Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is merely a subjective opinion based upon the fact that he reminds us often that he is a bishop and that he does not respond to answers to his repeated questions.

So you state as fact that DBMormon continues to raise this issue not for the reasons advanced in the OP but to "advance [his] own disbelief in the church itself." and DBMormon has "a fundamanetal disbelief in the church."

When asked for a reference you say that its merely your subjective opinion because he does not respond to answers to his repeated questions (and mentions that he is a bishop). Maybe I'm just new here, but I hope that doesn't pass for sound judgement in these parts.

[Chaos]

The next guy who continues to talk about the poster who put up the thread instead of the post will be removed without warning.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I will just point out that it is this kind stuff that is really off putting. You don't like the apologetic answers? Your not responding? You must have a fundamental disbelief in the church. Or maybe you don't believe in the historicity of the BOM (from the MI thread). Wow. Just. Wow.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Sorry. Didn't see the warning.

[Walden]

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.

Interesting thread, and your answer regarding "Joseph as a lost item founder" pretty much covers why I do not find apologetics to be particulalry useful when attempting to discern truth. Apologetic arguments often require additional, though unnecessary, speculation and presumption to make it plausible within the LDS worldview.

Most of the apologetics explanations that I have studied for any number of the items in your list generally utilize circular logic, flat out denial, and/or any number of unfounded and unnecessary presumptions (that fly in the face of Occams Razor), when it comes to providing an answer to any of these somewhat troubling issues that you list. Whether it be the Kinderhook plates, Joseph's treasure digging, polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith, etc., I have yet to find an apologetic response that doesn't utilize conjecture, presumption, and a whole lot of "maybe's" and "what if's" to explain something that is quite self-explanatory at face value (such as the Kinderhook plates).

[Ahab]

I will just point out that it is this kind stuff that is really off putting. You don't like the apologetic answers? Your not responding? You must have a fundamental disbelief in the church. Or maybe you don't believe in the historicity of the BOM (from the MI thread). Wow. Just. Wow.

Try reading what he wrote about why he started this thread. The point here is to give some reasons why for some people the answers aren't or don't seem good enough. Giving the answers won't answer that question. Just give the reasons why the answers aren't good enough. Make a list of the reasons, if you think that might help, and be as explicit as you can be in helping to answer the question.

Obviously there are some people who don't believe it the historicity of the BOM.

Obviously not everyone is a member.

Obviously everyone isn't satisified with the apologetic answers.

What else do you think may be missing? What reasons can you give for the disconnect, and what is the solution?

I find it amazing that you still don't seem to get the point of this thread. I mean, Wow. Just. Wow.

[Ahab]

I have yet to find an apologetic response that doesn't utilize conjecture, presumption, and a whole lot of "maybe's" and "what if's" to explain something that is quite self-explanatory at face value (such as the Kinderhook plates).

To me you're basically admitting that you have yet to receive an answer from God to resolve the issue(s).

Once you get that, and you know you've got it, all of the doubts will fade away and you'll know you know the truth on the issue(s).

[Bob Crockett]

I have done my best to give the benefit of the doubt to the premises behind the opening post.

I continue to support apologetics. It fills an important role and Dr. Peterson is the current champion of it. It is valued. It helps me and has helped many others I can document.

Does it off-put some? Maybe. I recall the story in the NT where Jesus lost most of his followers when he started a discussion about taking his flesh and blood.

Does it answer everything? In my opinion, it does a very decent job of answering everything, but it also depends upon the apologist. There are some on this board who shouldn't be attempting to write in English, much less attempt apologetics.

[Ahab]

There are some on this board who shouldn't be attempting to write in English, much less attempt apologetics.

Heh, don't be so critical. We all usually get better at whatever we try to do, with more practice.

Practice, practice, practice.

... and feel free to use the Edit feature liberally when you put your foot in your mouth.

Now can you tell me and the rest of us why you think for some people the apologetic answers aren't consider to be good enough, for those people? Can you think of anything else that may be missing when giving an answer from an apologetic?

Do you consider God to be an aplogetic, or would you classify him in another class altogether?

Edited February 13, 2013 by Ahab

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Try reading what he wrote about why he started this thread. The point here is to give some reasons why for some people the answers aren't or don't seem good enough. Giving the answers won't answer that question. Just give the reasons why the answers aren't good enough. Make a list of the reasons, if you think that might help, and be as explicit as you can be in helping to answer the question.

