Mormon apologetics...

[dennisknapp]

mormon fool:

From a faithful member’s point of view I do not need FAIR and FARMS to do more then demonstrate plausibility. There is no way to objectively prove subjective religious experience to everyone’s satisfaction.** A testimony of God flows from a personal relationship with him. For people who need objective certainty in all things, I would would speculate that mormonism might not be for them.**

later,
fool

Are you equating religious truth with subjective religious experience? For you, are there no objective religious truths? If so, then how do you know you are not being deceived? Could there not be other forces out there manipulating your subjective experiences?

Peace

 

[JohnnyR]

Hi Catholic Guy and mormon fool,

Thank you for taking the time to say hi. I am looking forward to posting here at the Catholic Answers Forums.

Grace and peace,
johnny

 

[mormon_fool]

dennisknapp:

Can you please clarify what you mean by “testimony?”

I would equate “testimony” in the mormon apologist context as having knowledge and having had a spiritual witness of the central mormon truth claims.

One can claim knowledge about something under 3 conditions:In formal philosophy, “knowing,” in the sense of knowing facts, is often defined to mean true belief together with good reasons. In other words, a person knows some statement X if and only if that person believes X, and if X is true, and if the person has good reasons for believing X.

–Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:462

That is not to limit knowledge to knowing about some fact. “Knowing” in the sense of acquantance is even more central to mormon testimony as per John 17:3. Traditionally “good reasons” include rational argument and empirical evidence, but the LDS paradigm holds that that “gospel knowledge must ultimately be obtained by spiritual rather than exclusively rational or empirical means . (Ibid)”

If I were to generalize the LDS search for truth it would be to study evidences and reasoning out of the best resources like finding the truth all depends on oneself, and praying like gaining spiritual truth all depends on divine intervention.

What exactly are you in basic agreement about regarding my first post?

First, I think we all approach life with preconceptions, there is no way to not do so. Our preconceptions shape what we choose to analyze. Some people cling more tenaciously to their preconceptions than others who will allow their beliefs to modified by the new information. Typically an apologist is at a point where their core values are pretty much fixed, and they feel passionate about demonstrating the validity of these core values to others who may not have such “fixed” notions. An apologist would allow modification of preconceptions in secondary matters. If they gave up on core values they would by definition cease to be an apologist for that position.

With that in mind I totally agree that LDS apologists “presuppose the Mormon position to be true.” There is nothing wrong with this in their stage of intellectual and spiritual development. Just like there in nothing wrong when a committed Catholic apologists wakes up in the morning with a firm belief the Catholic position is true and worth defending.

And I also agree that LDS apologists sometimes pray for spiritual guidance and reading the Book of Mormon is a good way to recover one’s spiritual peace when doubts arise. It isn’t the only way to prepare to receive a spiritual witness, but coupled with prayer, dilligent study, and dilligent discipleship can be highly effective. Spiritual experiences come in a variety of different forms, “the burning in the bosom” is only one such.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

dennisknapp:

Are you saying that Justin’s influence includes him making up new doctrine?

I would have to say yes to this for both the catholic perspective and the mormon perspective. My understanding of the catholic perspective is based on discussions with Arieh and the “The Logos” entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia. So my understanding is by no means infallible. I think both some mormons and some catholics think Justin’s errors were brought on through the influence of Greek thought and Justin’s apologetic efforts to make the gospel appear more acceptable to his correspondents. We probably disagree exactly what Justin’s errors or new doctrines were.

What exact did he influence that became “mainstream?”

For a catholic perspective of Justin’s contributions see here towards the bottom of the article. In as much as Justin got things right, I doubt that it would be considered “new doctrine” but part of legitimate doctrinal development. Development that didn’t become official until centuries afterward.

Remember I brought up Justin as a way to fairly compare LDS apologetics to Catholic apologetics at a time when there wasn’t a great body of official literature to resolve criticisms.

later,
fool

 

[JohnnyR]

mormon fool,

Finding truth does not depend on oneself. The Spirit of truth guides us into the truth. God is not the author of confusion, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. The mysteries of the Bible are inaccessible to reason alone. We are to cloth ourselves with humilty, for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

I find it interesting you do not mention the Bible for spiritual guidance. Holy Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for correction, and for instruction.

