Is scholarly apologetics neccesary?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Neither of us can.  But I did provide a quote by Elder Ballard regarding how LDS posters should behave online.  I guess you can decide whether you and others here fall outside of what he suggests.  Personally I think my assumption is accurate.

The bulk of what I see on this board in the way of defending the faith would not be incompatible with what Elder Ballard said. Your negative application of it is subjective and not probative.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

Apologetics gets the discussion started, ...

I don't understand this statement. For there to be a defense there has to have been an attack -- and that means the conversation has already been started, by the attacker.

Quote

... but I find a lot of it has the sole agenda of defending the church rather than finding the truth.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a defender who did not think that, in the process of defending the Church, he was defending the truth. For my part, if there were ever an instance when I didn't think defense of the Church was serving the cause of truth, I wouldn't engage in it.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The bulk of what I see on this board in the way of defending the faith would not be incompatible with what Elder Ballard said. Your negative application of it is subjective and not probative.

I view it is very incompatible. Your positive application is as subjective as mine.   But I already said as much.   You simply keep repeating this and acting as if your views are not. 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't understand this statement. For there to be a defense there has to have been an attack -- and that means the conversation has already been started, by the attacker.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a defender who did not think that, in the process of defending the Church, he was defending the truth. For my part, if there were ever an instance when I didn't think defense of the Church was serving the cause of truth, I wouldn't engage in it.

Hear, hear!

That's why the hackneyed anti-Mormon cliche "I'm not anti-Mormon, I'm pro-truth" is an example of begging the question.

[Bernard Gui]

An anecdotal thumbs up for humble apologists...

My daughter Bellisima struggled with the recent policy clarifications on ssm. A number of her best friends were vocally and angrily critical, and she was teetering on the edge of joining with them. A good Mormon friend of ours who is gay and was previously active in LDS same sex organizations wrote a simple declaration that we shared with her to the effect that "I learned long ago and from sad experience that I should follow the prophets in this." This comment resolved the issue for her when prayer did not. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Quote

 

Teancum said:

We all have bias I suppose.   Nor can you know they would.  The premis of Robert's posts seemed to imply such.  Thus my response.   I don't see that as poisoning the well at all.  I will own it as my opinion.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. But you asserted it was "accurate," implying it was more than just subjective opinion but objective statement of fact -- which you can't say absent a direct attestation by the Brethren themselves. 

I'm glad that Teancum is willing to own his audacious presumption.  I, on the other hand, never implied that the Brethren would necessarily be happy with the rough and tumble nature of this particular board, and I doubt that they pay a lick of attention to what goes on here (except to admire the work of The Nehor ).  At least we are more civilized than many other religious discussion boards.  We all need to accept responsibility for what we say and how we say it here.  Teancum doesn't like the tone, or thinks that the Brethren wouldn't like the tone, and I agree that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.  Yet we have visitors who come here to make trouble and engage in name-calling, while some of our regulars get downright surly and short-tempered.  Then feelings get hurt, and somebody might get bounced out of here for awhile.  The mods try to run a tight ship, and do a pretty good job.  Otherwise I wouldn't bother to come here.

Brigham Young happily sponsored a famous debate in 1870 in the SLC Tabernacle between Orson Pratt and the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate John P. Newman, and both were well qualified.  Pratt won the debate (in the judgment of the late Prof L. Zucker of the Univ. of Utah).  Pratt simply knew more about Hebrew, plus being right to begin with.  We have also seen the great 1955 debate between Hugh Nibley and Sterling McMurrin.  These were gentlemanly debates, and we need to take them as examplars for us all.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm glad that Teancum is willing to own his audacious presumption.  I, on the other hand, never implied that the Brethren would necessarily be happy with the rough and tumble nature of this particular board, and I doubt that they pay a lick of attention to what goes on here (except to admire the work of The Nehor ).  At least we are more civilized than many other religious discussion boards.  We all need to accept responsibility for what we say and how we say it here.  Teancum doesn't like the tone, or thinks that the Brethren wouldn't like the tone, and I agree that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.  Yet we have visitors who come here to make trouble and engage in name-calling, while some of our regulars get downright surly and short-tempered.  Then feelings get hurt, and somebody might get bounced out of here for awhile.  The mods try to run a tight ship, and do a pretty good job.  Otherwise I wouldn't bother to come here.

Brigham Young happily sponsored a famous debate in 1870 in the SLC Tabernacle between Orson Pratt and the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate John P. Newman, and both were well qualified.  Pratt won the debate (in the judgment of the late Prof L. Zucker of the Univ. of Utah).  Pratt simply knew more about Hebrew, plus being right to begin with.  We have also seen the great 1955 debate between Hugh Nibley and Sterling McMurrin.  These were gentlemanly debates, and we need to take them as examplars for us all.

