Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[Tacenda]

Here is a video put out by someone (he earned the 2012 Brodie Award for it, whatever that is) who showed that what fairlds.com's president, Scott Gordon presented (at the debate between him and John Dehlin at the UVU Campus last year), was misleading. He makes a pretty good point if true.

[Teancum]

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.

I was certainly not totally clear. I did not expect every point to be crystal clear. Nor do I expect perfections from a prophet or apostle. That would be hypocritical of me. But the Church I preached as a missionary was certainly not the Church that is all messy with all sorts of opinions being given as well as strong statements being made and then later back peddled from when a particular leader dies or what the leader said did not come to pass. The surrender on polygamy and Adam God stand out to me on these issues.

[juliann]

Here is a video put out by someone (he earned the 2012 Brodie Award for it, whatever that is) who showed that what fairlds.com's president, Scott Gordon presented (at the debate between him and John Dehlin at the UVU Campus last year), was misleading. He makes a pretty good point if true.

And why don't you give a link? Scott has explained this many times. Do you think you might have a responsibility to find out about it before promoting this unsourced attack?

Edited February 12, 2013 by juliann

[Wiki Wonka]

[media=]

Here is a video put out by someone (he earned the 2012 Brodie Award for it, whatever that is) who showed that what fairlds.com's president, Scott Gordon presented (at the debate between him and John Dehlin at the UVU Campus last year), was misleading. He makes a pretty good point if true.

Tacenda,

It wasn't a debate. Scott Gordon gave a presentation. John Dehlin gave a presentation.

The information that Scott included in his slide that was inaccurate was included at the last moment. The night before the presentation, Scott asked the FAIR list for some references having to do with the stone and the hat. We provided him with information that was taken out of the FAIR Wiki. This is how the info looked in the FAIR Wiki at the time. Notice that the title of the section (which I wrote) says "The stone and the hat," but not all of the references talk about the hat. It was just a heading that I used to collect those quotes, because some talked of the stone, some talked of the hat, and some talked of both. Somehow the reference to the stone was dropped in Scott's slide, so it implied that all of the references talked about the hat - they don't. It was a total accident on Scott's part. I'm the one that provided Scott with his references.

Yet, we see those who complain about "lying" apologists assembling cute YouTube videos targeted at proving that Scott is a liar.

One person on another message board, for whom I once had some respect, actually recently called Scott a "prick" because of this. There's a word that I have never directed at anyone online or off. I find the entire reaction to this disgusting. I am disgusted with people who jump on this as a means to "prove" that Scott is dishonest. Scott Gordon is an honest man, and he takes a lot of verbal abuse in some regions of the internet because of things like this.

The stone and the hat

The "hidden" fact: Joseph generally utilized a stone placed in his hat to translate

Where it can be found: The Friend, The Ensign, lds.org, and a book by Apostle Neal A. Maxwell

Joseph actually used a stone which he placed in a hat to translate a portion of the Book of Mormon in addition to or instead of the "Urim and Thummim." This fact was found hidden in the official Church magazines theEnsign and the Friend on the official Church website lds.org. See if you can determine when this fact became "hidden," and why it appeared in the children's magazine.

2005

In 2005, Opening the Heavens was published jointly by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and Deseret Book. As part of this book, at least twenty-nine references to the stone (often with the hat) are included, from both friendly and hostile sources:

• p. 112, 129, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 168, 178, 184, 185, 187, 192, 193, 196.
  

1997

Ensign

"Martin Harris related of the

seer stone

: 'Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin'"

—Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,”

Ensign

, Jan 1997, 36 (emphasis added)

off-site

1993

Ensign

"David Whitmer wrote: '

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light

; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.'"

—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,”

Ensign

, Jul 1993, 61. (emphasis added)

off-site

1988

Not My Will, But Thine

"Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the

light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon

. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."

—Neal A. Maxwell,

Not My Will, But Thine

(Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.

1987

Ensign

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a

seerstone

, study, and prayer.

After returning from a trip to Palmyra to settle his affairs, Martin began to transcribe. From April 12 to June 14, Joseph translated while Martin wrote, with only a curtain between them. On occasion they took breaks from the arduous task, sometimes going to the river and throwing stones.

Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge.

When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them." —Kenneth W. Godfrey, "

A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon

,"

Ensign

(Jan 1988).

