Critics And Our Own Doctrines

[Doctor Ninja]

How do we convince critics that we know our own doctrines?

Or.......

Is this just a fruitless endeavor?

I would have to go with the latter. The needed urge to be "right" at all cost seems to trump our stupidity of our own doctrines. Sure, someone will use the argument that most members don't really "know" the doctrines, but the argument implodes with us who truly do know.

[Jeff K.]

Anti Mormons are a lazy lot. They spend most of their time editing instead of researching. They edit out parts of talks in order to change context, they edit in implications from opinions in order to redefine doctrine. They just kind of "edit" alot. If they can make us fit their paradigm, and by deceitfully saying they are "honestly just showing us what was said", then they can be lazy and feel justified in their laziness and sloth.

They remind me of domesticated turkeys, sometimes the turkeys don't know how to act in a given situation, but they sure enjoy bunching up and making a great deal of noise. I usually have them for dinner after letting them stew.

We know our doctrines, even as they insist they know our doctrines better than we do, even as we apply doctrinal standards and they do not. Somehow they think they know better. I wonder if they go into a surgical theatre and tell the doctor what to do also?

[Xander]

How do we convince critics that we know our own doctrines?

Here's a crazy idea....

You might try making an actual argument. But that's just me.

Is this just a fruitless endeavor?

In my experience, the issue isn't what you believe, but what the Church has taught. I've never once tried to tell someone what they believe, and I don't think I've seen anyone else do this either. Much of the material that is raised is irrefutable when the argument is what the Church has taught. For instance, someone might be upset because the Church taught XYZ. The apologist jumps in and says, yeah well that ain't "official" doctrine so you can't hold the Church accountable for that.

This really isn't a good response. Do you think for a second that (for example) an offended black person cares whether or not negative comments about black folks originating from (pick an LDS leader) are "official" or merely "opinion"? No. He/She is going to hold this against the Church because the Church refuses to come out and denounce these statements.

In today's society, this is standard protocol for all public figures and organizations who employ them. When something comes across as offensive, the offending party is usually expected to come right out to condemn or condone what was said. From politicians to role models, you see this all the time. But the Church doesn't do this, for the most part. Generally it pushes offensive material further into the past and the apologists tell the offended parties to "move on" because the Church never voted on this stuff to make it "official."

The needed urge to be "right" at all cost seems to trump our stupidity of our own doctrines.

Straw man much?

Sure, someone will use the argument that most members don't really "know" the doctrines, but the argument implodes with us who truly do know.

This is incoherent. If the argument is that most don't know it, then this already assumes that some do (you do realize that most is not all, right?). So how does this "implode" it? It makes no sense. By the way, in Brasil I can tell you with absolute certainty that most members do not know Mormon doctrine. But then again, the Church has around a 20% activity rate down there, so maybe it is just a Brasilian thing.

My wife tried to sandbag me one day by having the Bishop and some missionaries come over to the house for dinner. Her plan was for them to tell me how wrong I was to say things like Joseph Smith taught that we could become gods. Boy was she upset when they essentially confirmed that what I said was true.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Anti Mormons are a lazy lot.

Some are. But not the ones I am friends with. In fact, my experience is just the opposite.

[Deborah]

The problem isn't what may have been said but putting it all in context and looking at the big picture. We believe in continuing revelation. We believe that prophets like others have opinions which they express when not everything has been revealed. We believe that living prophets trump those who have gone before for what is pertinent to how we live our lives. We believe in looking at the audience and the times when such things might have been said and not judging it against present sensibilities and customs.

The OT is full of the Law of Moses, but we don't teach that anymore except in historical context. So should we forget modern revelation and even that given by Christ because of what Moses or Abraham said in regards to how we practice our religion. It is ridiculous to condemn someone who lived 100 years ago against our modern sensibilities. It is very likely in present day those great men would have very different ways of expressing themselves.

I also think that too many confuse practice with doctrine. The doctrine is unchanging; it's the way we practice it that changes.

[blueadept]

Anti Mormons are a lazy lot.

Some are, but some aren't

[Deborah]

Some are, but some aren't

I agree; in fact the expend a lot of energy trying to find anything they can against the church which seems like a waste of time for someone who doesn't believe and doesn't even like the church.

[Xander]

The problem isn't what may have been said but putting it all in context and looking at the big picture. We believe in continuing revelation. We believe that prophets like others have opinions which they express when not everything has been revealed.

But this is only a good response for struggling members who are trying to reconcile this stuff. But for non-LDS, this isn't a good response because they really don't care about modern-day distinctions between doctrine and opinion.

