Mormon apologetics...

[Chris_Jodrey]

I have now seen from a few Catholics here the judgment that LDS apologetics is bogus. This is somewhat troublesome to me, as I feel completely differently about it, so let’s take a minute to discuss it. The reason given for this is that Mormon apologetics deals primarily in plausibilities, possibilities, hypotheticals, "if"s, etc. I agree with this, but I’m not sure why that’s such a bad thing.

Take, for example, horses in the BoM. This is one of those arguments in which there is not a very strong LDS defense. It’s very open. Basically, the BoM mentions horses during Jaredite and Nephite times, yet when the Spaniards got here there were no horses anywhere; anachronism negating the BoM, right?

First, what is the primary objective of apologetics in the first place? Is it to prove true our beliefs? I don’t think so. The purpose is to answer the arguments that anti-Mos make in such a way that belief is not unreasonable. It is not to tip the scales in favor of Mormonism but to balnce them, to match them. If a stone is added to the ‘untrue’ side that stone simply has to be removed. The expected outcome is that the original opinions be arrived at, as if the antis had never said anythhing at all. Take a look at the Faith thread if you disagree.

Well, back to the case: the apologist would tell you a few different things, maybe even that the horses mentioned in the BoM are not horses as we would know them, but tapyrs. Of course, this seems like reaching at straws, but I think it’s a perfectly valid option to explore, even if I don’t buy into it myself. This argument doesn’t come out of thin air, as it first would appear. The Romans essentially called the hippo a water (or river) horse, which looks nothing like a horse. So is it a possibility? Yes. Does it convince me? Not really. Although, I have seen no anti-Mormon rebuttal to this either. Maybe they don’t think one is necessary.

There’s another option, that horses were actually here in the Americas many, many years ago, as has been seen archaeologically, but have since become extinct. This is obvious; the only question is when. Could they have all been killed off between the time the Nephites were killed off and when the Spaniards got here? Sure, I don’t see why not. The antis certainly haven’t been able to prove otherwise.

Therefore, there are plausibilities, but they’re not unfounded. There is still room for faith, and to a believing saint these look interesting. It’s a way of working with what we have and not demanding more of God, which is probably a good idea. In this way, faith is reasonable, but not proven; if it was proven then it would no longer be faith, would it?

So again, I’m not sure why Mormon apologetics is so ridiculous to you. In fact, this is a sentiment that I haven’t seen elsewhere; usually, the protestants are very quick to jump on us, insulting the apologists and all, but when actually presented with rebuttals they know not what to do. This has been my experience up till now. That when an anti delivers a hit to the Church the apologists essentially say, “You don’t convince me,” and then the antis come back with, “Well, you don’t convince me!” and then the apologists say, “Well, good for you then.” Basically it seems to be a vain struggle either way. For one who wants to believe that the Church is wrong he will give more credence to the antis, while a believing member will be much more easily swayed by the apologists.

If I’m misunderstanding things, let me know.

 

[arieh0310]

Chris Jodrey:

Well, back to the case: the apologist would tell you a few different things, maybe even that the horses mentioned in the BoM are not horses as we would know them, but tapyrs. Of course, this seems like reaching at straws, but I think it’s a perfectly valid option to explore, even if I don’t buy into it myself. This argument doesn’t come out of thin air, as it first would appear. The Romans essentially called the hippo a water (or river) horse, which looks nothing like a horse. So is it a possibility? Yes. Does it convince me? Not really. Although, I have seen no anti-Mormon rebuttal to this either. Maybe they don’t think one is necessary.

A tapir is a 3 foot tall pig, I don’t think so. Has anyone ever heard of a “war pig” outside of an Ozzy Osborne song?
Chris Jodrey:

There’s another option, that horses were actually here in the Americas many, many years ago, as has been seen archaeologically, but have since become extinct. This is obvious; the only question is when. Could they have all been killed off between the time the Nephites were killed off and when the Spaniards got here? Sure, I don’t see why not. The antis certainly haven’t been able to prove otherwise.

The prehistoric horses here in the Americas were about 2-3 feet to the shoulder. Where the lost tribes of Israel midgets or Keebler elves?

 

[Catholic_Guy]

arieh0310:

A tapir is a 3 foot tall pig, I don’t think so. Has anyone ever heard of a “war pig” outside of an Ozzy Osborne song?

The prehistoric horses here in the Americas were about 2-3 feet to the shoulder. Where the lost tribes of Israel midgets or Keebler elves?