Obviously there are some people who don't believe it the historicity of the BOM.

Obviously not everyone is a member.

Obviously everyone isn't satisified with the apologetic answers.

What else do you think may be missing? What reasons can you give for the disconnect, and what is the solution?

I find it amazing that you still don't seem to get the point of this thread. I mean, Wow. Just. Wow.

I think you misunderstood my post - no doubt due to my poor communication skills. I do understand what DBMormon was asking and responded (back on page 2 I think). I'd elaborate further, but I think the mods have warned against that particular derail. Sorry.

[Ahab]

I think you misunderstood my post - no doubt due to my poor communication skills. I do understand what DBMormon was asking and responded (back on page 2 I think). I'd elaborate further, but I think the mods have warned against that particular derail. Sorry.

Thanks. I'll look for that and respond from there if I think I have anything useful to share.

[Ahab]

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.

That's not the only option, and I've found what I believe is a better one which didn't involve discarding anything a prophet has said or thinking things didn't make sense anymore. In fact, I can't think of anything a prophet of God has ever said that I've ever tossed out as not true, and instead I have seen how it is true from a certain perspective. A perspective I refer to as God's perspective.

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.

There you have it, and you have understood it correctly. Now watch what happens.

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.

It's your mistaken idea that the Church has no official position on evolution. The issue has been addressed from many angles and it couldn't be more clear that it now is that the Church teaches that evolution never happened, as you just admitted. Now where do you go from here? To the idea that they are mistaken. Bad move, bro. Think about it some more until you see what should be discarded. And here's a clue: It's not the teachings of the Lord's prophets.

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.

A prophet is always a prophet, but a man who at one time spoke as a prophet isn't always a man who is speaking as a prophet.

Does that help to clear it up for you? Do you know what a prophet is? Now just understand that a prophet is always a prophet.

... and the prophets have told us, repeatedly, practically ad infinitum, how we can find out what is true.

[Walden]

To me you're basically admitting that you have yet to receive an answer from God to resolve the issue(s).

Once you get that, and you know you've got it, all of the doubts will fade away and you'll know you know the truth on the issue(s).

This is what I mean by circular logic.....want to know if God is true, well, then just ask God.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Walden

[Ahab]

This is what I mean by circular logic.....what to know if God is true, well, then just ask God.

To get to know anybody you have to get to know them. You shouldn't just be taking someone else's word that they exist.

So, yeah, if you want to know if some person named Mike exists, get to know who Mike is and hear what he says and what he has said and will say.

If you want to know Steve, get to know Steve.

If you want to know me, get to know me.

And if you want to know some person who I refer to as "God", then get to know who I am referring to as God and hear what he says and what he has said and what he will say.

You can call it circular logic or whatever else you want to call it, but to know anyone you have to get to know them.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Ahab

[TomHagen]

Interesting thread, and your answer regarding "Joseph as a lost item founder" pretty much covers why I do not find apologetics to be particulalry useful when attempting to discern truth. Apologetic arguments often require additional, though unnecessary, speculation and presumption to make it plausible within the LDS worldview.

Most of the apologetics explanations that I have studied for any number of the items in your list generally utilize circular logic, flat out denial, and/or any number of unfounded and unnecessary presumptions (that fly in the face of Occams Razor), when it comes to providing an answer to any of these somewhat troubling issues that you list. Whether it be the Kinderhook plates, Joseph's treasure digging, polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith, etc., I have yet to find an apologetic response that doesn't utilize conjecture, presumption, and a whole lot of "maybe's" and "what if's" to explain something that is quite self-explanatory at face value (such as the Kinderhook plates).

I'm in the same boat, Walden. For myself, belief shouldn't be a never-ending game of intellectual "Twister" to try to make the facts seemingly conform to a predetermined belief system. Mormon apologetics, at its core, is a discipline of dismissal. Dismiss the facts that we have in favor of an obscure, arcane reference that, if interpreted first in this way, then turned around that way, kinda-sorta looks like it supports your theory. Dismiss the plain, obvious conclusion in exchange for a convoluted one founded in an incomplete thought experiment.