We believe that living prophets trump those who have gone before for what is pertinent to how we live our lives.

Yes, but the problem some people have with this is simple. If a subsequent prophet expands on a previous doctrine, that is one thing. But when a subsequent prophet contradicts a previous prophet, then the logical implication here is that the Church, at one point in time, taught false doctrine. It might not be official now, but it was at the time it was taught. And then people are having to struggle with this notion that the "One True Church" is really just like any other Church in that its leaders are fallible and its doctrines can change without warning.

We believe in looking at the audience and the times when such things might have been said and not judging it against present sensibilities and customs.

True, and this is why some Mormons believe that eventually, homosexuals will be permitted to sealed in the temple. The Church has a documented history of changing its policies/doctrines according to the times. The blacks/priesthood and polygamy are just two well known examples. This isn't official doctrine, but it used to be.

The OT is full of the Law of Moses, but we don't teach that anymore except in historical context.

This might hold sway with Evangelical critics, but not agnostics.

So should we forget modern revelation and even that given by Christ because of what Moses or Abraham said in regards to how we practice our religion. It is ridiculous to condemn someone who lived 100 years ago against our modern sensibilities.

Do you really think the Church would take this message public? That it is ridiculous for people to be offended by Brigham Young's comments, which they found out only after they paid their child's tuition at Brigham Young University?

It is very likely in present day those great men would have very different ways of expressing themselves.

Only if they were born and raised in modern times.

I also think that too many confuse practice with doctrine. The doctrine is unchanging; it's the way we practice it that changes.

That's not exactly true. For example, the doctrine that accepting polygamy would be required for celestial glory, or that black folks are black because they were disobedient in the preexistence.

[Jeff K.]

By lazy, I meant intellectually lazy. I am sure anti Mormons are definately not lazy like the rat that repetitively pushes on a bar for the nicotine hit. They live for that sort of stuff. They just don't really care to get into why they seem so happy being bitter.

[Xander]

I agree; in fact the expend a lot of energy trying to find anything they can against the church which seems like a waste of time for someone who doesn't believe and doesn't even like the church

That's a pretty good back-handed compliment, but it is still inaccurate.

I don't know anyone who spends their time trying to find anything they can against the Church.

Dan Vogel has provided a tremendous service with his publications, providing rare documents for historians in training. He doesn't just cherry pick the bad stuff. The problem the apologists have, from what I have seen, is that the bad stuff exists, and they want to blame it on the critics for simply making this data available.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Xander

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Anti Mormons are a lazy lot.

Some are. But not the ones I am friends with. In fact, my experience is just the opposite.

In a booming thundering voice... "BUT THE ONES I CHOOSE TO BE FRIENDS WITH AREN'T LAZY"..... heh heh heh. I am sure they are brilliant, like Edisons first light bulb shining in a discoteque of the 1970's. Nobody notices it, but its in there somewhere.

[mnn727]

My wife tried to sandbag me one day by having the Bishop and some missionaries come over to the house for dinner. Her plan was for them to tell me how wrong I was to say things like Joseph Smith taught that we could become gods. Boy was she upset when they essentially confirmed that what I said was true.

Thats what the Bible says too.

[Xander]

By lazy, I meant intellectually lazy. I am sure anti Mormons are definately not lazy like the rat that repetitively pushes on a bar for the nicotine hit. They live for that sort of stuff. They just don't really care to get into why they seem so happy being bitter.

Oh that's definitely not true then.

I've never been happier since leaving the Church. I'm not saying it is because I left the Church. I'm just saying I certainly didn't get depressed or bitter from it.

The problem is that people who leave have legitimate gripes, and people like you can't shut them up - as you would if you could - so you have to try discrediting them as a bunch of bar pushing alcoholics, smokers, liars, traitors... etc.Ridiculous.

It would be nice if all apologists would realize that this kind of talk only speaks poorly of them, and not the targets of their malice.

[Xander]

In a booming thundering voice... "BUT THE ONES I CHOOSE TO BE FRIENDS WITH AREN'T LAZY"..... heh heh heh. I am sure they are brilliant, like Edisons first light bulb shining in a discoteque of the 1970's. Nobody notices it, but its in there somewhere.

Actually, people do notice it, as they're mostly respected intellectuals and academics. The majority of the folks posting on the other forum have advanced degrees, and yes, they are mostly agnostic critics of the Church. So trying to label the "lot" of them as intellectually lazy won'tr wash. You cannot back any of this up with evidence.

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Be more specific about what is objectionable in the OP so it doesn't turn into a critic vs believer brawl.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff