Apologetic Conference Talks

[nealr]

I'm wondering if anybody here knows of some talks given in General Conference - or in other places by General Authorities, such as firesides, etc. - which were apologetic in nature. I'm thinking of talks like the ones Elder Holland gave in October 2007 and April 2008 ("The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent", "My Words... Never Cease"). Anything where they are clearly making an argument for some position held by the Church.

It doesn't matter to me if you think that they make a good argument or a bad one, if you agree with their argument or not, etc. I'm just interested in whatever examples can be found. Anything along those lines published in the Church magazines would also be helpful.

Thanks in advanced!

[Duncan]

7 Deadly heresies by Elder McConkie

Reading Church History by Elder Oaks

[MiserereNobis]

I'm wondering if anybody here knows of some talks given in General Conference - or in other places by General Authorities, such as firesides, etc. - which were apologetic in nature. I'm thinking of talks like the ones Elder Holland gave in October 2007 and April 2008 ("The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent", "My Words... Never Cease"). Anything where they are clearly making an argument for some position held by the Church.

It doesn't matter to me if you think that they make a good argument or a bad one, if you agree with their argument or not, etc. I'm just interested in whatever examples can be found. Anything along those lines published in the Church magazines would also be helpful.

Thanks in advanced!

I glanced through Elder Holland's first talk (attacking the Trinity) and found it repeating tiresome strawman criticisms of the Trinity, such as:

How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable?

The mystery of the Trinity is incomprehensible and unknowable to pure reason, strict rationality, and uncompromising empiricsm. God, however, is knowable, just not in the way you normally think of knowing him.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Church that promulgated the doctrine of the Trinity as currently known. The VERY first statement in the Catholic Catechism is this (emphasis mine):

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

Now, it is truly a strawman (a misrepresentation of our beliefs that is easy to attack) to state that we teach and believe in a God that is unknowable and unlovable. Obviously if you see the doctrine of the Trinity as expressing such a God, then you are not understanding the doctrine of the Trinity as taught and believed by the Roman Catholic Church.

For example, when we say God is incomprehensible, what we are really saying (in one way) is that full knowledge of God is ineffable, and inasmuch as knowledge is based on language, then we are limited. From the Catechism, again:

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God --"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"-- with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

Yet one can have a direct mystical experience that confirms the mystery of the Trinity; that experience, however, will be ineffable and apparently bound to paradox (hence its ineffability). Dante, in describing his vision of God at the end of the Paradiso, puts it this way:

But oh how much my words miss my conception,

which is itself so far from what I saw

that to call it feeble would be rank deception!

Like a geometer wholly dedicated

to squaring the circle, but who cannot find,

think as he may, the principle indicated --

so did I study the supernal face [Jesus].

I yearned to know just how our image merges

into that circle [the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity], and how it there finds place;

but mine were not the wings for such a flight.

Yet, as I wished, the truth I wished for came

cleaving my mind in a great flash of light.

Here my powers rest from their high fancy,

but already I could feel my being turned --

instinct and intellect balanced equally

as in a wheel whose motion nothing jars --

by the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.

My bolded portion shows Dante's attempt to use reason and logic to understand the Trinity, his ultimate failure, and then the flash of insight and truth that he cannot express but yet changes his being so that it turns towards God because of the divine Love of God.

Ok, I'm sorry to have hijacked the thread for a moment, but I just wanted to reiterate that the arguments Elder Holland offers against the Trinity are strawmen, because those are not the beliefs we have about the Trinity. It is fine to disagree with the Catholic Church, obviously, but at least disagree with our actual beliefs

[harfad]

I think what Elder Holland means is that that way of experiencing God is not comparable with the following:

"When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (JS—Hi 1:17)

It is like the difference between a telestial way of knowing or experiencing God, and a celestial way. I don't think he meant to disparage or ridicule the telestial way, just telling us that the celestial way is better!

[MiserereNobis]

I think what Elder Holland means is that that way of experiencing God is not comparable with the following:

"When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (JS—Hi 1:17)

It is like the difference between a telestial way of knowing or experiencing God, and a celestial way. I don't think he meant to disparage or ridicule the telestial way, just telling us that the celestial way is better!

