Positive Resolutions for LDS Apologetics of Tomorrow

[_Gadianton]

This is true, but needs further clarification. From my perspective, the only way Religious Studies as a discipline can "save the day" for a scholarly study of Mormonism is basically by abandoning any attempt at reconciling LDS teaching with reality, and examining LDS as a purely social or historical phenomenon. In other words, Religious Studies may in some sense legitimize the study of Mormonism, but only in a way that further feeds the NOM/DAMU.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Religious studies takes a "meta" approach to religion, so it doesn't count as traditional apologetics. But I'd be careful about saying that it only feeds the NOMs. FARMS itself became so desperate that a couple issues back, an entire issue of the Review was devoted to postmodern interpretations of Mormonism. It's the issue Ray linked to in another post with pieces by Martin Marty and Midgley denying the importance of historical truth and so on. There are some FAIR apologists who are red-in-claw disciples of Joseph Smith and Mopologetics who for years have toed the line that critics are academically unfashionable because the Ivy League schools have all taken the postmodern turn in regard to religion. They greatly misinterpret the landscape, but you get their angle.

This is a smart move: If you can't win, go for a stalemate. If truth doesn't exist or doesn't matter anymore, than sure, we might not claim to be the only true church, but you can't tell us we're a false one that can't demand 10%. Religious studies has a real potential here for bolstering the faithful, tithe-paying membership, and could easily work into the longer-term PR project of the Church Hinckley started where foundational matters are back-pedaled from. I kid you not when I say the younger generation of GAs don't give a rat's ass about whether Joseph Smith saw JC in a grove. They care about tithing slips. And let us not forget, it wasn't a bunch of apathetic peace-loving hippies carrying Being and Time around in their backpacks during World War II. GA's will have no problem wedding their PR campaigns to celebratory scholarly works of Mormon identity that question the project of Truth and do not engage facts head on. Freedom from Mopologetics will be freedom from an irritating canker sore, as the cancer grows silently in the background.

[_Kishkumen]

Since this thread is about positive solutions to the challenges of apologetics directed at members of the faith, I thought I would share the following video, which a friend directed my attention to:

http://www.ccef.org/video/dr-tim-lane-pastoral-apologetics

Take a look at Lane's different emphasis, and consider how such an approach would probably work better than simply winning the argument to show that you are "right."

[_moksha]

Liz, what do you think of the Church approach that existed before apologetics? I've heard that approach was to say nothing unless you knew the answer, as opposed to conjuring up an answer in order to issue a rebuttal. Of course, I could be wrong, but that seemed like a very honest way of dealing with questions and issues that have no ready answer.

[_Drifting]

I have two suggested resolutions for LDS Apologetics in the future:

1. The Church should do all the necessary apologetics. Officially, rather than letting some freelancers unofficially speak for the Church.
2. Apologists should tell the truth.

[_Yoda]

Liz, what do you think of the Church approach that existed before apologetics? I've heard that approach was to say nothing unless you knew the answer, as opposed to conjuring up an answer in order to issue a rebuttal. Of course, I could be wrong, but that seemed like a very honest way of dealing with questions and issues that have no ready answer.

I think that this is what should be done again as well, Moksha. As I said, I honestly think that apologetics was born as a result of the truly nasty attacks that the Church was getting from the likes of "The Godmakers", etc.

The tone at that time was "ready for battle", which it should have been.

However, like everything else, times have changed. The audience that the current apologists are dealing with is a very different crowd. Folks like Kevin Barney and David Bokyvoy realize this.

[_Kishkumen]

I think the Church should simply disallow the publication of slams on fellow members in venues it provides substantial institutional support to. There will always be rowdy characters who do this on their own initiative and at their own cost. But the Church's resources should not go to supporting attacks on other members.

[_Yoda]

I think the Church should simply disallow the publication of slams on fellow members in venues it provides substantial institutional support to. There will always be rowdy characters who do this on their own initiative and at their own cost. But the Church's resources should not go to supporting attacks on other members.

+100000000000

[_lulu]

But what the church needs right now on internet 2.0 is a church person not a cult or a sect person. They just don't have one.

Joanna Brooks?

Interesting. I'm not sure she meets the usual Mormon apologists' definition of an apologist. But hey, who says their definition is right.

I think the Church should simply disallow the publication of slams on fellow members in venues it provides substantial institutional support to. There will always be rowdy characters who do this on their own initiative and at their own cost. But the Church's resources should not go to supporting attacks on other members.

It could easily shut it down on the BYU campus. See how fast it dealt with Bott when he became inconvenient.

It could even go a long way toward shutting down "private snarky apologists." Remember when private home gospel study groups were all the rage? Then the church said that was a no no. Seen very many of them lately?

It could easily say that individuals' internet postings should go on Mormon.org and to leave the comment sections to Edleman trained professionals.

[_Kishkumen]

It could easily shut it down on the BYU campus. See how fast it dealt with Bott when he became inconvenient.

It could even go a long way toward shutting down "private snarky apologists." Remember when private home gospel study groups were all the rage? Then the church said that was a no no. Seen very many of them lately?

It could easily say that individuals' internet postings should go on Mormon.org and to leave the comment sections to Edleman trained professionals.

True, they could do all kinds of things. They are unlikely to do most of them. They are also unlikely to do what I would prefer, which is to cease publishing critiques of fellow members of the LDS Church in venues that are associated as closely to the church as the NMI is.

[_lulu]

It could easily shut it down on the BYU campus. See how fast it dealt with Bott when he became inconvenient.

It could even go a long way toward shutting down "private snarky apologists." Remember when private home gospel study groups were all the rage? Then the church said that was a no no. Seen very many of them lately?

It could easily say that individuals' internet postings should go on Mormon.org and to leave the comment sections to Edleman trained professionals.

True, they could do all kinds of things. They are unlikely to do most of them. They are also unlikely to do what I would prefer, which is to cease publishing critiques of fellow members of the LDS Church in venues that are associated as closely to the church as the NMI is.

Could, should and they don't. Doesn't say much for them.