Does God Want Apologists?

[Syme]

I realize the point of a testimony is faith, personal revelation, etc.

 

So what would he think of FAIR Mormon and apologetics like that?

 

Are they doing more harm than good, i.e. giving people answers instead of urging them to pray about it? Does it encourage contention? 

[SpiritDragon]

My personal take is that such things are useful. Faith can be quite fickle and it is useful to have reinforcement for it with supporting material during times of weakness. There will never be a time before the Saviour comes when enough of anything is proven to the point that faith is no longer required.

 

What I don't like is the term apologetic... it seems like there is something to apologize for. 

[pam]

And what if someone prayed to find out a particular answer and while searching found their answer on FAIR?

 

In General Conference last month Elder Holland said:  "Defend your beliefs with courtesy and compassion but defend them."

 

There is so much bad information out over the internet, it is our responsibility to replace the bad with the good. That is one of the objectives of FAIR and many other organizations like it.  That is even the objective of lds.net.

 

How does an organization that publishes our beliefs encourage contention?  Contention comes about by those who want to argue or try to disprove our beliefs.

[Just_A_Guy]

Faith is not more pleasing to the Lord just because it is rooted in ignorance.

 

To the extent that apologetics are seeking to provide truth, contextualize problematic issues, and generally leave a window open for belief, I support them.  Where I think they run into trouble is when they endeavor to "prove Mormonism right", spout phony history, or try to water down our beliefs to make them more acceptable to the world.

[Traveler]

I believe firmly that G-d expects his followers to be well versed in all things true and willing to boldly face ignorance with kindness and compassion (mostly) but with accurate answers.  I find the best example to be Jesus in facing the Pharisees and Scribes of his day.   It is interesting to me that Jesus was very precise and accurate with rhetorical logic that he utilized in making his points.  But his greatest criticism was to those that argued doctrine and concepts that they were unwilling to live up to.

 

The biggest error I find in Christian discussions or apologetics  is the claim that G-d will be merciful to believers because of what they believe despite what they and others like them that they defend have done throughout history and that G-d will not be merciful to anyone kind and compassionate towards others that does not believe the "right" doctrine.  Which to me is the exact opposite of what Christ taught - by their fruits you shall know them.

 

I also believe that if you are not willing to stand up as the example of what your religion, religious understanding, interpretations of things and ideas can do better than all others -- perhaps then you should sit down and listen more.

[pam]

 

 

What I don't like is the term apologetic... it seems like there is something to apologize for. 

from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense"  while it does sound like an apology it's not what it means.  :)

[SpiritDragon]

from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense"  while it does sound like an apology it's not what it means.   :)

Yeah, I get it... I just still feel like it sounds that way :)

[pam]

Yeah, I get it... I just still feel like it sounds that way :)

Totally get it.  :)

[Quin]

Does God want apologetics?

Why not?

Let's even assume that more harm than good is caused.

What's the worst case scenario?

The absolute WORST thing that can happen?

Shrug.

It just doesn't stack up against even the best case scenario of hundreds of other evil & borderline things.

Much less the worst case scenarios.

Ahem.

Someone will probably point out that just because murder is worse than theft, it doesn't mean we should ignore theft.

That's not my parallel.

I'm thinking more along the lines of birthday cake vs strawberries vs poison.

Any parent knows (or has been, especially with their first) "that" parent who completely freaks out over their child having cake instead of fruit. The cake means The. End. Of. The. World.

Nope. Not really. Arsenic, on the other hand, yeah. We're looking at some serious consequences for having arsenic instead of fruit.

There is clearly a spectrum.

Healthy Food, Treat Food, Junk Food, Contaminated/Spoiled Food, Poison.

Cake-Parent is freaking out over the difference between 2 good things.

