Can LDS Apologists Be Kind?

[Jeff K.]

I suppose that depends on who you asked.

I would ask Christ.

Who would you ask?

[Deborah]

It is clear that Jesus was speaking to the those with in Judism, and if we liken the scriptures unto ourselves, then He is speaking to those withing the COJCOLDS;

On the contrary. Those he was speaking to professed to be of the faith but were apostate in what they were teaching. Since critics of the church believe themselves scholars but do not consider that anyone can be LDS and a scholar then the example fits.

[Deborah]

Hypocrisy occurs on both sides of the issue. I find it disturbing, and telling, that "apologists" seem to have never ending level of acceptance for other "apologists" or defenders of the Church who give off a bad image of the Church.

On the contrary. Many of us have been upset at certain so called "defenders". The mods have banned the defenders on certain threads along with the attackers when the rhetoric gets too negative.

[consiglieri]

I would ask Christ.

According to at least some gospel accounts, Jesus was punctillious in recognizing the authority of the Sanhedrin.

[Jeff K.]

Sanhedrin versus Pharisees and Sudducees? You seem quick to skip around Consig

[mercyngrace]

Sanhedrin versus Pharisees and Sudducees? You seem quick to skip around Consig

Wasn't the council made up of Pharisees and Sadducees?

[Skylla]

Sure but first you have to agree to a definition of what I am. I have been accused of being a David Bokovoy sympathizer, William Shryvver sympathizer, Consig simpathizer, Apostate sympathizer and the list can go on.

You forgot to mention our liberal agenda and our right wing agenda.

Skylla

[ELF1024]

Listening to Daniel Peterson's FAIR conference on the topic of "Humble Apologetics," I was deeply touched by his remarks and found myself in full agreement with his sentiments. The Mormon Times summary can be found here:

Humble Apologetics

When it comes to online exchanges on religious topics, I'm not about to present myself as a true "Saint" in all aspects of the word, but I personally believe that when LDS apologists move into attack mode that we drive more people away from Christ and the Church than we cause people to stay. Moreover, I would also suggest that when LDS posters do get angry and make disparaging remarks about others, that we do so not out of righteous indignation that someone is attacking our religious beliefs, but instead out of pride. Pride that someone does not agree with our view.

We're all guilty of this, myself included. We would do well to remember Dan's observation as quoted in the article:

"We will not argue people into the church," he said. "They will not come into the church ... because of our eloquence or the evidence that we can amass in something."

If this is true, and I believe that it is, why do we argue? Why do we call others apostates, etc. and attempt to tear them down? Can apologetics be kind?

I suppose it depends on the end goal.

There are plenty of times when long suffering, humility and what not are called for. There are other times when the cat of nine tails must be used to clean out the temples.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You forgot to mention our liberal agenda and our right wing agenda.

Skylla

So which on of you is the filthy socialist and which on is the filthy conservative?

[ELF1024]

So which on of you is the filthy socialist and which on is the filthy conservative?

I doubt they are filthy, I'm sure they bathed reciently...

[Nathair/|\]

I doubt they are filthy, I'm sure they bathed reciently...

I always thought their holy aura burned the dirt right off.

[Jeff K.]

Wasn't the council made up of Pharisees and Sadducees?

Sanhedren were a political council, they were neither set aside nor called of God. They were a non inspired political group which interpreted the Mosaic law. They rejected the high priests around 200 BC making them a political function, no longer a religious one.

I was remarking as to how consig would change the context rather than understand the time.

[mercyngrace]

Sanhedren were a political council, they were neither set aside nor called of God. They were a non inspired political group which interpreted the Mosaic law. They rejected the high priests around 200 BC making them a political function, no longer a religious one.

I was remarking as to how consig would change the context rather than understand the time.

I'm not sure if this is accurate as I just googled.

The Sanhedrin was the Jewish religious council in Jerusalem. It had 71 members and met twice a week in the Temple building. The Sanhedrin enacted laws and regulated religious life. It was presided over by the High Priest and had its own Temple police or guards to maintain order.

edit: The BD refers to the Sanhedrin as the highest native court in both civil and ecclesiastical matters.

Yep. Another edit: The NT Institute Manual says the following:

(26-2) Matthew 26:59 ; 27:1, 2 . Who Were the Sanhedrin?

