Curious To Know If An Apologtic Ever Defended Something And It Turned Out To Be False

[Vance]

Just a point of clarification: Mosser and Owen argued that FARMS (and more broadly LDS scholars) had produced a massive amount of academically weighty literature defending Mormon scriptures and doctrines, and that evangelical scholars had simply failed to engage the literature by neglect.

Oh, how you do like to spin things.

In other words, the problem was not that evangelical scholars were doing a poor job in their responses to LDS scholarship, . . .

That, of course is FALSE.

FTA.

White's article does not mention a single example of the literature we have presented in this paper. He does not accurately describe the work of FARMS, or of LDS scholarship in general. He gives his readers the mistaken impression that their research is not respected in the broader academic community. We believe that we have demonstrated that this is simply not the case. His attempted critique picks out two of the weakest examples. Not only does he pick weak examples, he does not give even these an adequate critique. This is nothing more than "straw man" argumentation.

Also FTA,

This book, in our estimation, is among the ugliest, most unchristian, and misleading polemics in print. The authors constantly belittle their opponents-- always questioning either their intelligence or integrity. Particularly frustrating is the appendix which was added to the updated edition. They accuse Mormons of being unwilling "to consider the established theological, textual, historical, and archeological facts surrounding Mormonism and Christianity."⁽¹⁰¹⁾ The fact of the matter is that it is our evangelical brothers who in this book display their own unwillingness to give any consideration to such issues.⁽¹⁰²⁾ Nor do they intend to. They write:

It's not that evangelicals have an objection to evaluating all the arguments and scholarship cited by Mormon critics. Some Mormon apologists think that all Christian critics of Mormonism should spend thousands of dollars and man-hours [like the Mormons are doing?] in order to stay abreast of the latest in Mormon defensive scholarship in its numerous forms and offshoots. . . Anyone familiar with the Bible and Christian history knows that biblical, orthodox, Christian doctrine is established and documented. For Mormonism to claim Christian doctrine is false, it must first provide at least some evidence to support its charges.⁽¹⁰³⁾

Unless you are admitting that the likes of James White, John Weldon, Walter Martin, and John Ankerberg are NOT "evangelical scholars" but rather run of the mill hacks.

[Craig Paxton]

Because the very nature of apologetics is to start with the “answer” before the “question” has even been asked...Apologist are bound to be wrong at times. Also apologists aren't necessarily seeking the truth but are concerned in merely creating a safe harbor to maintain belief in the premise that they are defending

[zerinus]

Robert,

Hi there. You wrote:

Just a point of clarification: Mosser and Owen argued that FARMS (and more broadly LDS scholars) had produced a massive amount of academically weighty literature defending Mormon scriptures and doctrines, and that evangelical scholars had simply failed to engage the literature by neglect. In other words, the problem was not that evangelical scholars were doing a poor job in their responses to LDS scholarship, but that for the most part they were not responding at all. Nor were Mosser and Owen claiming that FARMS apologetic arguments were cogent--only that they were impressive in sophistication and in quantity. By the way, I had made the same point (though not in as detailed a manner) in a couple of articles back in the late 1980s.

I am presently reading Richard Mouw’s book, Talking With Mormons; and on page 14 of his book he has this to say on the subject:

The problem with the typical evangelical historical effort to find a smoking gun in Mormon teaching is that it hasn’t been very successful. In 1998 two evangelical scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, authored a lengthy essay in a journal published by Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, entitled “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?” The title summarized the story nicely. They argued that Mormon scholars had pretty much provided adequate responses to evangelical criticisms of Mormonism’s historical claims. And even where those Mormon responses haven’t been compelling to those of us who continue to be critical of Mormon claims, the Mormon thinkers have at least succeeded in showing that the situation is more complex than would appear from the evangelical critiques. In short, Mosser and Owen argued, “the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.” And to make things worse, they reported, evangelicals have continued to rehearse their standard arguments against Mormonism without even demonstrating any awareness of the relevant writings by Mormon scholars. [Emphasis added]

What I read into that is that Evangelical critics of Mormonism haven’t been very honest. It suggests that they are not really interested in the truth about Mormonism. Their motives for attacking it is a questionable one.

