Are the Givens and Bushman apologists?

DJ,

Based on what I think an apologist is, I don’t think they are. An apologist to me is someone who is a defender of the faith, but who still believes absolutely in the “one true church” and that prophets won’t lead us astray.

I don’t see the Givens and Bushman in this light. They have their moments, but the sense I get from them is: (my quote marks) “whatever helps you stay as a participant in the faith, whatever you need to do to maintain a connection, here are some different ways at looking at things that might help.” And they are fine if you don’t necessarily believe in the idea of one true church or that our church is the absolute authority on everything related to exaltation.

Take it with a few grains of salt…

-SBRed

I had actually never heard the term apologist before coming to stayLDS.

When I fist heard it I thought it was someone that goes around apolagizing for the church. :crazy:

I looked it up and came to the same definition as your friend. “Defender of the faith.”

So I suppose if we wanted to break it down the two chief elements to being an apologist would be 1) loyalty to the church 2) the willingness to publicly talk about church issues in a way that defends the church.

Under that standard I would consider the Givens and Bushmans as apologists. I agree that they seem to be a different strain of apologist than the FAIR variety. However, their goal in talking about church subjects seems to be to create space in which members can know about xyz and still maintain loyalty to the church. FWIW, StayLDS would also be considered an apologist website under this broad definition.

At first glance, the word apologist sounds (& feels) like a weakness. It’s not at all.

Yes, they are good apologists – meaning I like what they write.

:thumbup:

I’m not sure I know the answer as “apologist” has taken on a negative connotation for many struggling with honest faith.

Yes, I think my friend doesn’t understand this. He actually sees them as doing good, and I agree for the most part he’s right. I do also see the term has a negative connotation for some because sometimes what they try so hard to convince us about just doesn’t work because of the weakness of the argument. He pretty much buys into whatever apologists say, not necessarily believing it for himself but as possible solutions for those who question. This is probably why he has not been successful with his own questioning/doubting adult child.

I like the Givens approach, and I learn from them. I like some things on FAIR. I don’t like some apologists that seem to base truth on authority, and then just work backwards to justify their position, or think theirs is the only view possible, but do find it helpful to read their point of view to see where I disagree.

I also like the Givens approach, and I should point out that I don’t really buy everything they say, either – but I do appreciate the point of view. And I also like some things at FAIR, but since my questions tend to be more doctrinal than historical and FAIR focuses on history I find much of the stuff to be of little worth. Nevertheless I do appreciate that others are helped by FAIR and other apologists and I can’t say that I get nothing from them. And I also agree that some apologists do make the same arguments that don’t work for many of us already – “if JS was a prophet then the BoM must be true” type arguments (and I know that’s a bit on the simplistic side, but it illustrates the point). That’s where the negative connotation comes from for me – the making of arguments that just don’t connect in my mind and/or making the same old tired arguments that I have already dismissed, much in the same way I mostly dismiss the “pray, read the scriptures…” counsel – I’ve tried it and for the most part it doesn’t work for me.

I will add here that my friend did point out that we’re not the only church with apologists – Catholicism, Judaism, and Christianity in general also have apologists.

I like that Ann. I just saw the following quote on another blog and I put it down in my favorites.

As Bruce Hafen said in the Ensign ,

We need to develop the capacity to form judgments of our own about the value of ideas, opportunities, or people who may come into our lives. We won’t always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is “Church approved,” because new ideas don’t always come along with little tags attached to them saying whether they have been reviewed at Church headquarters. Whether in the form of music, books, friends, or opportunities to serve, there is much that is lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy that is not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction. Those who will not risk exposure to experiences that are not obviously related to some Church word or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends.

We must develop sufficient independence of judgment and maturity of perspective that we are prepared to handle the shafts and whirlwinds of adversity and contradiction that may come to us. When those times come, we cannot be living on borrowed light. We should not be deceived by the clear-cut labels others may use to describe circumstances that are, in fact, not so clear. Our encounters with reality and disappointment are, actually, vital stages in the development of our maturity and understanding.

Sorry I don’t have more of a reference, but I am going to look it up.