JohnnyR

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

With that in mind I totally agree that LDS apologists “presuppose the Mormon position to be true.” There is nothing wrong with this in their stage of intellectual and spiritual development. Just like there in nothing wrong when a committed Catholic apologists wakes up in the morning with a firm belief the Catholic position is true and worth defending.

I think the fundamental difference is that LDS apologetic arguments are pretty much “presuppose that Mormonism is true and the evidence will appear”. They have no real historical proof, only shadows of things that could possibly prove that there were LDS doctrines if you look at the evidence with a desire to see LDS doctrines.

Whereas, the Catholic apologist has Scripture, history, and reason on his side. He does not ask the reader to presuppose Catholicism to be true or ask him to seek a burning in the bossom. The evidence is so clear, so early, so universal, and so satisfying that the Catholic apologist allows the evidence to speak for itself.

Both apologists search the historical record wanting to prove their faith is true, but the reader of a Catholic apologist’s work doesn’t need to seek a subjective “confirmation”. Who allows for the most plain reading of Scripture and history? One example is the Real Presence, it is so clear in Scripture, so early in history, and so universal in the Church that this alone should convince people of the truth of Catholicism, however there is so much more proof.

I think what the differences boil down to is subjective vs. objective. When you look at the fact that most LDS converts attend a couple of missionary presentations, seek a burning sensation, quickly become baptized, and then runs over to FARMS to get that latest spin on objections to Mormonism.

Compare this to a typical Catholic convert. The person investigates the claims of the Church for months or years, attends RCIA for several weeks, then has to wait weeks or months for confirmation. All along the way there is ample time to just walk away, but the Church never applies pressure because it has really nothing to defend (theologically) because it is the Bride of Christ.

 

[JohnnyR]

arieh0310,

It boils down to believing the Bible and the first Christians. To believe Mormonism a person must discount many Bible verses and the teachings of the first Christians.

JohnnyR

 

[arieh0310]

mormon fool:

I would have to say yes to this for both the catholic perspective and the mormon perspective. My understanding of the catholic perspective is based on discussions with Arieh and the “The Logos” entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia. So my understanding is by no means infallible. I think both some mormons and some catholics think Justin’s errors were brought on through the influence of Greek thought and Justin’s apologetic efforts to make the gospel appear more acceptable to his correspondents. We probably disagree exactly what Justin’s errors or new doctrines were.

Fool,

I know you are too magnanimous to put words in my mouth but when did I say that Justin introduced new doctrine? What I seem to remember implying is that Justin, when arguing for the Catholic doctrines he held, tended to draw upon Greek thinkers like Socrates to prove his reasoning was “resonable”. Justin’s subordinationalism seems to be more directed at His human will and nature than Christ’s divine Person. Justin’s imperfection in descriping the nature of the Second Person of the Trinity seems more like an immature version of the Nicean definition of the Triune God than a separate doctrine of the nature of God.

 

[mormon_fool]

dennisknapp:

Are you equating religious truth with subjective religious experience?For you, are there no objective religious truths?

I think a distinction needs to made between an objective truth and whether someone can gain knowledge of such a truth through objective means. See wikipedia for these distinctions. I hold that religous truth does exist. I am by no means a moral relativist.

My position on whether an objective truth can be known though purely objective means is bound to more controversial and phlosophically laden. I came down on that question as no! This is especially the case for what gets denoted as religous truth, which is ultimately and preferably obtained through subjective, non-transferable means

Certainly someone may accept religous truth without a personal, spiritual witness. But my read of the scriptures makes me not consider it a very blessed state to be in. See for instance Matt 16:17. Hopefully this is a temporary state.

One facet of “objective truth” is that different people of different backgrounds should be able to examine the same evidence an come up with same conclusion or conduct the same experiment and get the same results. Pre-existing beliefs shouldn’t matter. And yet a single evidence or experiment that will unite peoples of all faiths and skeptics alike into one religous body has not been brought to us mortal’s attention.

So in short: Yes there are objective religous truths, but no, objective ways of ultimately acquiring knowledge of these truths are not available.

If so, then how do you know you are not being deceived? Could there not be other forces out there manipulating your subjective experiences?

Of course one can always be deceived and manipulated. Hence the need to study and ponder like it all depends on yourself and pray like it all depends on God. To concentrate solely on the former is putting faith in the arm of the flesh. To concentrate solely on the latter is being intellectually lazy. If you are still deceived after putting your best effort in both aspects, then there is not much more you can do.

later,
fool

 

[JohnnyR]

mormon fool,

To minimize the deception and manipulation we should realize that:

• the Bible is profitable for doctrine, for correction, and for instruction (2Tim 3:16,17)
• we are to stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2Thes 2:15).
• we are to hold fast to the faithful word that has been taught (Tit 1:9).
• the faith was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

God our Saviour desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:3-4).

 

[ben_dy]

ben_dy:

Originally Posted by ben_dy
That, I believe, is a fair ‘apples to apples’ comparison.

mormon fool:

Yes, definitely more on target. But what would be more on target in regards post # 1 would be to show that a catholic apologist’s personal search for truth is any different than a mormon’s. I think starting from vague generalities would show that the epistemology is largely the same. In other words, both sets of people approach problems with a combination of study and faith. I don’t think we should expect an apologist to some how shelve their convictions in their personal searches for truth, merely because it some how confers a degree of credibility of their findings.

I suppose the vague generalities may not hold when the details of how someone fuses their spiritually gained knowledge and their secularly gained knowledge emerge. For example the relative wieghts to give each and how to harmonize them may differ, as well as what weight given to prior work on the same subject and what specific research methodology is employed.

Is a Catholic apologists search for truth different than that of a Mormon apologist? I would think that the answer is initially ‘no’ - both have a set of beliefs that they wish to defend, and you’re correct in saying that “both sets of people approach problems with a combination of study and faith” (but would hasten to say that these are ‘problems’ that others have with their particular faith, not problems that plague the apologist. Nor would I suggest that an apologist shelve his convictions - that’s why I have said (and I really do need to go back and find the FARMS article and author) that I admired the FARMS author who, when writing of the veracity of the Book of Abraham, did his best to make an argument in favor of its authenticity but concluded that it was, for him, simply a matter of faith.

ben_dy:

From my POV the difference in Catholic and Mormon apologetics lies within authority.

mormon fool:

I like this observation. LDS apologists are not very authorative. SLC doesn’t stamp any FAIR articles with imprimatur. On many issues, there is no set in stone response. Apologists aren’t paid but work with individuals and issues mostly as a labor of love. Almost all the people who write for FARMS can get a job anywhere, and their non-FARMS writing in their fields of study are highly respected by their non-LDS peers. But still mormon apologists don’t run the LDS church and some of the issues are left pending resolution through revelation through the appropriate channels.

Hmm. You’ve brought up one of my pet peeves - I even have a “TG” with a circle around the letters to make a margin note in FARMS and FAIR documents which bring up the “we’re not paid to be apologists, we have regular jobs, no paid ministry,” etc., obligatory remarks that seem to be included in every third document. The “TG” stands for the fact that my teeth begin grinding each time I read this apology/excuse/boast/what-have-you. If Mormon apologetics is important (and I think it is, just as I think it is for Catholics if, for no other reason, that we both make the claim to be the one True Church of Christ) why don’t like-minded Mormons band together, perhaps with church approval, and for a non-profit corporation to support Mormon apologetics? I’m assuming that is what Mr. Keating has done - I don’t actually know the status of Catholic Answers but I’m fairly certain it operates as a non-profit corporation and supports itself through sales of books, tapes, etc., and solicits and accepts donations to keep things running. I believe (and I may be wrong - this is just something I seem to recall reading) that it operates as an approved lay apostolate under the auspices of the Diocese of San Diego. Why can’t LDS apologists take a cue from Karl and establish a like organization? I keep hearing the excuse that “we have no paid ministry” and yet I have to assume that the at least some of the employees of the Deseret Book Company, which is owned by Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the LDS church are paid employees? Deseret Book seems to fill a void which would not be filled by a non-church owned company so the “no paid ministry” excuse just doesn’t fly with me (I could be wrong - if all employees of Deseret Book are volunteers, even though it’s a for-profit corporation). Sorry for going on at such length - this really is a ‘peeve’ for me. Perhaps it’s been tried and simply could not garner support from church members - but, if it’s not been attempted, why not give it a chance and stop with the whining already?

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

As to the lack of a church * imprimatur* I seem to recall that, after the McConkie / Mormon Doctrine debacle, there was a decision made that any book published by a member of the GA would undergo review before publication. It would seem to me a simple feat to extend review authority to worthy church members - perhaps a paid staff - so that books published by even LDS laity (again, taking a cue from Karl Keating) could publish works that were deemed free from doctrinal error.

I can already anticipate that the argument against such arrangements would, by necessity, lie in the lack of doctrinal authority with the standard works, doctrine, and any revelation lying solely with the living prophet but the limitations of the meaning of “free from doctrinal error” could be addressed in one paragraph, just as the “does not imply agreement” clause is addressed with books published under Catholic authority.

ben_dy:

the Mormon apologist is forced to offer as proof only that which is contained in the standard works and/or taught by the living prophet.

mormon fool:

That is where a Mormon apologist and critics should start, certaintly. But if a legitimate, sincere question is unresolved in the highest weighted sources, doctrinal literature of lesser weight can be appealed to. For some reason, critics like to work backwards. An LDS apologist shouldn’t be held accountable for a lesser source unless he/she uses that source approvingly in a response. If a critic wants to know how his/her correspondent views a lesser source, then I would think it would be wise to get the LDS correspondent’s take on it before holding him/her to it.

I don’t see how this is conceptually different than the way a Catholic would try to answer a sincere question. Obviously there is a whole class of literature that is not authorative, such as ECF writing, that is nevertheless appealed to in debates. If possible an official decree or writing would be appealed to. Historically an immense body of authoritative literature has not always been available.

The more direct comparison would be to how the early Christian church handled its contraversies in the first couple of centuries. Like we see with LDS apologists, there was a considerable time lag between when an apologist like Justin Martyr addressed contemporary issues and some of the ideas he influenced became more mainstream and reworked into official creeds.

As to the first paragraph - the difference I see in lay Catholic and Mormon apologetics is that neither should wander into the field of the theologian: the Catholic apologist uses the work of theology to explain Catholic doctrine and, as the theology and theologians that Catholic apologists will use as sources are most definitely going to be in agreement with the deposit of faith rightfully held by the Magisterium of the Church, he is on solid ground. You write that, for the Mormon apologist, “if a legitimate, sincere question is unresolved in the highest weighted sources, doctrinal literature of lesser weight can be appealed to” and, while I suppose this is legitimate, I don’t think it really credible - the Catholic apologist would, naturally, appeal to doctrinal definitions carrying the greatest weight. Those separate means of appeal, I believe, point to the reason that the Mormon apologist may lack greater credibility even within the LDS community. If I had no authority other than, for instance, Fr. Richard McBrien for which to defend some Catholic doctrine, I wouldn’t even make an attempt at defense!

As to the remaining - I think Justin Martyr - so close to the original sources - had far more authority which to appeal than do Mormon apologists, and this points, again, to the burden of lack of authority rather than to the lack of sources because of the relative infancy of Mormonism.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

ben_dy:

The Mormon apologist, on the other hand, is restricted to the standard works - and not his or her interpretation of the SW nor a previous prophets interpretation but only by the living prophet’s interpretation.

mormon fool:

Well, it seems that some apologists don’t play by these rules.

That’s true - and that’s one thing that might also be a difference between Mormon and Catholic apologists. A Catholic apologist is unlikely to make speculative claims, whereas a Mormon apologist is more likely to do so because he is forced, by lack of official commentary on the subject, resort to apologetics that needs be based on assumption. An example that I think I’ve already brought up is the ‘two Cumorah’ theory: it was proposed, then it was rejected by LDS authority, and now it is an open question for which speculation continues. Although the question of two Cumorahs is not, in my opinion, a question of doctrine, it is a legitimate question dealing with historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Thinking of this makes me think of an obvious dilemma that I see in Mormon apologetics - on the one hand it seems that the historicity of the truth of Mormon doctrine should, on the surface, seem more easily proved, as the religion is young (see Justin Martyr as Catholic example): however, because of not only the purported history of the Jaredites and Nephites in the BoM, and the doctrine of a great apostasy, the proofs must be much more ancient than the history of the Church established by Christ. In one respect the Catholic apologist needs only to deal with 2,000 years of history while the Mormon apologist must deal with over 4,000 years (depending on when you date the Jaredite journey). I’m sure I’m not the first to make that observation!

