Apologetics Not Accepted: "Don't We Have Anything Else to Talk About?"

 

Latter-day Saints have a long history of education, especially religious education. From the time of Kirtland, where members of the School of the Prophets were instructed in theology, Hebrew, biblical studies, and other related topics, down to today where the Church Educational System reaches hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world. Today, Latter-day Saints are extremely well educated, relatively, and have a positive relationship between higher education and religiosity.[1] As is evidenced by this conference and its participants, we are also moving forward in religious studies. This is the second conference held here at Yale Divinity School specifically about the LDS church in the past 5 years, but this one is unique because it is by a much younger generation of scholars. Today I would like to address one of the aspects of LDS scholarship and the directions we are moving, or perhaps the directions we should be moving.

One of the many labels given to LDS scholars is defenders of the faith. Often members of the church look to their scholars to be able to answer this objection, or to respond to that authors criticism. It is certainly comforting to know that someone as smart as, say, Hugh Nibley, is a faithful member of the Church. The point is not so much Nibleys writings themselves but the fact that those writings exist. To phrase it another way, its not what Nibley wrote that is important, it is that he wrote. Certainly this title and the implications associated with it are honorable, and should be part of any faithful LDS scholars work.

However, I find it distressing that so much of the work of LDS scholars could be labeled as defending the faith. A glance at the website for the Neal A. Maxwell institute for religious studies, specifically the frequently asked questions site, is quite telling. Every single question to which FARMS apparently gets asked frequently is an apologetic one. What kinds of questions are they responding to? The adieu at the end of the Book of Jacob. The saying that Jesus will be born in Jerusalem in Alma 7:10. False prophecies of Joseph Smith. Changes from earlier editions of the Book of Mormon. There are twenty-one questions and they are all apologetically oriented.

I find this distressing on a number of levels. First, this is what the Neal A. Maxwell institute does with its FAQ? Theres nothing about a mission statement, faculty, funding, publications, or other things you might expect to find on a FAQ site. They do have an about us portion of the site, but its not even linked on the FAQ page. I find this odd. Second, these questions are almost childish. As far as anti-Mormon attacks go theyre the ones that anti-Mormons have been using for years. Decades, even. Some of these questions are so old they date back to Joseph Smiths time.

And this second point leads me to my main thesis: It is time for LDS religious scholars to stop focusing so much on apologetics. When I look around at all of you and my other LDS friends that are going into religious studies, it seems almost like a waste of time. Ill explain why I feel this way.

Apologetics is, by definition, a reactionary procedure. Someone brings a charge or something-or-other against the church (or any other organization) and the apologists must respond to it. What are the charges being leveled against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I submit to you that the vast majority of the attacks against the church are attacks that have been used before, refuted, and are used again. The people organizing the FAQ site Ive talked about are not being foolish in responding to the weakest anti-Mormon arguments, thereby creating straw-man answers, but they are only responding to the anti-Mormon arguments that are available. These arguments are merely recycled over and over and over.

And why are they? Why are those who attack the church repeating the same arguments when they quite clearly have been responded to? Because they are not listening. It doesnt matter if we can come up with a hundred counterpoints to one of their anti-Mormon charges. They ignore our response and continue to ask the same questions. This is why the main title of my paper is apologetics not accepted. We have been doing apologetics since the inception of the church, yet rarely do the opponents of the church listen to and conscientiously respond to our responses. This is the major reason that I believe that LDS scholars should stop focusing on apologetics so much. We are participating in a shouting match, not a dialogue. They say something. We say something back. They say the same thing. We say the same thing back again. And so on ad infinitum. The calling of a scholar is, in my opinion, to participate in dialogue and exchange of ideas. This is clearly not happening when doing apologetics for the LDS church.

There are a few caveats to this point I would like to make however. Each new member of the church, whether a convert or a child baptism, is obviously not born with the sum of LDS apologetics in their head. Each member of the church should have the answers available to them. To this extent, we should at least keep apologetics on the back burnerbut this should come as no surprise. Each year freshman at just about every college in the world take basic writing classes, history, or some such GE requirement, even though those subjects have been taught for millenia. The same applies to apologetics, so lets be clear that I am not saying to give up the project entirely.

The second caveat is that, on rare occasions, new arguments do arise that deserve responses, either because of their newness or because of their nature. An example of a new argument would be DNA and the Book of Mormonthe argument that DNA evidence proves the Book of Mormon to be a fraud could not be made in 1830. Only with new advances in technology can a claim like that even be made, so it is an argument that has not been addressed before. Therefore it needs to be addressed. But I harbor suspicions that with this very issue we might be getting stuck in the same rut again. If we respond and the response fails to be responded to . . . drop it. No dialogue. Leave it alone.

An example of an argument that should be taken seriously are ones that come from sources that demand they be taken seriously. The arguments responded to on the Maxwell Institutes site are weak, almost laughable, and are usually the kind you hear from the people standing outside the Hill Cumorah Pageant giving out their literature and tracts. On the other hand, something like The New Mormon Challenge, on the other hand, is something that should be taken seriously.[2] Published in 2002, the book is, in my opinion, the first anti-Mormon publication in a very long time that is worth reading. Boasting contributions from scholars like J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, and others, it was a thoroughly researched, well-thought out, and non-polemical engagement of the LDS Church and its history, beliefs, and doctrines. Though not flawless,[3] it was a very big step in the right direction to beginning a more fruitful dialogue between Mormons and other Christians, specifically Evangelicals in this instance.

With these two exceptions, that we not toss out the project entirely so the responses are taught to each new generation of Mormons, and that we be aware of anti-Mormon responses that are deserving of a scholarly response, I think the time to focus on apologetics has largely passed. In discussing this topic with a number of my LDS friends over the past few months the point was made that perhaps it would be good to assemble all of the answers somewhere easily accessible, something that can be pointed to as a resource. In researching this possibility I discovered that this has been done in a number of places already. I have already mentioned the answers at the Maxwell Institutes FAQ page. In addition I was made aware of the FAIR site. FAIR stands for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, and their website is fairlds.org. I found their responses to most of the standard anti-Mormon questions to be thorough and more than adequate. So, to respond to my friends suggestion, I submit that this has been done, or at least done enough that to duplicate the work already available on the internet would be to waste man-hours on a largely redundant project.

What should the role of LDS scholars be, then? Taking a small hint from the Doctrine and Covenants, I suggest that we be anxiously engaged in a good cause and do many things of [our] own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness (D&C 58:27). There is no reason why LDS scholars cant publish articles about Christian history, biblical studies, theology, ethics, modern American Christianity, inter-religious dialogue, womens studies, and a host of other topics related to religious studies. And we should. Times are changing for the church. Yale Divinity School has now hosted two conferences on LDS themes. Claremont is establishing the Howard W. Hunter Chair for Mormon Studies. A member of the church is making a serious run for the Republican nomination for the presidency and the articles Ive read about Mr. Romney have all been extremely positive. LDS religious scholars are earning degrees from top tier religious studies programs, as evidenced by many of those in attendance here at this conference.

An interesting question arises here. If some LDS scholar were to find something, for example, that demonstrated yet another connection between the Book of Mormon and the near east, is that by definition apologetics? Im not sure there is a clear answer to this question. Certainly on one level the point of publishing such a find could be look, Josephs explanation of the Book of Mormon is true . . . he must be a prophet, an apologetic approach. Another approach, however, could be looking at this point, how can we better understand the point this particular author is making here. I think this would more accurately be described as historical-critical. Same data. Very different emphases, yet still not mutually exclusive. I leave question to each individual scholar to work out on their ownwhere does normal scholarship regarding the LDS church end, and where do apologetics begin?

I would like to conclude with a portion of an email forwarded to me by Dr. David Paulsen, of Brigham Young Universitys philosophy department. He has just written a paper on Joseph Smiths Understanding of the Godhead and what is called Social Trinitarianism. He sent his paper to Richard Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary and a good friend of Dr. Paulsens. Upon hearing Dr. Mouws reaction to the paper, I requested the email to be forwarded to me. I would like to quote from two places in that email:

I like your paper very much, for several reasons. One is that it is a solidly impressive piece of scholarship that advances the more general discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity. I think it is important for LDS thinkers to be seen as doing more than simply apologetics type discussions, and you have accomplished the "more" here. This is the kind of essay that ought to be viewed as a contribution to the larger exploration of this important theological topic.   

 

Then later in the email, “But for all of that, yes, I like your essay very much. It not only advances the general discussion with some telling points, but it is a model of a new LDS theological scholarship that I hope will be visible to many!”[4]

 

Dr. Mouws point is clear, I think. LDS scholars have matured in recent years. Twenty or thirty years ago, would a young LDS Brigham Young University Graduate have attended Yale Divinity School? Harvard? Duke? But now we are.[5] With that maturing of the LDS scholarly community, there needs to come a maturing of the scholarship that community is producing.

At the SBL meeting last November, a bunch of the LDS students all went to get Chinese food together. A number of us here in the room were at that little get-together. We were all chatting and discussing BYU, our professors there, current projects, whether we would work at BYU after graduation, etc. eventually my friend Devan (who incidentally graduated from the U of U) said, almost blurted, even, dont we have anything else to talk about?

I dont tell this story to embarrass Devan, hes rather proud his saying has become the subtitle for this paper. I dont tell it to embarrass those who, it appeared, had little else to talk about. Of course we had more to talk about. And thats exactly my point. We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have a lot to talk about. As members of one of the most dynamic, unique, interesting, and growing religions in the world, and further as scholars that are members of this religion, it is our responsibility to examine our own religion and see what contributions we can make. I venture to guess that there are many.

So in conclusion, lets analyze the title of my paper. Apologetics Not Accepted. Anti-Mormons have been around as long as Mormons. Many of their arguments have not changed since they were first given in the days of Joseph Smith. We have responded to them, only to have them repeated back to us again and again ad nauseum. Our apologetics have not been accepted, and as I see it no longer worth the amount of time and energy we have put into it. Scholars are called to dialogue, and LDS apologetics is typically anything but a dialogue.

Dont we have anything else to talk about? Of course we do. Now lets talk about these things. To paraphrase the above scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants, let us be anxiously engaged in good scholarship and write many books and articles of [our] own free will, and bring to pass much understanding.