I'm all for a suspension of disbelief in spiritual practices. However, that is a very hard thing to do in a church where the unpleasant facts keep getting in the way of a very lofty, very concrete narrative of its origins and claims to direct divine guidance and structure.

The LDS gospel claims to be pure and simple truth. Apologetics turn it into a doctorate level course of achaeo-philosophical psychobabble that flies in the face of unpleasant plain and simple facts.

[TomHagen]

To get to know anybody you have to get to know them. You shouldn't just be taking someone else's word that they exist.

So, yeah, if you want to know if some person named Mike exists, get to know who Mike is and hear what he says and what he has said and will say.

If you want to know Steve, get to know Steve.

If you want to know me, get to know me.

And if you want to know some person who I refer to as "God", then get to know who I am referring to as God and hear what he says and what he has said and what he will say.

You can call it circular logic or whatever else you want to call it, but to know anyone you have to get to know them.

The problem I see is that apologetics doesn't turn to the spiritual confirmation of the otherwise confounding; it tries to shoehorn the facts into a pre-determined religious belief system and prove the truth of that system, while disproving the critics. If one wishes to resort only to faith and the "Spirit," then say so. Don't insist against the evidence that the Sensen papyrii really are the Book of Abraham, or that "sheum" proves the historicity of the Book of Mormon when a whole bunch of scientific evidence suggests that it is less than what it claims to be. Intellectual honesty, please.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That's not the only option, and I've found what I believe is a better one which didn't involve discarding anything a prophet has said or thinking things didn't make sense anymore. In fact, I can't think of anything a prophet of God has ever said that I've ever tossed out as not true, and instead I have seen how it is true from a certain perspective. A perspective I refer to as God's perspective.

There you have it, and you have understood it correctly. Now watch what happens.

It's your mistaken idea that the Church has no official position on evolution. The issue has been addressed from many angles and it couldn't be more clear that it now is that the Church teaches that evolution never happened, as you just admitted. Now where do you go from here? To the idea that they are mistaken. Bad move, bro. Think about it some more until you see what should be discarded. And here's a clue: It's not the teachings of the Lord's prophets.

A prophet is always a prophet, but a man who at one time spoke as a prophet isn't always a man who is speaking as a prophet.

Does that help to clear it up for you? Do you know what a prophet is? Now just understand that a prophet is always a prophet.

... and the prophets have told us, repeatedly, practically ad infinitum, how we can find out what is true.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. It doesn't work for me, but it means a lot that you care enough to spend time putting it together. Just so you know I agree with you that the church has a defacto stance on evolution. I was referring to the apologetic assertion that it does not: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution/Official_stance

[Ahab]

The problem I see is that apologetics doesn't turn to the spiritual confirmation of the otherwise confounding; it tries to shoehorn the facts into a pre-determined religious belief system and prove the truth of that system, while disproving the critics. If one wishes to resort only to faith and the "Spirit," then say so. Don't insist against the evidence that the Sensen papyrii really are the Book of Abraham, or that "sheum" proves the historicity of the Book of Mormon when a whole bunch of scientific evidence suggests that it is less than what it claims to be. Intellectual honesty, please.

Apologetics is a term referring to giving reasons for believing. I agree that the reasons aren't necessarily enough to convince us of the truth on an issue, but they can help us to understand the issue(s) if the reasons come from the right people... like from God, who I would say does give us some reasons to believe. Not quite sure I'd want to lump God in with all the other apologists, though. But then again, maybe he is, and the best kind there is.

[Walden]

It's your mistaken idea that the Church has no official position on evolution. The issue has been addressed from many angles and it couldn't be more clear that it now is that the Church teaches that evolution never happened, as you just admitted. Now where do you go from here? To the idea that they are mistaken. Bad move, bro. Think about it some more until you see what should be discarded. And here's a clue: It's not the teachings of the Lord's prophets.

Here is another example of why many skeptics have difficulty with apologist reasoning. As Ahab states, the LDS church teaches that "evolution never happened," yet there is a mountain of scientific observation that provides evidence for the theory of evolution. The basis of evolution, natural selection, has been observed in the numerous studies, most famously in the "peppered moth" studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). Likewise, the scientific evidence of the fossil records (which points to changes in early species), evidence for a "universal" genetic code, the geographic distribution of related species, and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations certainly point to the workings of evolution.

