Who Are the LDS Apologists Critics Often Quote?

The sectarian world, both those critical of the Book of Mormon, and those simply critical of religion in general, have given the name “apologist” to those LDS people, including individuals, scholars, historians, writers, archaeologists and anthropologists, who write about the Book of Mormon. This includes well-known LDS writers, Hugh Nibley and John L. Sorenson.

These critics, typically referred to as “mainstream” archaeologists, “mainstream” thinkers, etc., consider anyone standing up for the Book of Mormon as a “Mormon apologist.” If you stand up for the Bible, you are not a “Bible apologist,” if you stand up for anything considered ‘mainstream,” you are not an apologist. Only those who support the Book of Mormon, since “mainstream” considers it a work of fiction, are called “apologists” for they apologize for the Book of Mormon, having to defend it against “mainstream” attacks which, therefore, are accurate in the minds of the attackers, to be accurate. Consequently, anyone who disagrees with them is an “apologist.”

It would be interesting to know what the Lord calls them!

Take a look at how “mainstream” people label Mormons: “One Mormon apologist believes that an ancient tribe known to have existed on the Arabian Peninsula with a similar name to that of the Book of Mormon figure Lehi may have adopted his name. Other Mormon scholars have not reached this conclusion, as there is "far too little yet known about early Arabia to strengthen a link with the historical Lehi, and other explanations are readily available for every point advanced.” Obviously, to the mainstream people, if you try to explain something in the Book of Mormon they do not agree with, you are an “apologist,” but if you disagree with the apologists, you are a “scholar.”

Such attitudes are not consistent with scholarship in the least, and are obviously disingenuous, meant to show favoritism to those who agree with mainstream thinking and impugn those who disagree with it.

On the other hand, LDS apologists have caused most of their own problems by taking a stance that tries to agree with mainstream thinking while objecting to, or trying to explain away, those parts of the scriptural record with which they feel uncomfortable. Take for example:

1. “Despite the indications of the archaeological record, apologists argue that some mammoths and mastodons must have survived to a time when they could have been observed by the Jaredites.”

Wrong approach. The Jareditrez had elephants with them when they arrived in the Land of Promise (Ether 9:19). These were not “observed” but used as beasts of burden.

2. “Apologists argue that the word "elephant" chosen by Joseph Smith actually refers to another animal that existed around 2500 BC. Some LDS scholars object to this argument. Various amateur archaeologists and LDS authors have cited controversial evidence that North American cultures were familiar with the elephant. This evidence has long been a topic of debate with most archaeologists concluding that the elephantine remains were improperly dated, misidentified, or openly fraudulent.

Wrong approach. An elephant is an elephant, not some other animal. Ether called them elephants, Moroni translated them to elephants, and Joseph Smith, under the direction of the spirit, labeled them elephants.

Note the continued attitude of “mainstream” thinkers calling those who think opposite of them “apologists,” while those who disagree with the apologists are called “scholars,” “amateur archaeologists,” and “writers.”

(See the next post, “Who Are the LDS Apolotists Critics Often Quote – Part II,” for more on this subject and to see why apologists trying to change the meanings of words in the scriptural record have led to the very label “apologist.”