Latter-day Saint apologetics—through institutions like FARMS, FAIR, and now the Interpreter Foundation—have largely operated on a defensive crouch, crafting arguments not to generate genuine conviction, but simply to keep belief from crumbling. Their aim isn’t to persuade the outsider or satisfy the seeker; it’s to keep the disillusioned member tethered, just barely. But Farrer warns that arguments meant only to “sustain” belief, without truly defending it, are not enough. And that’s exactly where the LDS Church is failing.
We possess some absolute truths that have, where we have applied them, placed us on the “strait and narrow way,” and we are further told that there is “none other way” for salvation. All of this suggests an ecclesiastical exclusivity that seems to embarrass some in the Church, for implied is not just an institutional exclusivity, but also a conceptual superiority with regard to salvational things…
With such a great message, can we afford not to be articulate in our homes and wherever we are? Passivity and inarticulateness about this “marvelous work and a wonder” can diminish the faith of others, for as Austin Farrer observed, “Though argument does not create belief, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced, but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it nourishes a climate in which belief may flourish.”
New Era, May 1971, Talk of the Month: Neal A. Maxwell, Church Commissioner of Education
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1971/05/talk-of-the-month
For decades, a remark by Austin Farrer about C. S. Lewis — a passage often cited by the late LDS Church apostle Elder Neal A. Maxwell — functioned as something of an unofficial motto for Brigham Young University’s Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, more commonly known as FARMS, and its successor organization, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship: “Though argument does not create conviction,” Farrer wrote, “the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish” (see Farrer, “Grete Clerk,” in “Light on C. S. Lewis” compiled by Jocelyn Gibb, Harcourt and Brace, 1965).
Daniel Peterson, The many uses of ‘apologetics’ | Deseret News, Nov 17, 2016
https://www.deseret.com/2016/11/17/20600667/the-many-uses-of-apologetics
Austin Farrer
Austin Farrer (1904-1968) was a respected 20th-century Anglican theologian, philosopher, and biblical scholar, best known for his deep intellect, eloquent writing, and close friendship with C. S. Lewis. A fellow at Oxford, Farrer stood out for his commitment to integrating faith with reason, often exploring the philosophical underpinnings of Christian belief in a skeptical age. His insights influenced many, including Lewis himself, with whom he shared not only intellectual companionship but a mutual defense of thoughtful, reasoned faith. Interestingly, while Farrer remains relatively unknown in Latter-day Saint circles, his friend C. S. Lewis is frequently and favorably quoted by LDS leaders, particularly Elder Neal A. Maxwell, who drew heavily from Lewis’s work to frame faith, discipleship, and the nature of God. This connection raises a compelling tension: LDS authorities invoke Lewis as a model of Christian thought, yet largely ignore the kind of rational rigor that Lewis and Farrer championed, especially when it comes to defending their own truth claims.
This quote from Austin Farrer offers a nuanced view of the relationship between rational argument and belief. The LDS Church has since adopted it and has used it as its unofficial apologetic motto.
It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. So the apologist who does nothing but defend may play a useful, though preparatory, part. Why, even Butler’s Analogy, if we are to believe historical testimony, opened polished ears to the message of the Gospel. Yet no one can call the Analogy throphanic; there are no chinks in that unremitting continuity of prose through which celestial light shines.
Austin Farrer, Oxford theologian and New Testament scholar. The Christian Apologist, Light on C. S. Lewis, compiled by Jocelyn Gibb. Page 26
https://archive.org/details/lightoncslewis00gibb/page/26/mode/2up
Argument does not create conviction
Farrer recognizes a psychological truth: people are not usually argued into conviction. Belief—particularly religious, ethical, or ideological belief—often stems from personal experiences, emotional resonance, or communal identity more than logic. This aligns with findings in psychology and sociology: belief formation is deeply tied to intuition and social belonging.
The Church is right in sensing that people don’t join (or stay in) Mormonism because of airtight arguments. Conversion is emotional, social, and often rooted in personal experiences. But when those emotional anchors fray—due to historical contradictions, moral failings, or institutional distrust—what’s left is the question: Is this still true?
And in that moment, argument becomes essential. Not to rekindle the original fire, but to prove there’s still any heat in the coals.
