What is the Greatest Challenge Facing Mopologetics?

[_Trevor]

“In Judaism, how can the worshiping of the invisible G[-]d be defended as reasonable? In Christianity, how can the belief in Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and resurrected Lord, be defended as a reasonable type of religious belief? They cannot. Therefore, apologetics is the defense of the indefensible.”

I agree completely. And I also think Elder Holland is the only one who has it right with regard to Mormon claims to be Christian. Why should Mormons be hemmed in by a particular definition of Christianity that evolved a rather long time after the ministry of Jesus?

[_bcspace]

“In Judaism, how can the worshiping of the invisible G[-]d be defended as reasonable? In Christianity, how can the belief in Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and resurrected Lord, be defended as a reasonable type of religious belief? They cannot. Therefore, apologetics is the defense of the indefensible.”

Considering what religious belief is, how is it unreasonable to defend something as such?

[_wenglund]

What some may see as the biggest challenge to LDS apologists, others may view as the biggest opportunities for the same.

Its simply a matter of how we each choose to look at things--which point, to me, essentially strikes at the heart of Mormon related disputes, if not most all disagreements. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

I voted "criticism and the internet," but mostly, I think "other." The greatest challenge is the very nature of apologetics in and of itself. As Hans Betz put it (citation at end of post for anyone interested in his full article):

“In Judaism, how can the worshiping of the invisible G[-]d be defended as reasonable? In Christianity, how can the belief in Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and resurrected Lord, be defended as a reasonable type of religious belief? They cannot. Therefore, apologetics is the defense of the indefensible.”

It isn’t a given aspect that is a “challenge,” it is the mere fact that what is being defended at the very core is essentially indefensible. There are too many (indefensible) things that must be defended before one can even reach the list provided in the OP poll: The existence of G-d, the need for a Savior, Christ being that Savior, there being prophets, etc., etc., etc…

There is a long list of challenges, and once those (for all intents and purposes) indefensible challenges are met, the rest seem like nothing more than garnishes.

-----
Hans Dieter Betz, “In Defense of the Spirit: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians as a Document of Early Christian Apologetics,” in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, ed., University of Notre Dame Press (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1976), pg 100.

I don't think that apologetics is arguing that there is a reasonable basis for the religion in question. In all the apologetics I have read (mostly Judaism, Christianity, LDSity, and Islam, they focus more on defending the morality of their God then they do his divinity. You don't see many Apologists trying to prove that Joseph Smith had the First Vision or that Christ died for the sins of the world or that their own spiritual visitations are real using evidence. Apologetics tend to focus on peripherals like Joseph Smith's morality, polygamy, nature of Priesthood, what one Mormon said in Priesthood, whether the Church is inherently good or bad for society.

I think everyone agrees that if God revealed himself openly that the Apologists and the Critics would be out of business. There could still be the argument that God is cruel and immoral but claiming that is chopping off your own foot. Since morality was given to us by God we can hardly claim that if our moral compasses are not in sync that he has the inferior one.

I am grateful that God did not make reasoning the main method of finding him. All of us are at least in some way irrational. I know I am.

[_Trevor]

You don't see many Apologists trying to prove that Joseph Smith had the First Vision....

Maybe you don't.

[_The Nehor]

You don't see many Apologists trying to prove that Joseph Smith had the First Vision....

Maybe you don't.

I see lots of them trying to establish that it is possible it happened (using things like chronology and his reaction to make it seem possible or even probable that it happened) but I haven't seen a group of people scouring the Sacred Grove with God Residue-Detection equipment or taking those who've had similar experiences in for lie-detector tests.

[_wenglund]

I don't think that apologetics is arguing that there is a reasonable basis for the religion in question. In all the apologetics I have read (mostly Judaism, Christianity, LDSity, and Islam, they focus more on defending the morality of their God then they do his divinity. You don't see many Apologists trying to prove that Joseph Smith had the First Vision or that Christ died for the sins of the world or that their own spiritual visitations are real using evidence. Apologetics tend to focus on peripherals like Joseph Smith's morality, polygamy, nature of Priesthood, what one Mormon said in Priesthood, whether the Church is inherently good or bad for society.

