Thoughts on Apologetics

[Moksha]

Perhaps if we all took enough lessons in Feng Shui, we would all come to the point of realization that the best apologetics are no apologetics at all. Best to be kind to all and release Mrs. Field's Cookies into the Universe.

[PrinceofLight2000]

This doesn't make sense.

Should the LDS church and its members start allowing its enemies to propagate misinformation and distortions without question, counter-evidence, or retort of any kind, at the chagrin of what all the missionaries are trying to accomplish?

Those who have the loudest voice are the ones most often heard.

[mikbone]

mmhmm cookies.

[prisonchaplain]

It's hard to know when to answer accusations point by point and when to not dignify outrageous remarks with a response. Cookies are always appropriate, however.

[skippy740]

Children will always behave like children - until/if they ever grow up.

Some "apologetics" are simply looking for a response. You'll fuel their fire by participating in such discussion with someone who is already sold on their opinion. Remember that "A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

If someone can be swayed and if you can talk with the Spirit, then NOT addressing these points gives those points additional credibility.

2 Tim 1:7

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

[Roseslipper]

Mrs Fields cookies Ill have some with some milk too, ty.

[john doe]

Sounds like someone got the hook from the apologetics board.

[Intrigued]

This doesn't make sense.

Should the LDS church and its members start allowing its enemies to propagate misinformation and distortions without question, counter-evidence, or retort of any kind, at the chagrin of what all the missionaries are trying to accomplish?

Those who have the loudest voice are the ones most often heard.

Apologetics are usually full of it. They're anti-antis so to speak.. and they generally refute garbage with more garbage.

[Suzie]

Whoah....are we talking about Mormon apologetics? What's wrong with that?

[Dravin]

It's hard to know when to answer accusations point by point and when to not dignify outrageous remarks with a response. Cookies are always appropriate, however.

Your comment made me think of Elder Hale's Talk: LDS.org - New Era Article - That Is Christian Courage

As the Savior demonstrated with Herod, sometimes true disciples must show Christian courage by saying nothing at all. Some may try to provoke us and engage us in argument. In the Book of Mormon, we read about Lehonti and his men camped upon a mount. The traitorous Amalickiah urged Lehonti to “come down” and meet him in the valley. But when Lehonti left the high ground, he was poisoned “by degrees” until he died, and his army fell into Amalickiah’s hands (see Alma 47). By arguments and accusations, some people bait us to leave the high ground. Sometimes others want us to come down off the high ground and join them in a theological scrum in the mud. These few contentious individuals are set on picking religious fights, online or in person. We are always better staying on the higher ground of mutual respect and love.

Actually one of the hardest things I did on my Mission was walk away and simply refusing to engage someone shouting accusations across a parking lot, maybe a little bit more so because I had a new missionary by my side who was eager to fight the fight.

P.S. For context that's the last bit of the article, the rest of it talks about when we do engage.

[jayanna]

I absolutely agree with Dravin and PrisonChaplain.

Jesus did not argue when he was facing crucifixion, the people accusing him had already made up their minds, and while it is truly offensive, we have to forgive.

He will forgive whome He chooses, but we must forgive everyone. Like in the Lord's prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

You can't fill a cup when it is already full of something else.

IF they don't want your cookies, I'll take them :)

[pam]

You all are talking about eating cookies. I'm staying out of this conversation for self preservation.

[jayanna]

You all are talking about eating cookies. I'm staying out of this conversation for self preservation.

Wait! Dont Go! I Love Gingerbread!

