- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had a conversation with one of my more understanding and open minded TBM friends today and he brought up Terryl Givens. In the course of the conversation he said Givens was an apologist, and I immediately said he wasn’t. We did not argue, this was a very civil conversation, as we are capable of having. He said my definition of apologist was probably too narrow, and that the word really describes a defender of the faith. Eventually we included Bushman in the conversation (he has read all the Givens books, including the Crucible of Doubt and he has read Rough Stone Rolling). I told him I thought an apologist, especially those of the FAIR variety (he has probably also read anything they have ever published), ask us to do mental gymnastics, make leaps that sometimes really have no close connection, or spin things in ways they just don’t spin. In what I have read of Givens (only The God Who Weeps, which he didn’t like) and what I know of Bushman (I haven’t read RSR but want to) they don’t seem to ask us to do those things. I also said that what the Givens write is not really defending the faith so much as redefining some aspects of the faith. We agreed, by the way, that 15 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago, Bushman would likely have been ex’ed. So, are Terryl and Fiona Givens and Richard Bushman apologists? Are they even really defenders of the faith?
I’m not sure I know the answer as “apologist” has taken on a negative connotation for many struggling with honest faith. But I think the answer is related to something T. Givens said in JD’s interview when taking about what is a “Cult” (also a term that has become real pajorative over time). Givens referred to a moment during the David Coresh/Waco incident when reporter Martin Marty was asked what the true definition of Cult is? He said (paraphrasing) “That’s easy, a Cult is any religion that has beliefs I don’t like”. 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 don’t think they are apologists either, for basically the same reasons that SBR has mentioned. They just seem to lay their thoughts on the table while still being faithful in the church. I read RSR earlier this year and Bushman for the most part just lays things out that happened — quite historical in nature. I don’t think he nor the Givens have ever hammered on the idea of “but this is still the one and only true church” like apologists do. But then again, maybe my definition of “apologist” is more narrow than your friend’s
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.
Yes, they are good apologists – meaning I like what they write. 
At first glance, the word apologist sounds (& feels) like a weakness. It’s not at all. Yes, of course they are. đŽ )Old-Timer wrote:Yes, they are good apologists – meaning I like what they write.
:thumbup: Mike wrote:At first glance, the word apologist sounds (& feels) like a weakness. It’s not at all.
:thumbup: Shades of Grey wrote: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.
To me, an apologist is an apologist, defending beliefs or faith. Whether we like them or if they have negative connotations depends on the circles we’re in and how we personally frame them or the topics.
I view the Givens as apologists more than I’ve seen Bushman act in that role, Bushman from what I’ve read has tried in his books to be more of an historian, although I’m sure he’s shared his views at some venues…and in those cases becomes the apologist. The Givens seem to clearly be defending a believing position in the church, just with tolerance to acknowledge the paradoxes that exist.
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.
Heber13 wrote: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 think of the Givenses as apologists, “defenders of the faith” – meaning not just the church, but the faith of every individual member. I liked the chapter in “Crucible of Doubt” about spiritual independence and finding your own watering place. Quote:“…we are responsible for our own spiritual diet, and…sources of inspiration are sprinkled indiscriminately throughout time and place. Mormons should feel empowered and inspired to fill our own wells with nourishing waters.”
I like that Ann. I just saw the following quote on another blog and I put it down in my favorites. Quote:
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 wonât always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is âChurch approved,â because new ideas donât 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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.