[wenglund]

Just a point of clarification: Mosser and Owen argued that FARMS (and more broadly LDS scholars) had produced a massive amount of academically weighty literature defending Mormon scriptures and doctrines, and that evangelical scholars had simply failed to engage the literature by neglect.

While neglect was the thrust of the article, Moser and Owen had other things to say about Evangelicals, including:

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.⁽³⁾ In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.⁽⁴⁾ Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists. (Emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 17, 2012 by wenglund

[Whiskeypete]

If I could respond to the original topic: "Curious to know if an Apologetic ever defended something and it turned out to be false"

I think the efforts to explain the "Stick of Judah" and "Stick of Joseph" as wax tablets (http://www.lds.org/e...ering-of-israel) instead of scepters or tribes is a completely unnecessary mis-translation of etz.

The whole point of that argument is to try to defend the "sticks" as being the texts, namely the Bible and the Book of Mormon, since that was what we were taught in our Sunday School classes and Seminary.

But there really isn't any reason to go out on that limb, because the D&C states that the Book of Mormon is the "record of the Stick" not the stick itself.

Another example is the attempts by FARMS and others (including Elder Oakes) to put a positive spin on the Salamander Letter during the time between the Church's purchase and release of the letter, and the forgery revelations

"A being that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the Angel Moroni:... Since the letter only purports to be Martin Harris' interpretation of what he had heard about Joseph's experience, the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable"

Although the explanation is plausible, it turned out to be unnecessary.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Whiskeypete

[phaedrus ut]

You might want to reflect sometime on the fact that two evangelical scholars closely examined FARMS' apologetic activities a few years ago, and unlike you they concluded that FARMS had done an excellent job, and that their fellow evangelicals had not. That's called "honesty," a very rare commodity in the polemic atmosphere which surrounds us. Have you ever tried having a reasonable discussion about these matters?

It astounds me the lengths people will distort their judgement on really crappy apologetics. I read the Owen and Mosser piece before and I can't see how the opinion of to evangelical bible college graduates writing about Mormon apologetics in general has any bearing on the poor apologetics cranked out to defend the Salamander letter. I didn't say everything that FARMS has done was bad, by example wasn't even related to FARMS but to something that Dallin Oaks did at a CES event. The OP asked for an example and I provided one.

Why not do like Sandra Tanner did and admit you were wrong about the Salamander letter and move on.

Phaedrus

[Robert F. Smith]

It astounds me the lengths people will distort their judgement on really crappy apologetics. I read the Owen and Mosser piece before and I can't see how the opinion of to evangelical bible college graduates writing about Mormon apologetics in general has any bearing on the poor apologetics cranked out to defend the Salamander letter. I didn't say everything that FARMS has done was bad, by example wasn't even related to FARMS but to something that Dallin Oaks did at a CES event. The OP asked for an example and I provided one.

Why not do like Sandra Tanner did and admit you were wrong about the Salamander letter and move on.

Phaedrus

I did admit it was a forgery, and so did all my colleagues, and all of us moved on. What made you claim that we hadn't? And why haven't you moved on?

Moreover, why haven't you pointed out some specific way(s) in which the FARMS salamander research was faulty? It should be clear to you in retrospect that the forger had done some sort of research along the same lines in constructing his Salamander Letter forgery. Our research certainly showed us how that might have been constructed, and indeed that it was not at all unreasonable to use such a figurative term for Moroni. The anti-Mormon crowd was furious when the FARMS research on this matter came out, and some of them still are.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I thought it was a good piece myself.......I actually learned some new things I hadn't considered before.....

[volgadon]

I thought it was a good piece myself.......I actually learned some new things I hadn't considered before.....

Was this the salamander one?

[Hayds]

I would have to say yes they have made mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Hayds

[Rob Bowman]

All,

Nothing against them personally, but John Ankerberg and John Weldon are not scholars. Weldon is very smart and knows a lot about many subjects, but he isn't a scholar. Ankerberg's credentials are those of a fairly well-trained pastor, not a scholar. Their book on Mormonism was not their best work (and I would say they have done some good work).

It's true that Mosser and Owen criticized one or two evangelical scholars for their work on Mormonism. In general, they faulted evangelicals, scholars or not, for failing even to try to engage LDS scholarship. This was my point.