[livy111us]

You shouldn't discount apologetics altogether. While nothing supersedes the Spirit, and argument should be avoided, it is sometimes necessary to provide an answer to someone who has had their faith shaken by anti-Mormon arguments. Here are some notes I have on the subject:

“...Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you...” 1 Peter 3:15

The term “Apologetics” means, “defending one’s position or faith” and comes from the Greek apologetikos, which is the Greek word used in the verse just quoted translated ‘give an answer’. Those who engage in apologetics are not apologizing for what they believe, but rather defending what they believe. And as Harold B. Lee once said “The term ‘Elder’ which is applied to all holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood, means a defender of the faith. That is our prime responsibility and calling. Every holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to be a defender of the faith.” (Conf. Rep. April 1970)

Austin Farrar states in the ‘The Christian Apologist’--

“Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

That does not mean that we don’t study and find answers to their questions for investigators. Neal A. Maxwell has declared: “The Church” will not “be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars” and the critics should not be permitted to make “uncontested slam dunks” (Ensign, Jan. 1995, pg. 60)

“We refuse to be bound by the interpretations which others place upon our beliefs, or by what they allege must be the practical consequences of our doctrines. Men have no right to impute to us what they think may be the logical deduction from our beliefs, but which we ourselves do not accept. We are to be judged by our own interpretations and by our own actions, not by the logic of others, as to what is, o0r may be, the result of our faith”, in Messages of the First Presidency, Volume IV, compiled by James R. Clark (Bookcraft, SLC 1970): 154, first published Improvement Era 10 (May 1907): 481-495.

Elder Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency remarked “It is not often that The Church of Jesus Christ to Latter-day Saints pay attention to misrepresentations, but, when their doctrines are ridiculed, when they are misrepresented, when they are spoken of with contempt, and when these things are published and sent broadcast to the world, by which these things are published and sent to the world, by which men and women follow after the falsehoods which are told, it becomes necessary, sometimes, to correct them, and expose the false basis upon which men reached conclusions in regard to the faith of the Latter-day Saints” (Conf. Rep. Oct. 1910)

In the latest issue of the FARMS Review, which is now online, there is a talk given by Elder Samuelson for the 2007 Maxwell Lecture which I highly recommend.Toward the end of the talk he cites an interesting statement from Elder Maxwell that relates generally to scholarship and apologetics.

“In a way LDS scholars at BYU and elsewhere are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also pause on occasion to defend the Kingdom. I personally think [said Elder Maxwell] this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains this University. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets.”

"And if thou wilt inquire, thou shalt know mysteries which are great and marvelous; therefore thou shalt exercise thy gift, that thou mayest find out mysteries, that thou mayest bring many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, convince them of the error of their ways." (D&C 6:11)

"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season ... He waketh mine ear to hear as the learned." (2 Nephi 7:4)

In the process the honest in heart, those who are truly seeking the truth, "are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it" (D&C 123.12).

1835: Lectures on Faith. The following two paragraphs are taken from the Preface.

“There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving anything purporting to be articles of religious faith, since there are so many now extant; but if men believe a system and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it.

Viewing this subject to be of importance, the Church, through its servants and delegates, the High Council, appointed your servants to select and compile this work. Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we add only a few words. They knew that the church was evil spoken of in many places--its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the Bible, by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness, and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments, civil and political.”

Signed by Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Kirtland, Ohio, February 17, 1835. Taken from The Lectures on Faith. In historical perspective, ed. Larry E. Dahl and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (BYU 1990): 29-30.

1838: “Why do the Elders of the Church hold their peace, instead of contradicting the various falsehoods, which are published concerning them and their principles? The answer is, it would require a standing army of writers and printers in constant employ; for no sooner are our enemies detected in one falsehood, than a thousand more are put in circulation by them: and there are many who love a lie so much more than the truth, that we are quite willing they should enjoy their strong delusion." (Parley P. Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled; Zion's Watchman Unmasked (Joseph W. Harrison, Printer 1838): 1

1839 Joseph Smith: History of the Church, 3. 344-6

Minutes of a General Conference of the Church Held near Quincy, Illinois, May 4th, 5th and 6th, 1839. Minutes of a general conference held by the Church of Latter-day Saints at the Presbyterian camp ground, near Quincy, Adams county, Illinois, on Saturday, the 4th of May, 1839…..

Resolved 1st: That Almon W. Babbitt, Erastus Snow and Robert B. Thompson be appointed a traveling committee to gather up and obtain all the libelous reports and publications which have been circulated against our Church, as well as other historical matter connected with said Church, that they possibly can obtain…..

Certificate of Appointment.

