Mister Scratch wrote:Ultimately, it makes me wonder what the fundamental purpose of apologetics actually is: Is it meant to help wavering members? Or is it more about attacking and lashing out at critics?
Sometimes apologetics is like the Ark, other times it's like the Titanic.
Prior to 1990 and the subsequent rise of FARMS/FAIR/SHIELDS lots of anti-Mormon writing dominated the market. As Mike Ash observed:
Reed Durham, former director of the LDS Institute of Religion at the University of Utah, gave a speech in 1972 wherein he acknowledged that along with the threat of harm that the Tanners pose to the Church, they have done more to put together sources for research than anyone else outside of the Church. "They've become very important in understanding our Church history." Durham went on to explain that he purchased the reproductions from the Tanners because he wanted the "primary sources" that were part of his "heritage" and the Tanners were "the only ones producing" them. Quoting Lehi's statement of "opposition in all things," Durham said:
"I can't help but think that when they raise these issues it does something to us to have to defend... When I see something that counters what I've been taught or what I know or what I understand or what I feel, the way to counter research...unpleasant to me is not by sticking my head in the sand like an ostrich, but by more research. I may have to revamp, and knowledge sometimes is a dangerous thing. But I will revamp, and I will understand better my heritage. ...what I'm trying to say is that they have become, in a sense, catalysts to sharpen our own historical understanding. We've had to get on the stick and do some study, and do some homework that sometimes we haven't done."
That should be the real purpose of apologetics, and the critic has an important role to play:
Nearly all LDS apologists with whom I have conversed on the topic of my paper tell me the same thing: The accusations of critics have often prompted them to greater research, which resulted in a clearer understanding of the issues. Scott Faulring has estimated--in response to my queries--that about 25 to 30 percent of his research has been "motivated by the inaccurate or warped interpretation/presentation by our religious opponents." And, he notes, "it is a sad fact that sometimes our critics do 'get it right' but we ignore their findings because of who they are (Marquardt, Vogel, Tanner, etc.)."146
Stephen Ricks replied to my query: "I can say that my insights have been sharpened by responding to implicitly or explicitly anti-Mormon statements."147 And as Kevin Barney expressed to me:
I think we need a certain level of outside criticism. We're not very tolerant of "in-house" criticism, but we need some sort of criticism to cause us to rethink and reevaluate what we do, our literature, our doctrine, and so forth. Without such critiques, we could get mired in iconoclastic, provincial thought and practices. The best disinfectant is sunshine, as they say. If it were just Mormons in Utah, if the railroad never came, and we were left totally to our own devices, you and I would have multiple wives, we would believe Adam is our God, and blacks would not hold the priesthood.
Not all criticism is effective, and not all apologetics is effective. When it becomes ad hominem neither is effective.