I couldn’t resist

Catholic Guy

 

[ben_dy]

Part One
Chris Jodrey:

Sorry if I am currently interrupting the current conversation, but at the end of the last page I saw something I wanted to comment on.

I have now seen from a few Catholics here the judgment that LDS apologetics is bogus. This is somewhat troublesome to me, as I feel completely differently about it, so let’s take a minute to discuss it. The reason given for this is that Mormon apologetics deals primarily in plausibilities, possibilities, hypotheticals, "if"s, etc. I agree with this, but I’m not sure why that’s such a bad thing.

Speculation to defend doctrine is not, of itself, a bad thing: it is simply not apologetics. Without getting into various theologians who have defined apologetics, I’ll just quote from an unbiased source, the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, which defines apologetics as “The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.” The only fault I have with this definition is that apologetics can be used to defend or offer proof for any religion and I suspect that the ‘Christian’ definition is only there because we were the first to define the term.

While apologetics is a branch of theology and certain relies heavily on theology for definition, apologetics properly utilizes methods that may not always be useful to the theologian. To quote myself quoting Crossan:

…in re-reading Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity last night I came upon one page that presented a moment of clarity, to me, as to why Mormon apologetics will never be anything but solely faith-based: unlike the Christian (or Jewish, Islamic, etc.) apologist, who has recourse to methods of discovery using common tools which Crossan calls “An Interdisciplinary Method” in which he includes “anthropology, history, archeology, and literary criticism” (and to which I would add geography) none of these tools are available in the defense of particularly Mormon ‘standard works’ save the Doctrine and Covenants (and there could be made an argument to include those writings as well). Some of these tools – notably anthropology, history, literary criticism, and geography – can only be found within the text itself and that leaves no room for exegesis accessible to those who are not already true believers.

So for the average Christian, apologetics divorces itself from theology when theology strays into speculation. Speculative theologies which have produced heresy, for example, might be used by the apologist to explain error, but (and I think this must surely be self-evident) never to shore up one’s ‘proof’ of the veracity of doctrine.

From my point of view - and others seem to share this view as well - Mormon apologetics is a misnomer. Properly, it sets itself apart from true apologetics in that it does not begin with a particular doctrine and prove that doctrine using the same criteria as Christian apologetics but rather by what you rightly call “plausibilities, possibilities, hypotheticals, “if"s”, etc.” As there exist no resources to prove historicity, claims of the veracity of doctrine for the Mormon (as we have so often seen) rise or fall, from what I have now fathomed, on two factors alone: the first on the belief that a Joseph Smith, Junior, was a prophet of God who did all, experienced all, and was all that he claimed to be, and; second, that JS needs be all of these things because a “great apostasy” occurred early in the Christian Church so that the Church lay dormant for over 1,700 years only to be restored by Smith. As I see it these are the single most important beliefs which must be accepted by the Mormon ‘apologist’ (and I wish I could think of a better term for ‘apologist’ does not quite fit the definition - ‘speculator’, perhaps, is a term upon which we could both agree?) and presented to the larger audience as defense.

continued…

 

[ben_dy]

Part Two

But ‘the larger audience’, too, is a problem. It is to the larger audience, the widest audience, that the Christian apologist makes his appeal(s). As we have read so often even on this board, it has been suggested that organizations such as FARMS and FAIR exist not so much for the wide audience but for those who already embrace what I consider the two ‘core’ beliefs and that attempted defense of the faith is primarily intended for that audience - not to offer defense of doctrine and shared beliefs so as to explain them to non-Mormons but as reaction to ‘ant-Mormon’ (i.e. anything - and I mean anything that might cause the believer to question any aspect of Mormon ‘history’, and I hesitate to even use that word, that is meant to be held in common. If that is, in fact, the case - and the more I read the more I recognize it as being the case - then we move once more away from apologetics but enlarge the role of the ‘Mormon Speculator’ to that of ‘Mormon Faith-Promoting Speculator’ in which all pretense to apologetics is dropped and it becomes a case of the faithful defending the faithful against the faithless by speculative methods. The presentations are most definitely written in an ‘us v. them’ mode and those who stray from perceived orthodoxy have not only their non-faith-promoting ideas (and even speculations) ridiculed but are often the targets of ad hominem ridicule themselves. This is nothing new, of course: looking back at Mormon history when we see some of the first and most committed ‘converts’, even ‘fathers’ of the church, begin to have doubts and even leave the church they are presented as objects of sometimes vicious scorn by Smith himself or with what must have been his tacit approval.

