Apologists: scientists or lawyers?

[Hagoth]

This morning I was watching the Nova special The Great Human Odyssey, which is excellent and which I highly recommend. There was an interview with Thor Heyerdahl's son about his father's adventurous, but ultimately misguided, attempt to demonstrate that the Pacific Islands were colonized by South Americans. Heyerdahl Jr, who is a trained academic, pointed out that his father approached things more like a lawyer than a scientist; he started with a conclusion and worked backward to look for evidence that would strengthen the case for his foregone conclusion.

That really struck a chord with me. In fact, I remembered that a prominent Book of Mormon apologist had made a similar claim (I won't mention his name, because this was told to me in confidence by one of his relatives). This man was trained as a lawyer and he said that he approaches BoM apologetics through a lawyer's eyes. He knows what the church's position on the BoM is so he builds a case that will support the conclusion they want people to reach.

John Sorenson opens An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by stating that he has never entertained doubts about the Book of Mormona and that, since it must have happened somewhere, he had taken it upon himself to gather evidence to support his conclusion. Similarly, Kerry Muhlestein openly admits that his approach to the Book of Abraham is to interpret the evidence in a way that supports the church's claims about the origin of the text.

This is probably a no-brainer but it helped me clarify to myself why apologist come across as intellectually earnest yet are so selective, and often not completely truthful, in how they use the information they use for their conclusions. If I think of them as lawyers rather than scientists it all falls into place. Their job is to make a case, not to find the truth.

Let them present their cases. We will sit on the jury.

[Linked]

Great post Hagoth. That is a great analogy, as TBMs we were told what the answer was and then spent our whole lives building a case for it, and rejecting the case against it. This is such a bad way to find the truth, and a lawyer's duty is not to honor truth, but to build the best case they possibly can for their client and to destroy the opposing narrative. I think that is apologetics in a nutshell.

[Korihor]

This reminds me of my favorite apologetic/TBM responses to tough problems: Anything is possible.

[hiding in plain sight]

This reminds me of my favorite apologetic/TBM responses to tough problems: Anything is possible.

With God.

[Korihor]

This reminds me of my favorite apologetic/TBM responses to tough problems: Anything is possible.

With God.

Lately, they've started to leave out the "with God" part. They just shrug and say anything is possible.

[Corsair]

This reminds me of my favorite apologetic/TBM responses to tough problems: Anything is possible.

• Anything is possible when you give Brother Joseph a break
• Anything is possible when it's not pertinent to your salvation
• Anything is possible when they are speaking as men and not prophets
• Anything is possible when we don't know how Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham
• Anything is possible when we are working with imperfect people

I wonder what might be possible if we could be certifiably and objectively certain that divine guidance was involved.

[Vlad the Emailer]

• Anything is possible when you give Brother Joseph a break
• Anything is possible when it's not pertinent to your salvation
• Anything is possible when they are speaking as men and not prophets
• Anything is possible when we don't know how Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham
• Anything is possible when we are working with imperfect people

Looks like unit headings for the BYU course Apologetic Rationalizations 101.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I find it odd that all church historians are now lawyers. Just ask assistant Church Historian Richard Turley. He will tell you all about how he gave up his lucrative law career to make meager wages working for the COB and selling books.

[shadow]

I am both a trained scientist and lawyer. Since I read every post here with the intent to make it about me, I got especially excited with this one.

All joking aside, thinking about this has made me realize that since I have come to certain conclusions about mormonism, through what I hope was a more open-minded, scientific approach, my interactions with my wife have probably approached more of an attempt at persuasion, starting with my conclusion about the church and supporting that with favorable evidence. I don't think I really need to be selective of facts to support my conclusions, but my posturing probably hasn't been helpful to our mutual understanding.