I guess in my hierarchical ranking of which experience is better, the mystical (what you call telestial) seems much higher than some sort of physical appearance (what you call celestial). It's the difference between (1) someone walking into my room and saying, "hello, my name is <whatever>" and (2) living with that person for the rest of your life. Mystical knowledge is higher than linguistic knowledge because in the mystical experience there is no medium -- it is direct. It is like, to use the cliche, the difference between someone telling what salt tastes like and then actually tasting salt. Or someone telling you what they are like and then actually living with them for the rest of your life.

The dogmatic declarations about the Trinity are trying to tell us what salt tastes like. They are true, but they can never give us the experience of God (tasting the salt). That is why they are limited and that is why to rationality and language, God is ultimately incomprehensible. The whole point is to get to know and love God.

Alright, I said it before, I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. If anyone wants to continue the conversation, go ahead and start a new thread. I'll leave this one alone for its original purpose.

[DBMormon]

Holland - Safety for the soul

Christofferson - Doctrine of Christ

Neil Anderson - talk from last conference also defined doctrine

Edited November 6, 2012 by DBMormon

[harfad]

I guess in my hierarchical ranking of which experience is better, the mystical (what you call telestial) seems much higher than some sort of physical appearance (what you call celestial). It's the difference between (1) someone walking into my room and saying, "hello, my name is <whatever>" and (2) living with that person for the rest of your life. Mystical knowledge is higher than linguistic knowledge because in the mystical experience there is no medium -- it is direct. It is like, to use the cliche, the difference between someone telling what salt tastes like and then actually tasting salt. Or someone telling you what they are like and then actually living with them for the rest of your life.

The dogmatic declarations about the Trinity are trying to tell us what salt tastes like. They are true, but they can never give us the experience of God (tasting the salt). That is why they are limited and that is why to rationality and language, God is ultimately incomprehensible. The whole point is to get to know and love God.

Alright, I said it before, I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. If anyone wants to continue the conversation, go ahead and start a new thread. I'll leave this one alone for its original purpose.

I think you are making an arbitrary distinction between what you call "mystical" and "physical" experience of God. Would you not trade your "mystical" experience of God with the "physical" experience of the early disciples of Jesus who walked and talked with him, observed his miracles, and learned wisdom mysteries from him? I know I would.

[livy111us]

[livy111us]

[livy111us]

Wow, it only took two comments before this thread was derailed.

[harfad]

Wow, it only took two comments before this thread was derailed.

That is a pathetic comment. Talk brings talk. Conversation leads to conversation. Nobody remains "on topic" about anything.

[Bikeemikey]

That is a pathetic comment. Talk brings talk. Conversation leads to conversation. Nobody remains "on topic" about anything.

Calm down koala bear -

The topic got detailed, it is true, no need to make it aggressive as well.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[harfad]

The topic got detailed, it is true, no need to make it aggressive as well.

The topic didn't get derailed. It never does. People are still free to reply to the OP if they want to. If they haven't, that is probably because they have nothing more to add.

When you converse with your family and friends, do you always "stay on topic"? I don't think that anyone does. One thing leads to another, and every conversation branches off in different directions. I don't see why an Internet conversation should be treated different.

[Ramil Torres]

many hearsay

[Robert F. Smith]

I guess in my hierarchical ranking of which experience is better, the mystical (what you call telestial) seems much higher than some sort of physical appearance (what you call celestial). It's the difference between (1) someone walking into my room and saying, "hello, my name is <whatever>" and (2) living with that person for the rest of your life. Mystical knowledge is higher than linguistic knowledge because in the mystical experience there is no medium -- it is direct. It is like, to use the cliche, the difference between someone telling what salt tastes like and then actually tasting salt. Or someone telling you what they are like and then actually living with them for the rest of your life.

The dogmatic declarations about the Trinity are trying to tell us what salt tastes like. They are true, but they can never give us the experience of God (tasting the salt). That is why they are limited and that is why to rationality and language, God is ultimately incomprehensible. The whole point is to get to know and love God.

Alright, I said it before, I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. If anyone wants to continue the conversation, go ahead and start a new thread. I'll leave this one alone for its original purpose.