So I think we must actually dismiss, now, that there exists a movement within the Mormon church that can actually be called ‘apologetics’ I find it even difficult to say that, academic degrees notwithstanding, it is difficult to even uphold the idea of genuine religious ‘research’, as it is understood in most of academia and all of theology and apologetics, in the title of FARMS - Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. Certainly I can agree that it is a foundation of some sort (and although it seems to have a connection with BYU, a Mormon church university, I am not certain how strongly it is bound to the SLC hierarchy, if at all). But with ‘ancient research’ the acronym falls apart, unless ‘ancient’ is meant to be inclusive only of the past two centuries. But I will concede that it is a foundation for ‘Mormon studies’ if by studies we narrow the field to include only the weak postulations presented to a narrow audience which cares little for scholarship and is more than willing to give up any pretext of veracity for the inspirational which inspires not only in dubious scholarship (yet with some trappings of scholarship) but in what read as personal vendettas against those who might actually attempt genuine scholarship and find the Mormon position lacking in any matter at all.

How many times have I heard “If you don’t like FARMS, if you don’t like FAIR, you don’t have to read the articles: they’re meant only for the LDS community.” I concede the latter but as for the former offer as defense that one really has no other place to travel save the bridge afar?
Chris Jodrey:

Take, for example, horses in the BoM. This is one of those arguments in which there is not a very strong LDS defense. It’s very open. Basically, the BoM mentions horses during Jaredite and Nephite times, yet when the Spaniards got here there were no horses anywhere; anachronism negating the BoM, right?

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

Part Three
Chris Jodrey:

First, what is the primary objective of apologetics in the first place? Is it to prove true our beliefs? I don’t think so. The purpose is to answer the arguments that anti-Mos make in such a way that belief is not unreasonable. It is not to tip the scales in favor of Mormonism but to balnce them, to match them. If a stone is added to the ‘untrue’ side that stone simply has to be removed. The expected outcome is that the original opinions be arrived at, as if the antis had never said anythhing at all. Take a look at the Faith thread if you disagree.

The lack of horses - or the plenitude of horses - don’t concern me much: call tapyrs horses or vice-versa. It’s not the single thing, it’s the overwhelming multitude. Things that cannot be made to ‘fit’ no matter how hard one tries. It’s not simply that an archeologist or anthropologist could prove the Book of Mormon a fallacious account, it is staggering to think that so, too, a linguist. The argument of the Book of Abraham being other than that which it claims to be is so overwhelming and yet those who accept J. Smith as who he claimed to be are bound to accept the Book of Abraham as being what Smith claimed it to be. A group of people (Mormons) are presented with facts and toss away facts because it upsets the foundation, and that is heresy and - Joseph Smith forbid - apostasy. The Book of Mormon, likewise, can be proven fallacious by all manner of scholars yet, in the end, it does not matter to the believer because that would upset the foundation, and that is heresy and - Joseph Smith forbid - apostasy. It is just another way in which the LDS church is uniquely American - we are carried away by our emotions, rather than our reason, and we are more likely to buy into that which we fear. Mormonism can be sold in only one way, really - an appeal to emotion. Retention of members can be sold in only one way - an appeal to fear. The campaigns are similar to the ‘OnStar’ commercials which began running a number of months ago - the first customers presented were those overjoyed that they could get into the car in which they had locked their keys without the aid of a locksmith; the latest onslaught warns that should we have a heart attack, a low blood sugar attack, an eight-month pregnant woman in a car crash, we have only OnStar to thank for our rescue.

As to the rhetorical question, “First, what is the primary objective of apologetics in the first place?” The answer, short and sweet, is the dictionary definition that I gave, “The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.” The stone you speak of is the essence of the defense and proof provided. It must have some reason behind its removal - to pull a slight of hand and then announce that the stone has disappeared is not offering defense, only proof that a con job has taken place, that someone who is adapt at distraction is at work. It is not the same thing - even remotely - to producing proof that the stone was unfairly placed: one method - the method you propose and the method apologists use - is nothing more than a gimmick. In palming the stone you remove from the audience the right to decide whether or not the stone should stay or go - you’ve made the decision and insisted that the magic is miracle and that should be the only proof they need.
Chris Jodrey:

Well, back to the case: the apologist would tell you a few different things, maybe even that the horses mentioned in the BoM are not horses as we would know them, but tapyrs. Of course, this seems like reaching at straws, but I think it’s a perfectly valid option to explore, even if I don’t buy into it myself. This argument doesn’t come out of thin air, as it first would appear. The Romans essentially called the hippo a water (or river) horse, which looks nothing like a horse. So is it a possibility? Yes. Does it convince me? Not really. Although, I have seen no anti-Mormon rebuttal to this either. Maybe they don’t think one is necessary.

There’s another option, that horses were actually here in the Americas many, many years ago, as has been seen archaeologically, but have since become extinct. This is obvious; the only question is when. Could they have all been killed off between the time the Nephites were killed off and when the Spaniards got here? Sure, I don’t see why not. The antis certainly haven’t been able to prove otherwise.

Therefore, there are plausibilities, but they’re not unfounded. There is still room for faith, and to a believing saint these look interesting. It’s a way of working with what we have and not demanding more of God, which is probably a good idea. In this way, faith is reasonable, but not proven; if it was proven then it would no longer be faith, would it?

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

Part 4 (Finis)

Again with the tapyrs (which I have always been taught are tapirs - is this a particular LDS, or ‘ancient world’ spelling?). I wasn’t aware of the tapir = horse explanation when I read the Book of Mormon for the first time, so I simply assumed that Smith was unaware of the timeline of the life of the horse on the American continents. The second time I read the BoM, however, I was aware of the rationalization and so whenever I encountered the words ‘horse’ or ‘horses’ I substituted and visualized ‘tapir’ or ‘tapirs’. It presents the BoM in a whole new light in one respect as my first read did not produce the guffaws and knee-slapping laughter as the idea of tapirs being readied to pull chariots is a visualization quiet different from that of horses. It’s best to leave tapirs out of the discussion of apologetics, I believe.
Chris Jodrey:

So again, I’m not sure why Mormon apologetics is so ridiculous to you. In fact, this is a sentiment that I haven’t seen elsewhere; usually, the protestants are very quick to jump on us, insulting the apologists and all, but when actually presented with rebuttals they know not what to do. This has been my experience up till now. That when an anti delivers a hit to the Church the apologists essentially say, “You don’t convince me,” and then the antis come back with, “Well, you don’t convince me!” and then the apologists say, “Well, good for you then.” Basically it seems to be a vain struggle either way. For one who wants to believe that the Church is wrong he will give more credence to the antis, while a believing member will be much more easily swayed by the apologists.

If I’m misunderstanding things, let me know.

In my view you need to start from the beginning and realize that apologetics when preceded by ‘Mormon’ is a concept that lacks any real meaning in the sense of two nouns completing one another. What we really have is a group of Mormons (noun) engaged in offering excuses, in the form of an adjective. That is what Mormon apologetics has seemed to always have been. The only broader scope that I see, as I’ve stated above, is the offering of consolation to those who believe, and excuses to those who may doubt. The most sincere Mormon apologists, in my mind, are of two kind: the first who admits no truth, but only faith, for defense, and; the second, the ex-Mormons, who have left the church and apologized to God for ever taking seriously which that which they could not believe with the reason He bestowed upon them.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Thanks for that detailed explanation, Ben. Of course, there are details that I don’t agree with, but let’s focus on the heart of the matter, What apologetics really is.

I’m not sure that you shouldn’t call Mormon apologetics, well, Mormon apologetics. The definition you gave gives the operator OR, meaning defending OR proving. As you can see by my thread on Faith the idea of ‘proving’ one’s faith, to me, is specious. So whether apologetics even should attempt to prove one’s religion is in question by me. But besides that, I don’t see how LDS apologetics breaches the definition. Is it a defense? Yes, as you yourself said, albeit more primarily to a member-audience. Plausibilities in consideration, it does the job for most believing Mormons, and then some. And any way, is there a better name it could be given? I don’t think that “Mormon speculation” sounds very scholarly or defensive. Words are versatile. Some have many meanings. Let this be one of them.

So what Catholics see as apologetics is not what Mormons see as apologetics. That seems simple enough.

Ben, could you do me a favor by showing me an example of what the RCC would consider to be apologetics to a wide audience? I’d like to get a good assessment of what you mean by that.

(‘Tapyr’ is from too long speaking Spanish. Excuuuuse me if I came off uneducated. I do have to admit that those were funny pictures, which is why I don’t buy into the idea of horses really being tapirs, but who knows… still worth thinking about, if just for a laugh.)

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

I’m not sure that you shouldn’t call Mormon apologetics, well, Mormon apologetics. The definition you gave gives the operator OR, meaning defending OR proving. As you can see by my thread on Faith the idea of ‘proving’ one’s faith, to me, is specious. So whether apologetics even should attempt to prove one’s religion is in question by me. But besides that, I don’t see how LDS apologetics breaches the definition. Is it a defense? Yes, as you yourself said, albeit more primarily to a member-audience. Plausibilities in consideration, it does the job for most believing Mormons, and then some. And any way, is there a better name it could be given? I don’t think that “Mormon speculation” sounds very scholarly or defensive. Words are versatile. Some have many meanings. Let this be one of them.

So what Catholics see as apologetics is not what Mormons see as apologetics. That seems simple enough.

You can’t prove Faith, but you can prove the Facts about Faith. I could have faith that the moon is made of cheese, but once we went there the facts now come into play. Once I have the facts, my faith has to change.

Plausibility in consideration is not apologetics. Stating what is plausible does not make that plausibility true. In Mormon apologetics I keep hearing, “I declare therefore, I am.”

In Catholic apologetics there is a thing to point to. This for me is the essence of apologetics, pointing to that which is. We as Catholics have at our disposal a vast amount of evidence from a varying range of disciplines. Apologetics is a defense, but you need something substantial to defend.

Peace

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

Speculation to defend doctrine is not, of itself, a bad thing: it is simply not apologetics. Without getting into various theologians who have defined apologetics, I’ll just quote from an unbiased source, the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, which defines apologetics as “The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.”

I don’t entirely agree with that definition. The bit that I disagree with is “proving the truth of Christian doctrine”. That is not the classic definition apologetics—although it may be described as an undesirable (and unintended) outcome or byproduct of it. When you are trying to defend a religion, it can be difficult to always distinguish between “defending” it and “proving” it. But that is a dangerous area to stray into. Even FAIR has adopted that definition of apologetics, which I think it is wrong! Perhaps I should write to them and tell them why!

Strictly speaking, apologetics is concerned only with the defence of Christian religion, not proving its truth. My older edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1976 Ed.), which I like best, defines apologetics as: “Reasoned defence, esp. of Christianity”. The newer Concise Oxford Dictionary, which I don’t like as much, but has some advantages over the older one, defines apologetics as: “reasoned arguments defending a theory or doctrine”. Both these definitions are preferable to the one that you have given. Apologetics was invented originally by the old ECFs, who were faced with the task of having to defend Christianity against concerted attacks by the unbelieving pagan intellectuals of the Roman world. The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word apologetikos, which means to “speak in defence”. No one can “prove” the truth of any religion by logic and reasoning alone. That is an impossibility. This is true not only of Mormonism, but of any religion. How do you “prove” by reason and logic that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Savior, and the Redeemer of the world? How do you “prove” by reason and logic alone that He was the divine Son of God? How do you “prove” that Bible is inspired and a revelation from God? You cannot “prove” the truth of any of these things by reason, logic, archaeology, anthropology, science, or any other human discipline. It ultimately boils down to a matter of faith. You either believe it or you don’t. That is as true of Mormonism as of any other religion. You ultimately have to either accept it on faith, or not accept it.

You can, however, defend it against attack; because those attacks invariably take the form of flawed reasoning. But defending it is not the same as proving it. Those are two different things.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

No one can “prove” the truth of any religion by logic and reasoning alone. That is an impossibility. This is true not only of Mormonism, but of any religion. How do you “prove” by reason and logic that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Savior, and the Redeemer of the world? How do you “prove” by reason and logic alone that He was the divine Son of God? How do you “prove” that Bible is inspired and a revelation from God? You cannot “prove” the truth of any of these things by reason, logic, archaeology, anthropology, science, or any other human discipline. It ultimately boils down to a matter of faith. You either believe it or you don’t. That is as true of Mormonism as of any other religion. You ultimately have to either accept it on faith, or not accept it.

You can, however, defend it against attack; because those attacks invariably take the form of flawed reasoning. But defending it is not the same as proving it. Those are two different things.

amgid

Depends on what you are trying to prove. Can I prove to you that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492? Yes. How? Looking into the historical record. Can I prove to that Jesus existed? Yes. How? Looking into the historical record. Can I prove to you that a great apostasy happened? No. How? Looking into the historical record. These facts are verifiable. All we have to do is look into the historical record.

I never said that I rely on reason alone, but I also never said I totally abandon reason for faith. I have a reasonable faith. A faith that uses the brain God gave me, and the tools He provides; be they the Scripture or logic. All truth comes from God, so it does not matter which tool we use. You, on the other hand, solely rely on faith despite evidence, logic, and reason. You have a blind faith, with no support but your subjective experience.

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

Depends on what you are trying to prove. Can I prove to you that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492? Yes. How? Looking into the historical record. Can I prove to that Jesus existed? Yes. How? Looking into the historical record.

Proving that Jesus existed as a historical fact is not the same thing as proving that the religion He established was true. Proving that He existed does not prove that He was the Son of God. That is what I am talking about. I am talking about proving the truth of a religion, not the truth of a historical fact. You cannot prove the truth of any religion. You can only accept it on faith.

Can I prove to you that a great apostasy happened? No. How? Looking into the historical record. These facts are verifiable. All we have to do is look into the historical record.

Great Apostasy is not a religion. I am talking about proving or not proving a religion, not a historical occurrence. Does that make any sense?

I never said that I rely on reason alone,

I had addressed my post to Ben-day, not to you. I don’t know what you have said and what you haven’t.

but I also never said I totally abandon reason for faith. I have a reasonable faith. A faith that uses the brain God gave me, and the tools He provides; be they the Scripture or logic. All truth comes from God, so it does not matter which tool we use. You, on the other hand solely rely on faith despite of the evidence, logic, and reason. You have a blind faith with no support but your subjective experience.

That is an irrelevance.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

Proving that Jesus existed as a historical fact is not the same thing as proving that the religion He established was true. Proving that He existed does not prove that He was the Son of God. That is what I am talking about. I am talking about proving the truth of a religion, not the truth of a historical fact. You cannot prove the truth of any religion. You can only accept it on faith.

Great Apostasy is not a religion. I am talking about proving or not proving a religion, not a historical occurrence. Does that make any sense?

I had addressed my post to Ben-day, not to you. I don’t know what you have said and what you haven’t.

That is an irrelevance.

amgid

The Great Apostasy is a historical fact or it is not, correct? Either it happended or it did not, correct. If it is a historical fact there should be evidence for it, correct. Just like there is evidence for Columbus’ ocean journey and the historical figure of Jesus, correct?

Whether you like it or not, religion does contain facts.

Peace

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

The Great Apostasy is a historical fact or it is not, correct? Either it happended or it did not, correct. If it is a historical fact there should be evidence for it, correct. Just like there is evidence for Columbus’ ocean journey and the historical figure of Jesus, correct?

Whether you like it or not, religion does contain facts.

Peace

That topic belings to the Apostasy thread, not to the Apologetics thread. I suggest you take it there.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

That topic belings to the Apostasy thread, not to the Apologetics thread. I suggest you take it there.

amgid

Done.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Good posts, amgid. Brought up what I was thinking but didn’t bother to write.

Depends on what you are trying to prove. Can I prove to you that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492? Yes. How? Looking into the historical record. Can I prove to that Jesus existed? Yes. How? Looking into the historical record. Can I prove to you that a great apostasy happened? No. How? Looking into the historical record. These facts are verifiable. All we have to do is look into the historical record.

I get your message. For example, for someone to say that Joseph Smith didn’t really exist would be ludicrous, as all evidence suggests otherwise, and even seems to shout in your face. So, an important part of Mormonism can indeed be proven, and is not even questioned by anyone with half a brain, so the need to prove it doesn’t even exist. Understood.

Question: If the Israelite Exodus can’t be proven historically then does that make it untrue?

If you consider the apostasy to be different in the sense that there is evidence to prove it didn’t happen then I also have another comment. The very basis of apostasy/no apostasy is that God exists. If we can’t prove such basic things like the Christian religion in general then it’s going to be harder to prove that there is a “Church” that may or may not have entered into apostasy. Basically, what amgid said. Now, the only reason we could argue the apostasy is because we accept certain things as givens, like the existance of God. But I wonder if all sources and rudiment beliefs of Catholics and Mormons are the same. Actually, they’re quite clearly not, and that has a great big effect on our opinion of the apostasy and other issues. Something to keep in mind for the apostasy thread. I thought I’d mention it here because it is also at the heart of apologetic issues in general.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I agree with amgid. Mormon apologetics seems to fit perfectly into the definition of apologetics, and the “proving” definition isn’t even logical; it’s a human defense of something divine taken too far.

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

Good posts, amgid. Brought up what I was thinking but didn’t bother to write.

I get your message. For example, for someone to say that Joseph Smith didn’t really exist would be ludicrous, as all evidence suggests otherwise, and even seems to shout in your face. So, an important part of Mormonism can indeed be proven, and is not even questioned by anyone with half a brain, so the need to prove it doesn’t even exist. Understood.

Question: If the Israelite Exodus can’t be proven historically then does that make it untrue?

If you consider the apostasy to be different in the sense that there is evidence to prove it didn’t happen then I also have another comment. The very basis of apostasy/no apostasy is that God exists. If we can’t prove such basic things like the Christian religion in general then it’s going to be harder to prove that there is a “Church” that may or may not have entered into apostasy. Basically, what amgid said. Now, the only reason we could argue the apostasy is because we accept certain things as givens, like the existance of God. But I wonder if all sources and rudiment beliefs of Catholics and Mormons are the same. Actually, they’re quite clearly not, and that has a great big effect on our opinion of the apostasy and other issues. Something to keep in mind for the apostasy thread. I thought I’d mention it here because it is also at the heart of apologetic issues in general.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I agree with amgid. Mormon apologetics seems to fit perfectly into the definition of apologetics, and the “proving” definition isn’t even logical; it’s a human defense of something divine taken too far.

Do you believe the apostasy is a historical fact or not?

Moses and what happened to Israel is not the issue here, nor is the existence of God. The issue here is the methodology used by Mormons to defend their faith. It may be fine for their members who care little about evidence, logic, facts, and reason, but not if they want to prove it to informed Catholics.

But you would say, “we don’t want to prove anything, we just want to express what we believe and be given a fair hearing.” To this I would say, "but you have made a truth claim, and as long as you think it is true it is to held to the standard of all truth claims. This is especially true if we can validate them with evidence.

If the apostasy is an historical fact it should have historical evidence.

Is it an historical fact? Yes or no.

Peace

 

[majick275]

Logic dictates that a primary role of apologetics is to remove intellectual impediments to faith thereby enhancing confidence in the truth of one’s beliefs and increasing one’s effectiveness at communicating that truth to others.

Intellect, analysis, reasoning and proven facts are all essential to such a pursuit. Removing said impediments by disproving them or by proving their opposite are all good things. merely claiming that alternatives “might” be possible isn’t apologetics. Claiming “plausability” in those situations is misleading as well

I could claim that the moon might really be made of cheese because similar to earth chemical substances could have been present there in the distant past and could have gone through theoretical processes by which proteins and amino acids formed and they could have formed into a substance that is somewhat cheeselike. over time it petrified and thus the moon rocks that we find today are really evidence of cheese on the moon.

disprove that if you can but it’s not apologetics.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Do you believe the apostasy is a historical fact or not?

I believe that the apostasy was a historical event, definitely happened, but I don’t think there is near enough evidence to make it proof, no.

The issue here is the methodology used by Mormons to defend their faith. It may be fine for their members who care little about evidence, logic, facts, and reason, but not if they want to prove it to informed Catholics.

Who said we were trying to prove anything to Catholics?

I care about logic, facts, evidence, etc, and I believe the apostasy happened. Apologetics also has worked for investigators, BTW. I had at least one experience with that.

If the apostasy is an historical fact it should have historical evidence.

Why? Because something happens there must obviously be secular-sourced facts to support it? Do you know how flawed that thinking is?

Logic dictates that a primary role of apologetics is to remove intellectual impediments to faith thereby enhancing confidence in the truth of one’s beliefs and increasing one’s effectiveness at communicating that truth to others.

Excellent definition, majick.

Intellect, analysis, reasoning and proven facts are all essential to such a pursuit. Removing said impediments by disproving them or by proving their opposite are all good things. merely claiming that alternatives “might” be possible isn’t apologetics. Claiming “plausability” in those situations is misleading as well

