guy sajer wrote:This raises an interesting question. I wonder which would be the more effective apologetic approach, on balance.
The standard approach, which is to act as if any and all criticisms are, on their face, invalid. Take for example, the multiple versions of the First Vision. Rather than concede the obvious, that the fact the Joseph Smith told different versions of one of the single most important events in human history creates legitimate questions about his credibility, apologists act as if it is totally unreasonable to be troubled by the apparent contradictions, that any person of reasonable intelligence and good character can easily see that there's no substance to the concerns, and in the process, offer offense to the questioner by impugning their quite reasonable concern and (in some cases ) their character.
The alternative approach would be to concede the reasonableness of the concern but then try to show how, though reasonable, the concern might be addressed this way or that. In the process, they do not offer offense, they acknowledge the person's right to be concerned and their good sense, but they show a way that the person can use the same good sense to navigate their way to an answer.
What do you think?
For me, the obvious answer is the second. The problem for Dan and like LDS apologists is the Church, the "only true and living church on the earth," is so 'all or nothing' that apologists are effectively forced to use the first approach. To admit a mistake or recognize doubt in Church history and/or its leaders could only serve to chip away at the tacit TBM belief the Church and its leaders are infallible. And that is a slippery slope the Brethren do not want to deal with.
Dan is a practitioner extraordinaire of the first approach. No counter argument is reasonable, and no premise supporting the apologist position is unreasonable. Critics are always wrong, apologists are always right. People who raise questions don't posses good sense, they are confused or misinformed. It's about winning the argument, and destroying your opponent in the process.
Dan is a microcosm of the Church hierarchy -- the Church institution has NEVER admitted a mistake or apologized for a wrong. Again, this is due to the absolute belief that the Church and the Brethren are led by God and could never screw up in that context.
