Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[Alvino]

It's constructive in the sense that it keeps the playing field level by neutralizing or blunting the attacks of the antagonists, thus making it possible for faith to flourish.

The problem is that the place were apologetics leaves you is NOT a leveled playing field. If it neutralizes the blunt attacks it doesn't heal the wound. That's my whole point. Apologetics as it's done by FARMS does not provide a structure upon which to make sense of Joseph Smith burying his face in his hat with a stone he stumbled upon in it, for example, or his treasure digging pursuits. There's very little theology focused on countering the impression one gets when one reads LDS apologists with regards to the Kinderhook plates, for example - the impression that if Joseph Smith had attempted to translate the plates and believed they were authentic, then we would have strong evidence that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that that a whole bunch of historical beliefs like this one could crumble the whole faith.

I expect the gospel of Jesus Christ will always be a matter of faith, supportable but not provable by physical evidence. That's an important distinction.

"Supportable"? Don't you mean shown probable?

[Sky]

On various discussion boards I have asked what are the main issues that are a barrier to your regaining faith in the LDS church. These would seemingly be issues where doubting members feel apologetics fails to provide a thorough answer.

Why does the conversation have to be solely in the context of "apologetics" not providing satisfactory answers? Why does it seem like the apologists are frequently made out to be the bad guys? What about the answers that are found in the scriptures, and the official answers that the Church has provided in some cases? And what about the role that we ourselves must play in seeking out answers on our own?

I have picked some of the issues that you mentioned in your list, and will attempt to explain the answers that I have arrived at to the best of my ability.

24. Similarity between temple ordinances and Masonic rites

Fascinating, isn't it?

Regardless of where the temple symbolism originated from, I do find it a truly beautiful, sacred thing. And while recognizing the similarities between the the temple and Masonry, let's also be sure to recognize the differences.

27. Claim that sexual sins are next to murder

This claim originates from Alma 39: 3-5

And the Church's explanation can be found here.

Thankfully the Lord promises forgiveness for these sins when we repent!

30. Gordon B. Hinckley interviews make revelation sound the same as average members praying

He made reference to this scripture in 1st Kings 19: 22

(i.e. the still small voice)

FYI, here is President Hinckley's description of the events that transpired while being present in the Temple when the Priesthood restriction was lifted (regardless of race or lineage).

37. Tithing amount is excessive and doesn't add up fairly in different situations

Tithing is the free-will donation of one-tenth of your increase to the Lord through His church - nothing more, nothing less. And if you are able, to donate a generous Fast Offering, separate from your tithing.

Here is the Church's explanation.

42. Using feelings as a source of truth/knowledge.

Moroni says that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things. How else are we supposed to develop this gift if not by learning to trust our feelings and the internal promptings we may receive?

44 church leaders conflicting statements and policies on SSA/gay marriage

The tone that the Church uses towards homosexuals has definitely softened through the years. But the Law of Chastity is still the same.

The Church's new website, mormonsandgays.org, demonstrates how to be charitable without compromising on God's laws regarding sexual activity.

50. Focus on compliance to laundry list of commandments rather than talk of Christ and development of Christian attributes

You don't think the leaders of the Church talk enough about Christ or the development of Christian attributes? Well, I guess that's a matter of perception. Because I saw plenty of that from the last General Conference in October, as well as Conference's prior to that.

But they're probably not going to stand up and say that the commandments aren't really necessary, either.

53. The church being led by revelation yet always being reactive to issues

I think the Church does a fine job of explaining its positions on a host of issues, in a sensible and non-defensive way. See mormonnewsroom.org.

That some people may not like or agree with the answers given is irrelevant.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Sky

[saemo]

To "lead the church astray" would probably mean "into apostasy". They tell me all the time they don't believe in infallibility. That has to mean then that "never lead astray" still allows for mistakes that are not fatal to the church's authority.

But wait, before falling back on that, I would argue that the burden of proof is on the person who charges that polygamy or the priesthood ban was an error. They practiced polygamy in the Old Testament. The priesthood ban should not be interpreted as racial bigotry. What is the church's record on slavery and other ethnic issues during its history? For prudential reasons that may some day be revealed, it pleased God to restrict the priesthood for a very short period at the beginning of the Restoration. The Old Testament priesthood was restrictive to one family. The priesthood isn't a right that comes from being a grown up. It is a privilege that God grants to some and it can appear arbitrary. Surely there were people from other tribes well qualified for the "job."