To me,.. Apologetics lies in the same spectrum in the same place:

Perfect Education, Problematic Education, Street Education, No Education, Wrong Education (think "Radiation is Safe: Use your bare hand to carry the rods" or "shaking babies calms them, when colicky, make sure to shake vigorously to quiet them" )

The thief v murder, though, is on a spectrum like this

Justice, Lawful, neutral or justified, Misdemeanor, Felony.

Healthy Food, Treat Food, Junk Food, Spoiled Food, Poison

Perfect Education, Problematic Education , Street Education, No Education, Wrong Education

Justice, Lawful Neutral or Justified, Misdemeano, Murder

Best, Good, Neutral, Bad, Worst

So theft v murder is the wrong parallel / it's on the wrong side of the spectrum.

Best & Better are luxuries.

When your kid is dying of starvation, you'll feel them cake all day long.

When you're well off, and can choose your BEST diet, you won't be choosing cake.

(That's the angst parents feel. We want the best for our kids. So we sometimes freak out about things like cake, or anything else that's not "best". Be it schools, friends, food... Wherever our priorities lie.)

Are apologetics the "best" education?

No. Not usually.

But they're still better than having to fight for any scrap of education, no education or wrong education.

Q

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I love FAIR.  When I was struggling with my faith (for reasons completely unrelated to apologetics), I spent a lot of time at FAIR. Even though my questions were different, FAIR still helped buoy me up.  

 

The "just pray about it" kinds of answers didn't help at all.  Sometimes you need a little more help. 

[pam]

I love FAIR.  When I was struggling with my faith (for reasons completely unrelated to apologetics), I spent a lot of time at FAIR. Even though my questions were different, FAIR still helped buoy me up.  

 

The "just pray about it" kinds of answers didn't help at all.  Sometimes you need a little more help. 

 

Totally agree with this LP.

 

Aren't we taught to search, ponder and pray?

 

In this day of wonderful technology, sometimes searching involves our searches on the internet.  Isn't it wonderful that there is actually some good, quality and truthful places to find those answers?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 

In this day of wonderful technology, sometimes searching involves our searches on the internet.  Isn't it wonderful that there is actually some good, quality and truthful places to find those answers?

 

Yes!   I have noticed (with myself and friends) that when you are struggling with your testimony, it is difficult to share that with friends and ward members (I wish it wasn't but that's another topic.  :) )  So FAIR and other apologetics sites, give people that are struggling "safe" places to go.  Places where they can find out that they aren't alone, and find answers to help strength their faith.

[pam]

As long as they can figure out that they are "safe" places. There are many sites out there that are nothing more than wolves in sheep clothing.

[The Folk Prophet]

When people turn to the internet, as they WILL do, and discover "issues" about the church, as they WILL do, it is significantly better to discover those issues hand-in-hand with explanations of the issues rather than via twisted, anti, negative agenda-driven presentations of the issues.

 

I distinctly recall times in my past where even with the strong testimony I had I would read something online and it would throw me. It didn't shake my testimony, but it did throw me into some real confusion. However, with FAIR and the like I have learned over the years a whole lot of other "issues" about the church, with an immediate explanation, and have felt no "shaking" whatsoever as I have learned. Now-a-days you can't much tell me anything that I haven't heard and have a basic explanation at hand. FAIR, Ask Gramps, Jeff LIndsey, FARMS, the church essays, etc. are all instrumental in this.

 

I, like many people, want to be knowledgeable. I want to know true history. I want to know what Brigham Young really said. I want to know details. But I want those details, history, and knowledge presented from a positive agenda rather than a negative one.

 

Moreover, the church has very, very clearly become it's own apologist, FAIR and the like aside. They are facing the issues one by one directly and officially now. How could one contend that apologists are bad in that light? To do so, one would have to argue that the inspired, revelation guided church is down the wrong path.

 

As a general point, I believe, with a solid foundation of testimony based on spiritual witness, one should not need apologetics to stay faithful to the church. If everyone in the church had that level of testimony, awesome. They do not, however. Regardless, how can apologetics possibly be harmful?