I think everyone agrees that if God revealed himself openly that the Apologists and the Critics would be out of business. There could still be the argument that God is cruel and immoral but claiming that is chopping off your own foot. Since morality was given to us by God we can hardly claim that if our moral compasses are not in sync that he has the inferior one.

I am grateful that God did not make reasoning the main method of finding him. All of us are at least in some way irrational. I know I am.

I see it somewhat differently. I believe that reasoning (particularly inductive reasoning) is an integral and indespensible part of religious faith, just as it is with secular beliefs--the possible exception being "blind" faith (but even then people may have their reasons for their willingness to believe "blindly"), and that apologetics, to some degree, is intended to pruport, defend, and pursuade regarding that reasoning and utilizing that reasoning.

Where the reasonable is deemed unreasonable, and where the defensible is deemed indefensible, is not because of the absense of religious reasoning and defense, but because of inter/extra-faith differences in reasoning and defense (i.e. as Kevin Christensen calls it, "paradigm clashes"). Because of the huge differences in reasoning between religionists and Atheist, it is mostly futile for religionist to reason and defend their faith to Athiests, and vice-versa. The respective beliefs (or disbeliefs) of each party is unreasonable and indefensible to the other. The same is true (though to a lesser degree) with reasoning among the diverse religious denominations. And, I'm fine with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

I see lots of them trying to establish that it is possible it happened (using things like chronology and his reaction to make it seem possible or even probable that it happened) but I haven't seen a group of people scouring the Sacred Grove with God Residue-Detection equipment or taking those who've had similar experiences in for lie-detector tests.

Well, as long as you're not serious. They do, after all, do the best they can to establish the credibility of Joseph Smith, which seems to me to be one way they approach the problem of proof.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'd say the biggest challenge is avoiding the mudslinging. Both being slung upon and slinging.

[_The Nehor]

I don't think that apologetics is arguing that there is a reasonable basis for the religion in question. In all the apologetics I have read (mostly Judaism, Christianity, LDSity, and Islam, they focus more on defending the morality of their God then they do his divinity. You don't see many Apologists trying to prove that Joseph Smith had the First Vision or that Christ died for the sins of the world or that their own spiritual visitations are real using evidence. Apologetics tend to focus on peripherals like Joseph Smith's morality, polygamy, nature of Priesthood, what one Mormon said in Priesthood, whether the Church is inherently good or bad for society.

I think everyone agrees that if God revealed himself openly that the Apologists and the Critics would be out of business. There could still be the argument that God is cruel and immoral but claiming that is chopping off your own foot. Since morality was given to us by God we can hardly claim that if our moral compasses are not in sync that he has the inferior one.

I am grateful that God did not make reasoning the main method of finding him. All of us are at least in some way irrational. I know I am.

I see it somewhat differently. I believe that reasoning (particularly inductive reasoning) is an integral and indespensible part of religious faith, just as it is with secular beliefs--the possible exception being "blind" faith (but even then people may have their reasons for their willingness to believe "blindly"), and that apologetics, to some degree, is intended to pruport, defend, and pursuade regarding that reasoning and utilizing that reasoning.

Where the reasonable is deemed unreasonable, and where the defensible is deemed indefensible, is not because of the absense of religious reasoning and defense, but because of inter/extra-faith differences in reasoning and defense (I.e. as Kevin Christensen calls it, "paradigm clashes"). Because of the huge differences in reasoning between religionists and Atheist, it is mostly futile for religionist to reason and defend their faith to Athiests, and vice-versa. The respective beliefs (or disbeliefs) of each party is unreasonable and indefensible to the other. The same is true (though to a lesser degree) with reasoning among the diverse religious denominations. And, I'm fine with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Beyond "I think, therefore I am." leading to, "I have spoken with God, therefore he is" and working my way to, "I think, therefore I must become God.", I don't see reason as the source of my faith. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God. However, I can't start from a blank slate of existence (assuming no spiritual visitations) and work my way up to God.