Outstanding Apologetic Issues

[Scott Lloyd]

Changing the popular criticism of the Church from revelation, which we could not repudiate, to polygamy - which we could - may have saved the Church in the 19th century.

Except that the Church never repudiated it. We make no apologies for its practice while it lasted.

I grant you, though, that the world might not have understood that nuance.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that same argument could be applied to any sort of dubious arrangement that produced offspring, from slavery to arranged marriages to incest and even rape. A great many people alive today might have such things in their family tree, but that doesn't justify them.

Slavery, rape, incest do not have the effect that plural marriage did, that being the rapid establishment of righteous lineages into which children could be born in a geometric progression, one that at least doubles with each generation.

[Jason]

Except that the Church never repudiated it. We make no apologies for its practice while it lasted.

I grant you, though, that the world might not have understood that nuance.

A valid point - we did not repudiate the doctrine but we did give up the practice, and this eliminated the primary source of criticism against the Church at a critical time.

[Scott Lloyd]

And you could have just as easily emerged from monogamy.

Not necessarily. Plural marriage makes for the establishment of numerous righteous lineages, from any of which Jason's ancestors and their posterity could have emerged. There would have been far less chance for that to happen without plural marriage.

[Jason]

And you could have just as easily emerged from monogamy.

No, I really couldn't have.

I would not be who I am if my mother's family had not been polygamous for two generations.

Their example of sacrifice and willingness to obey a hard commandment has left an indelible mark on their descendents.

[Jason]

The questions I wonder about are the true age of the Earth, death coming from the Fall, the nature of the Fall and its surrounding events, the ancient world between Adam and the Flood, the extent of the Nephite civilization and presence or absence of others, the whereabouts of the Ten tribes and their records, etc.

[Ahab]

What are some of the questions you just wish you knew? Questions for which curiosity still pleas for an answer even though the question has no relevance at all to one's eternal salvation.

I am most interested in questions that might conceivably be answered by some apologist or another someday (e.g. "Where is Zarahemla?" as opposed to "When is Christ returning?").

Why don't prophets of God, and even God himself, state things in such a way so that there can be no confusion at all on an issue they are discussing each and every time they say something?

Do you know what I mean?

On most issues it seems to be that they say a little bit here, and then a little more there, while at times there appear to be contradictions.

I have already heard the answer to that question from some people who think they understand why God and his prophets don't go into every detail to help eliminate loopholes and to try to make sure that absolutely nobody gets confused, but it sure would be nice if there was something more like a one stop shopping center where we all could go to get reliable doctrine on each and every issue while nobody got confused or thought they saw contradictions from that one source.

[Mortal Man]

What are some of the questions you just wish you knew?

Is there life after death?

[SilverKnight]

No, I really couldn't have.

I would not be who I am if my mother's family had not been polygamous for two generations.

Their example of sacrifice and willingness to obey a hard commandment has left an indelible mark on their descendents.

The descendants of African slaves could say the say the same thing.

In fact, look how much cotton the Southern States produced prior to the Civil War.

Their industry was staggering.

Still, I find nothing noble about Slavery.

[Jason]

Why don't prophets of God, and even God himself, state things in such a way so that there can be no confusion at all on an issue they are discussing each and every time they say something?

To leave room for faith and in order to concentrate on the important issues (how to become like Christ) rather than trivialities (was Adam really 930 years old?).

I have already heard the answer to that question from some people who think they understand why God and his prophets don't go into every detail to help eliminate loopholes and to try to make sure that absolutely nobody gets confused, but it sure would be nice if there was something more like a one stop shopping center where we all could go to get reliable doctrine on each and every issue while nobody got confused or thought they saw contradictions from that one source.

Try personal revelation. It's the only revelation you can really trust as being authentic anyway, because its the only revelation you can personally experience.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

KJV

"be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves"

JST (NT, p. 19)

"be ye therefore wise servants and as harmless as doves "

Is the change inspired? Serpents are not wise so this seems cool at first.

But then in D&C we are back to

"Therefore, be ye as wise as serpents "

I have to ask, what you think the reason is for this?

Is it because JS was just to stupid to remember what he had previously written?

I have to say that I really don't know the reason.

[Tarski]

A serpent is wily. I understand this as wise in the sense of street wise. That is, understand the thinking of your enemy so you can have the advantage in protecting yourself and others against him.

