In any case I don’t think anyone pretends that apologetics are open to all views. After all merely by definition an apologist presents apologetic arguments. So if you’re point is just that apologists and apologetic outfits presuppose the truth of Mormonism I’d tend to agree. Although I’d also note that both FARMS and MI have published things by non-members and thus unbelievers. But maybe I’m just not understanding your point.

It seems to me that you’re trying to have it both ways. That is to say that for apologists to be seeking for truth they have to admit things they think are false. But again this seems to conflate the conclusions with the reason for the belief.

Athena (24) that’s fine. I’d just note that I think very little history is science. Most bears far more resemblance to literary criticism.

Brad L, faith claims are not the same as historical claims. Just because I make a claim about what I believe, does not make it a historical claim, it just means that my words can be found on that date and if we fast forward a hundred years, it becomes history, or something said in the past. What is true is that I said it on that date because we have evidence of it.

Christianity, like most faith traditions, make “faith” claims. The physical resurrection of Christ, Paul’s conversion, the Christmas story, the gospels, are faith accounts and claims, not historical ones.

There is a no difference between a “faith” claim and a “historical” claim. They are one in the same. We have every indication that those who claimed that Jesus resurrected meant that he actually rose from the dead and that his body came back to life. In fact, it appears that these early believers in Jesus’ resurrection believed based on what they thought was evidence, multiple witness statements, empty tomb, etc.

Brad L., for me, the structure supersedes the prose. Presenting questions about the truth of something with the intent of answering the question in the affirmative, for me, is entirely different than asking a traditional question. The latter is a quest for truth; the former is a rhetorical device. And like I have said two or three times, I am not at all claiming to be able to look into the mind or soul of any writer individually, or even a set collectively. My comments are structural in nature, not personal.

Clark Goble, I’m not conflating the two. Like I said, I am not trying to question the sincerity of apologists themselves, at all. When a certain publication only includes a pre-specified sampling of conclusions, no matter how those conclusions originally came about, the publication has the effect of reinforcing a certain preconceived notion. I think your analogy is flawed. A better one would be an environmental science publication that will not publish any papers that support the idea of human-made climate change. Are there lots of sincere, intelligent people who don’t believe in global warming? I believe yes (I think you disagreed on this point in the other thread; feel free to reverse the analogy if that’s better for you). However, if all of their opinions are gathered together based on that specific criteria, their work, whatever its original intention, or the process behind it, becomes, due to its editorial formatting, literature reinforcing a predetermined viewpoint, and therefore unscientific. This is true even if each article would individually be an entirely scientific work.

And that’s what many people don’t like, since such publications otherwise often purport to take a rational approach.

That’s all I’m trying to say, that I don’t think most opponents of Latter-day Saint apologetics dislike them because of a few poorly-written papers from the early days, although they may use those as convenient examples of the larger reasons for their dislike. I think it’s the more general idea of apologetics that many people oppose.

Personally, if done in good faith, I find apologetics interesting, as long as they are taken for what they are. Every person who believes in the supernatural has reasons behind that belief, as well as reasons they feel that belief can be harmonized with the natural world most people perceive. It is interesting to see into others’ thought processes, when they are presented sincerely. Many apologetics are not, of course, but that’s true of arguments in general. I don’t think apologists are more guilty of ignoring evidence or proof-texting than my daily Facebook feed, or a standard Sunday school lesson of any denomination I have ever attended.

unquestioning defense of a belief system

I get where you are coming from, mirror. However, you do need to rephrase this a bit. Mormon apologetics won’t ever draw conclusions that are diametrically opposed to a set number of central claims of the LDS leaders (if it did, then it wouldn’t be apologetic). Apologetics is constructed based on the assumption that these central claims are true. But that doesn’t mean that apologists don’t question the truthfulness of these claims in their prose.

If you’re looking for certainty or proof you simply won’t find it in science. I think science is arguably one of our strongest ways of knowing. But let’s understand what science is.

Open inquiry is a social system and seems a much broader question than what any one particular journal does. To say that open inquiry requires agreeing with all perspectives strikes me as odd.

“their claims better be scientifically proven ones.” I think *most* claims are not scientifically provable. And many scientific “facts” are not self-interpreting.

Nathaniel Givens does a very good job of proving they are not Sunstone South. Until they are open to publishing Sunstone’s wide variety of views, they cannot be considered to be following scientific methodology, just as would be true of any periodical that refused to publish peer-reviewed studies if they deviated from a pre-approved list of theories.

The very fact that they had no articles disagreeing with the literal historicity of The Book of Mormon might suggest how extensive their predetermined limitations are.