The Apologetics Of Richness?

[Bill Hamblin]

On my blog here.

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/the-apologetics-of-richness/

[CASteinman]

"Richness is the new proof."

Wow. That's..... rich.

[volgadon]

Ah, the classic approach of Wissenschaft des Judentums.

[CASteinman]

Ah, the classic approach of Wissenschaft des Judentums.

I had never heard of this before, so I went to the repository of all truth and found this quote:

"Zunz felt obliged to assume that Judaism had come to an end, and that it was the task of Wissenschaft des Judentums to provide a judicious accounting of the varied and rich contributions which Judaism had made to civilization. In a similar spirit, Steinschneider is said to have once quipped that Wissenschaft des Judentums seeks to ensure that Judaism will receive a proper burial, in which scholarship amounts to an extended obituary properly eulogizing the deceased."

Edited March 29, 2013 by CASteinman

[volgadon]

I had never heard of this before, so I went to the repository of all truth and found this quote:

"Zunz felt obliged to assume that Judaism had come to an end, and that it was the task of Wissenschaft des Judentums to provide a judicious accounting of the varied and rich contributions which Judaism had made to civilization. In a similar spirit, Steinschneider is said to have once quipped that Wissenschaft des Judentums seeks to ensure that Judaism will receive a proper burial, in which scholarship amounts to an extended obituary properly eulogizing the deceased."

That kind of talk (and the quips were many) was uncharitable, the goal of that intellectual movement was to shows that Judaism (and by Extension Jews) was the bearer of a rich moral and intellectual heritage, as a means of countering the objections by German nationalists that Jews were a parasitical influence which contributed nothing meaningful.

[CASteinman]

Where did the Bushman Quote originate? I see its from a note-- but I am having a hard time finding the original.

[Bill Hamblin]

Where did the Bushman Quote originate? I see its from a note-- but I am having a hard time finding the original.

Park did not provide a source. I believe it was from a speech bushman gave to young LDS scholars.

[Calm]

And while I think there have been a number of good things in recent treatments of the Book of Mormon (I’m certainly drawing on them for my PhD), they sometimes really seem to miss its tone by treating it some sort of narrative or philosophical text to be played around with, which seems to miss the passion the Book of Mormon has in its claims to be the word of God and about things that are or will be utterly real.

Very good comment in my opinion.

[Calm]

I would like to see an explanation by James Faulconer of the quote attributed to him.

[Brant Gardner]

I read Faulconer's statement a little differently. I don't see him saying that richness is proof, but that richness as the aim of investigation has supplanted proof as the aim of investigation. However, even understanding that distinction, I see Nibley's work as providing richness much more than establishing proof. I do see the quest for proof in Ferguson and others. Perhaps there was an implicit element of that in Nibley's work, but only in that the availability of richness depended upon an authentic ancient context consonant with that richness.

Frankly, I am all for the investigation of and explication of the richness in Mormonism. I am particularly interested in the richness of the Book of Mormon. I do see, however, that the simple fact of examining the richness of the text against a cultural backdrop unavoidable creates a blurred line between the examination of richness and an attempt to find proof. It certainly doesn't meant that we should avoid seeking the richness in the Book of Mormon because it might be used by some as proof.

[Bill Hamblin]

I read Faulconer's statement a little differently. I don't see him saying that richness is proof, but that richness as the aim of investigation has supplanted proof as the aim of investigation. However, even understanding that distinction, I see Nibley's work as providing richness much more than establishing proof. I do see the quest for proof in Ferguson and others. Perhaps there was an implicit element of that in Nibley's work, but only in that the availability of richness depended upon an authentic ancient context consonant with that richness.

Frankly, I am all for the investigation of and explication of the richness in Mormonism. I am particularly interested in the richness of the Book of Mormon. I do see, however, that the simple fact of examining the richness of the text against a cultural backdrop unavoidable creates a blurred line between the examination of richness and an attempt to find proof. It certainly doesn't meant that we should avoid seeking the richness in the Book of Mormon because it might be used by some as proof.

You may be right about Faulconer's meaning. In which case, he would probably agree with me. I'd like to read both Faulconer's thoughts and Bushman's in their full context. Unfortunately, Ben didn't provide any source. (Of course, it was just a blog comment.) On the other hand, that formulation does misrepresent the goal of "old" apologetics as "proof." It is a caricature.

Let me emphasize that I do not object to the search for richness. In a sense all apologetics is based on discovering and elucidating the richness of the text. The search for richness is an absolutely necessary component of apologetics, and always has been. It is nothing new. My objection is that the search for richness for its own sake cannot replace apologetics, because the discovery of textual richness in and of itself does not demonstrate anything. The meaning of discovered richness needs to be contextualized to give it any broader significance (e.g. does it come from an ancient author, divinely inspired fiction, or Joseph Smith's literary genius?) Tolkein's Lord of the Rings is an extraordinarily rich text. So what? What does that mean? That richness is only meaningful when you integrate it as one element in a much broader range of issues, questions, analysis and methods.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[3DOP]

Great truth as great error will always be rich. By "great", I mean simply those truths or errors that capture the hearts and minds of many people. Both truth and error need richness to survive for generations. If the truth is dull it doesn't have a chance with people. We aren't made to be able to sacrifice ourselves and work hard promoting boring facts. Rich error would always defeat boring facts.

If I am understanding richness correctly, it probably corresponds with beauty. Truth needs adornment. It needs to be clothed not to remain true, but because the truth deserves to be adorned. Error needs to be exposed. Wrapped in beautiful garments, error can be difficult to discern.

On Good Friday, the TRUTH was stripped of all His garments and nailed to a Cross. The complete humiliation of the Tree and the disfigurement of His body made Him seem hardly a man, let alone a God. Only the very discerning saw beauty on that Tree that day. The Apostle who leaned upon His breast, Mary Magdalene, and of course His own Blessed Mother were there with a few other women. This was and is THE truth that exceeds every other and to which thoughtful souls have successfully crowned with every kind of deservedly lovely garment.

I attest to Him who died for the sins of the world, and to Him I give my richest praise. I am thankful for every spontaneous hymn that has been written, painting that has been drawn, and statue that has been carved to commemorate the event believed by many to have occurred on this day nearly 2,000 years ago. Believing souls have continuously sought to understand more completely what St. Paul describes in his Letter to the Ephesians:

That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his Spirit with might unto the inward man, That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity, You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

It is one thing to have simple doubts. But a world that demeans or ignores the beauty or truth of the God-Man who died for us, is a world gone stark mad. Supposing its truth be questioned, the truth seeker would still find warrant for giving such everlasting beautiful "error" the humblest respect for being truly the Greatest Story Ever Told. In this respect, the testimony of richness seems difficult to ignore, although our poor crazy world wants to do just that.

3DOP

Edited March 29, 2013 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

I don't know what Faulconer meant- that's his business. But what resonates with me about that statement is the richness the gospel brings to my life- you know- Alma 32 and all it stands for

And I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would find anything wrong with that.

Scientific/ historical "proofs" for religion JUST DON'T WORK. There are none.

Look at Europe and see the level of religiosity you find. And why is Europe like that? Because they had bought into the whole notion that somehow religion was scientifically /historically/ reasonably "provable".

So by accepting that assumption, they brought upon themselves the death of their god, who is not the god of Mormonism. Nietzsche was right. THAT god indeed is dead. But that is not MY God.

So continue in this line of reasoning and give us another 50 years and the false god will be dead here too. The True God is the God of what makes our lives worth living- He is our Father and our Friend. He gives our lives richness.

He speaks to our hearts and we speak to him. He is beyond linguistic description. All we can say about him sensibly is very little.

We must learn to understand that science and history are but limited vehicles to knowing what is important in life and affirm that what we get from faith is indeed "richness" in our lives. Testimony is everything.

[mfbukowski]

Tolkein's Lord of the Rings is an extraordinarily rich text. So what? What does that mean? That richness is only meaningful when you integrate it as one element in a much broader range of issues, questions, analysis and methods.

The issue here is not the richness of the text, but the richness of one's life as changed by the text.

I could read Tolkein all day and it would not change my life one iota or make it richer.

[diahman]

Bill, what do you see as the purpose(s) of apologetics?

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, what do you see as the purpose(s) of apologetics?

Defend the truth claims of the Church and respond to critics of the Church.

[mfbukowski]

Tomorrow morning, an archaeologist discovers golden plates written with engravings which might be classified as "Reformed Egyptian". Archaeology comes apart at the seams.

After a period of scholarship it actually becomes translatable. It is a story of people of Middle Eastern origins coming across the Atlantic and a history of their experiences in the New World.

Unfortunately it mentions nothing of a spiritual nature whatsoever.

What the value of the book?

[CASteinman]

I could read Tolkein all day

You are a stronger man than I am..

[mfbukowski]

You are a stronger man than I am..

Yeah, actually I must confess I lied.

[CASteinman]

Defend the truth claims of the Church and respond to critics of the Church.

I hope you do not mind if I suggest a bit more granularity:

• To discover new or overlooked insights into the manner in which God works among the Children of Men and to publish those.
  
• To help remove intellectual barriers that prevent individuals from joining with the Saints and following the Savior in service and devotion.
  
• To "lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees" and the faltering testimony of those who struggle.
  
• To identify the efforts of wolves and enemies of the flock and give an alarm.
  
• To defend the Lord's anointed prophets and apostles against slander and evil speaking, that as much as possible false and irresponsible charges do not go unanswered, that the work of the Lord may not be impeded.
  

These are probably contemplated in your words but I wanted to participate -- and hopefully add something of interest or value.

[Ahab]

On my blog here.

http://mormonscriptu...cs-of-richness/

...

Rather than attempting scientific proofs of Mormonism as a previous age tried to do, they point to its cultural depth, its scope, its usefulness, in short, its richness. The unspoken assumption of this rising group is that Mormonism will flourish best if its true nature is uncovered and investigated, not if it is proven perfect and infallible. (http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/the-new-mormon-studies-review/, comment 26

Sounds like a big Duh! moment to me.

Why focus on whether or not something is true if you don't know what value it can add to your life?

Even if it's true that God is our Father and we can become like him (and yes I do know that is true), what does that mean to us if we don't know what he or what his life is like or what it means for him to be our Father? Where is the richness? I know there is some value in knowing whether or not something is true, but even if we know something is true that doesn't necessarily mean a lot to us if we don't know what that truth really means.

[CASteinman]

This sentence strikes me as slightly unfortunate:

"The unspoken assumption of this rising group is that Mormonism will flourish best if its true nature is uncovered and investigated, not if it is proven perfect and infallible."

It presents these two things as somehow being viably opposing perspectives:

"Uncovering and Investigating the True Nature of Mormonism" vs "Proving it is Perfect and Infallible"

And two thoughts come to mind as I examine this dichotomy:

1. Were apologists generally trying to prove that "Mormonism" is "Perfect and Infallible"? Or is that a strawman to beat against?

2. Is the "true nature" of Mormonism really all that secret and obscure that it must be "uncovered and investigated"? Are we lying to the world so that it requires some scholar to reveal our hidden nature?

It seems like such an unfortunate way to present things about "Mormon Studies".

Edited March 29, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bill Hamblin]

I hope you do not mind if I suggest a bit more granularity:

• To discover new or overlooked insights into the manner in which God works among the Children of Men and to publish those.
  
• To help remove intellectual barriers that prevent individuals from joining with the Saints and following the Savior in service and devotion.
  
• To "lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees" and the faltering testimony of those who struggle.
  
• To identify the efforts of wolves and enemies of the flock and give an alarm.
  
• To defend the Lord's anointed prophets and apostles against slander and evil speaking, that as much as possible false and irresponsible charges do not go unanswered, that the work of the Lord may not be impeded.
  

These are probably contemplated in your words but I wanted to participate -- and hopefully add something of interest or value.

Those are certainly hoped for results of apologetics.

[volgadon]

To me, the greatest use of "riches" in apologetics is showing outsiders why something ought to be taken seriously, even if they do not subscribe to its truth claims.

[diahman]

I hope you do not mind if I suggest a bit more granularity:

• To discover new or overlooked insights into the manner in which God works among the Children of Men and to publish those.
  
• To help remove intellectual barriers that prevent individuals from joining with the Saints and following the Savior in service and devotion.
  
• To "lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees" and the faltering testimony of those who struggle.
  
• To identify the efforts of wolves and enemies of the flock and give an alarm.
  
• To defend the Lord's anointed prophets and apostles against slander and evil speaking, that as much as possible false and irresponsible charges do not go unanswered, that the work of the Lord may not be impeded.
  

These are probably contemplated in your words but I wanted to participate -- and hopefully add something of interest or value.

I'm writing with the assumption that Bill's last comment means that he largely agrees with these aims.

I think that a "richness" approach could largely accomplish points 1 and 3; and could likely accomplish point 2 as well (depending on how its done). I don't see point 4 as a necessary part of apologetics (at least a kind of apologetics done at an academic institution); and I'm not too certain about point 5.

I don't see point 4 as necessary because, to draw from an earlier discussion, this is to be a gatekeeper of orthodoxy. It's to determine who is in and who is out. We can respond to claims people make without decrying them as an enemy or wolf. Policing the boundaries of the church is not the job of the apologist. Oddly enough in that previous conversation Bill explicitly denied that this is what apologetics does. Any light you can shed on this, Bill?