![]() |
CounterPoint An Apologetics Index research resource |
John Weldon's Response To Mosser/Owen and FARMS
Note: This is an initial response to the paper "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. This response may be modified or expanded within the near future.
Or Is It Evangelical Neglect? C. Peterson
Studious researchers like Jerald and Sandra Tanner, James White, and others, spend a great deal of time to research Mormonism because, first of all, they truly love the Mormon people and second, because they care about defending the truth. By contrast, in its 'scholarly' furthering of the unbiblical doctrines of Mormonism, FARMS/BYU scholars and LDS leaders confirm they have little love for either the Mormon people or the truth. And, not surprisingly, even other Mormon scholars have, not infrequently, described their work as incompetent. For example, Stephen E. Thompson, in "Critical' Book of Mormon Scholarship," in Dialogue 27/4(1994) refers to FARMS 500-page review of New Approaches as "seriously flawed" and as replete with "dross and Bile."
FARMS characteristically labels Christian critics of Mormonism as "anti-Mormon"--but not as "anti-Mormonism." The book by Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints does this twice in one title. This is also unfair. Criticizing a person's beliefs is hardly the same as criticizing the person. There is all the difference in the world between caring about Mormons as people and being critical of their theology. Christians can be considered anti-Mormon doctrinally, but hardly "anti-Mormon" when it concerns Mormon individuals. After all, it is concern for the salvation of Mormon people that causes Christians to examine LDS beliefs critically. Hopefully, individual Mormons would understand that criticism is not a sin.
Unfortunately, ours is an age where pluralism rules, absolutes do not exist, where everything is true and all is permitted-- and one in which lots of people do not care about much of anything, let alone the truth. Again, Mormons apologists, scholars and writers, for example, certainly do not seem to care about the truth.
Christians who write responsibly on Mormonism do care and it comes across in their writing, even if it may be polemical. But polemics also aren't a sin. To write polemically is simply to argue against an opinion or doctrine. This is a necessary task for the Christian because Christianity, like Mormonism, has exclusive truth claims. If a person's doctrine is wrong and a Christian does not tell that person the truth, it is impossible to truly be loving toward that individual.
Yet even some Christians think polemics is a sin, because it "offends" others to tell them their beliefs are wrong. But the Bible teaches that the Gospel itself is offensive, and for those who wish to personally justify themselves before God, it could hardly be otherwise. (Gal. 5:11
|
Apologetics Index (apologeticsindex.org, countercult.com, cultfaq.org) provides 31,800+
pages of research resources on religious cults, sects, new religious movements, alternative religions, apologetics-, anticult-, and countercult organizations, doctrines, religious practices and world views. These resources reflect a variety of theological and/or sociological perspectives.
The site provides information that helps equip Christians to logically present and defend the Christian faith, and that aids non-Christians in their comparison of various religious claims. Issues addressed range from spiritual and cultic abuse to contemporary theological and/or sociological concerns. Apologetics Index also includes ex-cult support resources - including a directory of cult experts (CultExperts.org), up-to-date religion and cult news (Religon News Blog: ReligionNewsBlog.com), articles on Christian life and ministry, and a variety of other features. |
|
Look, "feel" and original content are © Copyright 1996-2009, Apologetics Index Pages on this site may not be copied or framed. |