The problem with apologetics.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I hate to say this because I know I'll offend. But IMO, I believe if the church never had apologists, nor the Gospel Topic Essays, many more members would still be in. It's what we don't know can't hurt us. And the websites such as FAIR brought up more things I had never known besides JS's polygamy. As well as the Gospel Topic Essays bring up more than people would have known. 

I don't know if the church needed the GTE's for legal reasons or ? Maybe someone can enlighten me on that. But the more the church responds to critics the worst it is, again IMO.

 

On what basis do you speculate that the gospel topics essays are needed for “legal reasons”? This is the first time I’ve encountered such a notion. 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On what basis do you speculate that the gospel topics essays are needed for “legal reasons”? This is the first time I’ve encountered such a notion. 

I took a wild guess, that's why I asked someone to enlighten me on the why. ETA: Remember when Pres Monson was sued in England (?) and someone saying they didn't know everything before becoming a member? I will have to re-edit my post here with a reference. Scratch that!! I'm thinking more on the lawyer Kay Burningham's suit against the church, I believe. She had one recently and many years ago I think. Maybe @smac97can help me out on this one. And wonder if that is partly the reason for the essays put out in 2013. ETA again: Here is Kay's book listed in 2011, I wonder if it correlates. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0615465897/ref=as_sl_pc_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=mormo-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=&creativeASIN=0615465897

Quote from the intro on Amazon: "But over the past 10-15 years, Mormons have begun to discover facts about LDS history that had only previously been known to very few, mainly scholarly historians of Mormonism. Through the discovery of these primary historical sources, now available on numerous internet sites, most intelligent and curious Mormons have reached a critical point and are furious."

Edited July 16, 2021 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I took a wild guess, that's why I asked someone to enlighten me on the why. ETA: Remember when Pres Monson was sued in England (?) and someone saying they didn't know everything before becoming a member? I will have to re-edit my post here with a reference. Scratch that!! I'm thinking more on the lawyer Kay Burningham's suit against the church, I believe. She had one recently and many years ago I think. Maybe @smac97can help me out on this one. And wonder if that is partly the reason for the essays put out in 2014. 

I think the Church has been quite transparent about the reason for the essays. From the Church website:

In the early 1830s, when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was less than three years old, the Lord invited members of the Church to seek wisdom by study and by the exercise of faith:

“And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).

This is more than a simple exhortation to learn about the gospel. It is an invitation from the Lord to recognize that not all sources of knowledge are equally reliable. Seeking “out of the best books” does not mean seeking only one set of opinions, but it does require us to distinguish between reliable sources and unreliable sources.

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of ChurchofJesusChrist.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine, and practices. Ongoing historical research, revisions of the Church’s curriculum, and the use of new technologies allowing a more systematic and thorough study of scriptures have all been pursued by the Church to that end. We again encourage members to study the Gospel Topics essays cited in the links below as they “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

[Maestrophil]

For me, and I think similar sentiment has already been expressed, apologetics helped me expand my mind to the possibilities that could be - it helped me be less myopic.  I think we as humans can be very set on what is FACT be they pro or anti religion - and their one way of seeing things has to be THE way.  Apologetics within the church (not all apologetics, but most of what I found at FAIR) has helped me to broaden my mind and increase my faith that there are multiple possible explanations for many things, and I don't need to fret if I can't nail one explanation down as fact. I can hold out that the is AN explanation out there somewhere and my faith is sufficient until that truth is revealed to me.  In other words it created fields of plausibility that buttress my faith.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Apologetics is not intended to convince skeptics.

For me that is like saying that science is not intended to convince skeptics. 

It's like saying there is no coherent way to explain what "religious truth" IS, so stop thinking about it.  "Convincing" is one thing though, but to NOT have a paradigm - a path- that explains EVERYTHING, including why there are certain things we do not know, means that one has not thought it through, and there could be lurking a huge hidden hole in the logic somewhere.

