Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[DBMormon]

Yes I think that is a fair summery at least on these issues. And this in addition. I always hear follow the brethren and they won't lead you astray. And then if they do lead you wrong and you still follow you will be blessed. Well that sends off all sorts of alarms in my head. Yet I tried to live my life this way. Yet as noted they do seem to get a lot wrong and this often is an aplogetic tact.

Well Ok. As noted I don't expect them to get it right. But take Brigham for example because he said so much we just toss under the bus. When he spoke in his capacity is Church president to the Saints I expect it to be more than just his opinion. His hearers heard him preach Adam God and other teachings we think were just opinion. They believed what he said. Their journals reflect it. If Brigham was wrong and he taught someont to worship a false God what is the result? If he was right then what since we reject Adam God and other odd things he taught. Sure Prophets can have opinions. But as JS said when they are acting as a prophet then we should expect them to be such.

And what of ETBs 14 points talk? If a President of the 12 gives a talk to BYU should he not get things right? If it was his opinion and wrong why didn't the Church correct it. Same reason they let McConkie's book stand with errors. They do not want to make the leader look bad.

So to Julianne, yes I can see why you would like the fact the leaders seem more fallible and human. I like it too. But I don't like it that they teach us to follow their words as if they are less fallible than historically they seem to be.

Last of all let’s apply the above to the priesthood ban. There are all sort of defenses on this as well as a back peddling from all the things said to justify it. I find the we do not know why defense week. It would seem that something so significant God would speak to his Prophet about. Brigham did not mince his words. Were his hideous comments his opinions? Why would God let such a thing stand? Was it due to his culture? Why couldn’t God slap him upside the head? Was it because the Church was not ready for this due to culture? Well that seems odd. If God could send an angel with a sword to command JS to do polygamy which was certainly outside the culture they lived in at the time why wouldn’t God tell them to not be racist about their black brothers and sisters? So yes the Church seems reactive on this and many issues.

I agree it is very easy to see things this way and to have one's expectations much higher. I would only add that the new testament has similar issues in it with leaders making mistakes and that unfortunately more history is available on our church then any other dispensation, so it is easy to be overwhelmed by human weakness in this dispensation

[Ahab]

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

If you really believe that keep watching as you travel through time and you'll see a time when one kind of being becomes another kind of being. I already know you'll never see that, but that won't stop you from looking.

Do you reject the validity of DNA tests?

No, I know they can show certain characterisitcs about each kind of being.

The same science that demonstrates paternity also supports evolution.

No it doesn't. It just shows the kind of being that produced the offspring, and each and every time it is the same kind.

[DBMormon]

You seem to have been on both sides of the issue, where you had doubts even when you had the answers presented to you and then later you exited your faith crisis (because you found the answers sufficient?). Or do I not correctly understand what you meant.

The answer to me appears obvious. It's a matter of knowing who to listen to, or to trust. An answer can be reasonable but you could still not know it is true, even when someone is using the reason to try to show you that in fact it is true. But why should you believe them? What makes the reason they offer the reason that not only makes sense to you, but also lets you know it is true?

What works for me is thinking about the things in my mind, from wherever I get the ideas I have to work with, and then asking God for his assurance and for wisdom to see what is true. And until he does, I'm just continuing to think of the possibilities, until at some point he answers. That's what works for me, when it happens. God answering me. At that point all my doubts go away on that issue that I get his assurance and understanding about, and then I'm off to think about some other things. And then the process continiues. It takes some time to move from each step, usually, but sometimes I go from one point to another and make what to me is amazing progress.

Anyway, I think that's a pretty good explanation of the problem and a description for how to fix it. I could whittle it down some more for you if that seems to wordy, but if you understood what I'm saying you could probably do that yourself, in your own words, to help someone else understand it.

