Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[DBMormon]

I am not clear what DBMormon wants. Do you want to know which items still bug someone like me personally and why the apologist response to said items does not satisfy me?

exactly!!!!

[DBMormon]

DB's post is a stalking horse.

Once in my law practice, when one of my clients' offices were shot at by animal rights activities, I took the deposition of a suspect. He said, "well, I'd never do these things, but I know people who would (1) firebomb your offices, (2) shoot at your cars and homes," and so forth and so on. He said this, while I knew he had been convicted years before for firebombing a UCLA office.

I might suggest that DB simply be a little more helpful and tell us which on the list are troubling to him (not troubling in a generic sense) and there are plenty here who can respond.

complete honesty.... none bother me to the point of needing them addressed

check out my posts here to see why this was posted

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3981

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29332&start=140 (starting towards the top of page

Don't place motives where they don't belong.

[Alvino]

I am not proposing this should be issues for anyone. Rather then read the original post many of you have shot back accusing me of something other then the thread intended.

Instead believers chimed in accusing me of throwing these out there to do the opposite of the threads intention...... try again

Welcome to the club.

[Brian 2.0]

Here are some examples from FAIR:

• “While Joseph’s opinions might be interesting, they can be discarded when they conflict with revealed doctrine, scientific facts, or in-depth examination.”
  

Many people simply do not buy-in to this type of “logic.”

I wonder if the author of that statement would agree with this:

"While SOME OF Joseph’s REVELATIONS might be interesting, they can be discarded when they conflict with revealed doctrine, scientific facts, or in-depth examination.”

[GingerRed]

DB Mormon.....

I have to admit I'm baffled by this constant hapring on this subject over and over and over in several threads of yours....WHAT is it you want to hear?? My gosh this seems like its been beaten to death already! Nobody seems to give you an answer you accept.

WHY does this topic ( apologetics/ losing faith/ leaving-the-church-for-whatever-reason) bother you so? Maybe if you can explain where YOU'RE coming from on all this we can understand what your point to all this is? Are you suffering from this yourself?

Red

[Scott Lloyd]

DB Mormon.....

I have to admit I'm baffled by this constant hapring on this subject over and over and over in several threads of yours....WHAT is it you want to hear?? My gosh this seems like its been beaten to death already! Nobody seems to give you an answer you accept.

WHY does this topic ( apologetics/ losing faith/ leaving-the-church-for-whatever-reason) bother you so? Maybe if you can explain where YOU'RE coming from on all this we can understand what your point to all this is? Are you suffering from this yourself?

Red

I think he's really, really serious this time.

I couldn't have been more impressed if there had been six question marks in the thread title instead of five.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

The problem with DB's posts is that he doesn't want to get specific. DB, if you want to get specific on which of your laundry list items are troubling to you, and how they trouble you, you can get a specific response. But to generally assert that LDS apologetics have failed to answer your questions is really to avoid engaging. A shotgun at a distance, like your opening post, will score a few pellets among the sensitive who struggle but certainly does not deliver the death blow to Mormonism.

Apologetics have worked miracles in the lives of a few people I've worked with. Either stuff they've read, seminars they've attended, or things I've told them that I learned from studying the issues from apologists. So, LDS apologia has a very important role, at least to me, in preaching and defending the Gospel. But, then again, I don't personally struggle with the issues and I don't have a problem with filtering out bad apologia from good stuff.

I think that many who criticize LDS apologia are really sitting in harsh judgment of some of the posters here. They condemn by bad behavior the very behavior they condemn.

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 22:3-19.

I put into the category of "idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" the Evangelical who would argue that all one needs to do is respond to the call of the altar. Perhaps food for thought.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Alvino]

As I go through the list I realize I never really had a big problem with any of those. I do recall going to FARMS several times to look for answers to some of those issues that were raised by others.

IMHO, the problem is that so many of the answers to those issues by apologetics are negative and defensive. None of the responses I've seen to the issues that interest me seemed constructive.

Take the seer stone translation method of Joseph Smith. There is nothing constructive about the answers I've seen for Joseph Smith having used a seer stone nor having buried his face in his hat. Nothing constructive about his treasure digging pursuits, either. Things like these start piling up and at the end of the day a new way of seeing things (in my personal case, atheism and disbelief) become a much more convincing approach.

[CV75]

exactly!!!!

Why didn't you just say so?

[The Nehor]

I think he's really, really serious this time.