You lost me, mostly. For the priesthood ban, you have what was once taught, is now called opinion, but it looks to me to be all opinion. Who's opinion carries the most weight for LDS, a previous prophet, or the authors of modern apologetics? Neither hold any weight with me. To your last sentence, I think even a child understand the difference between being given something extra because you did something special, compared to something being witheld because you did something wrong. A tribe was given something extra, this does not mean everyone else did something wrong. The problem with the LDS position, is, what was that something special, or what was that something wrong. Previous teaching covered both, the something special was valiant behavior in the pre existence. The something wrong was Cain. But all that was just someone's opinion, of course (according to the latest opinion).

For polygamy, as a Mormon it just felt wrong, and not just a little wrong, a lot wrong. Gave me the creeps, really. Now, it is just one of those things in light of scripture, that I will never agree with. I understand the Mormon arguments, and why they believe what they believe. Those arguments don't do anything for me. They all look to me as rationalizing a behavior.

[DavidB]

I would like to just address the title "Where does Apologetics fall short", for me, a perfect example of "where apologetics falls short" is the "What has the new FARMS produced?", the intent of the thread appears to me to simply be a way to pull scabs and rail against Gerald Bradford, and the petty back and forth and snarking juvenile posts in the last couple of pages of that thread do not give a good impression of "apologetics" or "apologists". Quite honestly reading that thread it is difficult to believe that adults are involved.....so for me the pettiness and childishness of apologetics is where apologetics falls short.

Edited February 12, 2013 by DavidB

[Robert F. Smith]

He did say, "I feel like there are good answers to most." I don't think he was proposing that there are no answers. Perhaps, like me, also a non-LDS, he is perplexed about why your apologetics in these areas work for us, while it appears so many Mormons themselves don't accept the plausibility of solutions and lose faith.

I disagree.

The challenge of aporias or "difficulties" in Scripture or in religious doctrine seems as constant as the birth of children who grow up asking inane questions about things which they have never studied or taken seriously. Few make a sustained inquiry into such matters, obtain the critical tools adequate to deal with them, or tell us what they have found.

I don't find that "so many Mormons . . . don't accept the plausibility of solutions and lose faith." Too few actually come to grips with serious questions. Most are simply unaware of such issues (and I find that to be true as much within the Mormon community as within other religious communities). People do not, after all, convert to Mormonism based on intellectual arguments or doctrinal considerations.

Perhaps you find some Mormon apologetic responses more convincing than some former LDS members you may have dealt with because you are actually better trained, less directly emotionally involved, and perhaps because their apostasy was a forgone conclusion for other reasons having very little to do with perceived aporias.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would like to just address the title "Where does Apologetics fall short", for me, a perfect example of "where apologetics falls short" is the "What has the new FARMS produced?", the intent of the thread appears to me to simply be a way to pull scabs and rail against Gerald Bradford, and the petty back and forth and snarking juvenile posts in the last couple of pages of that thread do not give a good impression of "apologetics" or "apologists". Quite honestly reading that thread it is difficult to believe that adults are involved.....so for me the pettiness and childishness of apologetics is where apologetics falls short.

A serious consideration of what some set of apologetics has or has not accomplished is based on more than a few minutes on a particular thread on a particular discussion board. It must be substantive and provide specific examples from across a broad range of publications and websites. And it must be fair to all sides in the debate.

Furthermore, the ones making such assessments must themselves be capable of understanding the issues. This assumes years of preparation in critical thinking and in the study of the issues concerned. The weighing of such issues must be carefully made and considered in light of opposing views (the notions of John Stuart Mill are particularly important here, because the weighing and judgments rendered are more of a communal effort than a one-man band -- we sharpen and hone our ideas on each other). I always welcome and learn from the differing views of Chris Smith, volgadon, or california boy, for examples. Their tone of civility and honor is what makes this effort so worthwhile. It is far less important who "wins" the debate. It is an ongoing process.

[Teancum]

That's not the Church that I preached, either. And, in my view, that's not the Church that I belong to.

There's no accounting for such differences, I suppose. But, for you, the discontinuities certainly stand out far more than they do for me. And, for me, it seems that the continuities and strengths count far more strongly than they do for you. This is one of those human things that, genuinely, continue to intrigue and puzzle me.