Science has its mysteries too- but that is because they have "yet" to be explained.   I feel that is a perfect analogy for the gospel as well.   Of course we do not know how resurrection works, but that is for the future- and we know that.  We are not there!

But to say it is "not intended" to be a systematic view I think is false.

For me there are no holes in my view of religious epistemology. I may be wrong, but please find the holes so I can learn more.

  Yes there are ideas we do not understand, as there are ideas in science that no one understands, but that is the purpose of science. 

If apologetics can't answer the tough skeptics, from my way of seeing it, it is ultimately worthless babble.  Either the arguments are conclusive imo or why bother?

The same anti-gospel argument still makes sense unless it is answered precisely FOR skeptics.

They may disagree forever but at least there IS an argument to disagree with.

[the narrator]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course we do not know how resurrection works

Part of the problem is that nobody seems to quite know what resurrection even is, outside of some vague and generalized claim about a body* being raised** from the dead in perfection***.

*undefined

**undefined

***undefined

 

[Stargazer]

46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Part of the problem is that nobody seems to quite know what resurrection even is, outside of some vague and generalized claim about a body* being raised** from the dead in perfection***.

*undefined

**undefined

***undefined

 

To a fan of quantum mechanics like myself, resurrection means to have a body like God's. Good luck describing that.  

[Tweed1944]

Does anyone know this reviewer?

https://www.amazon.com/Hypocephalus-Egyptian-Funerary-Archaeopress-Egyptology/dp/1789693330?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_dp

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Part of the problem is that nobody seems to quite know what resurrection even is, outside of some vague and generalized claim about a body* being raised** from the dead in perfection***.

*undefined

**undefined

***undefined

 

Yep- that's the problem exactly.

So my remedy would be for someone to create a possible paradigm - consistent with scripture, or it ain't goin nowhere within the "gospel paradigm"- and then discuss it.  But of course a "quasi scientific" explanation- in my opinion- would not work because yet again it confuses spiritual feelings and "what works" in giving our lives meaning with an explanation of energy fields- or who knows what.   We, as a scientific generation in a scientific culture always want mechanics described instead of seeing things as experiences which change our core being about the meaning of life, etc.

 IMO the question ought to be how does the belief FUNCTION in giving our lives meaning- what does the belief we are creating, through spiritual hermeneutics, do for us to give our lives meaning- THAT is what is needed, imo.

So what does the notion of resurrection mean to us phenomenologically?  What does it do for our experience of the gospel?   How does the interpretation of a particular scripture  affect that phenomenologcal experience?   In the example of the resurrection and the definition of "body" are we talking "spiritual bodies"- perhaps the notion that ideas  and philosophies never perish- a "body of work" for example- or "The Word made flesh" perhaps connecting in there somewhere- or some other paradigm for what the author thinks the scripture "really means"?   Or are we talking maybe about "more refined matter" calling out to the original atoms of my body and unifying them somehow?   (I don't believe either of these personally-)

But IMO creating a spiritual paradigm based on scripture, for all those terms including your missing definitions would be PART of what good apologietics should be.  Without some kind of coherent way of interpreting scripture indicating a point of view that resolves all the issues- we will be stuck continuing worrying about the credibility of people who lived nearly 200 years ago.

[Meadowchik]

On 7/15/2021 at 12:22 PM, Rivers said:

Are there ways to do apologetics better?

Maybe not.

Instead, sit in the unknown and become more comfortable with uncertainty.

Focus on core spiritual priorities. That's somewhere to start.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If apologetics can't answer the tough skeptics, from my way of seeing it, it is ultimately worthless babble.  Either the arguments are conclusive imo or why bother?

It is not a worthless babble. It does provide plausible answers for a lot of questions raised by critics. But, if either side had conclusive arguments, we would not even be having this conversation. The affair would be settled, one way or the other. I have found that most skeptics are of the Dale Morgan variety.

Quote

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church. Dale Morgan

And that is why we will never have any type of "conclusive arguments" from either side, but skeptics will continue to launch broadsides and apologetics will continue to seek plausible answers.

