Sunstone and Apologetics

Post by **_Gadianton** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:18 pm

It's being suggested over on FAIR's message board, MAD*, that Sunstone is making changes in order to be more "faith affirming". The author of the FAIR article suggests that Sunstone would become yet another apologetic arm if it were to take this turn:

Do we really help people who just plain don't believe by trying to keep them in the church? And isn't that apologetics?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The same idea is expressed almost exclusively by the verb, "apologize", and generally by the adjective, "apologetic". For this reason, the adoption of the word, "Apologetics", in the sense of a scientific vindication of the Christian religion is not altogether a happy one. Some scholars prefer such terms as "Christian Evidences", the "Defence of the Christian Religion". "Apologetics" and "Apology" are not altogether interchangeable terms.

In them the refutation of specific charges was the prominent element. Apologetics, on the other hand, is the comprehensive, scientific vindication of the grounds of Christian, Catholic belief, in which the calm, impersonal presentation of underlying principles is of paramount importance, the refutation of objections being added by way of corollary.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm

The author of the FAIR/MAD article funny enough would probably not be able to believe that FAIR is an apologetics organization since she thinks that scientifically vindincating** a religious viewpoint is mere "fundamentalism" and doesn't believe in truth. But that's just a humorous aside. Promoting faith doesn't make for an apology, and an apology doesn't make for apologetics. Heaven forbid a president, chief security officer, and facilities manager of the FAIR/MAD organization would know what apologetics is, the word even appearing twice throughout the conglomerate entity.

The stance of apologetics historically wasn't without controversy. It wasn't universally agreed that matters of faith could, or ought to be proven. One could in fact be faith affirming while maintaining a low view of apologetics.

Whether or not the Sunstone staff combs the Journal of Mammology archives looking for anything that might have been mistaken for a horse molar has nothing to do with whether it is ultimately a faith-promoting publication.

*Given the recent incident surrounding Ardis, it might be more appropriate to talk about MAD's apologetic club known as FAIR.
**Here "scientifically" doesn't likely refer to just emperical science, but strict and logical reasoning - natural theology etc..

Post by **_Runtu** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:37 pm

There's already a thread about this on the other board. I'm being my usual disingenuous and dishonest self on it. ;-)

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:05 pm

Runtu wrote:There's already a thread about this on the other board. I'm being my usual disingenuous and dishonest self on it. ;-)

You, Runtu? Perish the thought!

;)

It's great to have you back!

Post by **_harmony** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:14 pm

Runtu wrote:There's already a thread about this on the other board. I'm being my usual disingenuous and dishonest self on it. ;-)

ACCESS DENIED. That's the message some of us get when we try to see what's going on over there, Runtu. Perhaps you could bring your comments here, in context, of course.

Post by **_Runtu** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:18 pm

The OP was thus:

So it isn't a new direction after all...just a new audience?

Dehlin comes off as being disengenous at best and evasive at worst. He is trying to position himself around FAIR by implying he is the open one. FAIR is "open", we talk about anything the antis want to bring up.... he just doesn't like our responses.

There is a point where nonbelievers just have to make a decision. Do we really help people who just plain don't believe by trying to keep them in the church? And isn't that apologetics?

I thought it was interesting that Dehlin's attempt to make Sunstone more inviting to believers was so harshly dismissed. Apparently, there's a history I wasn't aware of.

Post by **_Blixa** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:21 pm

Ya had to make me go and look.

When will I learn?

For the record, I've never found Sunstone compelling. Now that I've seen worse, I can better understand its appeal.

I wouldn't mind knowing more about its history, actually...

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:39 pm

I've never really read much from Sunstone, but as I've looked through the topics from time to time, they've simply had no "grab factor" with me. I'm just not interested in finding ways to explain how to keep believing things that are, fundementally, invented by human beings, through creative gymnastics of the mind, and that's most of what I've seen from Sunstone when I've bothered to look. It's people who want to stay Mormon and "believe" in some sense of the word, while processing lots of the problems. Well the trouble with this is that the most important, fundemental "problem" with the church is that it's not literally true; Joseph Smith, in concert with others, invented and developed it. It's hard to "deal with" that problem and still remain committed to some kind of believe in the fundamental truth of Mormonism because the two are, frankly, mutually exclusive.

Post by **_moksha** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:46 pm

Runtu, out of curiosity, is posting on these boards helping take the edge off of being in Provo?

Post by **_Runtu** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:48 pm

moksha wrote:Runtu, out of curiosity, is posting on these boards helping take the edge off of being in Provo?

Not really, no. I was just thinking this morning that my exchange with Juliann didn't take the edge off anything but made things a little more tense. I need to just stay away from that whole milieu.

I am actually enjoying it here. The weather has been glorious, whereas my family is still sweating it out in Texas. I've spent some time with some old friends (and some new, like Who Knows) and generally had a great time.

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:08 pm

Sethbag wrote:I've never really read much from Sunstone, but as I've looked through the topics from time to time, they've simply had no "grab factor" with me. I'm just not interested in finding ways to explain how to keep believing things that are, fundementally, invented by human beings, . . . It's hard to "deal with" that problem and still remain committed to some kind of believe in the fundamental truth of Mormonism because the two are, frankly, mutually exclusive.

I've been asked before if I had plans to continue participating or presenting at Sunstone. Your post accurately encapsulates the reason why I always reply with a "no."