The Tiers of Apologetics

[_harmony]

Which begs the question how one can have a relationship with an entity he/she has never seen, heard, touched, etc.

You make an assumption here, Morrissey. Private things of this nature in my world are kept private, as they are not for public consumption.

[_EAllusion]

The tiers concept is easy enough to get Mak.

Let's break it down.

Tier pne might argue directly that there is solid evidence that ancient Mesoamerica was populated by Hebrews making a transoceanic voyage.

Let's create a hypothetical scenario for tier two. Suppose there were two competing theories in academia on the early peopling of the Americas. Let's suppose theory one is primarily focused on bering straight migration while theory two places a lot more emphasis on transoceanic voyages from Eurasia. Tier two apologetics might involve supporting the latter theory. It's not explicitly tier one. It's more friendly to it.

Tier three might might involve excellent, expert academic work on ancient seafaring that's well respected by other scholars. It merely lends a air of legitimacy to the apologists'/apologetic institutions' opinions on ancient seafaring in order to add credibility to tier one and tier two.

Now you might disagree that this is what is going on. But the concept should be easy to pick up on. I get it.

[_maklelan]

The tiers concept is easy enough to get Mak.

I understand what he's trying to say. What I object to is the fact that it's a reductive caricature of the people involved and is a ridiculous attempt at marginalizing a group for which he harbors a moderate degree of antipathy.

Let's break it down.

Tier pne might argue directly that there is solid evidence that ancient Mesoamerica was populated by Hebrews making a transoceanic voyage.

There is evidence. I wouldn't call it solid in the sense of impregnable, but there is evidence. People of all ideologies point to evidence that is not unassailable in every academic discipline on the planet. Does that make them all "Tier 1 apologists," or only when Mormons do it?

Let's create a hypothetical scenario for tier two. Suppose there were two competing theories in academia on the early peopling of the Americas. Let's suppose theory one is primarily focused on bering straight migration while theory two places a lot more emphasis on transoceanic voyages from Eurasia. Tier two apologetics might involve supporting the latter theory. It's not explicitly tier one. It's more friendly to it.

Again, people of all ideologies support theories that support their conclusions in every academic discipline on the planet.

Tier three might might involve excellent, expert academic work on ancient seafaring that's well respected by other scholars. It merely lends a air of legitimacy to the apologists'/apologetic institutions' opinions on ancient seafaring in order to add credibility to tier one and tier two.

And, again, excellent scholarship is done by people of all ideologies in support of conclusions that also have less strong evidences also supporting them.

Now you might disagree that this is what is going on. But the concept should be easy to pick up on. I get it.

I never said that the concept was difficult to understand, but I'm pointing out the fallacious nature of the whole endeavor. In addition, according to the OP, "Tier 1 apologetics" does not engage the apologetic evidence, but rather seeks to add legitimacy only to the general respectability of the apologists so that their other work, by association, becomes more legitimate. Since all three things take place in every academic discipline on the planet, the whole point is rather silly. The OP is basically looking at Mormonism and thinking, "How can I pigeonhole it and marginalize it so I can seem above it and better than it?" Unfortunately, the phenomena the OP observed aren't unique to Mormonism or apologetics. His tunnel vision has blinded him to that fact, though, so he ends up with a cute and cuddly little theory that ultimately doesn't say a thing.

[_cksalmon]

The tiers concept is easy enough to get Mak.

Let's break it down.

Tier pne might argue directly that there is solid evidence that ancient Mesoamerica was populated by Hebrews making a transoceanic voyage.

Let's create a hypothetical scenario for tier two. Suppose there were two competing theories in academia on the early peopling of the Americas. Let's suppose theory one is primarily focused on bering straight migration while theory two places a lot more emphasis on transoceanic voyages from Eurasia. Tier two apologetics might involve supporting the latter theory. It's not explicitly tier one. It's more friendly to it.

Tier three might might involve excellent, expert academic work on ancient seafaring that's well respected by other scholars. It merely lends a air of legitimacy to the apologists'/apologetic institutions' opinions on ancient seafaring in order to add credibility to tier one and tier two.

Now you might disagree that this is what is going on. But the concept should be easy to pick up on. I get it.

Well, EA, your hypothetical example of the concept certainly makes more sense than Gadianton's "real-world" presentation of same. Gad, in fact, fails to provide even a hypothetical LDS example of "second tier apologetics."

And, while your own third tier (Gad's "first"; you appear to have reversed his numbering) makes the concept intelligible, Gad's example (the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative) effectively obscures his underlying point. As far as I can tell, the aims of METI are completely unrelated to LDS apologia qua LDS apologia (unlike in your example).

