Apologetics: Why bother?

[_Inconceivable]

Who is the target audience of the apologist?

Well, evidently, I was the target audience at one time.

I asked the SP what I should do with the firestorm of truth that was attacking my foundation of faith (and knowledge I might add - I knew the church was true and I lived it). I was looking for a physician. My SP, bishop (and even GA's) couldn't bring about the healing I was seeking.

So I was given books like "believing history". I also found my way to FARMS. Surely the best of the best minds the Lord could scrape together at His university had the balm to cast out my dis-ease.

Not.

I found it laughable that some of their reviews had more pages than the books they sought to discredit. I was offended when they would spend much of my time attacking the writer's credibility or argueing over insignificant points (like whether Smith had 26 or 29 extramarital partners when the real issue was why the immorallity at all). They weren't even good at hiding their lack of a moral foundation of ethics and virtue.

I had no use for apologists as a faithful member. Frankly, I did not even know what one was. Truth is, I didn't feel it necessary to waste my life proving things I already knew or even speculating about them. I thought it a better use of my finite time in mortality to study and seek to emulate the Master. After all, without charity, we are nothing.

Apologist target audience? I suppose it's anyone that discovers themselves in the darkness looking for that dimly lit red Exit sign.
>
>
>
>

[_Ray A]

I found it laughable that some of their reviews had more pages than the books they sought to discredit. I was offended when they would spend much of my time attacking the writer's credibility or argueing over insignificant points (like whether Smith had 26 or 29 extramarital partners when the real issue was why the immorallity at all).

Well, I actually agree with Inconceivable here. We have to be specific about what we're arguing. If we're arguing that FARMS is a controlling cabal who seek complete dominance of the Church, then some evidence is in order.

But:

I had no use for apologists as a faithful member. Frankly, I did not even know what one was. Truth is, I didn't feel it necessary to waste my life proving things I already knew or even speculating about them. I thought it a better use of my finite time in mortality to study and seek to emulate the Master. After all, without charity, we are nothing.

And that's precisely the case with most members.

Except:

Apologist target audience? I suppose it's anyone that discovers themselves in the darkness looking for that dimly lit red Exit sign.

This, I think, is something we may be failing to grasp, that most Mormons don't give a hoot about FARMS. When their "spiritual testimony" fails, some turn to FARMS to try to revive it intellectually. And in most cases, this will fail. And it's not the fault of FARMS, it's just that trying to mix/boost spirituality with scholarship will eventually FAIL. Most converts didn't join because of reasoning, but because of what they felt, and once those feelings are gone, no amount of scholarship will revive it. It might delay it, but it will not save it.

FARMS appeals to the spirit, mixed with "the philosophies of men" (scholarship), and you can see the subtle testimony-bearing in almost all that FARMS produces. When Gad gets to John Welch's contribution to volume 6 of the Review, you will see what I mean.

[_Inconceivable]

And that's precisely the case with most members.

Except:

Apologist target audience? I suppose it's anyone that discovers themselves in the darkness looking for that dimly lit red Exit sign.

This, I think, is something we may be failing to grasp, that most Mormons don't give a hoot about FARMS. When their "spiritual testimony" fails, some turn to FARMS to try to revive it intellectually. And in most cases, this will fail.

..Most converts didn't join because of reasoning, but because of what they felt, and once those feelings are gone, no amount of scholarship will revive it. It might delay it, but it will not save it.

FARMS appeals to the spirit, mixed with "the philosophies of men" (scholarship)..

Thanks for the great evaluation Ray.

Yeah, when you no longer trust your feelings, you generally attempt to become more discerning - spiritually and intellectually. And Farms is truly neither.

I always considered this sort of Mormon (apologists in general) borderline apostate. Just seems they can't get on with simply living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They have to twist and cumber their souls with making sense of the "deep dark doctrines", totally missing the mark - "..ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."

Sometimes we confuse people that think too much about nothing with people that are great thinkers.

[_Ray A]

I always considered this sort of Mormon (apologists in general) borderline apostate. Just seems they can't get on with simply living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They have to twist and cumber their souls with making sense of the "deep dark doctrines", totally missing the mark - "..ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth...

