The State of Mormon Apologetics

[smac97]

7 hours ago, why me said:

I think apologetics has changed somewhat. This was an apologetic site but no longer. It is more a discussion board. Apologetics seems to be more about social issues and causes these days. Not much hard hitting from the critics about history and authenticity. What more can be said about such topics relating to history and book of mormon authenticity? Also, the church is much more open these days. The critics used to be critical of the lds church for 'hiding' its history etc. Much more difficult to hit the church on such issues now.

Time moves on. And so does apologetics.

I think you raise a good point.  Most discussions here are less about doctrine, and more about "social issues."  These issues can have a doctrinal dimension, but the emphasis is on the social and emotional aspects of the issues, rather than their doctrinal dimensions.

Take, for example, issues relating to homosexuality (particularly same-sex marriage).  We have all sorts of discussions on these issues all the time, but very little discussion of the doctrines, principally the Law of Chastity and the constellation of doctrines pertaining to marriage.

From a doctrinal point of view, the Church's 2015 policy changes make a lot of sense.  

From a purely (or predominantly) social/emotional point of view, the policy changes are, for some, deeply problematic.

I'm reminded here of this exchange between Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi from The Return of the Jedi:

Quote

[Yoda has passed into The Force, Luke is sitting outside his hut with R2]

Luke: I can't do it, R2. I can't go on alone.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: [voice emanates from nowhere] Yoda will always be with you. [reveals himself as a spirit walking nearby]

Luke: Obi-Wan. Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

Obi-Wan: Your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.

Luke: [incredulously] A certain point of view?

Obi-Wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

I've actually never really thought much of this exchange.  I took it as a convenient bit of dialogue intended to retcon Obi-Wan's dialogue from A New Hope about Luke's father and Darth Vader (and it probably was).

But applied here, maybe it has some utility.  The Church's policy changes are, alternatively, sensible and good or incomprehensible and bad depending on one's point of view.

Unfortunately, I think much of the discussion on this board focuses far too much on social/emotional points of view that are are malleable and ill-defined and effervescent and too susceptible to prevailing social trends.  We argue too much about whether a thing pertaining to the Church is popular, and not enough about whether it is right.  Or worse, we conflate the two, such that

• socially popular at the moment = morally right, and
• socially unpopular at the moment = morally wrong.

Meanwhile, the doctrines seem to almost be left by the wayside.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Really? Prejudice? How so? I'm merely pointing out a misuse of a word. Tolerance is being willing to allow opinions or behavior that one doesn't necessarily agree with. So, the church doesn't have to "tolerate" those that align themselves with the doctrine or position of the church.

But agreeing with the Church’s position doesn’t make an entity dependent upon it. Being independent means It can choose to go another way if it likes. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding the Book of Mormon as a work of fiction cooked up by Joseph Smith is indeed a capitulation to unbelievers. I can scarcely think of a more apt example. 

I don't know any believing Mormons who think it's "a work of fiction cooked up by Joseph Smith." Do you?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you raise a good point.  Most discussions here are less about doctrine, and more about "social issues."  These issues can have a doctrinal dimension, but the emphasis is on the social and emotional aspects of the issues, rather than their doctrinal dimensions.

Take, for example, issues relating to homosexuality (particularly same-sex marriage).  We have all sorts of discussions on these issues all the time, but very little discussion of the doctrines, principally the Law of Chastity and the constellation of doctrines pertaining to marriage.

From a doctrinal point of view, the Church's 2015 policy changes make a lot of sense.  

From a social/emotional point of view, the policy changes are, for some, deeply problematic.

I'm reminded here of this exchange between Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi from The Return of the Jedi:

I've actually never really thought much of this exchange.  I took it as a convenient bit of dialogue intended to retcon Obi-Wan's dialogue from A New Hope about Luke's father and Darth Vader (and it probably was).

But applied here, maybe it has some utility.  The Church's policy changes are, alternatively, sensible and good or incomprehensible and bad depending on one's point of view.

Unfortunately, I think much of the discussion on this board focuses far too much on social/emotional points of view that are are malleable and ill-defined and effervescent and too susceptible to prevailing social trends.  We argue too much about whether a thing pertaining to the Church is popular, and not enough about whether it is right.  Or worse, we conflate the two, such that

• socially popular at the moment = morally right, and
• socially unpopular at the moment = morally wrong.

Meanwhile, the doctrines seem to almost be left by the wayside.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is why the Church is and must always be an anchor in a sea of shifting societal morés and social trends. I’ve witnessed it in my lifetime. The so-called “sexual revolution” has been around for well over a half-century now, yet the Church’s observance and teaching of the law of chastity remains intact. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know any believing Mormons who think it's "a work of fiction cooked up by Joseph Smith." Do you?

Depends on how you define “believing Mormons,” I suppose. 

