ben_dy:
That, I believe, is a fair ‘apples to apples’ comparison.
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.
From my POV the difference in Catholic and Mormon apologetics lies within authority.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, it seems that some apologists don’t play by these rules.
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.
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.
later,
fool