Don't be such a flaming heretic, Inconceivable! You mean God can actually talk to you???? Even though you drink - coke??? And IGNORE FARMS? [wink]

Just for you, my friend.

May God Be With You
May God be with you and bless you,
May you see your children's children,

May you be poor in misfortune,
rich in blessings.
May you know nothing but happiness
From this day forward.

[_Inconceivable]

Just for you, my friend.

May God Be With You
May God be with you and bless you,
May you see your children's children,

May you be poor in misfortune,
rich in blessings.
May you know nothing but happiness
From this day forward.

Thanks, Ray. Your blessing is one of the best I've ever been given. Thankyou for your kindness.

[_malkie]

Sorry if this is too much of a threadjack.

====================
quoting harmony:

In your estimation, how aware is the gen. chapel population of Daniel's work? If I stopped in the local Ward, would most members know of his work?

When they have spoken of him, they seemed less familiar with his work than myself - so that means they are not familiar with it. However, he does get touted every few months as standing watch for the Church in battling against the forces of anti-mormon arguments. So in that sense, he is known and respected as much as a Seventies-level General Authority.

I'd be very surprised to find out that anyone in my ward had ever heard of Daniel Peterson.

End of quoting harmony.
=============================

An extremely active member of my ward doesn't know the name of Dr Peterson, but she knows that she is mightily upset at him.

In the PBS Special on "The Mormons", the various commentators were, if I remember correctly, not identified as to their affiliations.

When my friend heard Dr Peterson say:

"We know that Joseph didn't translate in the way that a scholar would translate. He didn't know Egyptian. There were a couple of means that were prepared for this. One was he used an instrument that was found with the plates, that was called the Urim Thummim. This is a kind of divinatory device that goes back into Old Testament times. Actually, most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. He would put the stone in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light, and then he would put his face in the hat. It's a kind of strange image for us."

she was outraged, and wanted to know how he (whoever he was) could be allowed to say such horrible things, and lie, and malign the prophet in that way.

The members that I know who watched any part of the show stopped viewing after hearing this statement, or similar ones that did not conform to their view, complaining that the show was obviously biased against the church, and only rotten liars got to be heard.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's striking to me that, while many on message boards like this are confident that apologetics seldom helps testimonies and often does harm to them, I seldom go a week without receiving at least one message to the contrary.

[_JustMe]

It's striking to me that, while many on message boards like this are confident that apologetics seldom helps testimonies and often does harm to them, I seldom go a week without receiving at least one message to the contrary.

Aye Matey! Here also........

[_malkie]

It's striking to me that, while many on message boards like this are confident that apologetics seldom helps testimonies and often does harm to them, I seldom go a week without receiving at least one message to the contrary.

If you are referring to my post, I don't think that I implied that you had harmed my friend's testimony, or even that you failed to help it - she just thought that it was terrible that you were allowed to tell such lies on the show. She has been a member for about 60 years and has a testimony Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon which doesn't include a stone in a hat.

[_Neo]

It's striking to me that, while many on message boards like this are confident that apologetics seldom helps testimonies and often does harm to them, I seldom go a week without receiving at least one message to the contrary.

If you are referring to my post, I don't think that I implied that you had harmed my friend's testimony, or even that you failed to help it - she just thought that it was terrible that you were allowed to tell such lies on the show. She has been a member for about 60 years and has a testimony Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon which doesn't include a stone in a hat.

That is why the best apologetics that LDS can do is to continue to tell everyone not to read anything except what is published by the church. This way they can hide the lies.
The truth does not have to be hidden, only lies do.

Another excellent approach would be to go back in time and have Joseph Smith stop after writing the Book of Mormon and call it done. It is all of the add ons after that where the need for apologetics came in. They could have just left it to the subjective test from Moroni.

I propose an interesting test:
Lets have the person that has been a member for 60 years pray to "know" that Joseph Smith did not use a stone in a hat. Then lets have everyone else pray to "know" that Joseph Smith did use a stone in a hat.
If my hypothesis is correct, you will have people that "know" the truth with different answers.