I’ve seen postings by anonymous internet users who purport to be so, but no, I can’t say I know any whom I interact with face-to-face. I guess I don’t move in those social circles. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is why the Church is and must always be an anchor in a sea of shifting societal morés and social trends. I’ve witnessed it in my lifetime. The so-called “sexual revolution” has been around for well over a half-century now, yet the Church’s observance and teaching of the law of chastity remains intact. 

Of course the Mormon Church ("the Church") is not the only organization or religion who teaches and adheres to high standards and morals.  I just spent a week with extended family and many of them are active in the Catholic religion who have very similar standards and values as Mormons do.   That's encouraging to know and discuss (as I'm sure you're aware of as well).

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Depends on how you define “believing Mormons,” I suppose. 

I’ve seen postings by anonymous internet users who purport to be so, but no, I can’t say I know any whom I interact with face-to-face. I guess I don’t move in those social circles. 

I know believing Mormons who don't think the Book of Mormon is a literal history of an ancient people, but they believe it is scripture revealed of God. I think that's the difference: "cooked up by Joseph Smith" is pretty incompatible with "scripture revealed of God." 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Depends on how you define “believing Mormons,” I suppose. 

I’ve seen postings by anonymous internet users who purport to be so, but no, I can’t say I know any whom I interact with face-to-face. I guess I don’t move in those social circles. 

I think it's the "cooked up" part that is not really an accurate description of how many active members believe (who now believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction).  I'm realizing that more are believing this way now.  I see many who still read it and gain great help and inspiration from it who believe it's fictional.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course the Mormon Church ("the Church") is not the only organization or religion who teaches and adheres to high standards and morals.  I just spent a week with extended family and many of them are active in the Catholic religion who have very similar standards and values as Mormons do.   That's encouraging to know and discuss (as I'm sure you're aware of as well).

It is indeed envouraging, and I hope there will always be such groups. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I know believing Mormons who don't think the Book of Mormon is a literal history of an ancient people, but they believe it is scripture revealed of God. I think that's the difference: "cooked up by Joseph Smith" is pretty incompatible with "scripture revealed of God." 

 

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think it's the "cooked up" part that is not really an accurate description of how many active members do believe (who now believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction).  I'm realizing that more are believing this way now.  I see many who still read it and gain great help and inspiration from it who believe it's fictional.

OK, we can bracket my term “cooked up” if you like, but my point remains the same. Joseph Smith definitely declared the Book of Mormon was a real record of a real people, and if you say otherwise, you don’t believe him. 

[Exiled]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But agreeing with the Church’s position doesn’t make an entity dependent upon it. Being independent means It can choose to go another way if it likes. 

You said

"My perception is that the Church has always been tolerant of, if not overtly supportive of, "independent voices" that are in alignment with the doctrine and position of Church."

I guess I can't think of anyone other than members that would be aligned with the doctrine and position of the church and members are dependent. Maybe you are referring to certain non-members that may agree with a particular position of the church from time to time? In that case I agree. The church has always loved non-members that agree with any of its positions.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK, we can bracket my term “cooked up” if you like, but my point remains the same. Joseph Smith definitely declared the Book of Mormon was a real record of a real people, and if you say otherwise, you don’t believe him. 

You make it sound as if such people are calling Joseph Smith a liar. One can believe that Joseph's interpretation was wrong without calling him dishonest.

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Gordon B. Hinckley famously said, "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

I don't think very many churches force the issue that way. With most churches, I think, you are with a group of people with similar beliefs where you find community and inspiration. Of course some preachers will make C.S. Lewis's argument that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. But even if a religion wants you to look at Jesus' claims in a black-and-white way, most don't ask for the loyalty to the institution and to the hierarchy in the way that Mormonism does.

Yeah, that's especially interesting considering that Hinckley was probably more aware of complicated church history than most.  I suspect there is something going on psychologically when people take a very strong, even extreme sounding position on something, and at the same time they know of information that conflicts with their own strong position.   I wonder how they personally justify that.  

I personally liked President Hinckley a lot, he's definitely one of my favorites, but he's a flawed human like the rest of us too. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK, we can bracket my term “cooked up” if you like, but my point remains the same. Joseph Smith definitely declared the Book of Mormon was a real record of a real people, and if you say otherwise, you don’t believe him. 

I still think using the term "cooked up" does not accurately portray what some active members believe (who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired or revealed fiction).  Joseph Smith was wrong about other things as well, IMO, (he was not infallible).  He may have believed it was actually true history and was not lying when he expressed what he did.  I'm just stating that many members do believe it's inspired...but that it's fiction.  That doesn't mean they believe Joseph was up to no good or a scoundrel or fraud.  It also does not mean they believe the teachings are not good or true that are taught from the stories and events told in the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

You said

"My perception is that the Church has always been tolerant of, if not overtly supportive of, "independent voices" that are in alignment with the doctrine and position of Church."

