what motivates Mormon apologists?

[MikeWaters]

Why go to all the trouble to be a historian, and then go in and pick and choose and distort the record to satisfy your own beliefs?

Do most apologists understand what they are doing in this regard, or are they blissfully unaware of their bias? Do they feel some paternal/maternal need to protect the masses? I just don't get it.

[Archaea]

Apologists believe the Gospel is true and therefore try to view history through the Gospel light, to explain how these "facts" of history are true yet consistent with the Gospel.

Since the Gospel encompasses all truth, to understand the truth we must view all facts in true light.

I don't have a problem with that.

[Brian]

Along the lines of what Arch is saying, I sometimes get the impression that they have a hard time separting The Church from The Gospel. And perhaps too, a touch of church worship, instead of Christ worship. If the gospel encompasses all truth and perfection, then so must the church. They forget, perhaps, that The Church is a vehicle, filled with imperfect people whose purpose is to help us find and experience The Gospel. It is the means, not the end.

Regards,
Brian

[UtahDan]

because I think I understand what motivates them which is the noble goal of defending one's faith.

That having been said, so much of what I have read from them (a lot of it from FARMS) requires such mental gymanstics to accept that it not only undermines the credibility of the authors, but it also (IMO) undermines the church to the extent that the casual observer may legitimately wonder such gymnastics are necessary to believe in the tenets of the gospel as we have received them.

In the first instance, the essence of religion is faith which by definition is not predicated on whether any particular set of facts can be demonstrated to be accurate. Secondly, for most LDS people (I think) there are a few things that we have come to believe (I think the word "know" is so over used in the church) through our experiences that anchor us to the church whether or not we can fill in every gap or resolve every inconsistency so that such "gap filling" is not required nor beneficial.

There is nothing wrong with intellectual curiosity, that is not what I am addressing. I am addressing those who, while their motives may be good, IMO make the us all look like light weights and accrue very little if any benefit to anyone other than maybe our enemies.

EDIT: Having re-read my post, maybe I really DO have a problem with these people.

[MikeWaters]

wasn't it FArms that published an article why a white salamander would be consistent with the traditional gospel re: Mark Hoffman?

I'm saying, there is a process where someone sits down and writes and thinks, "I'm not going to include this because I don't like it." or "I'm going to take this out of context and bend it to my point of view."

In science, we call this fraud.

I'm not interested in reading apologist historians.

[creekster]

intent. Instead, I think most of them (and I have certainly acted in that manner when talking to new contacts) do so out of good intentions (even though perhaps paving their personal road, so to speak). If you mislead because you are stupid you are not committing fraud.

I wonder if we are being prideful in even talking about this issue? A religion serves two purposes (at least); inward enlightenment and good acts. Do the apologists defeat either purpose? Proabbyl not, although they may delay some level of inward nelightenment. OTOH, they cetainyl help some people stay on a path that leads to good acts. So who cares if they are disingenuous in their analysis of the latest genetic evidence, etc.?

I've often wondered why people that are disabused of their testimonies frequently feel compelled to tear down the belief of others. Even if Mormonism is not true, what's wrong with enouraging epople to live this way? Unless someone else has found THE truth, and is are trying to convert a moron to that view, why nopt leave mormons alone?

Likewise, unless an apologist, as we are defining it, leads someone to act badly, who cares?

Also, sorry about all the typos. Too lazy to correct them and I havent' found the spell checker yet. Is one here?

[UtahDan]

I agree that in the grand scheme it is not that harmful.

On the other hand, I don't think I agree with your ends justifies the means argument. The adversary's plan would have also produced good works and compliance with the commendments and it was antithetical to the plan of happiness. For that reason I think I am safe to conclude that how we get to the finish line is important, though I think I would agree with what I anticipate your rejoinder would be, which is that this is a sliding scale and that this is very near the "harmless" end of that scale.

That being said I think that since it is the spirit that truly teaches us anything, it would be difficult for the spirit to be present while the truth is knowingly being messaged. On the other hand if ignorant half truths and untruths defeated the purposes of the gospel then attendence of sacrament meeting, particulaly testimony meeting, would have an awful effect on individuals and in the main the reverse is the case and the effect is very positive. I'm not being TIC about that.

[MikeWaters]

I think you run a lot of danger when you say "this is the history of Joseph Smith" and then you distort that history in significant ways....and then the faithful person later comes across another history that challenges, disputes, conflicts, that person may say "why was this withheld? why was I deceived?" An example would be a biography of Joseph Smith that makes no mention of polygamy.

It's not that I feel that apologists don't have their place. I'm saying let's call a spade a spade. It's not history. It's apology. And at this point in my life, I find history more interesting than apology.

[creekster]

I didn't intend for ti to be an end justifies the means position, but I guess it came out that way. rember, I assumed that what we are calling apologists are NOT intending to deceive, they are simply telling what they think is true in a faith promoting way. What is an apologist, anyway? No historian has ever been nothing but an accurate reporter of the reality of events as they occurred. All historians always sift and evaluate and make decisions about viewpoint, what to include and how to characterize it. If they didn't, all history writing would devolve into a Proustian morass of never-ending multi-volume works and even then they would still leave things out. So the apoologist may leave things out that you or I think should be included, but the apologist doesn't. Not evil, not necessarily wrong and certainly not the adversary's plan, given that no one has to believe it or even pay attention to it.

Now, if you are talking about intentional omissions by church leaders, esp. GAs, or if you are talking about writers that intentionally and in bad faith seek to mislead, then I would probably agree with ouy, although I am not sure it is a bad thing in the long run (this does not mean the end justifies the means, btw, simply that the end produced by the means really isn't that bad, given, as you point out, that real learning and testimony come from the spirit).

BEsides, if I can sniff some of this stuff out, so can anyone that cares to pay attention.

Again, sorry abouit the typoing. IS there a spell checker here somewhere?

[MikeWaters]

My definition of an apologist is someone who knows the ending of his book before he starts researching it.

He starts with a hypothesis, accepts all that confirms it, and rejects all that does not.