The problem with LDS apologetics

[mtnbiker]

I like your summary, FM, and I think that's about where I stand, as well. (I don't have time to add more right now, just wanted to put in my vote. )

[SloanHater]

I find your original post odd.

And the LDS apologetics have an answer for everything. That is true. Every single item, they have analysis and theories to explain how it all fits together.

Doesn't science subscribe to the same philosophy? There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis if you are willing to test it and move on to an alternative if proven false.

[jay santos]

I find your original post odd.



Doesn't science subscribe to the same philosophy? There is nothing wrong with a hypothesis if you are willing to test it and move on to an alternative if proven false.

The premise is that the answers the apologists provide lead one away from the testimony type 1 and forces them to type 2 if they are to accept the apologetic answer for all the difficult questions.

[Indy Coug]

The premise is that the answers the apologists provide lead one away from the testimony type 1 and forces them to type 2 if they are to accept the apologetic answer for all the difficult questions.

The problem is that you see apologetic answers as some sort of generally accepted "doctrine", whereas others see them as hypotheses, some of which are more plausible than others.

[SloanHater]

The problem is that you see apologetic answers as some sort of generally accepted "doctrine", whereas others see them as hypotheses, some of which are more plausible than others.

It seems Jay also sees apologetic answers as a problem.

If apologists are addressing questions raised by skeptics, won't skeptics raise additional questions? Isn't this the ideal?

Most religions stand on dogma. Though the Church has its share of dogma, discussion and debate have always been a key tenet of Mormonism. I greatly appreciate that the Mormon Church has room for both groups.

[jay santos]

The problem is that you see apologetic answers as some sort of generally accepted "doctrine", whereas others see them as hypotheses, some of which are more plausible than others.

Completely agree. I'm calling this the problem with apologetics, not the problem with the church. This is why the church faces a problem if they want to use apologetics to answer difficult questions people are discussing on the internet, per the Marlin K Jensen discussion and the article I linked. You can lead people down two roads. 1) it's difficult, we don't understand some things exactly, we need to exercise faith 2) the Bushmans and Givens, and SIEQ's, etc have some analysis and explanation for you to take those difficult facts and reconcile them with your testimony. Road #2 is a can of worms leading you to testimony type 2 I refer to earlier.

[SloanHater]

Completely agree. I'm calling this the problem with apologetics, not the problem with the church. This is why the church faces a problem if they want to use apologetics to answer difficult questions people are discussing on the internet, per the Marlin K Jensen discussion and the article I linked. You can lead people down two roads. 1) it's difficult, we don't understand some things exactly, we need to exercise faith 2) the Bushmans and Givens, and SIEQ's, etc have some analysis and explanation for you to take those difficult facts and reconcile them with your testimony. Road #2 is a can of worms leading you to testimony type 2 I refer to earlier.

Why do you continue to insist they are mutually exclusive?

[jay santos]

Why do you continue to insist they are mutually exclusive?

Which, the type 1 and type 2 testimonies?

[Scorcho]

I've been LDS my entire life and had no idea that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old. Add that to my lists of things in this church that are a head scratcher.

[SloanHater]

Which, the type 1 and type 2 testimonies?

You say there are 2 roads. One consists of simply having faith and the other accepting apologist rhetoric.

Why can't a person choose both? There are lots of things said by apologists that I find interesting and logical, but I recognize that ultimately their knowledge is limited and I have to continue to have faith until the real explanation is revealed.

Similarly, there are a lot of scientific theories that I find logical and make sense, but can't be proven, so I accept that they are sufficient until a better one takes their place.

[jay santos]

You say there are 2 roads. One consists of simply having faith and the other accepting apologist rhetoric.

Why can't a person choose both? There are lots of things said by apologists that I find interesting and logical, but I recognize that ultimately their knowledge is limited and I have to continue to have faith that the real explanation will be revealed at some point.

Again, there are a lot of scientific theories that I find logical and make sense, but can't be proven, so I accept that they are sufficient until a better one takes their place.

So you're not going all the way down road #2, then, and you're able to keep your literal faith in tact. I firmly believe you can't go down the full apologist road and keep that testimony type #1 in tact. You have to dump it for #2 if you analyze every single issue, and try to reconcile everything, without ever saying "not sure about that I'll just have to have faith and wait for an answer that reconciles it".

[SloanHater]

I've been LDS my entire life and had no idea that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old. Add that to my lists of things in this church that are a head scratcher.

She was 16.

[SloanHater]

So you're not going all the way down road #2, then, and you're able to keep your literal faith in tact. I firmly believe you can't go down the full apologist road and keep that testimony type #1 in tact. You have to dump it for #2 if you analyze every single issue, and try to reconcile everything, without ever saying "not sure about that I'll just have to have faith and wait for an answer that reconciles it".

Do you apply this same logic outside of religion? If you can't fully comprehend how electricity works, you simply believe that it does and don't pursue any additional insight because that insight may be speculative or theory?

Seems lazy.

[jay santos]

Do you apply this same logic outside of religion? If you can't fully comprehend how electricity works, you simply believe that it does and don't pursue any additional insight because that insight may be speculative or theory?

Seems lazy.

Here's an application of it outside religion. Everyone tells me Sloanhater's an a-hole. I'd prefer to believe he's not one. Someone gives me some rather startling evidence that Sloanhater is indeed an a-hole. I decide to attempt to put together some logic countering this, and it leads me to a rabbit hole with one piece of logic resting on another, such that if i accept this alternate, logic-based view it completely twists my concept of what an a-hole is what I even thought of Sloanhater. So i have a choice to accept this alternative and be left with the change in perspective it's brought or I just say "I'm just gonna drop this and have faith that there's an alternate explanation out there that hasn't been revealed to me". This allows me to retain all my previous assumptions about Sloanhater, the word a-hole, and life in general.

[SloanHater]

Here's an application of it outside religion. Everyone tells me Sloanhater's an a-hole. I'd prefer to believe he's not one. Someone gives me some rather startling evidence that Sloanhater is indeed an a-hole. I decide to attempt to put together some logic countering this, and it leads me to a rabbit hole with one piece of logic resting on another, such that if i accept this alternate, logic-based view it completely twists my concept of what an a-hole is what I even thought of Sloanhater. So i have a choice to accept this alternative and be left with the change in perspective it's brought or I just say "I'm just gonna drop this and have faith that there's an alternate explanation out there that hasn't been revealed to me". This allows me to retain all my previous assumptions about Sloanhater, the word a-hole, and life in general.

Interesting. I hope Lebowski takes note of this conversation. Nothing uncivil on my part and yet again I have to end the conversation on the High Note by pointing out what an ignorant shit jay santos seems to be.

If you can't analyze an issue and adjust your assumptions/beliefs based on others insight/opinions while retaining hope that the Best solution is still undiscovered, well then, continue in ignorance my friend. Your all or nothing approach hopefully excludes you from any profession involving the hard sciences.