I appreciate your effort to help us understand Catholicism. I would like to add that Mormonism shares more in common with the RC faith than with Protestantism -- particularly on acceptance of continuing revelation and visions, as well as on matters of priesthood authority and sacramental ordinances. As for mysticism, I once knew a very mystical Mormon. She used to go regularly to the Cathedral of the Madeleine in SLC and take communion, even though she also went several times a week to an LDS temple. The best of both worlds as it were.

[DavidB]

Any talk about whether the LDS people's are Christian.

[cinepro]

Wow, it only took two comments before this thread was derailed.

No kidding. Nothing is more annoying than trying to have a polite discussion about another religion's beliefs and having a member of that religion come along and tell you you're wrong. Tacky!

[cinepro]

This one talks about atheism:

The Voice of the Lord

W. Grant Bangerter, October 1979

Here's the text.

Two Russians went around the world in a spacecraft a time or two and declared that they had gone to heaven and God was not there. This is a pretty weak argument for atheism. It isn’t even scientific. It reminds me of the blasphemous remark of a scoffing acquaintance of my brother who said, “I dreamed I saw God and he was a horse.” My brother’s comment was, “Certainly. That is perfectly logical to a jackass.”

Edited November 6, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate your effort to help us understand Catholicism. I would like to add that Mormonism shares more in common with the RC faith than with Protestantism -- particularly on acceptance of continuing revelation and visions, as well as on matters of priesthood authority and sacramental ordinances. As for mysticism, I once knew a very mystical Mormon. She used to go regularly to the Cathedral of the Madeleine in SLC and take communion, even though she also went several times a week to an LDS temple. The best of both worlds as it were.

Hey that's one that can rile up both sides! If she posted on boards I think I know who you are talking about.

[mfbukowski]

I guess in my hierarchical ranking of which experience is better, the mystical (what you call telestial) seems much higher than some sort of physical appearance (what you call celestial). It's the difference between (1) someone walking into my room and saying, "hello, my name is <whatever>" and (2) living with that person for the rest of your life. Mystical knowledge is higher than linguistic knowledge because in the mystical experience there is no medium -- it is direct. It is like, to use the cliche, the difference between someone telling what salt tastes like and then actually tasting salt. Or someone telling you what they are like and then actually living with them for the rest of your life.

The dogmatic declarations about the Trinity are trying to tell us what salt tastes like. They are true, but they can never give us the experience of God (tasting the salt). That is why they are limited and that is why to rationality and language, God is ultimately incomprehensible. The whole point is to get to know and love God.

Alright, I said it before, I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. If anyone wants to continue the conversation, go ahead and start a new thread. I'll leave this one alone for its original purpose.

Just a tad prejudiced with an interesting spin. You really have a way with words- have you considered running for president?

[MiserereNobis]

I think you are making an arbitrary distinction between what you call "mystical" and "physical" experience of God. Would you not trade your "mystical" experience of God with the "physical" experience of the early disciples of Jesus who walked and talked with him, observed his miracles, and learned wisdom mysteries from him? I know I would.

I started a new thread on mysticism so that we can leave this thread to its original purpose:

Mysticism and Mormon Spirituality

Thanks for the patience all!

[MiserereNobis]

Hey that's one that can rile up both sides! If she posted on boards I think I know who you are talking about.

Indeed. Communion is closed to non-Catholics, and I imagine the LDS church would frown on someone receiving Catholic communion and attending the temple (but I guess I don't know that for sure).

[MiserereNobis]

Just a tad prejudiced with an interesting spin.

Well, I imagine that everyone who posts here is a tad prejudiced in favor of his or her religion or philosophical views, wouldn't you say?

You really have a way with words- have you considered running for president?

Thank you... I think. Ha!

[mfbukowski]

Indeed. Communion is closed to non-Catholics, and I imagine the LDS church would frown on someone receiving Catholic communion and attending the temple (but I guess I don't know that for sure).

Well I guess what I meant was to equate it with a non-Mormon attending the temple. That is what it is like for a Catholic to hear that a non-Catholic received communion.

We are talking major sacrilege here.

It's hard for us to relate to because we in some cases actually encourage non-Mormons to take the sacrament, and it's no big deal. Not the same by a long shot!

[Calm]

Well I guess what I meant was to equate it with a non-Mormon attending the temple. That is what it is like for a Catholic to hear that a non-Catholic received communion.

We are talking major sacrilege here.

what if she had received a Catolic baptism sometime in the past?