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe not.

Instead, sit in the unknown and become more comfortable with uncertainty.

Focus on core spiritual priorities. That's somewhere to start.

Honestly this is good advice. At times in my interactions with criticism and apologetics my grip on the point of spirituality in general has slipped for a bit and that's never fun.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe not.

Instead, sit in the unknown and become more comfortable with uncertainty.

Focus on core spiritual priorities. That's somewhere to start.

 

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Honestly this is good advice. At times in my interactions with criticism and apologetics my grip on the point of spirituality in general has slipped for a bit and that's never fun.

Focusing on spiritual priorities is good, but, realistically speaking, can be easier said than done when assaults on one’s faith by critics cause one to slip from spiritual moorings. At such times, apologetics can be a lifeline to help one regain stability. 

[the narrator]

On 7/16/2021 at 5:57 PM, mfbukowski said:

 IMO the question ought to be how does the belief FUNCTION in giving our lives meaning- what does the belief we are creating, through spiritual hermeneutics, do for us to give our lives meaning- THAT is what is needed, imo.

 

Bingo.

BTW, if you haven't read any D.Z. Philips then you ought to. Much of his work is around this issue. For this discussion in particular I suggest Death and Immortality. His Religion and Friend Fire is also on point on this.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

Bingo.

BTW, if you haven't read any D.Z. Philips then you ought to. Much of his work is around this issue. For this discussion in particular I suggest Death and Immortality. His Religion and Friend Fire is also on point on this.

Thanks for the tip- I'll check it out!

Really that IS the view of "American Philosophy" starting with Peirce and William James - Peirce had no real understanding of God or religion but James was right on point.  To simplify his position perhaps to the point of distorting it- calling a religion "true" meant that it functioned properly in giving you the meaning in life that you craved.  He of course was the modern father of Psychology, and so of course the psychological effects one received from a belief was primary.   In our age of scientism, our "faith in science" has become a religion--science is seen as omniSCIENT, and for many, that gives them peace and certainty in life.  But we are social beings and our emotions are based around human values and the parent/child relationship, and so it becomes quite expected that the "big people" who take care of us would be seen as parents who give us warm feelings of love when we interact with them.

But that does not mean they are, or are not "real". 

That's a question for faith.

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

BTW, if you haven't read any D.Z. Philips then you ought to

I did a little checking- holy cow how did I miss this guy?  Claremont and Wittgenstein?  Oy Vey! 

[the narrator]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I did a little checking- holy cow how did I miss this guy?  Claremont and Wittgenstein?  Oy Vey! 

He was the main reason I wanted to go to Claremont, but unfortunately he passed away before then. I did have the opportunity to sit in a couple of his classes before that though.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But that does not mean they are, or are not "real". 

DZ's Religion and the Hermeneutics of Contemplation deals a lot with this.

As you can tell, I'm a big fan of him, and my own Wittgensteinian philosophy comes largely through DZ and his mentor Rush Rhess (who he affectionately called "my teacher"), both of whom heavily applied Wittgenstein to the philosophy of religion.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, the narrator said:

He was the main reason I wanted to go to Claremont, but unfortunately he passed away before then. I did have the opportunity to sit in a couple of his classes before that though.

DZ's Religion and the Hermeneutics of Contemplation deals a lot with this.

As you can tell, I'm a big fan of him, and my own Wittgensteinian philosophy comes largely through DZ and his mentor Rush Rhess (who he affectionately called "my teacher"), both of whom heavily applied Wittgenstein to the philosophy of religion.

I had no idea that was your background!

Wittgenstein was largely the reason I left academia to get myself an honest job.

He solved it. All of it, imo. What is left is what you do with that way of seeing. Once you get it, there's no going back!

[Tweed1944]

Follow Philosopher Snoopy\https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cdOwgBJaECGEzol2pwYiAGoxgAFNBoVD-8ke5C5URF0/edit

[bOObOO]

On 7/15/2021 at 10:22 AM, Rivers said:

Don’t get me wrong.  I have great respect for apologists in the church.  Some of them have been very helpful to me.