Comprised of an assembly of seventy-one ordained scholars, including Levites, priests, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and those of other political persuasion, in the time of the Savior the Great Sanhedrin was the highest Jewish court of justice and the supreme legislative council at Jerusalem. Its main function was to serve as a supreme court when Jewish law was interpreted. The Sanhedrin met in the temple collonade in the impressive chambers of hewn stone, where members of the council sat in a semicircle. An accused prisoner, dressed in garments of mourning, was arraigned in front of the council; and if evidence against the prisoner warranted, the Sanhedrin had authority to decree capital punishment for offenses which violated major Jewish laws. However, the council was not authorized to carry out its sentence and execute the prisoner, for Roman law forbade them from putting an individual to death without the sanction of the Roman procurator. Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus extended only throughout Judea; and as long as Jesus preached in Galilee and Perea, the council was unable to arrest him. When Jesus entered Jerusalem for his last Passover, however, he was within the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, where evil and unscrupulous leaders of the council were able to take him, arrange a charge of blasphemy against him, and then manipulate Pilate, the Roman procurator, to bring about the crucifixion.

Wouldn't blasphemy be an ecclesiastical charge?

[Scott Lloyd]

I like this post, mercyngrace. I took enjoyed Dr. Peterson's presentation last August.

If you are referencing the presentation referred to in the opening post, it wasn't given last August. It was in August of 2008.

The one Daniel gave last August was "The Obligation to Do Apologetics."

While I appreciated the one he gave in '08 on "Humble Apologetics," I also believe he said some important things at the August 2010 conference.

Later, in the "Editor's Introduction" of the FARMS Review, he expanded on that FAIR Conference presentation. Take a look at the link.

His FARMS Review piece was in part a response to comments in a thread on this board, a thread I started regarding last year's FAIR Conference talk.

I agree with David Bokovoy and Daniel Peterson. Latter-day Saints need to be an example of the believers, even when defending the faith. However, some would argue that we should not be engaging in apologetics at all. Such a position strikes me as wrong-headed.

For more on this, take a look at the above links, the one to Daniel's FARMS Review article and the other to my thread from last August.

[Jeff K.]

I'm not sure if this is accurate as I just googled.

Don't accept everything you google at face value.

Sanhedrin. The Jewish senate and the highest native court in both civil and ecclesiastical matters. Under the presidency of the high priest it regulated the whole internal affairs of the Jewish nation. It is first definitely mentioned in the days of Antiochus the Great (223–187 B.C.), but it may date from a somewhat earlier period. No historical connection can be established between it and Moses’ council of 70 elders. It consisted 71 members and had an aristocratic character, being drawn from the three classes of chief priests, scribes, and elders. In the time of the Lord the Pharisees had the predominating influence upon it (Acts 5:34, 40), but there were Sadducean elements (chief priests, Acts 5:17; scribes, 23:6, 9). The powers of the Sanhedrin were extensive, for the Greek and Roman masters of the Jews granted them a considerable amount of self-government. From the N.T. we gather that it was the supreme court of justice in all cases, and that it had officers of its own who arrested accused persons and carried out its sentences and decrees. Questions involving life and death were removed from its cognizance 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. John 18:31; the stoning of Stephen cannot be regarded as a formal execution), and the Roman authorities could remove a prisoner from its jurisdiction (so Paul, Acts 23).

The extent of the legal jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied at different times. Herod, when he was governor of Galilee (47 B.C.), was summoned before it. At the time of the Lord its jurisdiction was restricted to Judaea proper. In Galilee Christ was beyond its power (John 7:1). Its decisions were nevertheless regarded as morally binding all over the Jewish world. Thus we find it issuing letters to the synagogue of Damascus, ordering the arrest and removal to Jerusalem of the Christians of that place. Besides the supreme national Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, there were inferior local courts in all the Jewish cities. To these the name Sanhedrin (council) was given (Matt. 10:17).

.

Bible Dictionary

The Great Sanhedrin, based in Jerusalem, had 71 members. There is controversy as to how many Sanhedrins there were, how many leaders of the Great Sanhedrin there were, and whether its head was the king, the high priest, the Sadducees or the Pharisees. According to the Gospels, the trial of Jesus took place before the Sanhedrin with the high priest presiding [5]. According to the Talmud and rabbinical tradition, the presiding officer was a Pharisaic scholar, or Nasi (President) (Mantel, 1961; Hoenig, 1953). The position of Nasi was created in about 191 BCE when the Sanhedrin lost confidence in the ability of the high priests to serve as the head of their body. Not surprising, given that the high priest was often opposed to the Oral Law.