Dr Peterson. Please review Ezra Taft Benson's Fourteen Funamentals in Following the Prophet. This talk is being resurrected in recent conference talks. This encompasses what I at least once thought about what it meant to have a prophet. And it seems often the way the GAs want us to view prophets and apostles. Apologetics certainly uses tactics to diminish from this view of LDS leaders. But this is really just one issue of many and perhaps not even the most important. But based on how defenders approach things it sure seems like LDS leaders have and do get much wrong. And I used such a tactic. Often I said this or that was just opinion or not official doctrine and it seemed that such a defense just reached the point of a thought along the lines of if such is the case how can someone have confidence in what they say at all? If Benson's talk was something the church frowned upon why not say so?

[Storm Rider]

Teancum, I am a bit dismayed with this article because it provides no way of understanding the actions of previous leaders. It dictates that prophets have superseded the bounds of their own humanity and have become solely a mouthpiece of the Lord God Almighty. I think this line of thinking is unhealthy and/or even dangerous.

[DBMormon]

I would like to just address the title "Where does Apologetics fall short", for me, a perfect example of "where apologetics falls short" is the "What has the new FARMS produced?", the intent of the thread appears to me to simply be a way to pull scabs and rail against Gerald Bradford, and the petty back and forth and snarking juvenile posts in the last couple of pages of that thread do not give a good impression of "apologetics" or "apologists". Quite honestly reading that thread it is difficult to believe that adults are involved.....so for me the pettiness and childishness of apologetics is where apologetics falls short.

David I agree, It at times is like 3rd grade recess..... I agree with your assessment completely. But a few immature people in apologetics should not speak for the whole group. There are many here who stay above that.

[DBMormon]

Dr Peterson. Please review Ezra Taft Benson's Fourteen Funamentals in Following the Prophet. This talk is being resurrected in recent conference talks. This encompasses what I at least once thought about what it meant to have a prophet. And it seems often the way the GAs want us to view prophets and apostles. Apologetics certainly uses tactics to diminish from this view of LDS leaders. But this is really just one issue of many and perhaps not even the most important. But based on how defenders approach things it sure seems like LDS leaders have and do get much wrong. And I used such a tactic. Often I said this or that was just opinion or not official doctrine and it seemed that such a defense just reached the point of a thought along the lines of if such is the case how can someone have confidence in what they say at all? If Benson's talk was something the church frowned upon why not say so?

I would agree that the church teaches to investigators and to it's members a very naive old testament view of prophets and that we would be further ahead to make a stronger correlation to Peter and the NT apostles and leave the very mystical OT view alone. I also agree that anytime a prophet makes a mistake we are able to write it off as human error and when they get something right it comes from God. For ex: how many programs and policies have not worked and were dropped over the years?

But I would add I see the same process in the New Testament and that this Success/Failure Paradigm is reality and doesn't have to discredit faith. Did Moses make mistakes? did his followers leave him in disbelief? Was he rebuked by God?

So while I agree it is troubling and I too have had those same thoughts, the question is is the other side of that argument just as reasonable? and if not why?

Edited February 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[Jude2]

A serious consideration of what some set of apologetics has or has not accomplished is based on more than a few minutes on a particular thread on a particular discussion board. It must be substantive and provide specific examples from across a broad range of publications and websites. And it must be fair to all sides in the debate.

Furthermore, the ones making such assessments must themselves be capable of understanding the issues. This assumes years of preparation in critical thinking and in the study of the issues concerned. The weighing of such issues must be carefully made and considered in light of opposing views (the notions of John Stuart Mill are particularly important here, because the weighing and judgments rendered are more of a communal effort than a one-man band -- we sharpen and hone our ideas on each other). I always welcome and learn from the differing views of Chris Smith, volgadon, or california boy, for examples. Their tone of civility and honor is what makes this effort so worthwhile. It is far less important who "wins" the debate. It is an ongoing process.

Don’t ya think that for some the argument becomes more important than the answer.

[thesometimesaint]

Jude2:

1. Attempts to deny evolution by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc.

First one would have to assume evolution is an absolute truth and I don’t. I believe it is a working theory. Where and how it got started only God knows. If and when it is a proven fact that God used evolution to create then it will become part of the gospel.

The Church takes no position on evolution. But does allow its members to believe anything they want concerning it.