This is to certify that at a general conference held at Quincy, Adams county, Illinois, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on Saturday, the 4th day of May, 1839, President Joseph Smith, Jun., presiding, it was resolved: That Almon W. Babbitt, Erastus Snow, and Robert B. Thompson be appointed a traveling committee to gather up and obtain all the libelous reports and publications which have been circulated against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as. well as other historical matter connected with said Church, which they can possibly obtain. JOSEPH SMITH, JUN., President. JAMES MULHOLLAND, Clerk.

1839 Referring to this assignment, Erastus Snow wrote,

[On 4 May 1839] I was appointed by the conference one of three committee to collect the libilous publications of all kinds that had been published against the saints and to insert and refute them in a church history which should be compiled by us after the conference.

Joseph Smith advised that Erastus Snow and Almon W. Babbitt each travel and preach as their circumstances would permit and "gather in our travels what publications we could and send them to Elder [Robert B.] Thomson who should be writing and compiling the history which should be subject to our inspection." [Erastus Snow Journal] Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.242

1840 Benjamin Winchester, An Examination of A Lecture Delivered by the Rev. H. Perkins, On the Religious Opinions and Faith of the Latter-day Saints, and Some of His Most Prominent Errors and Misstatements Corrected (N.p.: n.d. [ca. Late May 1840]). “I am determined hereafter, that no man shall get up before a congregation in my presence, and lie so unaccountably about the truth of God; but that he shall hear of it again” (12)

[Consequently Winchester began his own periodical]

1841 Benjamin Winchester, Gospel Reflector, in which the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is set forth, and scripture evidence adduced to establish it. A brief treatise Edited by Benjamin Winchester, (Philadelphia. Brown, Bicking & Guilbert, Printers, No. 56 North Third Street, 1841) “As our enemies in this part of the country are engaged in spreading newspapers, pamphlets, and circulars, tracing the doctrine and characters of the above mentioned society, with the intention of stamping them with infamy and disgrace [the paper would] refute the publications that appear against us in the shape of arguments, and thus foil our enemies in their attempts”, [page 1-2, in David Whittaker, “East of Nauvoo: Benjamin Winchester and the Early Mormon Church”, Journal of Mormon History 21.2 (Fall 1995): 30-83, at page 46.]

One of my pleasant memories of a visit to President Woodruff’s farm home in Waterloo Ward after I had moved to Idaho, was on an occasion when I took with me a lawyer gentleman from Northern Idaho, who with myself was attending the TransMississippi Congress in Ogden. I told Bro. Woodruff how this man David Franklin Mahana by name had defended the Latter Day Saints in the Idaho Legislature, from verbal assaults made upon them by bitter Anti-Mormons. Bro. Woodruff was sick in bed at the time, but when I made those remarks he rose up in bed and said in a most positive manner: “The Lord will bless any man who will defend the Latter Day Saints against the attacks of their enemies.” I knew the later history of this man David F. Mahana who was indeed blessed as predicted by Brother Woodruff. (Matthias F. Cowley, at University of Chicago, Oct. 4, 1925, CHL MS F 559)

[hordak]

Whoah....are we talking about Mormon apologetics? What's wrong with that?

Nothing, as long as you understand

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

It's not different then talking with Moksha, (but he is way more entertaining:D)

Problem is unofficial sources (when not understood to be unofficial) can support/ cause "psudodoctrine"

I.E.

"Encyclopedia of Mormonism, that must have some good info right, it was written by faithful LDS scholars, historians and apologist"

Coffee

The main chemical in coffee that has caused health concerns is caffeine, a cerebral and cardiovascular stimulant. A large number of other substances are also found in coffee, and their effects on health are not yet well understood.

"So it is the caffeine. I saw Sister Suzie drinking a Mt Dew the other day. I better let her know she is wrong lest she miss out on Celestial Glory":rolleyes:

It can cause people to overlook actual doctrine. I have meet a few who think Polygamy was practiced by the church to take care of widows going out west because they heard it from some apologist. No it was practiced because God commanded it, way before the trek out west, with non widows. It's revealed to Joseph in the D&C.

