can be found, copyright issues does not allow us to post all the resources themselves unfortunately as well as it would take a lot of money to pay for all the webpages required to do so).

And just having the information out there without commentary would be, imo, problematic as not all are trained in effective analysis of the literature, no one is an expert in every field related to apologetics. Having sufficient commentary to give sufficient context for basic understanding for an 'average' reader is important, imo, so that they are able to pull together the information within a reasonable amount of time and not have to wait for years before they feel grounded enough to actually present an informed argument/defense.

If you go back and read my OP more carefully, you will find that I tried to make a distinction between "doing apologetics," and providing resources for apologists. The distinction may be a subtle one, but there is a distinction nevertheless. Whereas I see no objection to the latter exercise, the former I am not quite so sure about.

Edited June 26, 2012 by zerinus