Book Review: Perspectives on Mormon Theology – Apologetics, edited by
 Blair G. Van Dyke and Loyd Isao Ericson, Greg Kofford Books
I am an apologist. Ever since joining the LDS Church at the age of 
16, I’ve spent countless hours explaining, sharing and defending the 
gospel of Jesus Christ. After my mission, I used to weekly go to the 
Salt Lake Temple, where I would spend an hour talking gospel with the 
anti-Mormon protester that handed out pamphlets outside the Temple 
Square walls. Nibley’s works were amazing to me. I was a list member on 
William Hamblin’s Ant-Mormon email list 25 years ago. I am a former 
member of FAIRMormon, written articles for the More Good Foundation, 
spent many hours on LDS.Net, have several articles on my own webpage, 
gave a lecture on the Book off Mormon as an Ascension Text at Sunstone 
Kirtland, blogged on the Gospel Doctrine lessons at my own blog, and a 
permablogger here at Millennial Star.
That said, I went into this discussion on apologetics with an open 
mind, eager to see what several LDS scholars thought. The book is a 
series of essays on apologetics:
- Critical Foundations of Mormon Apologetics – Blair G. Van Dyke
- A Brief Defense of Apologetics – Daniel C. Peterson
- Boundary Maintenance that Pushes the Boundaries: Scriptural and Theological Insights from Apologetics – Neal Rappleye
- I Think, Therefore I Defend – Michael R. Ash
- A Wall Between Church and Academy – Benjamin E. Park
- Mormon Apologetics and Mormon Studies: Truth, History, and Love – Ralph C. Hancock
- The Intellectual Cultures of Mormonism: Faith, Reason and the Apologetic Enterprise – Brian D. Birch
- The Role of Women in Apologetics – Juliann Reynolds
- Avoiding Collateral Damage: Creating a Woman-Friendly Mormon Apologetics – Julie M. Smith
- “The Perfect Union of Man and Woman”: Reclamation and Collaboration in Joseph Smith’s Theology Making – Fiona Givens
- Lamanites, Apologetics and Tensions in Mormon Anthropology – David Knowlton
- Conceptually Confusion and the Building of Stumbling Blocks of Faith – Loyd Isao Ericson
- Shifting Intellectual and Religious Paradigms: One Apologist’s Journey into Critical Study – David Bokovoy
- Toward a New Vision of Apologetics – Joseph M. Spencer
- Apologetics as Theological Praxis – Seth Payne
The articles discuss several important topics in regards to 
apologetics and LDS scholarship. The discussions focus primarily on the 
importance of apologetics, its pros and cons, and whether we should be 
doing apologetics. The articles include the issues of women in 
apologetics, whether we should instead focus on Mormon scholarly 
studies, the differences between good and bad apologetics, boundary 
maintenance, and where we should go in the future.
Van Dyke introduces us a brief history of apologetics in the Church. 
There was a time when scholarship under people like Eugene England was 
fresh and exciting. Unfortunately, there were some who were not eager to
 allow a free-for-all cause damage to the Church. For some, it was 
better to keep skeletons in the closet, and insist there was no closet. 
However, with the advent of the Internet, the skeletons burst out of the
 closet. Some still tried to protect the closet, even though it was 
essentially empty. This allowed for critics of the Church to get the 
upper hand for a time. However, over the past decade, there has been a 
new openness, which the Church is still grappling with. Van Dyke noted 
that there are still some issues, such as same-sex marriage, where the 
Church and many apologists are still slow to acknowledge that “research 
indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ 
markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development,
 adjustment or overall well-being.”  He concludes by suggesting we may 
have to go forward with an “unpretentious openness to contemplate all 
possibilities – including the outside chance that maybe, just maybe, you
 
might be wrong!”.
There are negative and positive forms of apologetics: Negative forms 
defend against the criticisms of critics, while positive forms add 
evidences that may increase one’s reasons to believe.
Peterson, Rappleye, and Ash explain the importance of apologetic work.