Evolution is a fact, whether we individually believe it is truth is another question.

A theory is just the currently most accurate explanation of a naturally occurring event. The event can't change, just our explanation of it.

As science can not put any God(s) or Supernatural force into a theory. It becomes problematic and oxymoronic to inject God into a theory. BTW The evidences for evolution are accepted by people/scientists whom believe in one or more Gods or no Gods at all.

[Teancum]

Teancum, I am a bit dismayed with this article because it provides no way of understanding the actions of previous leaders. It dictates that prophets have superseded the bounds of their own humanity and have become solely a mouthpiece of the Lord God Almighty. I think this line of thinking is unhealthy and/or even dangerous.

Do you meant the ETB article?

[Scott Lloyd]

What do you mean???????

I mean that extraneous punctuation is off-putting. It conveys an overbearing and hysterical tone, intended or not.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

It seems you point is the church is on one hand led by revelation and yet is always reactionary to it big moments

Blacks and Priesthood

Polygamy

Renouncing BY's teachings when people are not accepting the this odd theory

renouncing Elder McConkie and others when their views butt heads with leading scientific opinions

giving up on or at least leaving room for other options when a real global flood or a real adam and eve are troublesome

I would say you see the church reacting in how a non divine institution would react and are struggling to see the arm of God in the church... Is that accurate? Is that at the heart of what you see as troublesome. That the church ran by God would be more proactive and less reactive?

Yes I think that is a fair summery at least on these issues. And this in addition. I always hear follow the brethren and they won't lead you astray. And then if they do lead you wrong and you still follow you will be blessed. Well that sends off all sorts of alarms in my head. Yet I tried to live my life this way. Yet as noted they do seem to get a lot wrong and this often is an aplogetic tact.

Well Ok. As noted I don't expect them to get it right. But take Brigham for example because he said so much we just toss under the bus. When he spoke in his capacity is Church president to the Saints I expect it to be more than just his opinion. His hearers heard him preach Adam God and other teachings we think were just opinion. They believed what he said. Their journals reflect it. If Brigham was wrong and he taught someont to worship a false God what is the result? If he was right then what since we reject Adam God and other odd things he taught. Sure Prophets can have opinions. But as JS said when they are acting as a prophet then we should expect them to be such.

And what of ETBs 14 points talk? If a President of the 12 gives a talk to BYU should he not get things right? If it was his opinion and wrong why didn't the Church correct it. Same reason they let McConkie's book stand with errors. They do not want to make the leader look bad.

So to Julianne, yes I can see why you would like the fact the leaders seem more fallible and human. I like it too. But I don't like it that they teach us to follow their words as if they are less fallible than historically they seem to be.

Last of all let’s apply the above to the priesthood ban. There are all sort of defenses on this as well as a back peddling from all the things said to justify it. I find the we do not know why defense week. It would seem that something so significant God would speak to his Prophet about. Brigham did not mince his words. Were his hideous comments his opinions? Why would God let such a thing stand? Was it due to his culture? Why couldn’t God slap him upside the head? Was it because the Church was not ready for this due to culture? Well that seems odd. If God could send an angel with a sword to command JS to do polygamy which was certainly outside the culture they lived in at the time why wouldn’t God tell them to not be racist about their black brothers and sisters? So yes the Church seems reactive on this and many issues.

[Bob Crockett]

I would agree that the church teaches to investigators and to it's members a very naive old testament view of prophets and that we would be further ahead to make a stronger correlation to Peter and the NT apostles and leave the very mystical OT view alone.

So, you've become that kind of Evangelical?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I agree, I gave you a point. So take away the church teaching the gospel in a naive black and white way and only looking to the answers of the top issues, would the Church teaching a higher level understanding at least prior to leaving the YW/YM program allow the apologetic answers to work for you?

Yes, but it would have to come for the top and I just can't see the church doing this. The 14 fundamentals are very opposed to the whole apologetic approach and these were recently reemphasized. You have "unofficial" statements come out like "when the prophet has spoken the thinking is done." This is published in an official church publication. Where is the retraction written? In a private letter.

