StructureCop wrote:Question: What is the net effect of FARMS-type apologetics, scholarship or research on the body of the Church at large or on official pronouncements or policies of Church leadership?
Hypothesis: The number of Church members who subscribe or follow FARMS research/publications remains relatively limited. Some theories originating with FARMS publications make their way into the mainstream and become receive an official or folk status as an accepted interpretation of Mormon beliefs, but the vast majority only gain popularity among apologetic circles. Some Church membership may even regard FARMS or apologists with suspicion because they propose alternative interpretations of traditional LDS narratives or doctrines.
Church leadership may occasionally take FARMS theories into consideration, but such considerations are rarely articulated in "official" pronouncements, manuals, or other publications. I think Church leadership appreciates FARMS scholars' work generally.
Obviously there are some here who are more connected to the apologetics and Church leadership communities who may be able to clear up some of this if I am mistaken.
I don't know that you would get much disagreement from apologists regarding your hypothesis.
Where we may disagree, though, with some people on this thread, is why apologetics has such a nominal effect on LDS leadership and membership.
Some have suggested that it is because LDS apologetics tends to be weak and unsatisfactory even deleterious to wavering LDS faith. And, this may well be true at least in the cases of those making the suggestion.
However, I question whether this reason applies much, if at all, to Church leaders or to members in general. To me, the more likely explanation for the nominal effect of apologetics is because, by and large, the issues raised by critics and doubters, and addressed by apologetics, tend not to be directly relevant to the intents and purposes of the restored gospel--i.e. growth in faith towards becoming like Christ, unto a fullness of joy and love one with another. They tend to fall outside the three-fold mission of the Church and the normal bounds and proposed path of day-to-day spiritual development.
While critic and apologist may wrangle over hemispheric or limit geography for the Book of Mormon, or whether Joseph Smith consummated his plural marriages, or if the Book of Abraham was translated from the extant papyri, etc. etc., the general membership, with the encouragement of the leaders, are incline towards being rightly concerned with whether they are raising their children right, have sufficiently met their leadership obligations, have done enough service to their fellow man, are reading the scriptures often enough, praying sincerely, attending the temple frequently, are mindful of the ancestors, etc. etc. For good reason, the leaders and members really haven't the need or the time to be bothered with most, if not all, of the issues raised on this and other boards frequented by apologists.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
