The purpose of apologetics for the CoJCoLDS

[_Chap]

This post seems important enough to warrant a thread of its own to discuss its implications:

"Mormon apologetics is entirely concerned about trying to convince already-believing Latter-day Saints that there is enough reasonable doubt about whether the truth claims of the Church stand up to scrutiny that the supposed doubts should be resolved in favor of the Church."

More accurately: Mormon apologetics is entirely concerned with demonstrating, to both Latter-day Saints and fair-minded non-Latter-day Saints, that there is enough evidence for the fundamental truth claims of the Church to provide a reasonable basis for exercising faith in them, and that arguments leveled against fundamental truth-claims of the Church do not prove the falsehood of those claims.

Now it seems clear that if there is a body of people, formally or informally constituted in order to practise "Mormon apologetics" as set out in DCP's post above, and if that practice has as its aim to demonstrate "to both Latter-day Saints and fair-minded non-Latter-day Saints, that there is enough evidence for the fundamental truth claims of the Church to provide a reasonable basis for exercising faith in them, and that arguments leveled against fundamental truth-claims of the Church do not prove the falsehood of those claims", then there has to be some way in which that body of apologetic practitioners are made aware what, at any given moment, are "the fundamental truth claims of the Church". For otherwise they could not reasonably begin the task of defending those fundamental truth claims.

Now if I was a Roman Catholic apologist, setting myself to do for the 'fundamental truth claims' of my church the job set out above in the case of the CoJCoLDS, it would not be difficult to find out what those claims were. I need only look at the following Papal statement, which takes the form of a 'Motu Proprio' - you can see it all here on the Vatican website. These are the crucial parts of the text of the document for the present purpose:

MOTU PROPRIO

for the approval and publication
of the Compendium
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and to all the People of God.
….

The Compendium, which I now present to the Universal Church, is a faithful and sure synthesis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains, in concise form, all the essential and fundamental elements of the Church’s faith, thus constituting, as my Predecessor had wished, a kind of vademecum which allows believers and non-believers alike to behold the entire panorama of the Catholic faith.
….

Through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church, may everyone who reads this authoritative text recognize and embrace ever more fully the inexhaustible beauty, uniqueness and significance of the incomparable Gift which God has made to the human race in His only Son, Jesus Christ, the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” (Jn 14:6).

Given on 28 June 2005, the vigil of the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the first year of my Pontificate.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

The compendium itself is also available online.

From this it is clear that if a believing Roman Catholic wants to know what the Pope thinks are the "essential and fundamental elements of the Church’s faith", he or she knows exactly where to look for an full statement made with his entire authority.

Supposing that a believing member of the CoJCoLDS wishes to be active in apologetics, and thus to set about the task of:

... demonstrating, to both Latter-day Saints and fair-minded non-Latter-day Saints, that there is enough evidence for the fundamental truth claims of the Church to provide a reasonable basis for exercising faith in them, and that arguments leveled against fundamental truth-claims of the Church do not prove the falsehood of those claims.

How may he or she ascertain in a reliable manner what, at the moment when the question arises, the "fundamental truth claims' of the CoJCoLDS are?

[I use the phrase 'at the moment when the question arises' deliberately and for obvious reasons that should need no explanation on this board.]

[_EAllusion]

I think DCP was just offering a standard definition of apologetics. You could excise the word "fundamental" and not lose anything. Not all religions have anything resembling a formal doctrine. I don't think you can count the LDS faith among those so inclined, but it's not hard to imagine apologists defending merely their understanding of what their religion teaches. To be on the same page, apologists need to agree about their theology as much as their arguments in defense of it.

[_Chap]

Please excuse me for dealing with your points one after another on this occasion. I hope you will agree that this does not distort the points you were making.

I think DCP was just offering a standard definition of apologetics.

I am confused. Do you think that DCP did not intend that I should take his statement seriously, especially since he offered it as a correction to another definition that he evidently considered incorrect?

You could excise the word "fundamental" and not lose anything.

I agree. Please re-read my post with 'truth claims' in place of 'fundamental truth claims', if you prefer it. I was just using the words that DCP offered, since I thought it polite to pose my question in the same terms as his statement.

Not all religions have anything resembling a formal doctrine. I don't think you can count the LDS faith among those so inclined, but it's not hard to imagine apologists defending merely their understanding of what their religion teaches. ...

DCP referred to "the fundamental truth claims of the Church". I cannot see how that kind of expression, with or without the word 'fundamental' can be compatible with the view that there is no reliable means of ascertaining what those claims are.

[_sock puppet]

Mormon apologetics are simply in a reactionary mode. If an ex-Mo or someone else levels a criticism against some tenet of Mormon belief or practice, the the mopologists step up to tackle it. It is this reactionary mode that gives the sense to the observer that the mopologists will die on every hill. And that is precisely because the Mormon papacy in the COB won't issue a compendium of fundamental Mormon doctrines developed to the extent that the Catholic Church has. Perhaps the difference is the respective ages of the two churches, perhaps the different eras in which each was originated (and then first attempted to be intellectualized).

I think that the only line in doctrine that the Mormon church is willing to draw in the sand is around its canon of scripture, and it even allows for errancy there.