I couldn't have been more impressed if there had been six question marks in the thread title instead of five,

I am waiting for at least eight before the serious dialogue can begin.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am waiting for at least eight before the serious dialogue can begin.

When you see a combination of multiple exclamation marks and question marks blended in superfluity, then you'll know he means business.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I personally maintain faith, but I think that for a lot of people the narrative goes like this:

In primary we are taught to follow the prophet. The prophet basically has a direct line to God and gets clear communication from him. I think this is great and fine, but this type of teaching continues well beyond primary. This is reinforced over and over by some very loud and forceful people. People like Elder McConkie with Mormon Doctrine, Ezra Taft Benson with his 14 fundamentals, Elder Packer with his “the Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the intellect” just to name a few. People really buy into this idea that “The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.” and “the prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.”

Then people for whatever reason have this world view shattered. Normally it happens pretty quickly. Your list is a good summary of the information people get into. I think Bushman described it as getting stung by a hive of bees all at once. Now the apologetic response for any particular issue can be quite good and well thought out, but in order to accept any of it you have to shift your paradigm away from a place where everything made sense, every part of the church was inspired etc. to a place where maybe Jesus isn’t looking over every word Thomas Monson is saying. You have to shift to a place where the Prophet Joseph, the Prophet Brigham and down the line made some pretty big mistakes along the way.

While the apologetic response may be really great to each of these issues, it isn’t really compatible with a world view as set out by the 14 fundamentals. Take evolution. I think NDBF Gary has done a great job of documenting that there is basically no public support among official channels for evolution as taught in all major science classes (including BYU). The tagline from NDBF Gary is “When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above.” Here is a living prophet telling us that evolution is wrong. Elder Nelson, another living prophet, recently dismissed the ridiculousness of the idea something as complex as the human heart can evolve. So while I get behind the fact the church has no “official position” on evolution and that some leaders may be offering their opinion, I can also understand why the apologetic response here comes up flat. I mean the 14 fundamentals were reiterated within the last year or two. For some people I think it just creates too much cognitive dissonance to hear that prophets are fallible from the apologists and then hear that anything the prophet says can be scripture over the pulpit.

Edited February 11, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[juliann]

For me, some apologetic tactics fall short because the supposed answers go counter to my many years of actual experience. This is related to another common complaint, that the answers do not represent any official Church position. Perhaps any one problem on the list can be explained away, but taken in aggregate, the whole problem is bigger than the sum of the parts.

Here are some examples from FAIR:

• “While Joseph’s opinions might be interesting, they can be discarded when they conflict with revealed doctrine, scientific facts, or in-depth examination.”
  
• In reference to the First Vision: “Just because this early account mentions only one personage, we should not assume that there was only one personage.”
  
• “…the assumption that every teaching in the Book of Mormon should be perfectly clear is misguided.”
  

Many people simply do not buy-in to this type of “logic.”

FAIR asks for suggestions for improvement so specifics are helpful. Would you please supply links or a reference to those quotes?

[Glenn101]

Apologetics fail because they do not provide positive proof that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he actually saw God and Jesus Christ, that the Lord re-instituted polygamy as part of the restitution of all things, etc. etc.

I am not trying to be obtuse nor am I making a flippant answer. Nothing short of positive proof will ever do for the critics. All apologetcs can do is provide plausible/probable counterpoints to the issues that the critics raise. The items on DB's list have been brought up many times, and answered many times. It will probably not get any better.

Glenn

[ALarson]

DBMormon,

I can tell you sincerely want to help members who are doubting and struggling. You know that many have already read what the apologists have written on certain topics and it's not answered their questions OR it's only pushed them further away from activity and believe .

I think it may help if you pick one topic at a time and study what the apologists have written about it. Your list is just too long and covers too many different topics, IMO.

For me, the topic of polyandry is troubling and the apologist's writings on it almost convince me as to why Joseph Smith may have lived it, but then I get to Brigham Young's polyandry and most of the arguments in favor of polyandry crumble.

Anyway....maybe just pick one topic at a time?

[Scott Lloyd]

As I go through the list I realize I never really had a big problem with any of those. I do recall going to FARMS several times to look for answers to some of those issues that were raised by others.

IMHO, the problem is that so many of the answers to those issues by apologetics are negative and defensive. None of the responses I've seen to the issues that interest me seemed constructive.

Take the seer stone translation method of Joseph Smith. There is nothing constructive about the answers I've seen for Joseph Smith having used a seer stone nor having buried his face in his hat. Nothing constructive about his treasure digging pursuits, either. Things like these start piling up and at the end of the day a new way of seeing things (in my personal case, atheism and disbelief) become a much more convincing approach.