The lack of argument destroys belief
Here, Farrer makes a powerful counterpoint. While argument alone doesn’t generate belief, its absence erodes the credibility of belief. This addresses the importance of intellectual accountability. When beliefs are not defended or examined rationally, they tend to atrophy under scrutiny. This is particularly true in pluralistic or skeptical societies where ideas must justify themselves to survive.
This part also critiques fideism (the idea that faith needs no reason), suggesting that without engagement in rational discourse, belief becomes fragile. Most ex-believers didn’t lose faith because someone out-debated them. Rather, they began asking hard questions—and discovered the answers were either nonexistent, evasive, or manipulative.
For many, belief wasn’t destroyed by “anti-faith” arguments, but by the silence, circular reasoning, or shallow defenses of their own tradition. When leaders dodge questions, rely on appeals to authority, or shame doubters, they confirm Farrer’s point: the absence of rigorous argument is a slow collapse of credibility.
This is where the Church’s approach is devastatingly insufficient. Rather than fostering robust, open dialogue, it offers half-answers wrapped in euphemism. It redefines translation as “revelation,” downplays prophetic error as “human fallibility,” and invokes “milk before meat” as a license to conceal rather than teach. Instead of serious engagement, members get apologetic sleight-of-hand: The Book of Abraham becomes “inspired scripture” despite the papyri’s known translation issues, Polygamy becomes “a commandment too sacred to understand,” and the Mountain Meadows Massacre is “a tragedy” with little reflection on institutional accountability.
The Church has lost the ability—or willingness—to defend itself on rational grounds, and many are abandoning it for that reason alone.
What seems to be proved may not be embraced
Farrer acknowledges that even strong arguments may fail to persuade. Belief is not solely the product of reason. This anticipates the limits of apologetics: even airtight logic won’t compel belief if the listener is unready or unwilling.
It’s a reminder that proof is not always persuasive—humans are not purely rational creatures. Even when an apologetic argument “works” on paper—say, a logical defense of the resurrection or the First Vision—it often fails to resonate. This is key to understanding modern deconstruction: belief systems can be internally coherent and still feel untrue.
Apologists may offer airtight syllogisms, but if they feel disconnected from lived experience or require cognitive dissonance (e.g. explaining away racism, sexism, or historical dishonesty), they don’t persuade. People aren’t leaving because they’ve been reasoned out of belief, but because the belief no longer fits with their conscience, ethics, or sense of reality.
Even when apologists manage a plausible defense—say, that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat just like other folk magic practitioners—it rarely inspires renewed faith. That’s because people aren’t just looking for arguments that could be true; they’re looking for ones that should be. They’re asking, “Is this worthy of my trust, my identity, and my life?” Mere plausibility is not faith-promoting.
What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned
This is perhaps the heart of the quote. A belief that cannot be defended signals weakness, not necessarily to enemies, but to its own adherents. Farrer is pointing to the social and psychological need for believers to feel that their faith could be defended, even if they themselves are not the ones defending it.
This explains why apologetics, philosophy, and theology matter—not to convert skeptics alone, but to reassure the faithful. This is precisely the slippery ground apologists stand on today. In the information age, belief systems are subjected to unprecedented scrutiny. Historical facts, linguistic analyses, and moral critiques are available with a Google search. Apologists can no longer appeal solely to authority or tradition.
And when defenders can’t meaningfully engage—when they dismiss legitimate questions as “doubt,” label sincere seekers as “rebellious,” or rely on obfuscation rather than clarity—they accelerate abandonment. It’s not always the answers that drive people away, but the way institutions react to questions.
Faith deconstruction often begins with the feelings of betrayal alongside the question, “if this is true, why can’t anyone defend it without gaslighting me?” This is the core problem: Latter-day Saints today are not abandonng belief because they hate God or want to sin—they’re walking away because no one in authority is showing the ability to defend what the Church teaches with integrity and clarity.
- Where is the honest engagement with the racist teachings of Brigham Young and their theological implications?
- Where is the deep reckoning with Joseph’s secretive, coercive plural marriages?
- Where is the humility when church leaders declare prophetic infallibility in one decade, only to reverse policies and claim inspiration again in the next?
The Church asks members to hold an impossible tension: absolute obedience to fallible men, with no robust mechanism to challenge or correct them. And apologetics has become the glue trying to hold that contradiction together—but it’s cracking under the weight of modern scrutiny.
Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.