Perspectives on Transformational Leadership in the Sanhedrin of Ancient Judaism

[Skylla]

So which on of you is the filthy socialist and which on is the filthy conservative?

All of us.

[Nemesis]

So which on of you is the filthy socialist and which on is the filthy conservative?

We are legion.

Nemesis

[Jeff K.]

edit: The BD refers to the Sanhedrin as the highest native court in both civil and ecclesiastical matters.

Mosaic interpretation of the law on a legalistic basis is not the same as being called of God.

If we reject the high priests and turn to ward clerks to interpret the law, do we consider that as being of God?

[zerinus]

It may seem unfair, but there is a different level of expectation. The critics aren't representing the church or Christ when they speak. For better or worse, the apologists are.

Several points to be mentioned here:

Firstly, the OP was not really worried about the “critics,” although he made it sound like that. He was worried about himself. He didn’t like the way his views were trashed in the thread: 1 Nephi 10:7-10 and John the Baptist, so he started this thread as a way of justifying himself.

Secondly, with regard to the “critics,” I am not aware that they have been unkindly dealt with by the Mormons. Sure, discussions can get heated; but that is in the nature of debate. If you don’t like the heat, you get out of the kitchen. But that is part of the cut and thrust of debate. Mormons as a general rule are not unkind to their critics.

Thirdly, I don’t see myself as an “apologist,” or engaged in “apologetics”. An “apologist” is by definition someone whose sole purpose is to defend a particular religion—specifically the Christian religion—against (intellectual) attack by unbelievers. I don’t see that as my primary role here—although that may turn out to be the nature of some of the discussions. I hang around this place (and on other boards for that matter) because I enjoy religious discussion. I have my own views that I like to express, and I like to hear what other people have to say. I have strong views on certain things and I like to express them; and when challenged I like to defend or justify them. Most people here are Mormons, and most of my discussions here takes place with them. You don’t do “apologetics” with members of your own faith. But you can discuss religion, which is what I am doing; and I presume that is what other people here are doing too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All of us.

We are legion.

Nemesis

Oh boy.

[mercyngrace]

Mosaic interpretation of the law on a legalistic basis is not the same as being called of God.

If we reject the high priests and turn to ward clerks to interpret the law, do we consider that as being of God?

Except these men were high priests and governed by a high priest.

Just sayin'. It's interesting and I'm glad you raised the objection with Consig as it inspired me to look it up and refresh my ever failing memory.

[Nemesis]

Oh boy.

Or Girl?

[mercyngrace]

Don't accept everything you google at face value.

I didn't. That's why I added the commentary from the BD and Institute Manual.

[Pahoran]

Are guilt by association proclamations lame enough to get a poster suspended?

I only ask because though I rarely hit the report button, I did today after a poster decried me for not responding to a third party's reaction to one of my posts.

An interesting juxtaposition. Does that mean you are hoping to "get a poster suspended" thereby?

It was a clear attempt at guilt by association based on my lack of a response since the poster described the third party as a "largely hostile fringe Mormon".

No. It was not.

You appear to have leaped to a faulty conclusion.

In reality, it "was a clear attempt" to show you how your posts appear: and that is that you seem to be willing to tolerate more from the attackers than the defenders. If you're going to tut-tut about the "unkindness" of the apologists, then naturally we wonder whether your scoldings will be even-handed or not.

I'm sure you hope that the apologists will see your posts and take a moment to reflect on whether your criticisms might have merit. Is it too much to ask that you might do the same?

I may be a little old-fashioned; after all, I come from a generation for whom loyalty is still a virtue. And I have been around the LDS-themed boards for a long time. I have learned that, regardless of where people stand regarding the Church, anyone can agree or disagree with anyone else about anything; and I have also learned that in the long run, people invariably show where their loyalties lie just by what they agree and disagree with the most.

For me, there is merit in even a flawed defense of the Church of Jesus Christ, and no merit in even a flawless attack. That's my bottom line because that's where my loyalties lie; so I will support even a flawed defense, and I will dispute even a flawless attack (if ever I see one.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Skylla]

Or Girl?

Or both?