Ultimately, this is going to end up being a matter of subjective judgment. I happen to think the apologetics stuff I've read about seer stone translation is quite reasonable. The more I read, the more persuaded I am that it's not worth worrying about.

So, it becomes a matter of personal taste: You like the Stones, I like the Beatles. You prefer rocky road ice cream, I like caramel fudge. Neither persuades the other, because there's no arguing personal taste.

[juliann]

I see what might be unmeetable expectations for "apologetics". Perhaps that needs to be addressed first. I think that may be why so many just sit and stare in disbelief at the criticisms.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I see what might be unmeetable expectations for "apologetics". Perhaps that needs to be addressed first. I think that may be why so many just sit and stare in disbelief at the criticisms.

I think there is a lot of truth for this. I think that most apologists do really, really great work. I think where it falls flat is that it is not officially sanctioned, and often contradicts the individuals upbringing in the church and what they take away from their leaders. People believe that God is leading the church and that can set up some unrealistic expectations when people find out that we are all just people doing the best we can.

[Alvino]

@Scott Loyd:

I'm not saying the answers are unreasonable. I'm saying the answers are negative and not constructive.

I'll give you an example of a response that is constructive: If the BoM shows signs of literary structures that Joseph Smith couldn't plausibly have come up with in any other way, then that supports what we would expect from an inspired translator.

Things like Kinderhook plates responses, the face in the hat, the treasure digging, prayer as reliable knowledge-seeking enterprise, etc, are all issues the apologetic answers have nothing of constructive. Little by little things like these pile up.

[Scott Lloyd]

@Scott Loyd:

I'm not saying the answers are unreasonable. I'm saying the answers are negative and not constructive.

It's constructive in the sense that it keeps the playing field level by neutralizing or blunting the attacks of the antagonists, thus making it possible for faith to flourish.

I expect the gospel of Jesus Christ will always be a matter of faith, supportable but not provable by physical evidence. That's an important distinction.

[Jude2]

I sure hope I'm not accountable for every random thought or idea that any leaders of our Church have had over the last 183 years or so.

Amen!

[Jude2]

Well I’m going to pick through this simply because I’d like to think I’ve thought through some of these like most LDS people.

1. Attempts to deny evolution by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc.

First one would have to assume evolution is an absolute truth and I don’t. I believe it is a working theory. Where and how it got started only God knows. If and when it is a proven fact that God used evolution to create then it will become part of the gospel.

2. Official claim that Adam was literally the first man

Which Adam where?

3. No death before the fall idea in the BoM (2 Nephi 2:22-23)

Why is this so puzzling to anyone?

4. LDS scriptures appear to support literal global flood interpretation (Moses 8, Ether 13:2).

So, is there a problem with that?

5. LDS scriptures appear to support literal tower of Babel story (Ether 1:33)

Yes

6. LDS scriptures appear to support 6 thousand year old earth (D&C 77:6-7,10)

I think most of us understand it’s six spans of time and there is a theory that after the fall the earth literal fell from being near Kolob to where it is today in the universe. If this is true then how would we judge how old the earth is.

7. Institute manual defends alleged genocide by Moses

So, (but I do wonder if some of those old scribes didn’t fill in God said so to justify their actions)

8. Racial priesthood ban + prophets will never lead the Church astray

The blacks lost the priesthood after Joseph Smith because of the failings of the white race. Long answer I’ll skip it.

9. Polygamy + prophets will never lead the Church astray

Had to be restored but it was miss used.

10. Book of Abraham translation discrepancies

Look up Sobek Ra and compare it to Abraham 1:9 “And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh, and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun”

11. Joseph Smith's comments about Moon Quakers

LOL

12. Joseph Smith married women still married to other men

He choose a very tight group, those he felt he could trust and he was testing them. Like Mary Lighter they had not been sealed to anyone as of yet for various reasons. He had them sealing to himself so they could be ‘connected’ to the priesthood and start sewing the veil of the temple, garments and lean the temple ordinances.

13. Joseph Smith was convicted of "money digging"

No he wasn’t

14. Zelph

How do you know he wasn’t a prophet?

15. The Kirtland bank failure

The promise was ‘if’ they obeyed the commandments all would be well. They didn’t obey and it the bank failed. Always look at the “if”

16. The Kinderhook plates

Fraud which Joseph didn’t fall for

19. Fanny Alger

I have a theory if anyone cares to hear it.

21. John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church

Judas

22. Joseph Smith and other Church leaders drank wine the night he was killed

So

25. Blood atonement

Only applies to members who have gone to temple and then murder and may apply to those who perpetrated this;

26. The Mountain Meadows Massacre and aftermath

Read Massacre at Mountain Meadow

24. Similarity between temple ordinances and Masonic rites

So

25. Brigham Young used chewing tobacco

So,

27. Claim that sexual sins are next to murder

Well both can keep you out of the Celestial Kingdom

31. Gordon B. Hinckley: "don't worry about those little flecks of history"

Neither do I

36. Church's direct involvement in Prop. 8

Good for them

37. Tithing amount is excessive and doesn't add up fairly in different situations

A tenth is a tenth, the windows of heaven will open just the same, we try to give more.

38. Magical thinking about supposed connection between strict obedience and guaranteed blessings

Magical? Read Alma 41

40. Steel, horses, massive battles and civilizations, etc. in BoM don't match archaeological evidence you would expect to see in this case very well.

He got the cement, pearls, metals, calendars, deforestation, shipping, massive battles, human sacrifice and great civilizations which just up and disappear etc etc etc right.

48. The only true and living church.

The Church is!

49. Financial transparency.

What are you worried about?

50. Focus on compliance to laundry list of commandments rather than talk of Christ and development of Christian attributes

Where have you been?

[Teancum]

DBMormon

I guess for me it is not one or two things. Nor is it ten or fifteen. It is a preponderance of many issues. Some on your list are no big deal to me. Others are really big deals. Some I am not sure what the reference is about. But for me at least it became a weight of many issues. I can recall thinking bow many things can one toss on to the shelf before it breaks. I also recall thinking why would God’s one true Church be saddled with so many issues that just seem so obviously wrong as well as some bordering on abusive and even fraudulent.

As for the apologetics, well some is good and some is bad. Some apologists are better than others and some are horrible as well as degenerating to those they disagree with. I do see in many apologetic responses and attack the messenger. But not all. But the big kicker for me really was so much of what I was taught to believe seemed so conveniently able to be set aside. So many opinions by prophets and apostles that sure did not seem like opinions to them when they said it nor did those who heard it think so either. I used to think the LDS Church was different. We had answers, we had today’s news today ( Per Ezra Taft Benson). We were not seeing through a glass darkly but had the light of the fullness of the priesthood and a mouthpiece for God on the earth now. But what I get from apologetics is that there is a lot of messiness, God lets us figure out a lot on our own, his prophets really get a lot of things wrong.

So I guess if I had to list a few items I thing the apologist fail to answer well they are:

1: Polygamy and polyandry, Fanny Alger, the whole mess.

2: If polygamy was so important to fight tooth and nail and the LDS leaders taught it was required for exaltation why was it given up? It seems the answer is it because the US Government beat God at his own game. No good answers for me hear yet.

3: Adam God and other odd teachings from Brigham Young. It seems clear to me Brigham taught and believed this. How can a prophet be so wrong about who God it. Either he was correct and the Church rejected truth or he was pretty far off base. Also poor Brigham, he sure gets tossed under the bus a lot.

4: Blacks and priesthood. It would seem God could have directed his Church better on that. And I find the apologetic back peddling from what really was taught about why we did this disingenuous at best.

5: Conflicts with science, evolutions, flood. It seems clear LDS scripture does not hold much room for accepting things that seem scientifically solid.

6: Literal Adam and Eve. I am not sure how much of LDS salvation doctrine (Or much of Christianity for that matter) survives a non literal Adam and Even and fall of man.

7: Temple ties to Masonry, introduced as a core part of plural marriage and things like the second anointing, etc.

[Hamba Tuhan]

56. If we are the chosen people why is our taste so bad that we actually eat jello with vegetables in it?

That would be an exclusive 'we', right?

[Daniel Peterson]

I used to think the LDS Church was different. We had answers, we had today’s news today ( Per Ezra Taft Benson). We were not seeing through a glass darkly but had the light of the fullness of the priesthood and a mouthpiece for God on the earth now.

I'm not sure that I understand why you imagined that everything would be crystal clear at every point. You cite the phrase "seeing through a glass darkly." But those words come from an apostle, St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13. And he emphatically included himself in that situation:

⁹ For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

¹⁰ But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. . . .

¹² For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

All humans -- seemingly even Christ himself, to some extent -- have a veil drawn over them at birth.