Comments on: Perspectives on Mormon Theology Review

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 21:16:38 +0000

I don’t think that’s what the FARMS crowd necessarily objects to. But I think that’s a bit more complex, and surprisingly not really engaged with in the book too much. (Which I take as a plus – it’s too inside baseball) I do think that to a certain extent what I’d term classical Mormon apologetics breaks from traditional 20th century theology by raising the value of science yet breaks from aspects of Mormon Studies by emphasizing the same thing. That is it’s taking seriously truth claims and using the tools of scholarship to engage with them. Mormon Studies more broadly speaking is interested in meaning rather than truth. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, unless it’s done to the exclusion of truth. (Which is why I think the historicity question matters a great deal) But that said, I think that in practice people are a blend of both rather than picking a single side. Which is why I’m glad it didn’t get emphasized too much.

By: Dave B.

Dave B. — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:47:02 +0000

Clark, I agree one of the strengths of the book is the wide spectrum of views represented. In a sense, the spectrum is broad enough that the topic is no longer apologetics per se but simply informed and enlightening discussion of LDS issues. That’s part of what Old FARMS objects to about the new MI approach, which endorses profitable discussion of LDS issues without always leading off with a defense of traditional LDS positions and sometimes not ever getting around to defending traditional LDS positions.

Maybe this book does for Mormon apologetics what Faithful History (Signature, 1992) did for Mormon history.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 15:59:23 +0000

Gosh, Clark, I do like your thinking. I just wish you would now and then use commas and other punctuation so that your sentences would stop behaving like a pile-up on the freeway. Sometimes your words just run into each other, and I have to sort out which clause they belong in. That said, your critique makes me want to read this book.

By: Jerry Schmidt

Jerry Schmidt — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 20:11:22 +0000

Only speaking for myself, I have not relied on formal apologetics much in my personal faith wrestle. The only “apologist” I read with amy seriousmess was Hugh Nibley, and when I read his texts I was getting further insight from a believer with intellectual chops, not even thinking about apologetics (in other words, I may have been intuitively grasping the purpose of aplogetics without formal identification).

My research via the internet has come from varied sources, though more from work outside LDS framework than inside. The Book of Mormon itself has been my primary guide, as I realized, as I interpreted Nibley’s work to do for him, the affirmations arose from the natrative symbology and doctrinal discourse itself, not what I would call “externalities” like historicity.

Historicity had already been a personal issue for me with Old and New Testament, but it didn’t ultimately make a difference to my belief in God the Father or his Christ. Personal testimony is exactly that, personal, so what makes up my faith is necessarily not what makes up your faith. That doesn’t mean the details can’t align at some point, but, referencing Mr. Goble, we can’t know the details without dialogue, without discussion.