1977

Ensign

"There he gave his most detailed view of 'the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated': “

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light.

"

—Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’,"

Ensign

(Sep 1977), 79, emphasis added.

off-site

1974

Friend

"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”

Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.

"

—“A Peaceful Heart,”

Friend

, Sep 1974, 7

off-site

[Sky]

On various discussion boards I have asked what are the main issues that are a barrier to your regaining faith in the LDS church. These would seemingly be issues where doubting members feel apologetics fails to provide a thorough answer. These boards do not allow a back and forth addressing of the issues so I thought I would bring that here.

I will list the issues and what I am hoping for is for those who see apologetics as not having a good answer I would love to know specifically why you see these issues as being a problem with the current answers we have. While deeply familiar with the issues and knowing on a surface level why they are a problem, I struggle to see why in most cases the faithful perspective doesn't fit for many.

the issues named ( I have not named them and so I am limited in being able to say what is meant in each case, which is why I am hoping those here who see these things in the same light may help

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

2. Official claim that Adam was literally the first man

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

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

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

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

7. Institute manual defends alleged genocide by Moses

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

9. Polygamy + prophets will never lead the Church astray

10. Book of Abraham translation discrepancies

11. Joseph Smith's comments about Moon Quakers

12. Joseph Smith married women still married to other men

13. Joseph Smith was convicted of "money digging"

14. Zelph

15. The Kirtland bank failure

16. The Kinderhook plates

17. The Greek Psalter incident

18. Nancy Rigdon

19. Fanny Alger

20. Account of Joseph Smith bragging about being a "profitable prophet" better than Mohammed

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

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

23. Brigham Young: "Adam is God"

24. Brigham Young: "Death on the spot"

25. Blood atonement

26. The Mountain Meadows Massacre and aftermath

24. Similarity between temple ordinances and Masonic rites

25. Brigham Young used chewing tobacco

26. Joseph Fielding Smith's claim that men would never go to the Moon

27. Claim that sexual sins are next to murder

28. Spencer W. Kimball's claim that masturbation leads to homosexuality

29. Church leaders duped by Mark Hoffman regarding the Salamander Letter

30. Gordon B. Hinckley interviews make revelation sound the same as average members praying

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

32. Fourteen fundamentals reiterated by 2 different speakers in recent conference

33. Cult-like warning sign: Extremely zealous and unquestioning commitment to leaders

34. Cult-like warning sign: Strong emphasis on us-versus-them mentality and special status of the group

35. Cult-like warning sign: Strong use of peer pressure, guilt, and shame to control behavior

36. Church's direct involvement in Prop. 8

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

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

39. It looks like Native Americans principal ancestors came to America from Asia through the Bering Strait 12,000 years ago rather than from Jerusalem about 600 BC

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.

41. The current WoW interpretation looks like the revelation that never really happened

42. Using feelings as a source of truth/knowledge.

43. too much "humanness" and not enough unquestionable divine guidance.

44 church leaders conflicting statements and policies on SSA/gay marriage

45. Political coercion of members

46. Sexism/ Unhealthy attitude towards sexuality

46. statements on polygamy now and into eternity

47. Shopping malls, financial speculation

48. The only true and living church.

49. Financial transparency.

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

51. Suppression and stigmatization of intellectuals in the 80's and 90's

52. Church leaders need never/rarely publically confess or repent of offensive comments or teachings

53. The church being led by revelation yet always being reactive to issues

54. Cultural norms that are treated as doctrine. ex: in countries where drums solely are used for religious practice God says all members everywhere must use the piano or organ for music. An attempt to make the church everywhere fit the American version

55. Reformed Egyptian

As I look over the list I get why these are troubling. A few bother me. But I feel like there are good answers to most. For example : Kinderhook plates. After listening to Don Bradley's presentation, I think it could be argued the Kinderhook plates as evidence of the restoration, not against it.

Why do apologetics fail with these issues?

Don't attack the whole list... just pick one or one of your own and describe why apologetics fails to provide a reasonable explanation where one must perform mental gymnastics to make the apologetic answer work?

Well, that's quite a list you've got there. Apologetics attempts to give reasonable, educated answers where it can. But it doesn't necessarily have the answers for everything. Some answers may be considered genius to one person, but another person may find that very same answer seriously lacking. Nobody can prove that the Church is true with absolute, concrete certainty. In the end, it will always be a matter of faith. Obviously people who have lost faith will have a hard time with this.