For me, I don't sweat the stuff on your list. At the same time, while I am a practicing mormon (no r-rated movies, but an an occational diet coke) I am agnostic when it comes to many of our beliefs. I exercise faith, find joy in service and living the commandments, but believe that there are likely many ways to find God in this life and believe that for some people, the Church is not the right place for them. I no longer yield my opinions to the brethren on any issue. I take their inspired opinion into consideration and work out my own salvation with fear and trembling.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well Ok. As noted I don't expect them to get it right. But take Brigham for example because he said so much we just toss under the bus. When he spoke in his capacity is Church president to the Saints I expect it to be more than just his opinion. His hearers heard him preach Adam God and other teachings we think were just opinion. They believed what he said. Their journals reflect it. If Brigham was wrong and he taught someont to worship a false God what is the result? If he was right then what since we reject Adam God and other odd things he taught. Sure Prophets can have opinions. But as JS said when they are acting as a prophet then we should expect them to be such.

I believe it was Bruce R McConkie that labeled one of Brother Brigham's doctrines (God's progression) a deadly heresy - at Brigham Young university no less.

[Ahab]

Well Ok. As noted I don't expect them to get it right.

You should try your very best to understand what they mean. I don't know of any case where they got something wrong.

But take Brigham for example because he said so much we just toss under the bus.

The fact that a lot of people toss a lot of what he said under a bus doesn't mean that what he meant isn't true.

When he spoke in his capacity is Church president to the Saints I expect it to be more than just his opinion.

Again, try your very best to understand what he meant. He was never sharing something that was only his opinion.

Sometimes it is just his opinion, and sometimes His hearers heard him preach Adam God and other teachings we think were just opinion.

Just because people thought it was only his opinion does mean that's all it really was. Again, try your very best to understand what he meant... enough so that you can tell the difference between what he meant and someone who doesn't understand what he meant while teaching something he wasn't teaching.

They believed what he said. Their journals reflect it.

Some of them correctly understood him and had good reason to believe what he meant, and some of them just didn't understand or accept what he taught.

If Brigham was wrong and he taught someone to worship a false God what is the result?

But he didn't.

If he was right then what since we reject Adam God and other odd things he taught.

Those who correctly understood him and knew he was teaching the truth didn't reject what he meant and was teaching. They knew it was true, just as people today know that what he taught was true, even though others still reject what they think he was teaching.

Sure Prophets can have opinions. But as JS said when they are acting as a prophet then we should expect them to be such.

They always are. When someone is acting as prophets do, they are one.

And what of ETBs 14 points talk?

Another issue for another day... or at least as far as I am concerned at this moment.

[TomHagen]

He did say, "I feel like there are good answers to most." I don't think he was proposing that there are no answers. Perhaps, like me, also a non-LDS, he is perplexed about why your apologetics in these areas work for us, while it appears so many Mormons themselves don't accept the plausibility of solutions and lose faith.

The reason why apologetics fail the Mormon church is because they create a dissonance with what the Mormon church actually teaches. The LDS church presents itself as the restorer and repository of the "plain and simple truths" of the gospel of Jesus Christ. All subjects are taught with the sheen of pure divine clarity that everyone should be able to understand and support with testimony.

However, when people come to learn more about the points mentioned by the original poster (as well as others), it becomes clear that what the church taught as "true" was not really "true" in the sense that the church wants its members to accept as "true." Enter the apologetics, who then engage in logical contortionism and nuanced shades of "truth" and "evidence" to try to convince those people that "true" is a relative term, or that "truth" is available to either a) general authorities, or b) greek-reading scholars like Nibley who claim to decipher the arcane secrets of how the ancients were really all practicing Mormonism in code, and that the rest of everyone should really just accept their version of "truth" on faith, even though it no longer makes any sense, let alone that is is no longer "plain and simple." If anyone persists in their criticism or questioning of the church's doctrines, the apologists turn to ad hominem attacks.

This is why they fail. I can never read apologetics without getting the feeling that I'm being pitched by a used car salesman, or a fast-talking showman trying to convince me that the magician really DID cut his assistant in half. Frankly, I find most apologetics to be so ridiculous that it's almost pathetically sad. Why would a person spend years of their life trying to prove that the similarity of a single word in the BoM like "sheum" to an Akkadian word is proof - PROOF, I tell you! - that the book is true? Why would someone engage in mental gymnastics and intellectual duviousness of the highest order to claim that the Sensen papyrii REALLY ARE the Book of Abraham when it's obvious that they're not? It's just....pathetic.