It's not really anything all that much out of the ordinary, I think. People do that pretty much all the time, even without realizing it. Some people just don't understand that God is the one who gives them their good ideas, or give God the credit, but that's stil lhow they're finding out what is true. Otherwise they're just guessing or assuming or hoping that their thoughts are true while still having a tinge of doubt in their ideas. When anyone really "knows" something si true, though, it's because God has helped them to know it.

My issue was never the answers. I had those all along. At times in my life when I had faith crisis of varying severity it was founded upon a lack of the questions. I had heard the answers, but no one in church was discussing the questions. I have always found my struggle based on (it has since been resolved so I add these were my feelings at the time and not based in fact as I see it) why did the church not trust me enough to tell me Joseph was a scryer, tell me about polyandry, seer stones, and issues with the BOA. Now I realize they touch one dot in any ensign every ten years but never really share the whole issue.

I have since come to better understand the why, which has resolved the feelings of betrayal. I also see a huge effort to be better.

If any want my answers, PM me as it is better discussed off this thread.

[DBMormon]

Yes. He is currently serving as Bishop (at least as of a few months ago). Hence my concern that people are accusing him of a fundamental disbelief in the church.

Still am. I also acknowledge that several in higher offices are aware of my journey.

[Ahab]

My issue was never the answers. I had those all along. At times in my life when I had faith crisis of varying severity it was founded upon a lack of the questions. I had heard the answers, but no one in church was discussing the questions. I have always found my struggle based on (it has since been resolved so I add these were my feelings at the time and not based in fact as I see it) why did the church not trust me enough to tell me Joseph was a scryer, tell me about polyandry, seer stones, and issues with the BOA. Now I realize they touch one dot in any ensign every ten years but never really share the whole issue.

I have since come to better understand the why, which has resolved the feelings of betrayal. I also see a huge effort to be better.

If any want my answers, PM me as it is better discussed off this thread.

The more you don't know the more you can ask your own questions, and you can even ask them for others once you do know. You still need some way to know when the answers are true, though. The answers don't always agree with what people think they are or should be.

[DBMormon]

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).

And yet for some reason, Joseph discontinued the translation of the kinderhook plates after just one sentence. Again we all see things differently, I see Bradley's explanation much more reasonable then what the critics claim.

Every life is going to have incongruities. Yet when we lose faith it seems much more revolved around expectations. The question may be if our expectations are realistic?

[Calm]

The purpose of this thread and others is to address the difference in people's responses to answers as well as to find out how to best present the answers when problems arise. The answers themselves are not so much the issue as the context in which they are presented because of the psychological process of doubt and how this affects that process. There is another quality or qualities in the mix and we need to not only identify them, but find some way to control them in order to maximize the benefits that having the answers can give.

add-on: sorry if this is a violation of the personal analysis, but I am intending to observe what the purpose of his approach is, not his motivations.

Edited February 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

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.

Do you see the same problem with the evidence of the church. In other words the weight of the argument against the church prevents you from giving the church a chance. What are your perceptions of the evidence in favor of it?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/01/mounting-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/11/best-evidence-for-book-of-mormon.html

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences

I did not read all the links above, and I assume at least some of what they contain as grabbing at straws but some is good - nahom, chiasmus, olive culture, ect... I also think if one picks out one authorship theory that Joseph made it up (sidney rigdon wrote it, joseph wrote it borrowing from the entire palmyra library, joseph wrote it in a fit of epilepsy, ect...) and sticks with it, it is hard to make the evidence work in your favor as well. That in essence it is also very difficult to explain away the Book of Mormon and how we got it. either way, you have to go down the rabbit hole

[DBMormon]

I think Bob has left the forum:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209223775

It seems as though a softer dialogue is encouraged and that is difficult at times. I wish him well. His link to his very informative blog isn't there anymore either.