The final sentence synthesizes the earlier points. Argument may not plant the seed of belief, but it tends the soil. This is similar to how science maintains a culture of skepticism and progress, or how law preserves civil society—not by converting every citizen into a legal scholar, but by maintaining a shared framework of reason and accountability.
In this light, rational discourse is less about winning debates and more about cultivating an environment in which belief can grow without collapsing under scrutiny.
Though this is perhaps the greatest failure of Mormon apologetics: instead of creating a climate where belief can flourish, they often create one where intellectual honesty suffocates.
People aren’t necessarily looking for perfect answers—but they are looking for integrity, humility, and the permission to wrestle. A faith tradition that says, “We don’t have all the answers, but we welcome the questions and will stand with you in the searching,” has a far better shot at long-term credibility. Many apologetic responses have done the opposite—erecting barricades around difficult topics, insisting on certainty where ambiguity is obvious, and punishing doubt instead of cultivating dialogue.
Faith does not require unassailable proof, but it does require an atmosphere where reason and conscience are not treated as threats. When belief systems lose the ability—or the will—to engage honestly and rationally, they forfeit the trust of their adherents. And without that trust, belief quietly withers. If the Church truly wanted members to believe, it would foster a culture where hard questions are welcome, not shamed. It would lead with transparency, not PR. It would cultivate trust, not demand it. Instead, many members find themselves in an environment where critical thinking is a threat, not a tool, and where the best defense is silence or spin. In such a climate, belief also withers. And rightly so.
Can’t Reason Someone Out of a Position They Didn’t Reason Into
If someone’s beliefs are not based on logical reasoning, trying to change them with logic might be futile. In other words:
You can’t use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn’t use reason to get into.
You can’t use logic to dissuade someone who didn’t use logic to reach their viewpoint in the first place.
No amount of reason can change an opinion formed without it.
While Austin Farrer rightly emphasizes the importance of rational argument in preserving belief, he arguably overestimates its power within religious frameworks where belief was never built on reason in the first place. In many cases, especially within high-demand religious systems like Mormonism, belief is not adopted through critical examination, but through emotional experiences, social reinforcement, and institutional conditioning. Testimony meetings, spiritual confirmations, and cultural immersion play a far more significant role in shaping conviction than theological argumentation ever does. So when deconstructing members encounter apologetics, they’re not engaging in a rational conversation; they’re facing an intellectual retrofit of something they were originally taught to feel, not think through.
This is why apologetics often fails to restore lost faith: it attempts to provide logical scaffolding after the emotional foundation has already cracked. People don’t walk away from belief because it wasn’t defensible—they walk away because it stopped feeling trustworthy, and then discover that the intellectual framework is just as fragile. Farrer’s climate of flourishing depends on a willingness to let reason influence belief, but many religious traditions only tolerate reason as long as it stays within the bounds of orthodoxy. In that context, apologetics becomes a tool of containment rather than exploration, and no amount of argument will persuade someone to return to a belief they never reasoned themselves into to begin with.
The LDS Church must stop mistaking argument for persuasion and plausibility for truth. Farrer didn’t suggest that faith requires perfect answers—but he knew that when leaders and scholars abandon the task of serious defense, they also forfeit the right to expect belief. People don’t need unbreakable logic to stay. They just need to know that the things they were told to trust can survive honest scrutiny. Right now, that trust is gone—and the apologetics meant to preserve it are hastening its collapse.
If you’ve found yourself questioning, doubting, or ultimately stepping away from the faith you once held as absolute, you’re not alone. Many have walked this road—wrestling with hard questions, confronting painful truths, and seeking integrity on the other side of belief. At wasmormon.org, we invite you to share your story. Whether you’re in the middle of your faith crisis or reflecting from years down the path, your voice matters. Telling your story not only brings clarity and healing to your own journey, but it also lights the way for others who are just beginning to ask, “Is it still true?” Join a growing community of former believers reclaiming their narratives with honesty, courage, and compassion.
More reading:
- https://www.deseret.com/2016/11/17/20600667/the-many-uses-of-apologetics
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1971/05/talk-of-the-month
- https://archive.org/details/lightoncslewis00gibb/page/26/mode/2up
- https://fornspollfira.blogspot.com/2013/01/history-of-quote.html
- https://www.deseret.com/2009/6/5/20321778/what-c-s-lewis-thought-about-mormons/
- https://x.com/neiltyson/status/1311127369785192449