Apologists: scientists or lawyers?
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:59 am
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.
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.