To refute evolution and accept creationism, one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence, but also make all kinds of speculative leaps of reason, such as the fossil record has been tampered with as part of satan's plan, etc, etc.

[Buzzard]

Some of us have little problem reconciling evolution with divine creation, or many other scientific vs. faith based issues. I would submit it is less of an apologetics issue and more of a philosophical one.

[DBMormon]

So, if you or anybody else is going to say that apologetics have failed, I'd want to see some proof. Instead, we have DBMormon continuing to raise the issue -- just like John Dehlin -- as a means to advance their own disbelief in the Church itself, rather than in apologetics. [i say that because in both of their cases, explanations are provided them, but they don't acknowledge them or pay attention to them; in Dehlin's case, during his interviews, he just rabbits off to the next topic of disbelief rather than acknowledging -- hey, that's pretty reasonable to learn that Joseph Smith's own official scribe did not note in his journal that Joseph Smith ever had any interest in translating the Kinderhook plates.] DBMormon (he probably does it unwittingly) and Dehlin (less unwittingly, it seems) have a fundamental disbelief in the church and seek to find solace in public rather than through priesthood lines.

Bob, where do I say I don't believe. My podcast is faithful! My dialogue on "new order mormon" is faithful! My dialogue on "staylds" is faithful! I participate in FAIR and am faithful there! My interview with Dehlin was faithful. My FAIR interview Was Faithful! Where do you get the ability to question my faith?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Bob, where do I say I don't believe. My podcast is faithful! My dialogue on "new order mormon" is faithful! My dialogue on "staylds" is faithful! I participate in FAIR and am faithful there! My interview with Dehlin was faithful. My FAIR interview Was Faithful! Where do you get the ability to question my faith?

I think Bob has left the forum:

[Alvino]

Some of us have little problem reconciling evolution with divine creation, or many other scientific vs. faith based issues. I would submit it is less of an apologetics issue and more of a philosophical one.

Apologetics uses philosophy, science, theology, history, and pretty much anything that's useful to defend the faith. If a problem is a philosophical problem it doesn't mean it isn't of interest or pivotal to apologetics.

[Ahab]

Here is another example of why many skeptics have difficulty with apologist reasoning. As Ahab states, the LDS church teaches that "evolution never happened," yet there is a mountain of scientific observation that provides evidence for the theory of evolution.

Only if you interpret the evidence to infer that, but there are other ways to interpret the evidence which make at least as much sense as the reasoning supporing the theory of evolution.

The basis of evolution, natural selection, has been observed in the numerous studies, most famously in the "peppered moth" studies (http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution). Likewise, the scientific evidence of the fossil records (which points to changes in early species), evidence for a "universal" genetic code, the geographic distribution of related species, and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations certainly point to the workings of evolution.

Consider the evidence, itself, apart from the theory of evolution. At that point you can then start thinking about the possibilities.

LDS don't assert this planet was made from scratch, but from elements which already existed, and while there are many kinds of life on this planet with each one similar to another one than some others, there is nothing to show that one kind of being became another kind of being. Micro-evolution, sure, to a point, but no macro-evolution. No evidence of that at all.

To refute evolution and accept creationism, one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence, but also make all kinds of speculative leaps of reason, such as the fossil record has been tampered with as part of satan's plan, etc, etc.

Life has always existed, and each kind of being reproduces itself however each kind of being does it. It makes sense that of all of the kinds of beings there are, some would be more like another one than some others. But there is nothing to show one kind of being became another kind of being. All we see are different kinds of beings. And that's all we ever will see. If they started to document all the kinds of life there are now there would never come a point when another kind of being became another kind of being. If you don't believe it, keep looking, because you'll stick around in some form forever and you'll never see the day when one kind of being will become another kind of being. Not in a billion years, or a trillion, or whatever. Each being is what it is.

[semlogo]

LDS don't assert this planet was made from scratch, but from elements which already existed, and while there are many kinds of life on this planet with each one similar to another one than some others, there is nothing to show that one kind of being became another kind of being. Micro-evolution, sure, to a point, but no macro-evolution. No evidence of that at all.

There is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution. Do you know what macro evolution is? Micro evolution plus time.

Do you reject the validity of DNA tests? The same science that demonstrates paternity also supports evolution.

Edited February 13, 2013 by semlogo