Mormon apologetics...

[ben_dy]

amgid:

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

I disagree and will offer only one example - though many more come to mind - why I believe that the American Heritage definition - “The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines” - is truer today than a simple “defense” would be truer in prior era. Notice that the definition specifies the exclusionary “or” rather than the inclusive “and”: if the latter were given I, too, would dismiss the definition as valid.

The doctrine of the “Real Presence” via transubstantiation is a uniquely Catholic doctrine. I, and others, can not only defend the doctrine but prove it: if the doctrine could not be proven the Catholic Church would have no converts of reasonable men and women, coming into the Church having reasoned that the doctrine has been proven, not by blind faith, emotions or feelings, but by reason and logic.

There are, I think, a number of converts here who might attest to this, as my belief in the doctrine may be dismissed as having been taught me since I was at my mother’s breast and one might suppose that I had given it no thought, only accepted it through faith, in my nearly 68 years as a member of the Catholic Church. This isn’t true, of course, but I would ask converts to the Catholic faith to attest to the veracity or fallacy that my claim that the belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist was accepted because it was defended or if it was proven.

CALLING ALL CONVERTS!!!

 

[amgid]

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.

“Logic” doesn’t “dictate” anything. Apologetics is a branch of Christian theology and discipline that has been around for at least 1800 years, and its aims and objectives and purpose, as well as its terms of reference, methodology, and practice, has been well defined and hammered out and fixed by influential Christian theologians of the past. Reinventing the wheel in Christian theology is not a smart thing to do.

amgid

 

[majick275]

“Logic” doesn’t “dictate” anything.

I’m sure you believe that.

amgid:

Apologetics is a branch of Christian theology and discipline that has been around for at least 1800 years, and its aims and objectives and purpose, as well as its terms of reference, methodology, and practice, has been well defined and hammered out and fixed by influential Christian theologians of the past.

Correct and my post summarized an imoprtant part of this.

amgid:

Reinventing the wheel in Christian theology is not a smart thing to do.

amgid

I agree but Joseph Smith did exactly that in his pursuit of material wealth, temporal power and foolish women.

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

Apologetics is a branch of Christian theology and discipline that has been around for at least 1800 years, and its aims and objectives and purpose, as well as its terms of reference, methodology, and practice, has been well defined and hammered out and fixed by influential Christian theologians of the past.

majick275:

Correct and my post summarized an imoprtant part of this.

I must disagree with both you and amgid on this point and, as I am too often overly verbose and am tempted even now to (if not particularly now) to indulge that weakness, I will offer instead only one example with which I hope to make my point.

Archeology, I think we can agree, is an important tool for the theologian, and hence for the apologist.

As Susan Alcock noted in the introductory pages of her excellent text, Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece (available at Amazon), however, archeology for long was interested only in the victorious empires - what she calls “the elite, palace-based cultures, with their ‘Great Traditions,’ which have dominated archeological attention…”. As she notes, today the the focus is changing and, for many, has changed (the book was originally written in 1993 and is not terribly out of date) to what are termed “settlement studies” - “crucial indicators of the life of the conquered population.” This shift, naturally, has been a timely blessing to Christian theologians (and thus apologetics although the ‘trickle-down’ has been, admittedly, slow) as it has provided further evidence of all aspects of life of the early Christian culture under empirical rule and has been able to offer new insight as to the manner in which Christian doctrine was understood and lived. One thing - for the Catholic apologist at least - to delight in is that these newer findings do not undermine Catholic doctrine, as some protestants who see ‘real’ early Christians having an understanding of what they believe ‘false’ doctrines particular to Catholicism, but rather substantiate what has been taught since Christ founded His Church.

So I must disagree that all ‘practice’ - which implies, to me, all ‘types’ contained in a specific method, lie in the past. While Doctrine may be (and, to the Catholic apologist, is) immutable, theology and thus apologetics is not: it will always be an attempt to explain the divine and while some revealed truths are (to all but the most closed-minded) are evident, many Doctrines are better understood as the scope of the tools utilized by theologians are enlarged. As I said, there are many other examples I could cite (the expanse of languages, just to throw in a quickie) but I am endeavoring to keep my messages to under 5,000 characters so I will end with saying that I reject the idea that all that makes up theology and apologetics has been “hammered out and fixed by influential Christian theologians of the past”.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I reject the idea that all that makes up theology and apologetics has been “hammered out and fixed by influential Christian theologians of the past”.