I would be curious how vague or how detailed the entries in a list composed by DCP of fundamental truth claims of the Mormon Church would actually be. Would a DCP list comport with a Will Schryver list or a Bob Crockett list?

[_harmony]

Apologists defend what they understand as the truth. That they don't always agree is why we have some interesting discussions.

Since the church has no interest in apologetics, the defending of the faith is left to those who are interested. Assuming there is some official stamp of approval on anyone's apologetics would be a mistake. There is none.

[_Chap]

Mormon apologetics are simply in a reactionary mode. If an ex-Mo or someone else levels a criticism against some tenet of Mormon belief or practice, the the mopologists step up to tackle it. It is this reactionary mode that gives the sense to the observer that the mopologists will die on every hill. ...

This view does seem to me to be quite consistent with some aspects of Mormon apologetic activity. But I think it could be made consistent with DCP's statement of aims above, by adding a clause as follows:

DCP: "the fundamental truth claims of the Church"

modified DCP "the fundamental truth claims of the Church that have been attacked by critics"

The problem would however remain - how does an apologist decide when "fundamental truth claims of the Church" have been attacked, as opposed to superficial features not worth defending?

One would not for instance expect to see apologists writing articles to defend their taste for green Jello, even if critics attacked this typically Mormon food item in a most immoderate and intolerant manner.

[_stemelbow]

How may he or she ascertain in a reliable manner what, at the moment when the question arises, the "fundamental truth claims' of the CoJCoLDS are?

Why not take the 13 articles of faith as the fundamental truth claims? I see nothing more official, nothing so exquisitely concise, and yet seems to cover much, if not all, of the fundamentals. I suppose critics wish to criticize beyond the fundamentals mentioned there, and that's fine. But in light of DCP's statement, if we take it as a considered view, and not an ad hoc response, unofficially, in a discussion board, then it seems plausible that the task of apologists is not so much to quibble over every little thing a critic may wish to offer as complaints, but it is to offer reasonable arguments to demonstrate the fundamentals present a viable belief system.

[_harmony]

One would not for instance expect to see apologists writing articles to defend their taste for green Jello, even if critics attacked this typically Mormon food item in a most immoderate and intolerant manner.

Dumb, Chap. Green jello is cultural, not doctrinal (or even part of the truth).

I'm sure you can find a better example.

[_sock puppet]

Mormon apologetics are simply in a reactionary mode. If an ex-Mo or someone else levels a criticism against some tenet of Mormon belief or practice, the the mopologists step up to tackle it. It is this reactionary mode that gives the sense to the observer that the mopologists will die on every hill. ...

This view does seem to me to be quite consistent with some aspects of Mormon apologetic activity. But I think it could be made consistent with DCP's statement of aims above, by adding a clause as follows:

DCP: "the fundamental truth claims of the Church"

modified DCP "the fundamental truth claims of the Church that have been attacked by critics"

The problem would however remain - how does an apologist decide when "fundamental truth claims of the Church" have been attacked, as opposed to superficial features not worth defending?

One would not for instance expect to see apologists writing articles to defend their taste for green Jello, even if critics attacked this typically Mormon food item in a most immoderate and intolerant manner.

True, but one of the apologetic tactics is to draw back the circumference of "fundamental truth claims" further in response to each valid criticism that cannot be validly explained by the apologist against a standard of reason and logic. I suppose one might replace fundamental so that it ultimately reads the "unfalsifiable truth claims." That may be all that there is for fundamental truth claims at the end of the day. After all, that JSJr was not translating but just receiving inspiration with the props (gold plates, Egyptian papyrus) as a catalyst, and that even the Book of Mormon is merely a literary allegorical story have crept into the mopologetic lexicon.

[_stemelbow]

Mormon apologetics are simply in a reactionary mode. If an ex-Mo or someone else levels a criticism against some tenet of Mormon belief or practice, the the mopologists step up to tackle it. It is this reactionary mode that gives the sense to the observer that the mopologists will die on every hill. And that is precisely because the Mormon papacy in the COB won't issue a compendium of fundamental Mormon doctrines developed to the extent that the Catholic Church has. Perhaps the difference is the respective ages of the two churches, perhaps the different eras in which each was originated (and then first attempted to be intellectualized).

I think that the only line in doctrine that the Mormon church is willing to draw in the sand is around its canon of scripture, and it even allows for errancy there.

I would be curious how vague or how detailed the entries in a list composed by DCP of fundamental truth claims of the Mormon Church would actually be. Would a DCP list comport with a Will Schryver list or a Bob Crockett list?

Truth is, some critics will offer criticisms and complaints about so many different things, it comes off as wanting to do battle on every hill. That's the impression, I'd wager from most LDS on this whole front. Anyway, criticisms and complaints come from all angles and pursue nearly every nook. Sure LDS respond to each complaint. If there were no complaints then there would be no LDS defending them. But of course there are complaints. And of course there are very reasonable ones.

Here's a complaint that has come in some round about way arguing against the 13th article of faith:

"The Church doesn't really teach love thy neighbor."

"Sure it does. That is one of the fundamental concepts most often taught in Church, I assure you."

"well my neighbor has been rude to me, so obviously he's not getting the message."

"That certainly doesn't mean the Church doesn't teach the message."