However I recently heard an interesting point made by Terryl Givens(I’m not whether I would label him an apologist or not).

He said that when you base a testimony on an apologetic argument, that particular argument could later turn out to be incorrect.  
 

For example, you could believe an argument that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known something about Abrahamic traditions found in the Book of Abraham.  This is like a God of the Gaps argument because you later learn that Joseph did have that information available.

Are there ways to do apologetics better?

 

 

 

 

Apologetics is all about sharing our reasoning regarding what we believe and why we believe what we believe, so the best way to do apologetics is in whatever way helps to share that reasoning with others who seem interesting in hearing our reasoning.

PETER 3:15
KJ21
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.
ASV
but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear:
AMP
But in your hearts set Christ apart [as holy—acknowledging Him, giving Him first place in your lives] as Lord. Always be ready to give a [logical] defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope and confident assurance [elicited by faith] that is within you, yet [do it] with gentleness and respect.
AMPC
But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.
BRG
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
CSB
but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.
CEB
Instead, regard Christ the Lord as holy in your hearts. Whenever anyone asks you to speak of your hope, be ready to defend it.
CJB
but treat the Messiah as holy, as Lord in your hearts; while remaining always ready to give a reasoned answer to anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you — yet with humility and fear,
CEV
Honor Christ and let him be the Lord of your life. Always be ready to give an answer when someone asks you about your hope.
DARBY
but sanctify [the] Lord the Christ in your hearts, and [be] always prepared to [give] an answer [to] every one that asks you to give an account of the hope that [is] in you, but with meekness and fear;
DLNT
but set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts, being ready always for a defense to everyone asking you a reason for the hope in you,
DRA
But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.
ERV
But keep the Lord Christ holy in your hearts. Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have.
EHV
But regard the Lord, the Christ, as holy in your hearts. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you.
ESV
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
ESVUK
but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
EXB
But ·respect Christ as the holy Lord [L sanctify Christ as Lord; Is. 8:13] in your hearts [C that is, acknowledge his holiness and sovereignty in your life]. Always be ready to ·answer [or give a defense to] everyone who asks you to explain about the hope ·you have [L that is in you],
GNV
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and reverence.
GW
But dedicate your lives to Christ as Lord. Always be ready to defend your confidence ⌞in God⌟ when anyone asks you to explain it. However, make your defense with gentleness and respect.
GNT
But have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and honor him as Lord. Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you,
HCSB
but honor the Messiah as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.
ICB
But respect Christ as the holy Lord in your hearts.” Isaiah 8:12-13 Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have.
ISV
Instead, exalt the Messiah” as Lord in your lives. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you to explain the hope you have.
PHILLIPS
After all, who in the ordinary way is likely to injure you for being enthusiastic for good? And if it should happen that you suffer “for righteousness’ sake”, that is a privilege. You need neither fear their threats nor worry about them; simply concentrate on being completely devoted to Christ in your hearts. Be ready at any time to give a quiet and reverent answer to any man who wants a reason for the hope that you have within you. Make sure that your conscience is perfectly clear, so that if men should speak slanderously of you as rogues they may come to feel ashamed of themselves for libelling your good Christian behaviour.
JUB
but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to respond to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and reverence,
KJV
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
AKJV
but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
LEB
but set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense to anyone who asks you for an accounting concerning the hope that is in you.
TLB
Quietly trust yourself to Christ your Lord, and if anybody asks why you believe as you do, be ready to tell him, and do it in a gentle and respectful way.