Great. We now have Mormon apologetics without any more fuss.

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

I disagree and will offer only one example - though many more come to mind - why I believe that the American Heritage definition - “The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines” - is truer today than a simple “defense” would be truer in prior era. Notice that the definition specifies the exclusionary “or” rather than the inclusive “and”: if the latter were given I, too, would dismiss the definition as valid.

I think that you had misunderstood my original post, or we are talking at cross-purposes.

The doctrine of the “Real Presence” via transubstantiation is a uniquely Catholic doctrine. I, and others, can not only defend the doctrine but prove it: if the doctrine could not be proven the Catholic Church would have no converts of reasonable men and women, coming into the Church having reasoned that the doctrine has been proven, not by blind faith, emotions or feelings, but by reason and logic.

OK, how do you prove “the doctrine of the ‘Real Presence’ via transubstantiation” to somebody who is not a Christian, and does not accept the Bible to be the word of God, or the Catholic Tradition as a valid point of reference? I don’t think that you can. You would have to rely on some common reference point that you both can agree on. For example, he might insist that you give him a sample of the sacramental bread and wine so that he can take to a trusted laboratory to be tested, to see if it has literally turned to flesh and blood or not; the result of which of course would be negative. The only way in which you could attempt to prove to someone that “the doctrine of the ‘Real Presence’ via transubstantiation” is true, would be if you both accepted certain basic principle as given, and argue your case from that common basis. For example, if you are a Catholic and he is a Protestant, and you both accept the Bible to be the basis of both your theologies, then each of you can use the same common ground to argue in favor of your respective theologies. You can use the Bible to prove to him the doctrine of “Real Presence;” and he can use the same standard to prove to you, let’s say, the doctrine of “priesthood of all believers”. But then, that is just ordinary theological debate. I wouldn’t describe that as “apologetics”. Where do you draw the line between ordinary theological debate and apologetics? There must be a difference between the two. Why invent two different names for the same activity?

The truth is that the fundamental basis of any religion can not be “proved” by any manner of “reasoning” or “logical argument”. The acceptance or rejection of it is always a matter of faith in the first instance, regardless of whether it is Mormonism you are talking about, or Catholicism, or Islam, or whatever. Once that basis is accepted on faith, then the truth or otherwise of a particular doctrine within it can be argued out on the basis of that common ground; but not before.

Apologetics simply means the defence of the Christian religion by reasoned argument against attack made against it by those who do not believe. That is the broadest classic definition. In a narrower sense, it can be defined as the defence of a particular religion against attack made against it. For example, “Mormon apologetics” would mean defending Mormonism against the arguments brought against it by its detractors. But that is not the same thing as trying to prove Mormonism to be a true religion. That is an impossibility for Mormonism as it is for any other religion. And it is not what we mean by apologetics.

There are, I think, a number of converts here who might attest to this, as my belief in the doctrine may be dismissed as having been taught me since I was at my mother’s breast and one might suppose that I had given it no thought, only accepted it through faith, in my nearly 68 years as a member of the Catholic Church. This isn’t true, of course, but I would ask converts to the Catholic faith to attest to the veracity or fallacy that my claim that the belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist was accepted because it was defended or if it was proven.

That is irrelevant to our discussion.

CALLING ALL CONVERTS!!!

You will be wasting your time! Are you sure you haven’t been cheating on your wine allotment, and haven’t been slipping in a couple of extra classes more than your prescribed dose when you wrote that?

amgid

PS. I think that I can do a better job of disproving transubstantiation than anyone can of proving it—any day!

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

Great. We now have Mormon apologetics without any more fuss.

No, there is still the dismissal, from Mormon apologetics of immutable Christian Doctrine (which might be thought of as the fundamental keystone of apologetics) and accepted method(s). That method can mature does not mean method can be replaced or ignored: still no good definition for equating Christian apologetics with Mormon ‘speculative argument’.

Not that I’ve given up hope.