I guess I can't think of anyone other than members that would be aligned with the doctrine and position of the church and members are dependent. Maybe you are referring to certain non-members that may agree with a particular position of the church from time to time? In that case I agree. The church has always loved non-members that agree with any of its positions.

Member are dependent, but the groups they form or join are not necessarily. FairMormon frequently publishes a disclaimer saying it is not affiliated with the Church though it is supportive of it. When I worked for the Church News and wrote about FairMormon, I was instructed by Correlation that I must include a sentence in my story making clear that FairMormon is not affiliated with the Church. The reason for this is obvious: FairMormon is free at any time to take a position that does not agree with the Church’s. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You make it sound as if such people are calling Joseph Smith a liar. One can believe that Joseph's interpretation was wrong without calling him dishonest.

But you still don’t believe him whether or not you think him dishonest. 

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know any believing Mormons who think it's "a work of fiction cooked up by Joseph Smith." Do you?

I do. They see the Church as more pragmatically useful but already take a pretty narrow sense of religion. More like Voltaire's view of religion as useful.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know believing Mormons who don't think the Book of Mormon is a literal history of an ancient people, but they believe it is scripture revealed of God. I think that's the difference: "cooked up by Joseph Smith" is pretty incompatible with "scripture revealed of God." 

Of course, you and I would probably widen the tent even further.  I think non-believing Mormons if they are respectful and want to make positive contributions to the religion ought to be welcomed to participate.  I'd consider myself a non-believer in the literal truth claims, but a person that still values metaphorical truth and has strong ethics and is still quite Mormon culturally. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I still think using the term "cooked up" does not accurately portray what some active members believe (who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired or revealed fiction).  Joseph Smith was wrong about other things as well, IMO, (he was not infallible).  He may have believed it was actually true history and was not lying when he expressed what he did.  I'm just stating that many members do believe it's inspired, but fiction.  That doesn't mean they believe Joseph was up to no good or a scoundrel or fraud.

They might not think him a scoundrel or even a liar, but they still don’t believe him or what the Church teaches about his work. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They might not think him a scoundrel or even a liar, but they still don’t believe him or what the Church teaches about his work. 

Many past Prophets have taught or stated things that we no longer believe or agree with.  I do not believe members are calling Joseph a "liar" who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction.  It does contain truths (as I've already expressed).  Joseph (and other Prophets) was sure about other things too, that have been shifted or changed.  It does not mean he was lying.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Of course, you and I would probably widen the tent even further.  I think non-believing Mormons if they are respectful and want to make positive contributions to the religion ought to be welcomed to participate.  I'd consider myself a non-believer in the literal truth claims, but a person that still values metaphorical truth and has strong ethics and is still quite Mormon culturally. 

The Church aalrready does this. Such persons are welcome so long as they don’t promulgate views contrary to Church teachings. 

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Yeah, that's especially interesting considering that Hinckley was probably more aware of complicated church history than most.  I suspect there is something going on psychologically when people take a very strong, even extreme sounding position on something, and at the same time they know of information that conflicts with their own strong position.   I wonder how they personally justify that.  

I personally liked President Hinckley a lot, he's definitely one of my favorites, but he's a flawed human like the rest of us too. 

I really enjoyed Hinckley's biography, and think I would have enjoyed being his friend in college. It seems like he had doubts and conflicting thoughts that lasted into his mission. But then at some point as a missionary he wondered what he was doing there and decided that he needed to either be all in or all out. His choice to go all in seemed to be more about being loyal to his heritage than about having intellectually concluded that it was really the Kingdom of God. Maybe that is the way he saw things--he saw a really complicated world, but at the end realized that key really do boil down to binary choices and binary truth claims.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

OK, we can bracket my term “cooked up” if you like, but my point remains the same. Joseph Smith definitely declared the Book of Mormon was a real record of a real people, and if you say otherwise, you don’t believe him. 

All humans seem to have a problem with telling the truth at different times, and we also have problems with self deception and errors thinking.  Its not all or nothing.  Even for the people I admire most, I don't expect perfection or 100% factually accurate statements out of. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ALarson said:

Many past Prophets have taught or stated things that we no longer believe or agree with.  I do not believe members are calling Joseph a "liar" who now believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction.  It does contain truths (as I've already expressed).  Joseph was sure about other things too, that have been shifted or changed.  It does not mean he was lying.

I don’t think you read my post carefully. I said they may not view him as a liar, but they still disbelieve him — and the Church. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think you read my post carefully. I said they may not view him as a liar, but they still disbelieve him — and the Church. 

I think it's more that they disagree with him.  They believe he was expressing what he believed just as Brigham Young was doing regarding the Adam/God Doctrine, for example (who most now disagree with but don't doubt his sincerity when he taught it).  Disagreeing with someone does not mean they believe someone was purposely lying or "cooking up" something.  That's just the wrong impression to give and unfair, IMO, and implies members believe he purposely deceived or was up to no good.  

Edited August 9, 2018 by ALarson