Peterson quotes the scriptures, as well as C.S Lewis on the 
importance of defending the faith. There are some scholars, who do not 
believe we should engage in apologetics of any kind, to which Peterson 
responds, “They seem to do so on the basis of something resembling 
fideism, the view that faith is independent of reason, and even that 
reason and faith are incompatible with each other.”
Rappleye gives examples where apologetics and scholarly research have
 expanded the boundaries of our knowledge. Prior to such work, for 
example, members believed in the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon
 – where the Jaredites were in North America, Nephites in South America,
 and the narrow neck of land was in modern Panama. However, research 
shows that the Book of Mormon clearly defines a narrower view, covering 
perhaps 250 square miles, and hinting in several places that peoples 
were already here when Lehi showed up.
From Ash and Rappleye, we learn there are good and bad apologetics. 
Bad apologetics must be recognized and corrected as quickly as possible.
 This means many of our faith boundaries must be flexible enough to 
allow us to change and adapt certain views, while still maintaining our 
core beliefs. As a personal example, I recall sitting at a bus stop in 
the Altiplano (highlands) of the Bolivian Andes almost 40 years ago, and
 explaining to a new convert that the mountains we saw in front of us 
were created by the great earthquakes and destructions at Christ’s death
 2000 years before. I now look back and realize just how important 
apologetics are for me, today. Without the scholarly work that moved the
 boundaries of faith to a solid foundation in science, I would 
definitely have met with a faith crisis on this and many other issues.
Ash notes that at one point, FairMormon had a message board (now 
LDS.net), which was often very contentious. “Not long after its 
inception, however, FairMormon distanced itself from the contentious 
message boards and focused on educational apologetics.”  It focused, for
 example, on developing a Wiki that gives scholarly explanations to the 
standard questions and issues brought up by critics of the Church.
Several of the articles slightly reference the big division that 
occurred just a few years ago, in apologetics and Mormon Studies. The 
head of the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS), argued with Daniel C. 
Peterson and others over the future of the Institute. Key to this 
discussion was whether defense of the gospel should continue as 
previously done, or whether it should go full steam ahead into Mormon 
Studies, bringing a new respect and dialogue with non-LDS scholars. 
While on vacation, Peterson received an email stating he, along with 
several colleagues, had been fired from the Institute. It took a few 
years for the Maxwell Institute to reestablish its publications and 
develop new on-line projects. However, as soon as Peterson returned from
 vacation, he organized a new on-line presence, the Mormon Interpreter, 
which has published an article every week for the last many years – much
 of it focused on apologetics.
This division gathered LDS scholars into two divided groups. With 
time, harsh feelings have abated somewhat, although there are still 
embers glowing that 
some still attempt to fan into a flame, attacking other LDS scholars’ methods and efforts.
The articles on women in apologetics are a hidden treasure in this 
volume. I’m rather conservative on some gospel issues, but the articles 
by Reynolds, Smith and Givens were thought provoking and clearly show us
 that we need to rethink some of our boundaries. One of the key points 
brought out is we need to not confuse policy with doctrine. Discussing 
the priesthood ban as an example, it was noted that while the ban may 
have been established by the Lord, the reasons for the ban created a 
hostile environment for many of our members.
Reynolds notes co-founding FairMormon back in 1997 against the 
attacks of anti-Mormons on AOL, “there were a few notable exceptions, 
but the average countercultist armed only with biblical proof texts and 
out-of-context quotes could not respond in kind to scholarship or 
successfully defend their own beliefs when held to the same standard of 
scrutiny.” Women only make up about 21% of LDS apologists online. But 
their efforts grow with new ways for women to make a difference. Mormon 
Women Stand, various women’s blogs, and I would definitely include the 
wonderful sister bloggers here at Millennial Star, make a big difference
 in how the world views Mormons.
Reynold’s article reminded me of a dear deceased friend of mine, 
Renee Olson. She was an African-American anti-Mormon, who through her 
studies and discussions with LDS apologists, ended up converting to the 
Church. She became a key member of FairMormon until her death.
In discussing policy versus doctrine boundaries, Julie Smith notes 
that we often defend the indefensible. This is often true with women’s 
issues in regards to the priesthood, leadership, etc. She notes, 
“…Mormon theology is a tapestry woven of paradoxical strands, which 
means an apologetics  which privileges certain threads will not do it 
justice.” She gives as an example that a -study on polygamy should not 
only focus on the happy wives, nor only the unhappy ones. Perhaps her 
best example of how LDS often deal with women’s issues is from a quote 
from Andrea Radke-Moss, sharing the views she’s heard:
“Women don’t have the Priesthood. Women have always had 
the Priesthood. Women have the Priesthood in the Temple. Women have the 
Priesthood through their husbands. Women will never have the Priesthood.
 Women don’t have the Priesthood because they are spiritually inferior 
to men. Women don’t have the Priesthood because they are spiritually 
superior to men. Women will have the Priesthood in the next life. Women 
don’t have the Priesthood because they have motherhood. Not all women 
are mothers (literally). All women are mothers (symbolically)….”
And this is only half the quote. We do no one favors by quoting 
policy as revelation, because policy changes, and the reasons men give 
for God’s revelations and commands are always inadequate.
Givens shares the concept of Heavenly Mother from its earliest 
beginnings in the First Temple and before, to how Joseph Smith restored 
the concept. She reasons out how the Holy Ghost is the divine feminine, 
or Mother in Heaven. I’m not fully convinced by her examples that the 
divine goddess is the Holy Ghost, as it leaves unexplained issues of 
Father and Son having physical bodies, but not the Holy Ghost. Do we not
 believe Heavenly Mother to be a resurrected being? Instead, I see the 
Godhead as being more than just Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe it
 also includes their eternal partners. That said, Givens does give us 
much reason to search out all we can about our Heavenly Mother and her 
roles as Wisdom and co-Creator with God.
Of all the articles, perhaps the weakest argument is Bokovoy’s 
discussion against apologetics. He explains that he once was an 
apologist, but sees from his Bible studies that scripture is both divine
 and human. Being divine, it is inspired. Being written by frail 
mortals, it is bound to have mistakes and errors. I think we all agree 
that the scriptures are true to the level they are translated correctly.
 However, that does not help a person rebuild a testimony, by telling 
them we must only have faith, that no amount of scholarship with restore
 us from a shaken faith. As I noted with my friend Renee Olson, without 
apologists, she would have remained an anti-Mormon. Even in traditional 
realms, fundamentalist Christians that insist on a 6000 year old earth 
and dinosaurs dying in the Flood, would not be swayed by a fideist 
statement. Changing hearts often begins by changing minds, which cannot 
easily happen without using reason.
The last articles discuss future direction for apologetics. Spencer 
questions the questions we are attempting to answer. He suggests there 
are better ways, by using a greater context for our answers. Is an issue
 worth answering? If yes, then how can we best use it, not just to 
defend a single point, but to bring the greater gospel into the matter.
My view? We need to defend the Church. However, bad apologetics is 
worse than no apologetics at all. We need to do great scholarship. There
 is room aplenty for Mormon Studies AND apologetics, even if done in 
different forums. I know my efforts have helped several people with 
shaken faith to be restored to full belief in the LDS Church, and I know
 there is definitely room for such. As Daniel Peterson noted,
The word may be offputting, but I contend that 
apologetics is an essential part of Christian discipleship. Moreover, I 
insist, we all engage in it. Even those who argue against apologetics 
are arguing for their own vision of what discipleship ought to be.
The question isn’t whether we’ll do apologetics, but how we’ll do it.
 Will we be honest? Competent? Civil? Will be be effective or not?
This was a great series of articles that will expand our 
understanding of what it is to defend the Church, and the various ways 
to do so. Current and future issues must be explored and boundaries 
maintained. Greg Kofford Books hits another home run with this volume.