MSG
If with heart and soul you’re doing good, do you think you can be stopped? Even if you suffer for it, you’re still better off. Don’t give the opposition a second thought. Through thick and thin, keep your hearts at attention, in adoration before Christ, your Master. Be ready to speak up and tell anyone who asks why you’re living the way you are, and always with the utmost courtesy. Keep a clear conscience before God so that when people throw mud at you, none of it will stick. They’ll end up realizing that they’re the ones who need a bath. It’s better to suffer for doing good, if that’s what God wants, than to be punished for doing bad. That’s what Christ did definitively: suffered because of others’ sins, the Righteous One for the unrighteous ones. He went through it all—was put to death and then made alive—to bring us to God.
MEV
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Always be ready to give an answer to every man who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, with gentleness and fear.
MOUNCE
but · in · your hearts set apart Christ as Lord, being ready at all times to make a defense to all who ask you for a word concerning the hope that is in you.
NOG
But dedicate your lives to Christ as Lord. Always be ready to defend your confidence in God when anyone asks you to explain it. However, make your defense with gentleness and respect.
NABRE
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,
NASB
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect;
NASB1995
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
NCB
Rather, revere Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be prepared to offer an explanation to anyone who asks you to justify the hope that is in you. However, do so with gentleness and respect
NCV
But respect Christ as the holy Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have,
NET
But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess.
NIRV
But make sure that in your hearts you honor Christ as Lord. Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have. Be ready to give the reason for it. But do it gently and with respect.
NIV
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
NIVUK
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
NKJV
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
NLV
Your heart should be holy and set apart for the Lord God. Always be ready to tell everyone who asks you why you believe as you do. Be gentle as you speak and show respect.
NLT
Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your hope as a believer, always be ready to explain it.
NMB
but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts.  Be ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you – and that with meekness and fear,
NRSV
but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you;
NRSVA
but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is in you;
NRSVACE
but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is in you;
NRSVCE
but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you;
NTE
Sanctify the Messiah as Lord in your hearts, and always be ready to make a reply to anyone who asks you to explain the hope that is in you.
OJB
But reverence in your levavot Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach as Adoneinu, prepared always for a hitstaddekut (an apologetic defense) to everyone coming to you with a she’elah (question), ready with a word concerning the tikvah in you,
TPT
But give reverent honor in your hearts to the Anointed One and treat him as the holy Master of your lives. And if anyone asks about the hope living within you, always be ready to explain your faith
RGT
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give an answer - with humility and respect - to everyone who asks you the Reason for the hope that is in you;
RSV
but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
RSVCE
but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
TLV
Instead sanctify Messiah as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you,
VOICE
but exalt Him as Lord in your heart. Always be ready to offer a defense, humbly and respectfully, when someone asks why you live in hope. Keep your conscience clear so that those who ridicule your good conduct in the Anointed and say bad things about you will be put to shame.
WEB
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear,
WE
Worship Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have. But be gentle and respect him.
WYC
But hallow ye the Lord Christ in your hearts, and evermore be ye ready to [do] satisfaction to each man asking you reason of that faith and hope that is in you, but with mildness and dread,
YLT
and the Lord God sanctify in your hearts. And [be] ready always for defence to every one who is asking of you an account concerning the hope that [is] in you, with meekness and fear;