In the years since Mosser and Owen's article, some evangelical scholars have begun publishing responses to LDS apologetic arguments, though not nearly as much as I would like. The New Mormon Challenge is the most substantial book in this regard. Mosser, who contributed to that book, has also written some fine articles responding to Mormon theological apologetics.

Being a scholar, unfortunately, does not guarantee that a person will handle his subject matter well. I'm afraid I can't agree with Richard Mouw's perspective on Mormonism. For an excellent article by an evangelical scholar showing the superficiality of Mouw's handling of Mormonism, see Ronald V. Huggins, "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be’: ‘No functioning place in present-day Mormon doctrine?’ A response to Richard Mouw,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): 549-68.

I agree that most people in "countercult" ministry are not equipped to respond to Mormon scholarship in an academic fashion. Most don't claim to be able to do that. Likewise, most amateur Mormon apologists are not equipped to discuss textual criticism, biblical exegesis, or historical theology in an academic fashion. Do people often overreach? Yes, I think we find that happening pretty much everywhere.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

After quoting Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, two evangelicals who are critical of Mormonism, you conclude:

What I read into that is that Evangelical critics of Mormonism haven’t been very honest. It suggests that they are not really interested in the truth about Mormonism. Their motives for attacking it is a questionable one.

Hmmm....

[zerinus]

Hmmm....

Indeed.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Hi there. You wrote:

Just a point of clarification: Mosser and Owen argued that FARMS (and more broadly LDS scholars) had produced a massive amount of academically weighty literature defending Mormon scriptures and doctrines, and that evangelical scholars had simply failed to engage the literature by neglect. In other words, the problem was not that evangelical scholars were doing a poor job in their responses to LDS scholarship, but that for the most part they were not responding at all. Nor were Mosser and Owen claiming that FARMS apologetic arguments were cogent--only that they were impressive in sophistication and in quantity. By the way, I had made the same point (though not in as detailed a manner) in a couple of articles back in the late 1980s.

Hi Rob,

I haven't bothered to reply to your post here only because, by the time I got to it, everyone else had already piled on in force. I would like to say a couple of things though about the Owen & Mosser study: I thought that they were rather naive to suppose that all Mormon intellectual activity was centered in and around Provo, Utah, and I went on to list for them (by location and educational institution) a great many Mormons in academia outside Utah. They very nicely responded to my comments.

Apart from that, I'd be very interested in one or more of your earlier articles on this same phenomenon. Please cite a good one for me. Thanks.

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

I would have to say yes they have made mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

I'm not sure of the reference here. Perhaps you could give one or two examples of what you are asserting?

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

You wrote:

Apart from that, I'd be very interested in one or more of your earlier articles on this same phenomenon. Please cite a good one for me. Thanks.

I checked, and the articles are not available online as best I can tell (and they were written so long ago that I don't have electronic copies of them). One of the articles was “What’s New in the New Religions,” the cover story for Moody Monthly in November 1987. Another version of the article appeared as "How Are the New Religions Doing?" in Pastoral Renewal (March/April 1989).

[phaedrus ut]

I did admit it was a forgery, and so did all my colleagues, and all of us moved on. What made you claim that we hadn't? And why haven't you moved on?

Moreover, why haven't you pointed out some specific way(s) in which the FARMS salamander research was faulty? It should be clear to you in retrospect that the forger had done some sort of research along the same lines in constructing his Salamander Letter forgery. Our research certainly showed us how that might have been constructed, and indeed that it was not at all unreasonable to use such a figurative term for Moroni. The anti-Mormon crowd was furious when the FARMS research on this matter came out, and some of them still are.

First let me repeat myself. My initial example didn't mention the FARMS blunders on their Salamander could be Moroni apologetics it was specifically about the one delivered by Apostle Oaks to CES defending the premise. I appreciate your ardent defense FARMS and in your opinion "it was not at all unreasonable to use such a figurative term for Moroni". In my opinion ancient American angel prophets are unreasonable and magic talking salamanders are also unreasonable. Therefore all arguments equating how one strange magical being may also be described as a magical salamander increases my assessment of the combined arrangement as even less likely.

If the letter had been about a magical pig we could clearly find a large body of writing and research about flying pigs and a ardent apologist could argue that since flying pigs could be seen in an angelic way then it would not be "at all unreasonable to use such a figurative term for Moroni".

