Apologetics: Why bother?

[_harmony]

There's little doubt that "knowledge" is illusory and fleeting. Holding on to what you think you know can lead to the heights of arrogance (as we regularly see on this board, for instance), especially observable when someone is so wacky and "out there."

And yet who gets to decide what is wacky and out there? People thought Galileo was wacky and out there. Some of our greatest discoveries were made by people others thought were wacky and out there. Perhaps wacky and out there are best left to the individual to determine what suits them best.

[_Buckeye]

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.

Mok,

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?

Funny story ... about 6 months ago I was in the Columbus temple with a youth group for baptisms. I noticed that the worker at the recommend desk was reading a book by DCP and I commented how much I liked his apologetic work. Aghast, the worker responded, "you read apologetics? Don't you know how dangerous that is?" Apparantely, if this member is representative of others, there are members who benefit from FARMS and FAIR without ever realizing what they are.

As for myself, I first took interest in apologetics for my own good. I had questions without answers and was relieved to find others who had found answers already. I find most of the good is not found in argument, but simple factual correction. So much of what is critical of the church is based on misquotes and facts taken out of context. Apologetics do a good job of telling the whole story.

[_harmony]

As for myself, I first took interest in apologetics for my own good. I had questions without answers and was relieved to find others who had found answers already. I find most of the good is not found in argument, but simple factual correction. So much of what is critical of the church is based on misquotes and facts taken out of context. Apologetics do a good job of telling the whole story.

What do you find to be a good example of apologetics telling the whole story?

[_collegeterrace]

Apologetics do a good job of telling the whole story.

Oh I agree. Mo'pologists tell the truth about the whole story, just like a criminal defense lawyer whose #1 client is their testiphony.

[_Buckeye]

What do you find to be a good example of apologetics telling the whole story?

I didn't mean that LDS apologetics necessarily tell the whole story (though I find them trustworthy), but rather that the process of apologetics leads to the whole story - or at least as much as can be known. In this regard, I consider those critical of the church to be "apologetics" of their viewpoint, at least if they are sincere (ie, I exclude Ed Decker, but include the Toscanos).

I take this view because I have seen it work in my profession. I'm an attorney by trade. While both sides in a lawsuit are telling their subjective stories, the process is fairly good at arriving at the "truth" because each side polices the facts of the other side.

The first example that comes to mind is the location of the events in the Book of Mormon. I think LDS apologetics have done a good job of arguing for a limited geography in central america, and arguing that the geography set forth in the Book of Mormon is plausible. I think critics have done a good job of pointing out evidence that, historically, most LDS have viewed the geography as hemispheric, and that some statements (such as the Zelph story) support that view. Of course, this doesn't "prove" who is right. But the debate has put the facts on the table for us to decide.

[_Joey]

I think LDS apologetics have done a good job of arguing for a limited geography in central america, and arguing that the geography set forth in the Book of Mormon is plausible.

Where have they made these good arguments. If the arguments are "good", who have they convinced?

Posting such arguments on little known LDS message boards, where those who provide realistic counter arguments get banned, or publishing articles that get ignored at little known FARMS is hardly providing any exposure to determine the quality of these arguments.

If such arguments are so good, why intentionally hide and defer their merit to the future chasm of time as if they were published in the 18th or 19th century?

If those who publish such little known arguments are so well respected scholars, why have they not been able to generate any interest from their peers or the academic community they claim to have garnered such great respect?

Common sense makes the answer crystal clear.

Those claiming scholarly merit of the LDS Book of Mormon historicity works know that such works can only provide practical use at a fireside chat. If such works were submitted to the secular academic community for a requested peer review, it would destroy their use even at firesides.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Joey, didn't you ever hear the story of the boy throwing starfish back out to sea?

[_Buckeye]

Where have they made these good arguments. If the arguments are "good", who have they convinced?

Me.

Posting such arguments on little known LDS message boards, where those who provide realistic counter arguments get banned, or publishing articles that get ignored at little known FARMS is hardly providing any exposure to determine the quality of these arguments.

If such arguments are so good, why intentionally hide and defer their merit to the future chasm of time as if they were published in the 18th or 19th century?

If those who publish such little known arguments are so well respected scholars, why have they not been able to generate any interest from their peers or the academic community they claim to have garnered such great respect?

Common sense makes the answer crystal clear.

Those claiming scholarly merit of the LDS Book of Mormon historicity works know that such works can only provide practical use at a fireside chat. If such works were submitted to the secular academic community for a requested peer review, it would destroy their use even at firesides.

All they can do is publish. It is up to the world to read. So far, most of the world has taken little interest. That doesn't mean the work is of no value.

[_Buckeye]

Joey, didn't you ever hear the story of the boy throwing starfish back out to sea?

Who are you calling a starfish, alien-puppet-boy?

[_Some Schmo]

There's little doubt that "knowledge" is illusory and fleeting. Holding on to what you think you know can lead to the heights of arrogance (as we regularly see on this board, for instance), especially observable when someone is so wacky and "out there."

And yet who gets to decide what is wacky and out there? People thought Galileo was wacky and out there. Some of our greatest discoveries were made by people others thought were wacky and out there. Perhaps wacky and out there are best left to the individual to determine what suits them best.

Well... yeah. I'm not sure what your point is.