Apologetics does not begin with the answers?!

[_zerinus]

The word apologetics came into use among early Christians to describe the activity of defending their faith against (intellctual) attack by unbelievers:

“Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a field of Christian theology that aims to present historical, reasoned, and evidential bases for Christianity, defending it against objections.
• • •
“The original Greek apologia (ἀπολογία, from ἀπολογέομαι, apologeomai, "speak in return, defend oneself") was a formal verbal defense, either in response to accusation or prosecution in a court of law.” Link

Nowadays Christian theologians and activities have changed the original application of the word to mean something like actively promoting their own religion, and even to attacking other people’s religions. They write anti-Mormon or anti-JW literature for example and call it “apologetics”. But that is not what it meant to the early Christian thinkers who had invented the idea in the first place. They came under various kinds of attacks from their pagan neighbours and societies in which they lived. Those attacks took several different forms, one of them being intellctual. “Apologetics” was the name given to defending themselves against those kinds of attacks. Christians today have redefined it to mean whatever they want it to mean, but that is not what it meant to the those who invented the idea in the first place. And Mormons have also been caught up in that confusion to some extent.

[_Philo Sofee]

Zerinus
Christians today have redefined it to mean whatever they want it to mean, but that is not what it meant to the those who invented the idea in the first place. And Mormons have also been caught up in that confusion to some extent.

This is true of marriage, Urim and Thummim, etc. Heck it's almost true of any subject in religion come to think of it. You are assuming the original definition is the most important. Mormonism has proven this is seldom the case, especially in regards to "marriage," "polygamy," "Premortal existent intelligences," etc. Mormonism long ago gave up even caring about what the "original" definition of things were. They say what matters is what today's leaders say.

[_grindael]

Christians today have redefined it to mean whatever they want it to mean, but that is not what it meant to the those who invented the idea in the first place.

A nice serving of apologist BS.

Here are what Mormon Apologists really do...

FAIRMORMON makes this claim:

FairMormon does not believe or argue that everyone who disagrees with the LDS Church is “anti-Mormon.” As one prominent scholar of anti-Mormonism put it:

The hallmark of anti-Mormonism is an agenda, whether covert or openly expressed, of combating the faith of the Latter-day Saints and opposing their church.

Yet that is what is being done. Here is Daniel C. Peterson (a FAIRMORMON Board Member and the “prominent scholar of anti-Mormonism” they quote above) speaking of George D. Smith, Dan Vogel and Signature books,

We have seen that George D. Smith and Signature Books reject the title ‘anti-Mormons’ … Are ‘anti-Mormons’ mere mythical beasts, the stuff of persecution-fixated Latter-day Saint imaginations? If not, how would we recognize an ‘anti-Mormon’ if we saw one?

Nobody would suggest for a moment that George D. Smith and Dan Vogel fit the traditional ‘anti-Mormon’ mold in all respects. There are a number of differences between them and the late ‘Dr.’ Walter Martin, and between them and the Tanners.

In the past, anti-Mormon attacks almost invariably came from outside the Church; for the most part, they still do. For the first time since the Godbeite movement, however, we may today be dealing with a more-or-less organized ‘anti-Mormon’ movement within the Church. With ‘anti-Mormon Mormons,’ as Robert McKay puts it.

Should we be concerned about the possibility of unwholesome opinions, even enemies, within the Church? Jesus certainly seemed to think that internal enemies were a possibility. ‘Beware of false prophets,’ he said, ‘which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves’ (Matthew 7:15)…. So the possibility of enemies among the membership of the Church seems established. (FARMS, Review of Books, vol. 4, pp. liv-lv, see Veneer Magazine’s article “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” found here).

Peterson is calling members who have different views anti-Mormons and “enemies”! And since when are historians “false prophets”? This is simply silly BS. No one can be a legitimate critic to these bigots. Louis Midgley called Brent Metcalfe and the authors contributing to “New Approaches to the Book of Mormon”, anti-Mormons:

The most imposing attack on the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon has been assembled by Brent Lee Metcalfe… the publication of New Approaches is an important event. It marks the most sophisticated attack on the truth of the Book of Mormon currently available either from standard sectarian or more secularized anti-Mormon sources, or from the fringes of Mormon culture and intellectual life. (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, pages 211- 214).

Stephen E. Robinson, chairman of the Department of Ancient Scripture at BYU was livid over Dan Vogel’s “Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture” and called him “Korihor”, a villain from the Book of Mormon:

Korihor’s back, and this time he’s got a printing press. Korihor, the infamous “alternate voice” in the Book of Mormon, insisted that “no man can know of anything which is to come”…In its continuing assault upon traditional Mormonism, Signature Books promotes with its recent and dubiously titled work The Word of God precisely these same naturalistic assumptions of the Korihor agenda in dealing with current Latter-day Saint beliefs….this is a propaganda piece.