Apologists, and the church as a whole, would do much better to just admit the problems rather than try to cover them up. It's like Watergate - it wasn't the burglary that brought Nixon down, it was the cover-up. I would at least respect a person or an organization that would say "Yes - X, Y, and Z are problems. And we don't have answers to them. We don't know everything. All we know is that you can pray about your testimony and see what the spirit tells you."

[Kerry A. Shirts]

The reason why apologetics fail the Mormon church is because they create a dissonance with what the Mormon church actually teaches. The LDS church presents itself as the restorer and repository of the "plain and simple truths" of the gospel of Jesus Christ. All subjects are taught with the sheen of pure divine clarity that everyone should be able to understand and support with testimony.

However, when people come to learn more about the points mentioned by the original poster (as well as others), it becomes clear that what the church taught as "true" was not really "true" in the sense that the church wants its members to accept as "true." Enter the apologetics, who then engage in logical contortionism and nuanced shades of "truth" and "evidence" to try to convince those people that "true" is a relative term, or that "truth" is available to either a) general authorities, or b) greek-reading scholars like Nibley who claim to decipher the arcane secrets of how the ancients were really all practicing Mormonism in code, and that the rest of everyone should really just accept their version of "truth" on faith, even though it no longer makes any sense, let alone that is is no longer "plain and simple." If anyone persists in their criticism or questioning of the church's doctrines, the apologists turn to ad hominem attacks.

This is why they fail. I can never read apologetics without getting the feeling that I'm being pitched by a used car salesman, or a fast-talking showman trying to convince me that the magician really DID cut his assistant in half. Frankly, I find most apologetics to be so ridiculous that it's almost pathetically sad. Why would a person spend years of their life trying to prove that the similarity of a single word in the BoM like "sheum" to an Akkadian word is proof - PROOF, I tell you! - that the book is true? Why would someone engage in mental gymnastics and intellectual duviousness of the highest order to claim that the Sensen papyrii REALLY ARE the Book of Abraham when it's obvious that they're not? It's just....pathetic.

Apologists, and the church as a whole, would do much better to just admit the problems rather than try to cover them up. It's like Watergate - it wasn't the burglary that brought Nixon down, it was the cover-up. I would at least respect a person or an organization that would say "Yes - X, Y, and Z are problems. And we don't have answers to them. We don't know everything. All we know is that you can pray about your testimony and see what the spirit tells you."

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.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Just to be clear: Is this true of every single apologetic argument? Does your judgment extend beyond Mormonism to all apologetic arguments? Every argument for the historicity of scripture? Every argument for the existence of God?

Please advise.

[Jude2]

Jude2:

1. Attempts to deny evolution by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc.

First one would have to assume evolution is an absolute truth and I don’t. I believe it is a working theory. Where and how it got started only God knows. If and when it is a proven fact that God used evolution to create then it will become part of the gospel.

The Church takes no position on evolution. But does allow its members to believe anything they want concerning it.

Evolution is a fact, whether we individually believe it is truth is another question.

A theory is just the currently most accurate explanation of a naturally occurring event. The event can't change, just our explanation of it.

As science can not put any God(s) or Supernatural force into a theory. It becomes problematic and oxymoronic to inject God into a theory. BTW The evidences for evolution are accepted by people/scientists whom believe in one or more Gods or no Gods at all.

I think you missed my whole point; I see the fact that the gospel can change and grow as a plus.

“Within the Gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man or yet to be made known.” James E. Talmage

[Jude2]

Just to be clear: Is this true of every single apologetic argument? Does your judgment extend beyond Mormonism to all apologetic arguments? Every argument for the historicity of scripture? Every argument for the existence of God?

Please advise.

Apologetics only works if the person asking the question wants to hear the answer. I believe there are some who are so impressed with their own ability to argue they don’t really hear the answer given. Instead they find another way to present their argument or quickly move on to something else.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Just to be clear: Is this true of every single apologetic argument? Does your judgment extend beyond Mormonism to all apologetic arguments? Every argument for the historicity of scripture? Every argument for the existence of God?

Please advise.

For every kind of argument, but most especially those without actual confirmable evidence that is justified AS evidence for whatever apologetic is being presented. After all, even though some hate the observation that is pure fact and indisputable, we live in a world where mostly what we have is simply someone's interpretation. Without evidence it is all just interpretation, and then, even with evidence there is largely human interpretation going on. there is precious little truth, let alone indisputable unchanging fact to hang our hats onto.