For all of Mormonism's supposed shortfalls or failings, it has done a great job in helping me and many others to find and maintain faith in Christ, and yes, through the Book of Mormon. And I wouldn't trade that for anything.

Elder Neil L. Anderson's most recent General Conference talk hit home for me.

Trial of Your Faith

Edited February 12, 2013 by Sky

[juliann]

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.

I actually don't see how anyone can survive any religion without allowing leaders to make mistakes. I grew up with the same thinking you mention....but I was relieved when I was able to rework it. That is when it all came alive to me and I actually felt like I was a part of my own religion, acting instead of being acted upon. I see it as liberation and adventure, a bird leaving the nest as it should. Maybe that is why it is so difficult to come to any agreement on the details when the worldview is so radically different.

[Flyonthewall]

The issues in the OP, are only as big as the individual wants to make them.

I would think that apologetics fails for those that create stumbling blocks out of these issues because there are no concrete answers provided, only possibilities or reasonable explainations.

That leaves gaps in their faith, which is allowed to erode away at their foundations of belief...

my .02 anyways.

[Calm]

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.”

Brian, a revelation would be included in the revealed doctrine condition so I doubt the author would suggest discarding actual revelations.

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.

by constructive, I assume you mean evidence for something is presented rather than evidence against an attack, thus dismissing the criticism as lacking credibility. Is this correct?

If so, it seems when we are talking about historical events, if they didn't actually happen the only way to address them would be in a "destructive" manner. Do you disagree?

[Tacenda]

Wiki Wonka, I hesitated putting this video up. I saw it in NOM a short time ago and thought it applied here and think it's good that you can say what happened behind the scenes too. Two sides to the story I guess.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Wiki Wonka, I hesitated putting this video up. I saw it in NOM a short time ago and thought it applied here and think it's good that you can say what happened behind the scenes too. Two sides to the story I guess.

Two sides to the story implies that both are more or less correct and it is simply a matter of perception. In this case it is about having the correct info which is given by only one side.

[DBMormon]

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 am trying to tackle why those who struggle find no peace in the answers offered. Why is it that some are given answers and they fit and make the questions go away while others get the same answer and they see it as mental gymnastics. Since I grasp the answers and am comfortable with them I was hoping those who have serious doubts might sincerely help me to better understand why they see the answers as insuffcient. For the record, I exited my faith crisis over 6 months ago. Yet in a apologetic discussion board I am criticized for discussing apologetic issues... weird

I am not struggling with any of these, the point was to see why others do. But instead of the thread working along the framework I laid out, it gets derailed by those who have no interest in actually answering the question

[DBMormon]

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.

What do you mean???????

[Daniel Peterson]

the Church I preached as a missionary was certainly not the Church that is all messy with all sorts of opinions being given as well as strong statements being made and then later back peddled from when a particular leader dies or what the leader said did not come to pass. The surrender on polygamy and Adam God stand out to me on these issues.

That's not the Church that I preached, either. And, in my view, that's not the Church that I belong to.

There's no accounting for such differences, I suppose. But, for you, the discontinuities certainly stand out far more than they do for me. And, for me, it seems that the continuities and strengths count far more strongly than they do for you. This is one of those human things that, genuinely, continue to intrigue and puzzle me.

[DBMormon]

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.

Bob, once again your off base. Not struggling Bob but thanks for asking, Just want to hear from those who care to help me understand why apologetics doesn't work in their mind. Unlike what many here said, my podcast has taken off. Some episodes have 300 to 800 listens to them. I have gotten emails from Bishops, Stake Presidency members, Mission Presidents, and multiple members who have thanked me for what I am doing. The next thing I want to tackle is to take some of the issues. and in layman's terms explain the issue, what the faithful answer is, why the answer doesn't solve the problem for some and examine why that is.

But for some reason some here would prefer to set up road blocks to keep the thread from serving it's purpose. I am hopeful further comments will revolve around explaining why apologetic answers are not helpful to specific issues and why rather then what has occurred so far, which has been nothing short of a wedding crasher.

By the way check out the podcast that some said would die after a dozen or so episodes.....

mormondiscussion.podbean.com

[DBMormon]

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.