FARMS may come closest with “Research and Study” as that can be confined to the research and study of particular Mormon texts if you do away with the “ancient” portion of the acronym. “Mormon Faith Studies”? “Mormon Faith Research”?

The only way that I can see ‘apologetics’ justifiably retained is with some sort of qualifier - “exclusionary apologetics” or, for a more positive spin “exclusive apologetics” so that the reader may choose from the various meanings of the qualifier: while I mean it, and it should be properly meant, as ‘excluding’, it can also be read, and can be referred to in the Mormon community, as something ‘complete’. This is just off the top of my head, but I would be quite happy to refer to the defense of Mormon doctrine as “Exclusive Mormon Apologetics”.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

…

 

[dennisknapp]

I posted this on another thead but thought it would fit here as well.

How could someone show Mormons Mormonism is false, if it were? What evidence or proof would you believe? What if God wanted to show you it were false, could He not bring people in your life to do this, or does it HAVE to be a personal testemony?

Peace

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

It all comes down to psychology. Proof is subjective. People won’t accept something if they don’t want to, and some can even make illogical things look logical. This doesn’t just work against Mormons, but theoretically against any belief system, including Catholicism.

So, if God really wanted to prove something wrong (or not wrong) He would be able to do so without us puny humans digging up stuff and thinkin’ real hard. Now, why you think he doesn’t do so is another question.

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

It all comes down to psychology. Proof is subjective. People won’t accept something if they don’t want to, and some can even make illogical things look logical. This doesn’t just work against Mormons, but theoretically against any belief system, including Catholicism.

So, if God really wanted to prove something wrong (or not wrong) He would be able to do so without us puny humans digging up stuff and thinkin’ real hard. Now, why you think he doesn’t do so is another question.

The argument I find against that would not be applicable, I know, to Mormons, but for Christians it would be that God has revealed all to us and that the revelation is complete: it is for us “puny humans” - who he commissioned to preach the Gospel to all nations, to dig stuff up and think real hard so that we may share the Gospel with all: He never said that it was a simple or easy task, but He did not say it was impossible.

From a Christian point of view, then, God has done His work - but He left His Church with a ‘guide’, the Holy Spirit - to assure that the human work we do does not become corrupt.

 

[amgid]

dennisknapp:

How could someone show Mormons Mormonism is false, if it were? What evidence or proof would you believe? What if God wanted to show you it were false, could He not bring people in your life to do this, or does it HAVE to be a personal testemony?

No one can “prove” to anyone that Mormonism is false, because it is true.

amgid

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

The argument I find against that would not be applicable, I know, to Mormons, but for Christians it would be that God has revealed all to us and that the revelation is complete:

That argument is “applicable” to anybody, not just to Mormons. Where does it say in the Bible that God “has revealed all to us, and that revelation is complete”? I don’t see any such declaration in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is a record of the revelations of God’s will to man through His chosen messengers in each generation of time. In each generation, as man has strayed from God’s ordained path, and an older religion has become corrupted, God has revealed his truths anew to mankind through newly called prophets and Apostles in every generation. That has been God’s consistent pattern of behavior towards mankind ever since man was created on earth. What has changed? Has God suddenly changed? The Bible tells us that God’s pattern of behavior does not change. Therefore it is perfectly consistent with God’s past behavior to reveal his doctrine and truths anew, after the long night of apostasy in the Christian world, in a new dispensation in our day and age, as He has been wont to do throughout the history of man.

it is for us “puny humans” - who he commissioned to preach the Gospel to all nations, to dig stuff up and think real hard so that we may share the Gospel with all: He never said that it was a simple or easy task, but He did not say it was impossible.

I don’t see the relevance of that to the subject we are discussing.

From a Christian point of view, then, God has done His work

Did you know that the Book of Mormon gives the answer to that?

2 Nephi 28:

3 For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord–

4 And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.

5 And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;

REST OF TEXT EDITED OUT.

{MODERATOR NOTE: There are a number of very good online BOMs. Please make your point, use a few sentences to back up your point, then link to the rest of the passage you wish readers to see.}

but He left His Church with a ‘guide’, the Holy Spirit - to assure that the human work we do does not become corrupt.

“The human work we do” has already “become corrupt”.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

No one can “prove” to anyone that Mormonism is false, because it is true.

amgid

Ever heard of a tautologous statement?

1 : involving or containing rhetorical tautology : REDUNDANT
2 : true by virtue of its logical form alone.(m-w.com/dictionary/tautologous).

So, Mormonism is true, because it is true…

Let us recap…

You say it is true but offer no evidence, just assertions.

We ask for evidence aside from the typical, “it just is!” and we get bible passages misinterpreted and relativistic claims such as, “you can’t prove religious truth to be true, they are true because we wish them to be true, not because they are based in truth or reality.” I know I am paraphrasing, but you get the point.

In no way have you ever presented the case for Mormonism that makes it seem true in the least sense. All you have done it present your opinion and muddy the water when someone questions you or asks for evidence to support your claim. You further muddy the water by claiming that even knowledge itself is unknowable. It is amazing that Mormons know the truth about anything, let alone religion.

God gave us minds to learn and understand. He gave us logic and reason to discern illogical and irrational truth claims. All truth that exists is from God.

How can we know we are not deceived unless we use our minds? How do we know we are not deceived if we do not delve into the evidence that waits before us?

I started to explore Catholicism in an attempt to prove it false. I did not want it to be true; I was convinced it was false. But the evidence swayed me. I looked into the early Church and saw continuity. The paper trial was unmistakable. But you will not do this. You are convinced, despite the evidence, that your church is the restored Church. Why? Because Joseph Smith said so, and you wish it to be true. Wow.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

It all comes down to psychology. Proof is subjective. People won’t accept something if they don’t want to, and some can even make illogical things look logical. This doesn’t just work against Mormons, but theoretically against any belief system, including Catholicism.

So, you believe Mormonism to be true bacause you don’t want it to be false?

I would say that if someone convinced me Catholicism false I would leave her in a second. Why belong to something false, no matter how it makes you feel?
Chris Jodrey:

So, if God really wanted to prove something wrong (or not wrong) He would be able to do so without us puny humans digging up stuff and thinkin’ real hard. Now, why you think he doesn’t do so is another question.

How would He do it then? The heart can’t accept what the mind rejects, so how would He do it? Are you so afraid of thinking that you would rather be decieved than know the truth?

Peace

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Heeellooo, dennissssss…

So, you believe Mormonism to be true bacause you don’t want it to be false?

No, but that does have to do with it too. Come now, does anybody want their religion to be false? The very notion is utterly ridiculous. But, that doesn’t decide my convictions ultimately. Usually people that think their religion might be false hang onto it at least a little while longer because they don’t want it to be false, but don’t boast the truth of it either. I have met Catholics like this. Lots of them. And Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not many Momons though, although I did go through a period like this a while ago.

I would say that if someone convinced me Catholicism false I would leave her in a second.

Ah! but you would never expect such a thing to happen! Am I not correct? I could say the very same thing (and I would feel just fine and dandy doing so) because I know that there is no proof to prove me wrong. It’s all just how the human brain works. Don’t be pointing that finger at me.

Why belong to something false, no matter how it makes you feel?

fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2005UlrW.html

How would He do it then? The heart can’t accept what the mind rejects, so how would He do it? Are you so afraid of thinking that you would rather be decieved than know the truth?

Dangit, dennis, you know how to frustrate me… It’s interesting that this actually will happen, according to the BoM (and the Bible, just not as clear there), at the last day. In short:

Use your imagination. He’s God.

 

[oat_soda]

Dangit, dennis, you know how to frustrate me… It’s interesting that this actually will happen, according to the BoM (and the Bible, just not as clear there), at the last day. In short:

you can’t love something unless you know it. it’s faith seeking understanding. faith presupposes knowledge. faith and reason can never contradict one another. mormons are almost nominalistic in a sense. they feel that God does whatever he wants and therefore we really can’t grasp a universal truth so that one idea is as true as another.

 

[ben_dy]

ben-dy:

The argument I find against that would not be applicable, I know, to Mormons, but for Christians it would be that God has revealed all to us and that the revelation is complete:

amgid:

That argument is “applicable” to anybody, not just to Mormons. Where does it say in the Bible that God “has revealed all to us, and that revelation is complete”?

