Apologetics: Why bother?

[_harmony]

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.

Exactly. If only he'd stuck to his one gift... but that would have not gratified his ego, his libido, or his pocketbook.

[_malkie]

quoting 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.

End quoting Neo
==========

In the past I've imagined a game of Jeopardy, with questions on church history. The contestants are the GBK, DCP, and a long-time TBM.

Who do you think would walk off with the cash? And who would be most disappointed, because they all started off thinking that they "knew" the answers.

[_Neo]

In the past I've imagined a game of Jeopardy, with questions on church history. The contestants are the GBK, DCP, and a long-time TBM.

Who do you think would walk off with the cash? And who would be most disappointed, because they all started off thinking that they "knew" the answers.

The main problem with this would be that the answer can continually change.
You would need to have the church vote on the questions and answers as doctrine.
Also, where would this event be hosted? In the USA or MesoAmerica? Or in the mind of Joseph Smith?

[_Jersey Girl]

Anyone read the flippin' OP?

Just curious.

[_Some Schmo]

It makes complete sense, Schmo.(referring to "I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know.")

In what alternate reality?

Perhaps you have a different definition of the word faith than others? I'd be genuinely interested in how it makes sense to you.

[_Jersey Girl]

It makes complete sense, Schmo.(referring to "I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know.")

In what alternate reality?

Perhaps you have a different definition of the word faith than others? I'd be genuinely interested in how it makes sense to you.

Sure, give me a moment.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm sorry, Schmo. I just wrote an entire post and lost it. I will try to regroup.

Geez.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm sorry, Schmo. I just wrote an entire post and lost it. I will try to regroup.

Geez.

Schmo, I really did write a whole post and lost it, but I have to be honest and tell you I need to do this another day. Stuff going on in real life and I cannot concentrate well enough to do it again and I'd really like to try to do justice to Kerry's post.

I'll be back.

[_JustMe]

Malkie

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.

On my You Tube site, I have over 517 videos (most of them 10 minute ones, because that is the limitation in time You Tube allows) wherein I use an enormous amount of scholarship of the scriptures, both Mormon and non-Mormon. I have never once proclaimed your ideology. Not once. I have used, thus far, well over 50 Non-LDS sources, and have an absolute multitude more to use, and I say in many of my videos to get the sources and read them yourselves. The proof is in the videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?p ... sor&page=1

[_Jersey Girl]

Danna

When I believed, I spent a lot of time 'patching' the weak spots in my 'testimony'.

I still have weak spots in my testimony and knowledge, but I continue to live by faith. I honestly have found that the best way. Sometimes some things take literally decades to come around to knowing. Some things simply will not be known to us in this life. I don't need to know all things, I need to live by faith yet read out of the best books, the best books of knowledge. I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know.

Okay, I'm going to try this for you Schmo. I think I know how Kerry thinks. He thinks alot like I do. Let me try translating what he said by saying it in a different way. He can confirm whether or not I nailed it.

If you look at his comments in context, he is responding to a person who said that when she was a believer, she spent alot of time trying to patch up weak spots in her testimony.

Kerry says that he does have weak spots in his own testimony but he doesn't feel a need to patch them up. He trust what he believes he knows about God based on his own perceived encounters with God or responses FROM God, and I'd have to say, what and LDS man would call his "personal revelations" about God. He believes that certain things "ring true" with regards to his religious traditions.

These are the things he believes he knows.

In those areas where he feels either uncertainty or unsureness, he relies on faith. He accepts that there are some things that he will never know or can never know in this life time. He's a little agnostic in that regard. (So am I)

These are the things he doesn't know and they don't cancel out what he believes he does know to be true about God and his religious tradition.

He feels a responsibility (actually, I think he feels "called" to do it) to continue learning from the best sources he can find to increase his knowledge. He values the process of learning and discovery. He feels a responsiblity to use and grow the intellect that he believes God gave him.

I think that all things considered, Kerry "walks on faith" (this is an Ev term), acts on what he believes to be true about God and for what he doesn't know...he gives that to God.

Kerry?

p.s. I think Kerry goes misunderstood by many.