Thought-provoking Discussion of Apologetics

[_CaliforniaKid]

Someone needs to put you apostates in your place.

Christopher C. Smith likes this.

[_Kishkumen]

Someone needs to put you apostates in your place.

Christopher C. Smith likes this.

Kishkumen likes this.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Kishkumen likes this.

Shades, when are you gonna have Keene add a "like" button to the forum? Get with the times, man. Bring this forum into the 21st century!

[_lulu]

Shameless pseudonymous self promotion. I posted the following in the blog's comment section and welcome your critiques here.

Kierkegaard, although critical of it, was writing out of the context of an established, state, Troeltschian church. That is not where Mormonism has been. Perhaps jacob is recommending that is where it needs to head, but there would have to be some very fundamental changes in the LDS church for that to occur. Changes that are not probable and might well be impossible.

Mormonism is a Troeltschian “New Religious Movement.*” And while it has, and would like to develop, I think the world has changed too much for it, or any new religion, to become a Troeltschian church.

In Mormonism, there is no such thing as a Kierkegaardian Teacher. Everyone is a Kierkegaardian Apostle. Whether in formal church calling, personal life or employment, every member is entitled, even required, to have a Pauline experience, even in regard to mundane issues. And please note, many apologists work for an LDS church related institution, doubling the issues of personal revelation as to church calling, personal life and employment.

In a church of personal revelation in all aspects of life, where every member should strive for a personal seer stone (whether actual or symbolic), where every member is a missionary, teaching by the Spirit, and even BYU mathematics is explicated with divine inspiration, I don’t see room for a Kierkegaardian Teacher.

Excellent blog post. I should spend some time here.

*Troeltsch did not name the “third” category of his tripartite model but it came to be known as “cult” although not necessarily in the pejorative sense. His other two categories were “church” and “sect.”

[_RayAgostini]

Two threads from MDDB that should be considered. No?

Can The Maxwell Institute Go More Secular?. (Kerry Shirts)

Apologetics And Polemics. (Ben McGuire)

[_Kishkumen]

Two threads from MDDB that should be considered. No?

Can The Maxwell Institute Go More Secular?. (Kerry Shirts)

Apologetics And Polemics. (Ben McGuire)

Those are both interesting discussions.

On Kerry's, it was my understanding that the Mormon Studies Review would become more of a review of books in the field of Mormon Studies, much like one might have a review of books in the field of Jewish Studies. In this case, that might not entail reviewing Jack Welch's latest book on Israelite festivals manifested in the Book of Mormon. I could be wrong, however.

Ben McGuire, one of the apologists I respect, raises a lot of excellent points. Of anything that has been written about the issue of the place of LDS apologetics and polemics in the LDS community, I think his is hands down the most thought-provoking and constructive. I agree that John Dehlin engages in apologetics and polemics. The key difference here is that he is not operating with the support of the LDS Church via BYU. So, when BYU publishes a polemic against Laura Compton, this raises all kinds of ecclesiastical issues. What weight does such a polemic carry? Is it, in a sense, authoritative or just the view of the author? The problem is that even though the publication may include an explicit disclaimer that it does not necessarily represent the official view of the LDS Church, many members will nevertheless assume that it is at least tacitly representing the authoritative position. If the polemic is aimed very much at the character and spirituality of the author, then this marks out the target as someone who is under semi-official opprobrium.

McGuire also makes the mistake about generalizing concerning the source of the criticism of MI apologetics and polemics. Much of the recent criticism is actually coming from those who sought out FAIR and MI as aids in maintaining their faith and countering criticism, but were sorely disappointed in what they found. Naturally, this is to be expected, and not in itself an invalidation of all of this apologetic work. But it misrepresents reality to claim that the only people who express dissatisfaction with MI and FAIR apologetics and polemics belong in a single basked of "critics," whom we can easily dismiss because the word critic has been stigmatized by no less an authority than President Hinckley.

The reality is much more complex. There are in fact people among the friends and participants of MI and FAIR who do not agree with the very same things that some of the detractors have taken exception to. It is of course convenient that there is a kind of movement of those who have embraced a naïve secularism as a result of their disenchantment with Mormonism and hold MI and FAIR apologetics in derision in comparison with the purported objectivity of their new worldview. To a certain degree, Dehlin fits in this same category, like him as much as I do. But my encounter with dissatisfaction with MI and FAIR as they have been operating has run much deeper and is found among active members of the LDS Church in academia and elsewhere.

So, McGuire's polemic/apologetic misrepresents reality in order to delegitimize all criticism of apologetics/polemics in LDS discourse. I know a number of thoughtful LDS people who would hope that LDS apologetics and polemics were of higher quality, and that they focused less on demonizing personalities and more on constructing better constructive and positive discourse on Mormonism from a greater diversity of viewpoints. Under the tutelage of Daniel Peterson, it was unlikely that the Mormon Studies Review would have ever satisfied that desire.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think Ben McGuire equivocates the notion of apologetics as presented in 1st Peter with the notion of Socrates’ apology, the two are not the same. When John Dehlin defends himself, he isn’t engaging in religious apologetics like FAIR is supposed to be doing.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Two threads from MDDB that should be considered. No?

Can The Maxwell Institute Go More Secular?. (Kerry Shirts)

It suddenly makes good sense why Kerry has been doing chess videos instead of religion videos. From one of his comments:

There is no singular one and true correct way to read and understand the Bible or else one is in danger of apostatizing and is wrong. There are myriads of interpretations that make better sense of all the evidence than stances the church takes. We simply do not have the last word on things anymore than any religion does. But it's next to impossible to get this into the heads of we Mormons. We are truly myopic in much when it comes to the Bible....Our LDS scholarship compared to the serious Bible scholars seriously lacks, as can easily be seen by a simple comparison of anything our LDS scholars have written to any of the Anchor Bible volumes....... we are nowhere near critical and careful exegetical studies yet. Our is still the fluff of building up faith in a picture that we hope matches Mormonism. Call it what you want, but that isn't scholarship, it never has been, and it never will be.

Give em hell Kerry, and preach on.

But seriously, this fodder for apostasy.

[_Cylon]

McGuire also makes the mistake about generalizing concerning the source of the criticism of MI apologetics and polemics. Much of the recent criticism is actually coming from those who sought out FAIR and MI as aids in maintaining their faith and countering criticism, but were sorely disappointed in what they found. Naturally, this is to be expected, and not in itself an invalidation of all of this apologetic work. But it misrepresents reality to claim that the only people who express dissatisfaction with MI and FAIR apologetics and polemics belong in a single basked of "critics," whom we can easily dismiss because the word critic has been stigmatized by no less an authority than President Hinckley.

I have noticed the same thing. There has been some backlash against the term anti-mormon, and many people refrain from using it, but labeling someone a critic has now come to serve the same purpose in many cases. It's a message that you don't need to actually address that person's argument, because they are not arguing in good faith.

It is of course convenient that there is a kind of movement of those who have embraced a naïve secularism as a result of their disenchantment with Mormonism and hold MI and FAIR apologetics in derision in comparison with the purported objectivity of their new worldview. To a certain degree, Dehlin fits in this same category, like him as much as I do.

Could you explain a little more what you mean by "naïve secularism," and why Dehlin is an example of it? I'm currently right in the middle of my own faith transition, and that sounds like something I want to avoid if I can.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Ben McGuire equivocates the notion of apologetics as presented in 1st Peter with the notion of Socrates’ apology, the two are not the same. When John Dehlin defends himself, he isn’t engaging in religious apologetics like FAIR is supposed to be doing.

Interesting, Stak. I need to review my 1 Peter.