For years anti-Mormons have hammered the Church from the outside, insisting that Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints’ scriptures he produced were not what they claimed to be. Whether Signature Books and its authors will convince the Saints of the same hostile propositions by attacking from the inside remains to be seen….What the anti-Mormons couldn’t do with a frontal assault of contradiction, Signature and Vogel would now accomplish with a flanking maneuver of redefinition.

I suppose by now it is clear that I did not like this book….Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me ‘Ex-Mormons for Jesus’ or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of Signature Books camouflaged as a ‘Latter-day Saint’ press. I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, vol. 3, pp. 312).

Mormon Apology is about vilifying every critic of the church and promoting self serving BS. It is about being dishonest. Why? Because they have it ass backwards:

“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm.

This is admitting to being dishonest. And since it has been proven over and over again that Smith was a fraud and that Mormonism cannot sustain its own truth claims, they continue to ride the same dishonest train that only ends with it running off of a cliff.

The Christians in earlier centuries were no different. It is "defending the faith" dishonestly. There is no way they can be honest about it and they know it.

Its primary objective is to point out the flaws in the critic's argument, and thus to neutralize their criticisms. Its purpose is not to "do scholarship," but to prove the critic wrong.

And that can only be done with FACTS AND SCHOLARSHIP, not by promoting esoteric and personal beliefs and supernatural claims that they can never prove are real. There is no way to "neutralize" a supernatural claim by a believer or a critic saying it never happened. That's simply he said she said and that's all religion has.

But there is a whole other dimension to this, are the people who make such supernatural claims honest, can they back up their claims with supernatural power, (like actually raising the dead like it was claimed of Jesus), or actually giving specific prophecies that come true, are their stories consistent, etc. NOT ONE OF THEM HAS EVER DONE SO.

Mormonism has never lived up to its own truth claims and neither has any other religion. But a lot of people have started wars, made lots of money and duped a lot of people with them and continue to do so.

[_Philo Sofee]

Outstanding analysis Grindael. Man what would we do without yer keen eye for detail? Luv ya man! I can even prophesy that Zerinus will, of course, no questions asked, misunderstand or even better miss the point entirely. It is after all, his modus operandi...

[_Jersey Girl]

The word apologetics came into use among early Christians to describe the activity of defending their faith against (intellctual) attack by unbelievers:

“Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence") is a field of Christian theology that aims to present historical, reasoned, and evidential bases for Christianity, defending it against objections.
• • •
“The original Greek apologia (ἀπολογία, from ἀπολογέομαι, apologeomai, "speak in return, defend oneself") was a formal verbal defense, either in response to accusation or prosecution in a court of law.” Link

Nowadays Christian theologians and activities have changed the original application of the word to mean something like actively promoting their own religion, and even to attacking other people’s religions. They write anti-Mormon or anti-JW literature for example and call it “apologetics”. But that is not what it meant to the early Christian thinkers who had invented the idea in the first place. They came under various kinds of attacks from their pagan neighbours and societies in which they lived. Those attacks took several different forms, one of them being intellctual. “Apologetics” was the name given to defending themselves against those kinds of attacks. Christians today have redefined it to mean whatever they want it to mean, but that is not what it meant to the those who invented the idea in the first place. And Mormons have also been caught up in that confusion to some extent.

So let me get this straight. You, a member of the LDS church, are leveling criticism at Christians for redefining a word/concept to make it mean whatever they want it to mean (saying that Mormon's have been caught up in the same to a certain extent) when the very work of LDS apologists themselves relies on the practice that requires them to change the meaning of conventional words and concepts, and when the very religion itself changes the meaning of conventional Christian terminology and doctrinal concepts and the very identity and nature of Jesus and God, and then still presents itself as Christianity or the restored version of a Christianity that was never actually restored, but added to and changed in order to develop an entirely new religion.

Have I got that right so far?

[_mentalgymnast]

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

In many cases, that is probably true. But you do have folks such as Steven Peck that engage in 'good' science as they practice their faith.

https://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Peck/e ... ont_book_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_L._Peck

Regards,
MG

[_zerinus]

This is true of marriage, Urim and Thummim, etc. Heck it's almost true of any subject in religion come to think of it. You are assuming the original definition is the most important. Mormonism has proven this is seldom the case, especially in regards to "marriage," "polygamy," "Premortal existent intelligences," etc. Mormonism long ago gave up even caring about what the "original" definition of things were. They say what matters is what today's leaders say.

Then they need to find a different name for it. The activity belies the name.

[_zerinus]

Have I got that right so far?

No.

[_Lemmie]

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

In many cases, that is probably true. But you do have folks such as Steven Peck that engage in 'good' science as they practice their faith.

Does Steven Peck do apologetics?

[_Gadianton]

Well that reference sure came from nowhere MG. You missed the context (surprising as that may be). The context was specifically those who assume the church is true and work backwards to justify it and claim something along the lines that their assumption of the Church is just as valid as an assumption of naturalism. At first blush, whatever issues this Peck guy might have, it doesn't seem this is his problem. It looks more like he's a wild theological speculator. Totally different animal than an apologist.