There is a lot of Mormon apologetics out there, perhaps because there is a lot of Mormon criticism. It has gotten better over the years, but one still sees both good apologetics and bad apologetics. A post from a few weeks ago at Faith-Promoting Rumor that points up one difference between the good and bad sort is “Translation Styles and Book of Mormon Apologetics and Exegesis.” The observation made in the post is that an author cannot shift between tight and loose translation styles to enhance her arguments as she moves from chapter to chapter or point to point.

What, for you, makes the difference between good and bad apologetics? For me, an author’s willingness to acknowledge and cite contrary arguments and scholars is important. I read apologetic footnotes and endnotes as carefully as I read the main text. I think the footnotes say more about an apologist’s (or a critic’s) credibility than does the evidence or the argument.