[Warlock]

58 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Apologetics is all about sharing our reasoning regarding what we believe and why we believe what we believe, so the best way to do apologetics is in whatever way helps to share that reasoning with others who seem interesting in hearing our reasoning.

Another  Exceptional post

[Esrom]

On 7/16/2021 at 11:35 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, I’m unaware of any good Latter-day Saint apologist who would dismiss or dispute the idea that an individual spiritual witness is the only ultimately acceptable means of arriving at the truth of the Restoration. Apologetics can help us remain on stable ground as we try to arrive there. 

The critics refute a testimony basis for belief in a doctrine, book of scripture, or historical event as terminally flawed because it's based (in their view) entirely on subjective feelings which could be duplicated by followers of a variety of religions.  When apologetic arguments are utilized, they often claim "mental gymnastics" are being employed.  It's essentially a no win scenario for the believer, and I'm kind of done with it.

[Navidad]

I think we would do apologetics better when we approach its use as a seeker. We err when we approach it as one who is has already found the truth and is simply trying to enlighten the "less than," "skeptic," or "doubter" with our unassailable brilliance. Some of the orthodox Christian apologetes I have known have sought to distance or separate themselves from intimate relationships, using their  charm, charisma, certitude, or brilliance to build walls of personal and emotional safety. 

I went to an evangelical university at a time of great apologetic fervor. The "Battle for the Bible" was at its apex. Almost all of those who were the examples of evangelical brilliance that we looked up to, end up being examples of disappointment and personal failures. They utilized their brilliance to hide their own faults. In defending their faith, they never are called on to defend themselves. Thus, they find safety. I prefer those who assure as opposed to those who assail.

I have no idea if that is true with LDS apologetes. I don't know any personally. My favorite LDS gurus who I do know are kind, friendly, inclusive and who want to listen (they have needs to know and understand) as much as I do. I have problems with apologetes of any faith who already have the answer . . . complemented with no interest in learning anything themselves from the discussion. They already have the truth. Their goal is to instruct not to inquire. Thanks for letting me chime in

.  

[bOObOO]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think we would do apologetics better when we approach its use as a seeker. We err when we approach it as one who is has already found the truth and is simply trying to enlighten the "less than," "skeptic," or "doubter" with our unassailable brilliance. Some of the orthodox Christian apologetes I have known have sought to distance or separate themselves from intimate relationships, using their  charm, charisma, certitude, or brilliance to build walls of personal and emotional safety. 

I went to an evangelical university at a time of great apologetic fervor. The "Battle for the Bible" was at its apex. Almost all of those who were the examples of evangelical brilliance that we looked up to, end up being examples of disappointment and personal failures. They utilized their brilliance to hide their own faults. In defending their faith, they never are called on to defend themselves. Thus, they find safety. I prefer those who assure as opposed to those who assail.

I have no idea if that is true with LDS apologetes. I don't know any personally. My favorite LDS gurus who I do know are kind, friendly, inclusive and who want to listen (they have needs to know and understand) as much as I do. I have problems with apologetes of any faith who already have the answer . . . complemented with no interest in learning anything themselves from the discussion. They already have the truth. Their goal is to instruct not to inquire. Thanks for letting me chime in

.  

The point of apologetics is to share our reasoning for our beliefs, though, as we are counseled "to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have". 

It's not about speculating with others, wondering why we should believe something while trying to find a reason to believe whatever we should belief.  Apologetics is an end game activity, while already having our reasons.

[Teancum]

On 7/15/2021 at 2:40 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree that, in engaging in apologetics, one must take great care that one's zeal does not exceed one's knowledge (see Romans 10:2), that one should not overstate the evidence, and that one should be mindful always of the potentially changing state of the evidence from one moment to the next. 

That said, I see no reason why one should avoid engaging in reasonable extrapolations of the evidence to provide plausible explanations for what, as yet, we don't know for certain, why opponents of the Church of Jesus Christ (both within and without the Church) should be allowed what Elder Neal A. Maxwell called "uncontested slam dunks," why we should not, in Orson Scott Card's words, encourage those who doubt to doubt their doubts and to question their questions rather than doubting or questioning their faith, or why we should not employ Austin Farrer's dictum:

I am indebted to Daniel C. Peterson for providing the source of the quote from Farrer, which I got from here: Daniel C. Peterson (November 17, 2016), "The many uses of 'apologetics," Deseret News, accessed on line at https://www.deseret.com/2016/11/17/20600667/the-many-uses-of-apologetics, last accessed July 15, 2021.  As usual, Professor (Emeritus, alas!) Peterson's column is worth a read in its entirety.

See this is the problem with apologetics.  You start with the position that what to defend is true. You are not able to start out with the position that it may or may not be true and you are open to following the evidence wherever it may lead. There is much you don't know for certain.  Yet the apologist acts with certainty and is only interested is some small level of plausibility so anything that helps that is seized upon.  

The comment by Card is ludicrous by the way. What a fine example of mental gymnastics.