Apologetics that (Might) Matter – By Common Consent

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .Sweet Spirit, what souls are these who run through this black haze? And he to me: These are the nearly soulless whose lives concluded neither blame nor praise. They are mixed here with that despicable corps of angels who were neither for God nor Satan, but only for themselves. The High Creator scourged them from Heaven for its perfect beauty, and Hell will not receive them since the wicked might feel some glory over them.

Lets start with Dante and his description of those souls who tried to be neutral on earth, neither good nor bad, just OK. For Dante, they were the most despicable people in the afterlife. They do not go to hell, per se, because they never embraced wickedness. But they dont go to heaven either. They just wander around miserably, not being anywhere or anything because, because they failed to commit to anything during their lives.

From Dante, we learn the crucial truth that not bad is not the same as good. A number of other statements flow from this understanding: not false is different than true; not wrong is different than right; and not worthless is not the same as valuable. The absence of a fault is not yet a virtue.

But I dont really want to talk about Dante here. I want to talk about apologeticsthat branch of religious writing that focuses on defending or explaining religious beliefs or institutions.

There is nothing wrong with apologetics. We struggle in English because the word sounds so much like apologize, and that, in turn, usually means something like make excuses for. And to be fair to the uninitiated, religious apologetics often does sound a lot like making excuses for religious problems. Latter-day Saint apologists, when not trying to overwhelm people with adjectives and advanced degrees, often fall into the trap of trying to excuse, rather than defend or explain, difficult things.

I recently spent some time with the Mormonr Hard Questions site, one of the newer such sites in the LDS apologetics world. There is a lot to recommend their approach. It has none of the combative ethos that often characterizes LDS apologetics, it answers a lot of questions with words like probably, and sort of that demonstrate epistemic humility, and it does a great job documenting issues and explaining them with timelines and helpful infographics.

Like several other sites, Mormonr is geared towards GenZ and younger Millennialsgenerations that appear to be leaving the Church in record numbers after they 1) encounter historical problem areas on the internet; and 2) find themselves increasingly in opposition to the church on social issuesespecially LGBTQ issues. Here are two examples of such problem issues, along with some excerpts from the Mormonr response:

ISSUE #1: Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith

The history of polygamy can be uncomfortable or frustrating, and even more so when it relates to Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger, the first polygamous relationship. Did Joseph make up polygamy to justify cheating on Emma? Was there a power imbalance with Joseph being her employer and a prophet? What about that age gap?

Unfortunately, there are very few contemporary historical records on this relationship and there are no historical records from Joseph or Fanny. This makes it difficult to reconstruct the story using historical evidence and makes it tough to answer the hard questions about Joseph and Fanny in a satisfying way.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

One reasonable interpretation is that the relationship with Fanny seems to be the first attempt to start practicing polygamy, one that appears to have been fumbled by Joseph. Though Joseph might have been imperfect in implementing polygamy, we can rely on a spiritual witness that comes by study and faith on Joseph Smiths role as prophet of God.

ISSUE #2: The Church and Proposition 8 in California

For many people, this is not a topic that will have satisfying answers. With the mix of political and social issues at play, theres not really a comfortable place to land.

Did the Church overstep its bounds by getting involved in this highly charged political issue? Was the Church doing the right thing to ask its members to mobilize and vote a particular way? These are difficult questions, and they may not have clear answers.

But one question that is answerable is whether the Church can legally participate in politics and influence policy. Since the Church is a non-profit, and non-profits can participate in politics that affect their interests, the Church was within legal bounds to campaign for Prop 8.

The Church doesnt usually give direction on how to vote (though in this case, it did), but it does encourage members to be politically active. Though faithful Church members may disagree on how the Proposition 8 situation should have been handled, each should remember to respect and love those on every side of political or social discussions.

I have spent a lot of time studying rhetoric and argument, and I recognize the argument style used here. It is a very effective style for dealing with concerns that includes the following steps:

These are all important skills to use when discussing potentially divisive topics. The Mormonr site is a master class in effective, civically responsible discussion of hard questions in a way that does not increase polarization or outrage. I like this site quite a lot, and I think that it does a lot of necessary work in the Latter-day Saint ecosystem.

But I also see a major problem with this entire approach to apologetics, and it goes back to Dante: this approach is designed to turn antagonism into neutralityto convince people that Joseph Smiths relationship with a teenage girl does not completely disqualify him from being a prophet, or that it is OK to be a Latter-day Saint and disagree with the Church on things like Proposition 8.

The problem is that neutrality is not enough to accomplish the goal of keeping peopleyoung or otherwisein the Church. People do not want to identify with institutions that are just not false, not bad, and not guilty. They need to understand the positive good that an institution does and the value that being a part of it can have in their lives.

I do not stay involved in the Church because I have satisfactorily resolved all of the historical problems that I have encountered. Nor do I stay because I have come to agree with the Churchs position on social issues that are important to me. I stay because I have discovered things in the Church that offset these very real problems and make it a net positive in my life.

The young people that I know who have left the Church (and a lot of the not-young people too) did not leave ONLY because of historical problems and social issues. They left because they could find nothing of value to offset their discomfort. It requires an enormous investment of both cognitive and spiritual resources to construct a nuanced position that accounts for these problem areas and still manages to celebrate faith and spiritual identity. People will only be willing to invest this effort if they see a substantial return for doing so. Not as bad as you thought is just not enough.

This, I think, is the real problem that apologetics has to grapple with: how to defend the Church by showing how it is good and not just how certain hard questions can be sort of answered. Absolute statements that the Church is true and this is what God says are just not enough. They have never been enough. They set up an all-or-nothing proposition for which nothing is quickly becoming the default setting.

The way to deal with the problem areas is not to provide lengthy explanations to mitigate their negative impact. Everybody who affiliates with any institution involving human beingsnations, universities, corporationshas to deal with problems, usually big ones, that do not have easy solutions. We remain connected because we perceive positive value in spite of the problems. For religious apologetics to matter, they have to spend less time establishing the not badness of the Church and more time identifying and exploring its goodness.

Like Loading...

See the article here:

Apologetics that (Might) Matter - By Common Consent