For "harmless," an alternate translation from the Greek is "guileless," so the passage makes sense in a poetic sort of way, it being a paradox.

well, is it supposed to be serpents or servants?

[Jason]

The descendants of African slaves could say the say the same thing.

In fact, look how much cotton the Southern States produced prior to the Civil War.

Their industry was staggering.

Quite right. The descendents of African slaves really would not be the same without slavery, so they really couldn't have come about any other way.

Still, I find nothing noble about Slavery.

Apples to oranges. Slavery was not instituted by a commandment of God.

[Jason]

well, is it supposed to be serpents or servants?

Maybe it's both.

[cinepro]

Apples to oranges. Slavery was not instituted by a commandment of God.

Bingo. The justification for polygamy should be that it was a commandment of God, not that lots of LDS trace their ancestry through polygamous families.

[mfbukowski]

MICRO: Why is it impossible to find anything good that came out of polygamy?

My wife's great grandparents were polygamists, and she is the best thing that ever happened to me.

There goes that argument.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bingo. The justification for polygamy should be that it was a commandment of God, not that lots of LDS trace their ancestry through polygamous families.

Why should the two be mutually exclusive? I detect a false dichotomy.

[Tarski]

I have to ask, what you think the reason is for this?

Is it because JS was just to stupid to remember what he had previously written?

I have to say that I really don't know the reason.

I think he thought the similar sound of serpent and servant made for a plausible mistranslation which he could heroically correct. I doubt they sound similar in the relevant language though.

I suspect that when he wrote the revelant portion of the D&C he was thinking more along the lines of making it sound Biblical. While writing the one, he forgot that he had taken a different tack on the other.

In considering whether JS was "too stupid" or not I am reminded of how it came to be that the BoM is written in a language that imitates (poorly) the language of the King James version of the Bible.

Did he think we would fall for that obvious ploy? Well, I guess "we" did!

[Scott Lloyd]

well, is it supposed to be serpents or servants?

Don't know. I'm only now finding out it reads differently in the JST.

Maybe Jason is right: Either one is correct.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think he thought the similar sound of serpent and servant made for a plausible mistranslation which he could heroically correct. I doubt they sound similar in the relevant language though.

I suspect that when he wrote the revelant portion of the D&C he was thinking more along the lines of making it sound Biblical. While writing the one, he forgot that he had taken a different tack on the other.

In considering whether JS was "too stupid" or not I am reminded of how it came to be that the BoM is written in a language that imitates (poorly) the language of the King James version of the Bible.

Did he think we would fall for that obvious ploy? Well, I guess "we" did!

Or maybe it's like Christ "born at Jerusalem, the land of our fathers" in the Book of Mormon. The supposed error is so obvious that, upon further consideration, it's not really an error at all.

[Jaybear]

Apples to oranges. Slavery was not instituted by a commandment of God.

That depends on who you ask. Many religious leaders in the 1800s believed and taught that slavery was a divine institution.

[David T]

Don't know. I'm only now finding out it reads differently in the JST.

Maybe Jason is right: Either one is correct.

The JST often alters the Original Biblical Text to emphasize something different than was originally intended or meant for specific relevancy to the saints of the day. I think looking at the JST to restore original readings of original manuscript text is looking for it to do something it never intended to do. It creates problems where there doesn't need to be.

[cinepro]

My wife's great grandparents were polygamists, and she is the best thing that ever happened to me.

There goes that argument.

I'm the result of adultery 4 generations back. So don't try and tell me there's anything wrong with adultery!

[Tarski]

My wife's great grandparents were polygamists, and she is the best thing that ever happened to me.

There goes that argument.

Good people are born all the time that wouldn't have been born if some terrible thing hadn't happened. Rape, war, divorce, dislocation, death etc.

There have been many good people born that wouldn't have been born if polygammy had not been continued (in supposed defiance of God) by the FLDS.

What we need is evidence of a consequence that is a rational result of some virtue intrinsic to polygamy. In short, we need to see why polygamy is a good thing in a way that war, divorce and infidelity are not! (Note that all of the latter can be contingencies leading to the birth of good people).

[Senator]

Why the absence of Seers?

(No I don't mean JcPenney's competitor)