ben_dy:

Bruce McConkie! I’m sure he believed that he was accurate in recording Mormon doctrine in Mormon Doctrine yet had he not been so well thought of otherwise and had it not been seen as scandalous, he could have likely faced excommunication.

mormon fool:

This seems to be wishful thinking. I think Elder McConkie experienced greater difficulty because of the authoritative tone MD (ed. 1) than in the view points he expressed that were regarded as mistakes. People get excommunicated for rebellion against church leaders, not for expressing heretical views. A person might be asked to stop publically expressing heretical views and then get in trouble for refusing. As we see with Elder McConkie, he humbly submitted to his leaders and was never even close to being in danger of being excommunucated.

I didn’t mean it to be wishful thinking on my part - Orson Pratt (who, because of the young age at which he was commissioned, I tend to think of the first Mormon Missionary in the modern sense) and McConkie are my two favorite ‘Mormon doctrinal’ sources (although I realize that they don’t hold up well at times). Had McConkie not submitted to authority, and had he been a BYU prof rather than a GA, I think he might well have been excommunicated. As a Catholic I obviously believe in being subject to ecclesiastical authority (I don’t know if you’re familiar with the profession that is required, now, for exercising particular functions, but I’ve happily ‘made the pledge’ in two different diocese). I have nothing but respect for McConkie.

(I’m also going to have to learn the art of brevity… sorry… I’ll begin to make an attempt, I promise!)

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

Fool,

I know you are too magnanimous to put words in my mouth but when did I say that Justin introduced new doctrine?

I knew I would get myself into trouble even with two sentences of disclaimers .

The first part of my post basically used “new doctrines” as a synonym for “errors”. From a Catholic perspective is there any other way to consider a new doctrine? I suppose it can be argued that not all errors are “new doctrines”. “Doctrine” usually denotes some authority behind the teaching. However the meaning changes when you couple it with other adjectives (ex: false doctrine, folk doctrine, etc.) and descriptors like I was attempting to do, by associating “new doctrine” with “error”.

In any event, I clarified later in the post that Justin probably can’t really be said to have introduced “new doctrine” from a Catholic perspective. And anytime I attempt to restate and understand the Catholic perspective I welcome correction. I do not want to tell people what they believe. But at the same time, please allow me to restate positions as it is one of the best ways to see if I am “getting it” or not.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

ben_dy:

An example that I think I’ve already brought up is the ‘two Cumorah’ theory:

I don’t think mormon speculation on where the Nephite Cumorah really is, is conceptionally different than how Catholic apologists have historically speculated on (and reversed positions on) matters of science and not faith and morals. Both of our faiths are additionally confronted with the task of dealing with the historicity of the early Old Testament to skeptics. and this is also a legitimate question. In one respect, we all have 1000’s of years of history to account for.

Orson Pratt . . . and McConkie are my two favorite ‘Mormon doctrinal’ sources (although I realize that they don’t hold up well at times).

I like these two, too. One guy on the (religously) liberal end of the mormon spectrum and the other on the conservative end. Both of who have been censored for their writings by their superiors at one time and humbly submitted to them.

Had McConkie not submitted to authority, and had he been a BYU prof rather than a GA, I think he might well have been excommunicated.

You may be right in that if McConkie, as a BYU prof. had written Mormon Doctrine with the same authorative tone he did as a General Authority it probably never have gotten past the editors. On the other hand, I am not all that sure how being a GA gives one special pampering. I can think of a few examples of GAs that were disciplined for things they probably wouldn’t have been if they weren’t GAs. I thinking of George P. Lee, Moses Thatcher, John W. Taylor, the Lymans, and Matthew Cowley mainly because a higher standard is expected of them or they wouln’t have had a bully pulpit. I can think of former BYU professors who would have gotten in trouble for what they did even if they had been GA’s like Quinn or David Wright. Being a GA would have accelerated and aggravated the situation for these men. I can’t imagine a Grant Palmer, Tom Murphy, or even Van Hale retaining membership if they were GAs, although only one of these gentlemen ever worked for CES (Church Education System) that I am aware of.

–fool

 

[Fiat_Lux]

ben_dy:

If Mormon apologetics is important (and I think it is, just as I think it is for Catholics if, for no other reason, that we both make the claim to be the one True Church of Christ) why don’t like-minded Mormons band together, perhaps with church approval, and for a non-profit corporation to support Mormon apologetics?

Someone will correct me if I’m wrong…

But, I don’t think the LDS church has much interest in getting into the apologetics business, even if it’s simply to offer its stamp of approval. My understanding is that FAIR is tolerated as a necessary evil, to provide some sort of answer to increasing numbers of people who are starting to question its claims and ultimately leave the church. FAIR has legal disclaimers on its homepage, that it is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with the CoJCoLDS. On the flip side, I don’t think the official church site so much as links to FAIR.

From what I can tell, the CoJCoLDS doesn’t want its members to look at FAIR or any Mormon apologetics at all; they want members to concentrate on the burning in the bosom and the SW, and follow the prophet. It is only when those things aren’t enough (which increasingly seems to be the case) that they even tolerate apologetics. It would be difficult to give an apologetics group official approval, and at the same time discourage members from looking at the material.

It sure would be nice, though, to see Mormon apologetic material with something like the imprimatur stamped on the Catholic Answers articles!

 

[mormon_fool]

ben_dy:

Hmm. You’ve brought up one of my pet peeves - I even have a “TG” with a circle around the letters to make a margin note in FARMS and FAIR documents which bring up the “we’re not paid to be apologists, we have regular jobs, no paid ministry,” etc., obligatory remarks that seem to be included in every third document.

I will have to bring your perception to FAIR’s attention. It seems to me free-stuff (like share-ware) is always going to come packaged with its annoyances. For a large-scale current project we are working on we have been instructed to leave out the personal narrative.

Not every one is a fan of paid apologetics. For example, just recently a Catholic was discussing Karl Keating on a mormon message board, see RoryMcKenzie56 post 758. Being paid will gets one’s credibility questioned in some circles (more so than it is already.)

As for the “excuse” angle, a paid apologist might be more motivated to provide a lengthier or better researched review. But longer reviews are not necessarily warranted. As they say: give a man a fish he eats for a day, but teach a man to fish and he can become more self reliant (I botched that a bit). Interested parties should follow some of the apologist’s references and work on their own conclusions. Book length reviews of books are rarely undertaken anywhere in apologetics or academia.

As for the “boasting” angle, I think this card gets played not because they want to look better than other apologetic organizations like CA, but because they are going up against lucrative countercult ministries. I for one question the countercult’s industries motives as well as their arguments. Attack for pay is orders of magnitude worse than defend for pay.

I am coming to think that apologetics in mormon culture is not appreciated like it is in catholic culture. Besides a few intellectuals in mormon history like B.H. Roberts and the Pratt brothers, the LDS have largely been incapable of defending itself from sophisticated criticisms from the more established traditions. Wisely in the past, I think the LDS church has taken a stance that bad apologetics is worse than no apologetics, and so a culture of avoiding conflict has arisen. Now trends are shifting and Mormon studies are becoming respectable, but in the recent past there was still a lot of self-promotion needed to get things off the ground.

Why can’t LDS apologists take a cue from Karl and establish a like organization?

FAIR is a non-profit organization, but it has no paid staff. It is all volunteer and there is a disparity in expertise of the article writers. There are a lot of projects in the works. If you are ever curious about anything not on their site that you think should be, you can always email your questions in to the site.

I keep hearing the excuse that “we have no paid ministry” and yet I have to assume that at least some of the employees of the Deseret Book Company, which is owned by Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the LDS church are paid employees?

Good points about Desertbook. The difference between DesertBook and DeseretAnswers is that there just isn’t much of a market for the latter. I don’t know the numbers but I am guessing apologetic publications sell very poorly at DB. The general LDS audience would rather read “The Work and the Glory” and devotional writing from GA’s then they will for books that introduce disturbances. DB does provide the church a publishing arm, but it largely functions because it profitable or at least self-sustaining.

Anyway I really can’t speak for the LDS church, FARMS, or FAIR on what the best way to handle apologetics is. There was a pretty good interview of a FAIR leader on the subject that is worth checking out at here.

 

[mormon_fool]

Fiat Lux:

From what I can tell, the CoJCoLDS doesn’t want its members to look at FAIR or any Mormon apologetics at all; they want members to concentrate on the burning in the bosom and the SW, and follow the prophet. It is only when those things aren’t enough (which increasingly seems to be the case) that they even tolerate apologetics. It would be difficult to give an apologetics group official approval, and at the same time discourage members from looking at the material.

Good post. I don’t have any difficulty with most of these observations. I don’t think the church has a stance one way or another about members looking at FAIR. Certainly there is discouragement for reading anti-mormon literature. The church site does link to FARMS and Jeff Lindsay’s site and these two sites have much content overlap with FAIR. I don’t think FAIR is in danger of being shut down anytime soon.

-fool

 

[mormon_fool]

ben_dy:

As to the lack of a church * imprimatur* I seem to recall that, after the McConkie / Mormon Doctrine debacle, there was a decision made that any book published by a member of the GA would undergo review before publication. It would seem to me a simple feat to extend review authority to worthy church members - perhaps a paid staff - so that books published by even LDS laity (again, taking a cue from Karl Keating) could publish works that were deemed free from doctrinal error.

Yes this would make a case for more of a paid staff. But this is what DeseretBook already does on a more informal basis as do the editors for the major scholarly LDS periodicals. LDS members already know the relative status a particular work has that isn’t part of the canon or hasn’t gone through “correlation”. Correlation would not necessarily be seen as a good thing if it was more pervasive in mormon culture. It stiffles creativity and independent thought. I think we LDS are all perfectly happy to be unified on the fundamental tenants of the faith and yet have a diversity of thought on matters that are not deemed pertinent to salvation like where Cumorah is.

If I had no authority other than, for instance, Fr. Richard McBrien for which to defend some Catholic doctrine, I wouldn’t even make an attempt at defense!

I think you are right on here. In fact LDS apologists don’t feel obligated to defend some doctrine that is not really a doctrine because it can’t be traced to an authoritative source. Where an LDS apologist might use lesser sources to provide an answer is to demonstrate there are ways a believer might find a resolution to a problem, in other words there are options for a believer. Not that the proffered option is the correct answer, but that it is an answer that somebody previously wrestling with the issue arrived at.

As to the remaining - I think Justin Martyr - so close to the original sources - had far more authority which to appeal than do Mormon apologists, and this points, again, to the burden of lack of authority rather than to the lack of sources because of the relative infancy of Mormonism.

I would think the amount of authoritative writings would be similar. Justin probably had the writings from the apostles to draw from. But the canonicity of these writings would only be settled centuries later. Even accounting for all the writing we are missing I can’t imagine the OT + NT + missing authoritative writing to be more volumious than the LDS standard works + back issues of conference reports. Plus Christianity was facing new problems and doctrinal debates.

The back story behind the Nicean council was that the position that later developed into orthodoxy was not any more scriptural than the Arian position. At least one party could not convince the other of its correctness by an appeal to prior authoritative writings alone.

But back to Justin, he is definitely not appealing to prior authority very much in his writings defending the faith. He is known as the first apologist and is the first to tackle some issues and criticisms. I don’t see any reason to concede that the state of mormon apologetics compares unfavorably to the 2nd century Christian church.

 

[mormon_fool]

JohnnyR:

mormon fool,

To minimize the deception and manipulation we should realize that:

• the Bible is profitable for doctrine, for correction, and for instruction (2Tim 3:16,17)
• we are to stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2Thes 2:15).
• we are to hold fast to the faithful word that has been taught (Tit 1:9).
• the faith was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

God our Saviour desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:3-4).

These are all good scripture passages to aid in one’s search for truth and good safegaurds to minimize deception. Thanks for this contribution.

–fool