I find much wisdom in your post above. I often own it when my tone digresses. And I think I try to do better when I note it or when others politely note it. 

Maybe I am deluded and just rotten and cantankerous.   I know some here feel that way about me. But if I ever respond in like kind to a strident defender I get called on it quickly.

Honestly I wonder if I have worn out me welcome here.   Or if being here simply adds to my negative feelings about the church and religion in general.   

Perhaps I should try the practice of Lent which starts this coming Wednesday and give up participation here for a time. Goodness knows I could do a lot of things with the time I would free up.

 

[Freedom]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't understand this statement. For there to be a defense there has to have been an attack -- and that means the conversation has already been started, by the attacker.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a defender who did not think that, in the process of defending the Church, he was defending the truth. For my part, if there were ever an instance when I didn't think defense of the Church was serving the cause of truth, I wouldn't engage in it.

 

 

Before apologetics got going, there was no discussion. It was all very on-sided. Now mormons have something to talk about because they can see their side of the argument. I see apologetic as very one sided, focused on defending the faith. I do not find it objective. They are presenting the lds perspective, gleaning references that support their position and ignoring those that don't. They are not, for example, trying to reveal the doctrines of the Church Fathers, rather they are trying only to show where the Church Fathers agree with LDS doctrine. 

[Russell C McGregor]

8 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Before apologetics got going, there was no discussion. It was all very on-sided. Now mormons have something to talk about because they can see their side of the argument. I see apologetic as very one sided, focused on defending the faith. I do not find it objective.

But Freedom; one of the most fruitful discoveries of the last 20 years or so is that nobody is objective.

And not only that, but objectivity isn't even desirable in any scholarly endeavour.

8 minutes ago, Freedom said:

They are presenting the lds perspective,

Yes, and hooray for that!

8 minutes ago, Freedom said:

gleaning references that support their position and ignoring those that don't. They are not, for example, trying to reveal the doctrines of the Church Fathers, rather they are trying only to show where the Church Fathers agree with LDS doctrine. 

Well, there are scholars who are interested in a more holistic view of the teachings of the Church Fathers. But even they have to have some frame of reference somewhere; everyone needs to be able to refer back to something within our own experience in order to make sense of what we are reading.

But an LDS-apologetic use of the Latin and Greek Fathers is not wrong; it's simply another way to make use of them.

[CV75]

On 2/5/2016 at 0:19 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Are rational arguments that maintain a climate in which belief may flourish necessary? 

Yes, that is how the faith-knowledge dynamo works (Alma 32). It is also how spiritual life and physical life become united as one. Often a natural man must be spoken to in his language (rational intellect, irrational emotion)  in order to make him as a little child so that the Lord can get his spiritual attention so that he can yield to His enticing and get things moving forward.

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But Freedom; one of the most fruitful discoveries of the last 20 years or so is that nobody is objective.

 

But an LDS-apologetic use of the Latin and Greek Fathers is not wrong; it's simply another way to make use of them.

I am not arguing they are wrong, rather I am arguing that they are focused on a specific goal. The church is true, and they will find the evidence to support this claim. They are responding to critics rather responding to the primary sources. I would not read apologetic material to find out what the most current research is on the meaning of Genesis Chapter 1, but I would read an apologists to find out the flaws in arguments that use Genesis Chapter 1 against my religion. An apologist does not seek to find out the most accurate translation of Gen 1 and what the passage would have meant to an ancient audience, rather the apologist is seeking to find scholarship that supports LDS (or catholic, or muslim) doctrine. An apologist does not care if there are 100 scholars that disagree, they are looking for the 1 or 2 who do agree no matter how obscure. Apologetics is a very specific type of research. It starts with a conclusion and sets out to find the evidence to support the conclusion. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

I find much wisdom in your post above. I often own it when my tone digresses. And I think I try to do better when I note it or when others politely note it. 

Maybe I am deluded and just rotten and cantankerous.   I know some here feel that way about me. But if I ever respond in like kind to a strident defender I get called on it quickly.

Honestly I wonder if I have worn out me welcome here.   Or if being here simply adds to my negative feelings about the church and religion in general.   

Perhaps I should try the practice of Lent which starts this coming Wednesday and give up participation here for a time. Goodness knows I could do a lot of things with the time I would free up.

I did that once for about six months.  Felt I needed to reflect on my own attitude (several people here called me on it), and I think that I came back the better for it.  Maybe even having improved, but still far from perfect.  It was a learning experience.