In defense of apologetics they tell people they are not official, but i have met a few members who don't know or don't care and use them to "prove the truth" of their belief.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Apologetics are usually full of it. They're anti-antis so to speak.. and they generally refute garbage with more garbage.

They don't have to be.

[rameumptom]

I am an apologist for the Church. That said, I think there are various types in the apologetic realm.

1. Those who scream and toss out epithets and accusations.

2. Those who share their warm and fuzzy testimonies.

3. Those who share their understanding of scripture, history, science, etc., in order to prove the Church is true/false.

4. Those who share their understanding of scripture, history, science, etc., in order to show the Church's view of things are viable. (I usually fit into this category).

5. Those who share Mrs Fields' cookies.

Of course, I have met some antis before who believed Mrs Fields was a tart and a temptress who was leading us all to heck (the place that is not quite as bad as hell).

[Suzie]

I am an apologist for the Church.

Me too.

And when I engage in discussion I like to provide Church history facts (my main interest). Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. My problem arises when people provide OPINIONS as fact (a pet peeve of mine). I don't think there is any problem with sharing an opinion but must be stated as such.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

There are times when we need to stand and defend our faith and belief system

And then, there are times when we need to just smile, pat them on the back, and not give an answer either yea or nah and just walk away.

The trick is to determine when it is appropriate to stand, and when it is appropriate to walk away.

[carlimac]

I just finished a book written by apologists for the church. I felt like it was a lot of mumbo jumbo and didn't really clear some things up. Sometimes there isn't a compelling answer to our faithshaking questions right now. That's when we need to just shelve the topic and focus on what we do comprehend and on the testimony we do have.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Apologetics reminds me of a saying I saw recently...

I'm not arguing, I am explaining why I am right.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think the advice given to Martin Harris is good: D&C 19:29 "And thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see.

30 And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers.

31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost." and "37 And speak freely to all; yea, preach, exhort, declare the truth, even with a loud voice, with a sound of rejoicing, crying—Hosanna, hosanna, blessed be the name of the Lord God!"

In other words, don't focus on what makes us different from others, our "tenets" but speak loudly and with a sound of rejoicing when it comes to declaring the truths of the gospel. "Reviling against revilers" seems to always end up with a discussion of how we are different from others.

[HiJolly]

I recently finished reading Matt Brown's book A Pillar of Light and think it is quite good. It is an example of scholarly apologetic that I can endorse, though in contrast I thought Brown's book on Mormonism and Masonry was awful. I mean, REALLY awful.

Anyway, Brown's book on the First Vision does a great job at refuting all of Rob Bowman's efforts to discredit the First Vision, and for that, I thank him.

HiJolly

[Faded]

Perhaps if we all took enough lessons in Feng Shui, we would all come to the point of realization that the best apologetics are no apologetics at all. Best to be kind to all and release Mrs. Field's Cookies into the Universe.

It's a fine line we walk. Apologetics is just a fancy word for people who defend their own theological point of view. If you're accused of a broad diversity of malevolent practices and behaviors falsely and you never say anything in your own defense, people tend to assume you're guilty. If people twist and turn your actual believes to make them sound evil or nonsensical or self-contradictory, then there are going to be times and places where somebody will need to set the record straight.

One very notable LDS apologetic also happens to be my favorite apostle: Elder Jeffrey R Holland. More than one of his best discourses ever are filled with reaction to some of the most persistent lies being circulated by the anti-Mormon press. Indeed, the role of apologetic includes all of the general authorities of the Church.

The key of the matter is knowing when you are wasting your time and when you are not.

[Moksha]

... then there are going to be times and places where somebody will need to set the record straight.

Perhaps just one concrete example (which should not be too provocative) could help. Juanita Brooks once wrote a landmark history book called The Mountain Meadows Massacre describing an incident in history and its aftermath.

Of course this met with apologetic denials and recriminations. However now the Church, after having noted that further enlightenment has entered the scholastic world, has agreed with the history put forth by Juanita Brooks in their own sanctioned work Massacre at Mountain Meadows, by Walker, Turley, and Leonard .

In between these two major history works was the opportunity to release many of Mrs. Field's Cookies into the Universe.