Apologetics: Why bother?

[_Jersey Girl]

I've been on these boards for (too long) quite some time now and I am often left wondering why (some) LDS spend so much time engaging in apologetics.

Who is the target audience of the apologist?

Isn't apologetics really a response to critics? If so, then why bother? Why do apologists feel a need to "prove" their religion to non or ex-LDS? If the position of the critics are inferior, why do these positions warrant any response at all?

And if you go about attempting to "prove" your religion, does that mean your faith is weak?

You tell me.

(It's Friday. Give me a break on the composition, okay?)

Here comes the dumb ad

<
<
<
<
<
<
<

[_bcspace]

Who is the target audience of the apologist?

The lurker, the one in the audience.

[_Jersey Girl]

Who is the target audience of the apologist?

The lurker, the one in the audience.

What about the lurker? What's the purpose of reaching lurkers?

[_Jersey Girl]

Also, what about the "This is not the official position of the LDS Church" or something to that effect?

Are LDS instructed to include this? What happens, if anything, if they don't?

[_Ray A]

Apologetics can be applied to almost anything. It has a wider meaning than generally applied here.

Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.

But:

Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning.

Imagine apologetics as solid rocket boosters. When the space shuttle is launched, the SRBs give it the thrust to go through the atmosphere and enter space.







Some apologetics, however, ends up like this:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[_moksha]

Are LDS instructed to include this? What happens, if anything, if they don't?

Do you really want to know, even if it involves the use of gerbils and paper clips?



I suspect the position of apologists is greatly enhanced if they acknowledge the various sides of the story, never fudge the truth and are willing to admit the obvious.

[_Danna]

When I believed, I spent a lot of time 'patching' the weak spots in my 'testimony'. Coming up with a plausible excuse was essential, no matter how crazy. It didn't matter how convoluted the route from A(reality) to B(Mormonism) was, so long as a route was possible. I was pretty good at spotting the areas where there was a potential disconnect and was pretty pleased with myself when I came up with a possibility. I assumed that everyone else saw the same problems and wanted answers too. Silly me, most others just avoided looking for the weak spots and were not please when I pointed them out.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I engage in apologetics, to the extent that I do -- which is, far and away, not here and not on message boards -- to maintain an area where faith can grow. My efforts aren't aimed at militant disbelievers, who are unlikely to be persuaded, nor at unquestioning believers, who probably won't pay any attention, but, in large part, at people just barely on the inside who are experiencing doubts and at people just barely on the outside who are inclined to believe but have encountered one or more troubling issues or need just a bit more to go on.

A comment by the British scholar and churchman Austin Farrer regarding his old friend C. S. Lewis has become popular among many associated with FARMS or the Maxwell Institute: "Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks for the responses so far! Daniel, I really like that quote and think I want to work with that on the thread later. I also saw something in Danna's post of interest to me. I'm just a bit busy right now dashing around doing things at home.

Thanks all!

[_moksha]

As I have mentioned before, there are members in my ward who are very pleased that Dr. Peterson is there churning out such arguments, even if they are unsure about what has been said.