Thank you Alvino for actually contributing to the thread. I appreciate your input. What if Joseph was found to be a lost item finder in the town and the "treasure digging" for Josiah stowell was an exception because Stowell heard of Joseph ability to help people find their lost items. The evidence can be interpreted just as easily this way. Brant Gardner seems to suggest this.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, given the support of bishops, stake presidents and mission presidents, I obviously must be wrong for claiming that your posts are disingenuous.

Apologia is not the church. No reason to get one's nose out of joint because it doesn't satisfy one's questioning.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

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.

I agree, I gave you a point. So take away the church teaching the gospel in a naive black and white way and only looking to the answers of the top issues, would the Church teaching a higher level understanding at least prior to leaving the YW/YM program allow the apologetic answers to work for you?

[DBMormon]

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

It may not be FAIR, it could be here by the "amateur apologists" who do not represent FAIR or FAIR's way of dealing with questions

[DBMormon]

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

Glen thank you for yor serious response. I do think that at least in some instances there are bad apologetics - ex: an older response I heard years ago was that Masonry goes back to the Temple of Solomon. Most would disagree with that today and thank goodness there are better answers today for that issue, but that was bad apologetics. I am sure there are some issues today that those in doubt see as falling short but also do not need absolute perfect answers.

[DBMormon]

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?

Thank you for your kind words you started with. I don't won't the thread to turn into what is a good answer for issue XYZ but rather why the answers for Issues XYZ do not work for many.

Let's just do 5 then/ I used Dehlin's top issues from his survey. Why do apologetic answers not work here on these 5

Book of Abraham

Polygamy/Polyandry

Blacks and the Priesthood

DNA and the Book of Mormon

Masonic influences in the temple ceremony

[DBMormon]

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.

It seems you point is the church is on one hand led by revelation and yet is always reactionary to it big moments

Blacks and Priesthood

Polygamy

Renouncing BY's teachings when people are not accepting the this odd theory

renouncing Elder McConkie and others when their views butt heads with leading scientific opinions

giving up on or at least leaving room for other options when a real global flood or a real adam and eve are troublesome

I would say you see the church reacting in how a non divine institution would react and are struggling to see the arm of God in the church... Is that accurate? Is that at the heart of what you see as troublesome. That the church ran by God would be more proactive and less reactive?

[DBMormon]

I was certainly not totally clear. I did not expect every point to be crystal clear. Nor do I expect perfections from a prophet or apostle. That would be hypocritical of me. But the Church I preached as a missionary was certainly not the Church that is all messy with all sorts of opinions being given as well as strong statements being made and then later back peddled from when a particular leader dies or what the leader said did not come to pass. The surrender on polygamy and Adam God stand out to me on these issues.

Again is appears the two main issues so far is seeing the church as reactive rather then proactive and also the betrayal that one feels when they learned one version of the church versus the complicated and nuanced history that actually exists. Would that be accurate

[DBMormon]

Well, that's quite a list you've got there. Apologetics attempts to give reasonable, educated answers where it can. But it doesn't necessarily have the answers for everything. Some answers may be considered genius to one person, but another person may find that very same answer seriously lacking. Nobody can prove that the Church is true with absolute, concrete certainty. In the end, it will always be a matter of faith. Obviously people who have lost faith will have a hard time with this.

For all of Mormonism's supposed shortfalls or failings, it has done a great job in helping me and many others to find and maintain faith in Christ, and yes, through the Book of Mormon. And I wouldn't trade that for anything.

Elder Neil L. Anderson's most recent General Conference talk hit home for me.

Trial of Your Faith

I agree with what you say and also loved that talk.

[DBMormon]

Well, given the support of bishops, stake presidents and mission presidents, I obviously must be wrong for claiming that your posts are disingenuous.

Apologia is not the church. No reason to get one's nose out of joint because it doesn't satisfy one's questioning.

For those leaving the church over their doubts, more then their nose is out of joint. Rather then make this thread personal against me how about some folks allow those who see apologetics as falling short to be able to speak and keep the thread on target.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, I don't understand your last post.

But most of your opening posts raise the same point. Apologetics fails and fails big. It's like saying that some clouds in the sky are disappointingly ugly. Or, the books in your library fail to tell you how to start your car.

Your thread title is "Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?" Perhaps a better question might be "Why Can't I Win Powerball?" Or, "Why Do I have to Live in Ohio?" All sorts of vague and broad questions equally cogent here.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett