CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 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?From what I have seen so far, I think :#1 -- is possible. # 2 -- very unlikely. I am told that these articles may be obtuse even to members and will require them to "stretch". This will be well beyond the average investigator.#3 -- not apparently attempted and probably not possible (See #2 above)#4 -- is necessary. This has nothing to do with gatekeeping, but if you think its all into gatekeeping == well I am fine with that. Then there need to be gatekeepers.#5 -- this is entirely appropriate for apologetics of any kind.
alter idem Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Were apologists generally trying to prove that "Mormonism" is "Perfect and Infallible"? Or is that a strawman to beat against? I would say a strawman. As was mentioned in the blog comments, some may have used this approach, but most were not trying to prove it perfect and infallible.From the quotes Bill provided in his blog, I read the 'new' apologetics as a cop out. It seems that they want to investigate and write about Mormonism in a way that will be acceptable to the world--and won't get them persecuted. 2
diahman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Bill,I noticed this quote on your blog: One cannot proclaim a truth by hiding it. Laozi.Where did you get it? I can't seem to find a source for it.
Bill Hamblin Posted March 30, 2013 Author Posted March 30, 2013 Bill,I noticed this quote on your blog: One cannot proclaim a truth by hiding it. Laozi.Where did you get it? I can't seem to find a source for it.D'oh! I made it up. My apologies to Laozi.
diahman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 From what I have seen so far, I think :#4 -- is necessary. This has nothing to do with gatekeeping, but if you think its all into gatekeeping == well I am fine with that. Then there need to be gatekeepers.I agree that there should indeed be gatekeepers, but I don't see why apologists should be the gatekeepers. Why should they sift the wheat from the tares?
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I agree that there should indeed be gatekeepers, but I don't see why apologists should be the gatekeepers. Why should they sift the wheat from the tares?Because they can... Because they are willing and... Because it is approved of God.
diahman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Because they can... Because they are willing and... Because it is approved of God.So you're saying that God has sanctioned Bill, Dan, and others who self-identify as apologists to determine who is an enemy to the church and who isn't; and who is orthodox and who isn't?Out or curiosity, how does one become an apologist? How does one become part of this group that sifts the wheat from the tares?
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 So you're saying that God has sanctioned Bill, Dan, and others who self-identify as apologists to determine who is an enemy to the church and who isn't; and who is orthodox and who isn't?Sure. They are not the only ones. But they are qualified. However, its not that that they are apologists that makes them qualified. That is not really much of a factor outside of giving them some capabilities. Out or curiosity, how does one become an apologist? Get a strong testimony of the Restored Gospel, study issues raised by the godless, unfaithful, apostates or anti-Mormons and reveal the errors that you find with an eye to strengthening the ability of the Church to accomplish its Holy Mission.How does one become part of this group that sifts the wheat from the tares?Well, that is a different matter.To start, you must adhere to the teachings of the prophets and apostles, including the modern ones, and not seek to excuse disobedience by saying "its not in the scriptures". Nor seek to excuse disobedience upon some slack reason such as "They might be wrong -- well its happened before!". If you want to be disobedient.. that's fine. But you cannot be the gatekeeper of orthodoxy then.There is more beyond this, but that's where you might want to start.
Bill Hamblin Posted March 30, 2013 Author Posted March 30, 2013 So you're saying that God has sanctioned Bill, Dan, and others who self-identify as apologists to determine who is an enemy to the church and who isn't; and who is orthodox and who isn't?Out or curiosity, how does one become an apologist? How does one become part of this group that sifts the wheat from the tares?And who appointed you to decide whom God appointed as apologists? Anyway, I never have made, do not now make, and never will make any claim that God appointed me to be an apologist. I do not try to determine who is an enemy of the Church. I simply express my opinion on issues I find interesting and important. Surely I am allowed to do that? Or did God appoint you to be the gatekeeper of who gets to research issues and express their opinions?
Daniel Peterson Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 No, Bill, you have no right to express your opinions on such matters."All of Dan Peterson's critics are worthless rogues lacking even a scintilla of intellectual integrity." -- Meng Tzu (Mencius)
Bill Hamblin Posted March 30, 2013 Author Posted March 30, 2013 No, Bill, you have no right to express your opinions on such matters."All of Dan Peterson's critics are worthless rogues lacking even a scintilla of intellectual integrity." -- Meng Tzu (Mencius)He who lives in grass house shouldn't get stoned. Confused One.
mfbukowski Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 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.One of the strengths of this position is that one can bracket the entire question of truth claims and see what is available here and now, without worrying about what is technically unknowable except by supernatural means. It presents an Alma 32 proposition- "try it- you'll like it" and THEN the testimony comes later.I honestly one cannot argue against this position without arguing against Alma 32. It says "First experience the richness the gospel will bring your life- and then you will get a testimony". This is the essence of the gospel.
mfbukowski Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 It seems that they want to investigate and write about Mormonism in a way that will be acceptable to the world--and won't get them persecuted.And of course Mormons never do that.
diahman Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 And who appointed you to decide whom God appointed as apologists? I must have missed where I made such a claim. But to stop this talk of 'who's watching the watcher,' my stance is that everyone who makes a claim of any kind makes some kind of claim to authority. The issue is not about being able to avoid claims to authority (since such are inevitable), but about making claims to proper authority and avoiding claims to improper authority. I do not try to determine who is an enemy of the Church. Didn't you just consent to "identifying the efforts of wolves and enemies of the flock and giving an alarm" as one of the "hoped for results of apologetics"? Furthermore, how do you see your usage of terms such as "junta" in describing those you disagree with?Anyway, I never have made, do not now make, and never will make any claim that God appointed me to be an apologist. Causality is not necessarily rooted in intentionality. The fact of the matter is that other LDSs take you as an authoritative agent; authoritative in the sense of acting in behalf of God. How do you take into account the fact that some LDSs will take your opinions of who's a wheat and who's a tare as more than opinion?
MormonMason Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Bill,I noticed this quote on your blog: One cannot proclaim a truth by hiding it. Laozi.Where did you get it? I can't seem to find a source for it.That quote comes quite close to something else I saw elsewhere. But, I do not think it was Laozi--at least so far as I can tell at the moment. There is no source for the statement so it might be original or may have been based upon something that someone read somewhere.One cannot proclaim a truth while holding it in clasped hands behind one's back.http://www.vivamalta.net/VMforum/index.php?topic=7563.msg120127#msg120127The statement is true enough, though.
Recommended Posts