To be sure, insofar as this is the case--

FARMS was founded in 1979 and is currently directed by S. Kent Brown. For more than 25 years, FARMS has been conducting research and publishing books and periodicals to further scholarship, make friends for BYU and the Church, provide educational tools and resources, and defend the faith.

METI, led by Daniel C. Peterson; CPART, under Kristian Heal; and WordCruncher, guided by Monte Shelley, are also departments in the institute.

--we can reasonably agree that METI exists, in part, to "make friends for BYU and the Church." But, Gad's presentation is a far cry from the more cogent hypothetical scenario you've sketched above.

cks

EDIT: But, if we're to use words intentionally and meaningfully, we must surely admit that METI does not function as apologia except in some very, very broad sense--so broad, in fact, as to be virtually unrelated to the concept; that is, if we wish to be better than vaguely general. That's my complaint with Gad's formulation.

[_cksalmon]

The tiers concept is easy enough to get Mak.

I understand what he's trying to say. What I object to is the fact that it's a reductive caricature of the people involved...

Unfortunately, the phenomena the OP observed aren't unique to Mormonism or apologetics....

Indeed, quite so. These observations were to have formed the scaffolding of my next post, but you've already said it as well or better than I.

cks

[_EAllusion]

Yeah, I accidentally reversed the order.

To the first point Mak, it's apologetics when it argues for the rational warrant of a religious belief. That's kinda by definition. Whether there is evidence or not (which really heavily depends on your definition of "evidence" here) is a different matter. While it's developed a negative connoation, apologetics doesn't inherently mean wrong.

Tier 3 apologetics is just about straightforwardly making arguments that support religious propositions. Tier 2 is either supporting arguments incidentally (and possibly superficially) more friendly to religious propositions and/or attempting to add a obfuscating secular veneer to a tier 3 argument.

Tier 1 is about enhancing your academic cred/reputation as intelligent in order to make 3 and 2 seem more respectable. When ID advocate Johnathan Wells got a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from Berkley (with its corresponding dissertation work) because, in his words, "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism...," he was blatantly doing tier 1 apologetics in the sense Gad is talking about. The CSM is a pretty good example as well.

I'm not going to defend the notion that every single thing an apologist is doing when associated with apologetic organizations is this, I do find this distinction handy. I like it.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I'll thank you not to tell me what kind of Mormon I am. You don't the first thing about my relationship with Christ and with his church.

I don't know if you got the memo, but Christ isn't real.

Forgive him. He has a degree in political "science."

[_cksalmon]

Yeah, I accidentally reversed the order.
...
I'm not going to defend the notion that every single thing an apologist is doing when associated with apologetic organizations is this[;] I do find this distinction handy. I like it.

Good on you, EA. Then you have no need to defend Gad's simply and obviously silly conflation of METI and LDS apologia.

cks

[_Gadianton]

CK,

Nothing "real world" outside Mopologetics came to mind immediately for tier 2 flavor B. I did in fact provide an example of tier 2 flavor A. An example of tier 2 flavor B would be Gees work as an MI associate, the stuff that's published outside of FARMS.

METI is clearly tier 1, even if you think it isn't. Of course, the apologists don't think anything is tier 1 or 2 is apologetics. As proof of concept for my notion of tier 1, consider DCP's announcements here every time METI does something. Why would anyone care about a translation of this or that totally unrealated to Mormonism or the general religious discussions that go on here? Well, it matters for DCP because tier 1 aims to establish credibility for the apologetic organization. Tier 1 is essentially public relations. Like, the youth wearing the Mormon t-shirts while sandbagging. Filling sandbags has nothing to do with proselyting right, *wink*.

Let's say the same work the MI does was done by a group of professors at BYU who had nothing to do with apologetics, and the organization they started wasn't part of the MI and didn't have a long entry about it at the MI webpage. It would then most likely not be tier 1 apologetics.

[_cksalmon]

CK...METI is clearly tier 1, even if you think it isn't.

No, I get it, Gad.

If I happen to think that you are wrong, then, on your authority, I myself happen to be obviously wrong, in light of your authoritative statement to the contrary.

METI is clearly tier 1, even if you think it isn't.

But, then, if I think you are wrong, to some degree, based on some, to my mind, basic evidence, then, actually, I'm going to go with my own interpretation here.

I would offer, as a counter-proposal, on my own authority, that METI clearly isn't tier 1, even if you think it is.

You see how that works? I have just refuted your claim by mere fiat. I trust you will bow to my expressed wisdom in this regard.

cks