Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
My only objection is when would-be scholars approach their topics with the understanding that they already know the "truth" and are just trying to fill in the backstory. LDS scholars do not have a monopoly on this - see Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason for Christian apologetic that would make the most egregious FARMer blush. As Archaea indicates, it's best to avoid blanket evaluations and evaluate works on a case-by-case basis.
|
This is probably where many of our would-be apologists fall down; often they are not knowledgeable enough of the entire landscape of the discipline in which they seek to operate, they simply "know" the right answer and use a few catchy phrases to sound intellectual, without examining our principles under the broader scope.
It can be done effectively.
For example after the Documentary Hypothesis became vogue and virtually accepted as commonplace, a very erudite and studious Italian Jew, Umberto Cassuto, took it on, and forced scholars to reevaluate what they had accepted as "true."
We LDS are often so anxious to prove ourselves to be correct, we can tend to jump the gun and not even understand the academic questions asked.