Now this is interesting. Actually, by creating possibilities the disproving of the obstacle is done. Anti says, “Look! X means that Mormonism is false!” Mormon says, “No; what you have stated is not proven by any means and your argument is flawed. You present it as if it were accepted fact, but, well, it’s not. It’s still up on the chopping block. The situation may actually be A, or even B, or still yet C; not just D as you would have us all believe. Try again.” I see nothing illogical about this. I’m not sure why you do. In fact, the ONLY difference is that this defense does not go so far as to establish proofs or evidences for what it is defending, which is actually something that can’t be done since the options exist in the first place; if enough was known about a certain subject then such an extended argument could exist, but the things that the antis try to get us with are also only plausibilities; they misinterpret scientific data as being complete - completely against us. Writing this now reaffirms my opinion of LDS apologetics. You start with weak attacks you get weak defenses, if there even is anything to defend. Simply pointing out that an argument is unsubstantiated is a good ‘apology’, I think. In fact, it may be something like Catholic apologetics. If someone was to tell you, “Hey, you worship the devil,” you may say, “No we don’t, and nowhere do we say we do.” It’s the same thing in many cases, although it gets slightly more complicated usually. So, again… what’s the difference?

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

I believe that the apostasy was a historical event, definitely happened, but I don’t think there is near enough evidence to make it proof, no.

Do you see ANY historical evidence of it?
Chris Jodrey:

Who said we were trying to prove anything to Catholics?

Then why make the claim here?
Chris Jodrey:

I care about logic, facts, evidence, etc, and I believe the apostasy happened. Apologetics also has worked for investigators, BTW. I had at least one experience with that.

Okay then provide facts, evidence, etrc. that you believe support that position.
Chris Jodrey:

Why? Because something happens there must obviously be secular-sourced facts to support it? Do you know how flawed that thinking is?

Are you kidding? you claim a global and complete apostasy in which you contend that ALL priesthood authority was removed from the earth merely by the physical death of the apostles. You further claim that resulted in scriptures, doctrines and practices being corrupted. Don’t you think someone would have written something down? We have the records of what happened then. We know what the early christian church taught and practiced, we have multiple examples of their exact scriptures. We can compare this with the current Catholic Bible and catechism. We have the writings of the ECFs. These sources ALL demonstrate incredible continuity that disproves apostasy. This is especially bolstered by the fact that even in the JST Bible there is no scriptural basis for bishops, priests, etc. losing their priesthood when the apostles die. There is NO evidence historical or scriptural for a complete apostasy throughout the earth. The ONLY LDS support for it is the word of Joseph Smith. a word that changed many times and was dubious to begin with. This is like you telling me that I fell down today even though I know I’ve been upright all day and you haven’t seen me.
Chris Jodrey:

Excellent definition, majick.

Thank You. I tried to find something we all could use.
Chris Jodrey:

Now this is interesting. Actually, by creating possibilities the disproving of the obstacle is done. Anti says, “Look! X means that Mormonism is false!” Mormon says, “No; what you have stated is not proven by any means and your argument is flawed. You present it as if it were accepted fact, but, well, it’s not. It’s still up on the chopping block. The situation may actually be A, or even B, or still yet C; not just D as you would have us all believe. Try again.” I see nothing illogical about this. I’m not sure why you do. In fact, the ONLY difference is that this defense does not go so far as to establish proofs or evidences for what it is defending, which is actually something that can’t be done since the options exist in the first place; if enough was known about a certain subject then such an extended argument could exist, but the things that the antis try to get us with are also only plausibilities; they misinterpret scientific data as being complete - completely against us. Writing this now reaffirms my opinion of LDS apologetics. You start with weak attacks you get weak defenses, if there even is anything to defend. Simply pointing out that an argument is unsubstantiated is a good ‘apology’, I think. In fact, it may be something like Catholic apologetics. If someone was to tell you, “Hey, you worship the devil,” you may say, “No we don’t, and nowhere do we say we do.” It’s the same thing in many cases, although it gets slightly more complicated usually. So, again… what’s the difference?

First of all we have the catechism that SHOWS what we believe. But to go to the root of this… Joseph Smith starts the whole “Mormon Experience” with the claim that “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight…”(JS-H)

This isn’t saying we have more truth, better truth or needs improvement. This is alleging a divine decree that ALL other churches are WRONG. Further that their creeds are an ABOMINATION to God. I find THIS unsubstantiated at best! Show me how the Nicene creed or the Apostles creed is abominable.

I would also submit that merely claiming an alternative is possible without showing how the alternative is a realistic view AND that there is evidence for it isn’t showing plausibility. I could go all Brigham Young and claim the human race was brought here from another planet, people live on the moon and in the sun and claim that it COULD have happened so it must be true since BY said it was and he was a prophet because he said he was and you have no proof he wasn’t. THAT is NOT apologetics yet it appears to be the preferred LDS substitute for it.