I don’t think that’s what Elder Ballard meant. He was telling those that had gained knowledge to use that knowledge to set the records straight. Almost every member can do this. And if they find they don’t have the information they can always say “I’ll have to look that up and get back to you.” I think members get into trouble when they attempt to argue in defense of something controversial. If you think you have the skill and knowledge, go for it. If you don’t stay away from it. The gospel advances when it’s principles are clearly articulated. I don’t believe discussions in defense of something controversial helps the Church at all. I think those who engage in these types of discussion do it for the shear enjoyment they receive from it. I think that’s as good a reason as any. If you have the skill to do it, and like doing it, go for it.

As for me, I don’t have the skill. After all, what do you expect, I still play with toy soldiers.

Rich

With the Book of Abraham i am not always a fan of FARMS scholarship. FAIR is doing much better especially with its FAIR Wiki format. I finally bough FARMS Abraham, Papyrus, and Covenant. I find my entusiasm towards the book of Abraham great enough to defend it. I have read many of the top Book of Abraham critics. I find i like knowing the con and pro arguments, so critics can’t hit me with nothing i had never heard.

I have read deep stuff on Mormon, history, doctrine and practice for many years. I know of nothing anybody should be leaving the LDS church over. What i have felt needed for several years was a hefty three volume set commenting on critics technical issues. I would put it online until money can be gathered to get it published in print. I would take a book like Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? and review its technical issues into the ground. The Truth about the Godmakers format by Gilbert Schwarffs would be a good format to follow.

The disadvantage i find i have in apologetics is sometimes i have technical issues i have limited technical answers to link to. Mormonism 201 by FAIR is good if FAIR is just aiming at holding its own with books like Mormonism 101 by Bill Mckeever and Eric Johnson. But even with that response MRM put an online rebuttal to FAIR’s resonse. Without FAIR doing a response to the response i could not hold my own with the response to the FAIR response.

I see bad apologetics as not precisely answering the technical concern behind the anti-Mormon question. I see certain FAIR Wiki articles that do well on breaking down technical critics First Vision Issues. But in some cases i see LDS apologists giving answers who have not carefully sat down with anti-Mormon materials on the topic. So i usually mentally contrast the answer with the best critics presentation of their objection. If i feel the critic can honestly say the answer is not good enough for valid reasons i see that answer as flawed.

I see two LDS apologetics books as needed for my off internet discussion with critics. A hefty Anti-Mormonism: Truth or Deception? book would be nice as an equivelant to Mormonism: Shadow or reality? and a FAIR Mormonism 201 book replete with dialogues would be nice. On the internet FAIR and FAIR Wiki formats are a good start.

FAIR’s You Tube Channel is also a great idea. Although the public is sensationalism happy and i think sensationalistic videos draw more attention. I would put up a Lifting the Veil of polygamy film maybe calling it Mormon Polygamy Unveiled not to steal LHM title. With FLDS being in the news constantly since Warren Jeffs got into trouble FAIR was unwise not to rip into that groups authority claims. The public thinks Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith was alike and LDS arn’t getting their propeganda side out.

The MADB board which FAIR abandoned over to new management gets hit with polyandry and Joseph Smith issues constantly. If FAIR Wishes to defend Joseph Smith it has to defend him against the charge he comitted adultury with 11 married women. I have been able to do this many times, but FAIR wiki has not put up an article on it. And it needs to be up to the task. I see a lot of LDS apologists on that board as being stumped on how to handle the topic because they have not made an in-depth study of books like In Sacred lonliness. I pick on Compton’s conclusions all the time, so i find i can hold my own on the polyandry subject.

To me basic apologetics come’s down to being able to hold your own with intellectual bullies.

I clarified what I mean by the term “argue” in my response to NoS above. I use the word in a sense entirely consistent with D&C 121:41-45. You seem to be looking at things a little differently as in 3 Nephi 11, which is a different situation entirely than is typically encountered in online discussions and debates.

I am not sure what you are claiming about the BoA apologetics you encountered. Do you consider yourself better off not knowing the problems and possible solutions, or do just wish that such information could have been broken to you more gently?

When I talk about bad apologetics I have singled out two problems, being underinformed and being overbearing. The FARMS Review has generally set the standard for good apologetics and its tone has improved over time. So I am curious what you considered illogic. Does it make more sense to you now?

Also, the idea that apologetics can hurt members is a true one. While I’m still a member of the church, I had no idea there where any problems with the Book of Abraham translation, in terms of the real content of the papyri, until I read about it in a FARMS publication. It was such and over-the-top illogical apologetic screed that I just had to do more research. Now, I find myself wondering what other mines I’ll step on if I continue to read LDS-published history (never mind the actual anti- stuff).

I quickly discovered that those were still Blake’s ideas and arguments, and I hadn’t even come close to earning them or understanding what went into them. And all the certainties and confidences I had earlier entertained didn’t seem quite so impressive when I had several theology doctorates, and divinity school professors staring at me from the other side of the table.

I was properly horse-whipped.

Just another two cents from a two bit Backyard Professor…..