Phaedrus

[USU78]

It's true that Mosser and Owen criticized one or two evangelical scholars for their work on Mormonism. In general, they faulted evangelicals, scholars or not, for failing even to try to engage LDS scholarship. This was my point.

In the years since Mosser and Owen's article, some evangelical scholars have begun publishing responses to LDS apologetic arguments, though not nearly as much as I would like. The New Mormon Challenge is the most substantial book in this regard. Mosser, who contributed to that book, has also written some fine articles responding to Mormon theological apologetics.

I wonder why they even bother . . . it isn't like we're sheep-stealing or anything like that.

And evie membership rolls are just as stuffed full as ever they were.

With no downward trends anywhere to be seen.

Who cares about what a bunch of Mormons say/think/teach/write anyway?

[wenglund]

As part of the same example Apostle Dallin Oaks came out to defend the Salamander letter and the connection with a salamander and the Angel Moroni. This is probably the best example of failed apologetics and why the church seems to let outside groups handle these issues now.

It seem a huge stretch to consider as apologetic a relatively brief, off-hand comment to fellow members, particularly when the gist of the comment was perplexity regarding the firestorm of public reaction to the so-called salamander letter.

Even still, I am not sure what there was about this brief comment that you considered as "failed," and why you may think an outside organization would be better suited to accomplish what Elder Oaks intended in making the brief comment?

I ask because from where I am sitting, it is you who has failed on several levels, though I am open to you demonstrate otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

I wonder why they even bother . . . it isn't like we're sheep-stealing or anything like that.

And evie membership rolls are just as stuffed full as ever they were.

With no downward trends anywhere to be seen.

Who cares about what a bunch of Mormons say/think/teach/write anyway?

Apart from the issue of Mormons seeking to evangelize evangelicals (which does happen), speaking for myself as an evangelical, I care about what Mormons say because I care about Mormons.

[Vance]

I care about what Mormons say because I care about Mormons.

I don't know about others, but I have felt the "love".

Too bad you don't care enough about "what Mormons say" or about "Mormons" to remove the temple content from your website.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Vance

[Robert F. Smith]

First let me repeat myself. My initial example didn't mention the FARMS blunders on their Salamander could be Moroni apologetics it was specifically about the one delivered by Apostle Oaks to CES defending the premise. I appreciate your ardent defense FARMS and in your opinion "it was not at all unreasonable to use such a figurative term for Moroni". In my opinion ancient American angel prophets are unreasonable and magic talking salamanders are also unreasonable. Therefore all arguments equating how one strange magical being may also be described as a magical salamander increases my assessment of the combined arrangement as even less likely.

If the letter had been about a magical pig we could clearly find a large body of writing and research about flying pigs and a ardent apologist could argue that since flying pigs could be seen in an angelic way then it would not be "at all unreasonable to use such a figurative term for Moroni".

Phaedrus

It might be well for you to consider whether either the Elder Oaks address or the FARMS Update contained any errors or unreasonable statements about the historical use of certain figurative language in a religious context. I don't think you have or can find such an error or unreasonable statement, and that is why you haven't produced one. Your only other option is to request the good offices of a knowledgeable and disinterested third party to decide whether you have made a major gaffe in this case, and whether you need to eat crow.

[Robert F. Smith]

I wonder why they even bother . . . it isn't like we're sheep-stealing or anything like that.

And evie membership rolls are just as stuffed full as ever they were.

With no downward trends anywhere to be seen.

Who cares about what a bunch of Mormons say/think/teach/write anyway?

Yeh, "we don't need no stinkin badges!"

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob,

You wrote:

I checked, and the articles are not available online as best I can tell (and they were written so long ago that I don't have electronic copies of them). One of the articles was “What’s New in the New Religions,” the cover story for Moody Monthly in November 1987. Another version of the article appeared as "How Are the New Religions Doing?" in Pastoral Renewal (March/April 1989).

Thanks, Rob,

Next time I'm at Concordia Seminary or at the School of Theology in Claremont I'll look them up -- for perspective.

Bob

Edited July 18, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Apart from the issue of Mormons seeking to evangelize evangelicals (which does happen), speaking for myself as an evangelical, I care about what Mormons say because I care about Mormons.

Thanks Rob,

The feeling is mutual.