Far too many passages to quote… just check out any web page that cites the completion of revelation, etc.

ben_dy:

it is for us “puny humans” - who he commissioned to preach the Gospel to all nations, to dig stuff up and think real hard so that we may share the Gospel with all: He never said that it was a simple or easy task, but He did not say it was impossible.

amgid:

I don’t see the relevance of that to the subject we are discussing.

It’s relevant because Christ commissioned what the poster referred to as “puny humans” to preach the Gospel to all nations. He assured them that they would do so with God’s aid - hence, the Holy Spirit as promised.

amgid:

Did you know that the Book of Mormon gives the answer to that?

Yes, and we’ve seen evidence of churches fallen away from the Church established by Christ and yet, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Christ’s Church has managed to survive and grow. I realize that the LDS church does not recognize that Christ completed his salvific mission upon the Cross but I do not know of any (although I’m sure some have existed and yet may exist and there are sure to be new self-proclaimed prophets as each year passes…).

“The human work we do” has already “become corrupt”.

That not protected by the Holy Spirit? I agree.

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

Heeellooo, dennissssss…

No, but that does have to do with it too. Come now, does anybody want their religion to be false? The very notion is utterly ridiculous. But, that doesn’t decide my convictions ultimately. Usually people that think their religion might be false hang onto it at least a little while longer because they don’t want it to be false, but don’t boast the truth of it either. I have met Catholics like this. Lots of them. And Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not many Momons though, although I did go through a period like this a while ago.

People should want to know the Truth, anything else is an illusion.
Chris Jodrey:

Ah! but you would never expect such a thing to happen! Am I not correct? I could say the very same thing (and I would feel just fine and dandy doing so) because I know that there is no proof to prove me wrong. It’s all just how the human brain works. Don’t be pointing that finger at me.

I started looking into the Catholic Church to prove her false, so yes I did. How do you know there is no proof to prove you wrong? Are you all-knowing? Just for curiousity, what sort of proof would you accept? It doesn’t seem to be proof from history or reason, so all you have left is psychology. For you Mormonism is true because you want it to be. Prove to me this is not the case.
Chris Jodrey:

Dangit, dennis, you know how to frustrate me… It’s interesting that this actually will happen, according to the BoM (and the Bible, just not as clear there), at the last day. In short:

Use your imagination. He’s God.

I don’t accept the BoM, so you will have to help me understand using tools we both accept. How do you know what you believe is true? How do you know you are not deceived?

Peace

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

People should want to know the Truth, anything else is an illusion.

Diddo.

I started looking into the Catholic Church to prove her false, so yes I did. How do you know there is no proof to prove you wrong? Are you all-knowing? Just for curiousity, what sort of proof would you accept? It doesn’t seem to be proof from history or reason, so all you have left is psychology. For you Mormonism is true because you want it to be. Prove to me this is not the case.

I can’t say that I have tried to prove false the Mormon Church, but I have talked with many who have tried to do so, and I’ve always found one or more arguments to be lacking. Therefore, I’m pretty dang confident that there is nothing to prove it wrong. Also, I’m pretty dang confident that there is nothing to prove it true but God himself. Of course, I feel the same way about Catholicism (check out my new thread on that), so that is no surprise. Come now, Ben, I thought you understood my position. Apparently not.

I don’t accept the BoM, so you will have to help me understand using tools we both accept. How do you know what you believe is true? How do you know you are not deceived?

Ever read the verses about how every knee will bend and every lip confess that Jesus is Lord? To you, when does that refer to? Seems to me that it won’t happen because of us “puny humans”, do you?

Now, missionary work is interesting. I can’t find much evidence that that kind of work involved human means to ‘prove’ Christianity to people - not in the Bible anyway. The closest I can find to that is where Paul would preach and “reason” with the Jews in the synagogues. I’m not convinced that this meant that he would actually cite science and history (besides what they all knew from their own religious history and what was written in scripture), especially since science to that point wasn’t the same as we think of it.

Actually, quite a bit may be chopped up to miracles, although I don’t think that’s all there is to it even when they are performed. Besides, that can be dangerous. Ever watched these religious healers on TV?

One of the best examples I can think of is Phillip and the Ethiopian. No miracles, no lengthy 'proof’s, just plain simple explanation and subsequent conversion. There should be other examples like this, but they slip my mind for the moment. Can you think of any more?