[DBMormon]

If you really believe that keep watching as you travel through time and you'll see a time when one kind of being becomes another kind of being. I already know you'll never see that, but that won't stop you from looking.

how about if it in theory worked like this... each generation is a line

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAADAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAaAAAACAAADaAAAAAA

BAAAAcAAAAaAAAACAAADaAAAAAA

BxAAAcAAAAaAAAACAAADaRAAAAA

I think you get the point..... so no, one generation to another will not produce a new creature but could Generation 1 and generation 10, 000 be a completely different species from each other? I see plenty of room for that

Edited February 13, 2013 by DBMormon

[ALarson]

And yet for some reason, Joseph discontinued the translation of the kinderhook plates after just one sentence. Again we all see things differently,

But what you state above does not include all that was written about this. Here are Joseph's own words (recorded by his secretary, William Clayton in his journal):

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, . . .

I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.

And:

Just a month before Joseph's death it was reported that he was 'busy in translating them. The new work . . . will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon. . . ' (Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844). The fact that Joseph Smith was actually preparing to print a translation of the plates is verified by a broadside published by the LDS newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, in June 1843. On this broadside, containing facsimiles of the plates, we find the following:

The contents of the Plates, together with a Fac-Simile of the same, will be published in the 'Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed.

Sounds like it was his own death that stopped Joseph from completing the translation.

[DBMormon]

The purpose of this thread and others is to address the difference in people's responses to answers as well as to find out how to best present the answers when problems arise. The answers themselves are not so much the issue as the context in which they are presented because of the psychological process of doubt and how this affects that process. There is another quality or qualities in the mix and we need to not only identify them, but find some way to control them in order to maximize the benefits that having the answers can give.

add-on: sorry if this is a violation of the personal analysis, but I am intending to observe what the purpose of his approach is, not his motivations.

I think you have stated something about personal ways we all process information without making it personal.

[Sethbag]

I agree that all, or most of that original list are things that provide evidence supporting the idea that the LDS church is just one more manmade church in the history of this world, and not "true" in the sense that LDS members have in mind when they bear testimony of it.

The thing that ultimately sinks it all, to me, is the LDS "Holy Ghost"-based epistemology. That is, listening to "the Spirit" as a supposed way of coming to know that things we believe, or want to believe, really are true. There's simply no good reason why anyone should believe this. Once this domino falls, everything else pretty much sorts itself out over time.

There's no good evidence that LDS Prophets, Seers, and Revelators ever actually speak to a God, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost, or indeed any supernatural being.

There's good evidence that the authors of all scripture, whether specifically Mormon or otherwise, were just men writing down their own ideas and opinions, or their own slant on ideas and opinions they inherited from others before them, and that there's nothing supernatural or divine about any of their utterances, and certainly no good reason for anyone to conclude that these writings should constitute the authoritative basis for someone's life decisions.

I think the reasons the apologetics fail to resolve any of these things to my (or many others') satisfaction are varied, depending on the particular claim, but include obvious special pleading and a host of other problems. One big problem is that the interpretation that some apologists think gets the church out of a given jam eviscerate past church teaching and doctrines on a given matter. Sometimes it's even current church teachings that must be shredded in order to get out of that jam. My response is: if you're going to throw out the beliefs Joseph Smith incorporated into his "restored" church, what's the point? If what he said isn't actually true, then the church wasn't true as he created it, and it doesn't become true simply because you've decided to believe otherwise.

A good case in point is the global flood, and related ideas like Adam as first member of homo sapiens living in the Garden of Eden just a few thousand years ago. These things were, and still are, taught as literally true by the Lord's Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Many apologists know that these things have been blown out of the water by discoveries made about the world since the doctrines were first taught, and so they come up with things like "local flood" and Hugh Nibley's crapucornia of nonsense about Adam's forebears simply being invisible to scripture because they "aren't our people" and so they just don't matter.

Bruce R. McConkie may have been dead wrong about stuff like organic evolution, but at least he held his beliefs because he took LDS scripture seriously, and came to his conclusions based on what ramifications he could foresee on the contents of scripture if evolution were true. The apologists often act like they don't scripture seriously at all, being willing to twist it, turn it, reinterpret it, redefine its words, etc. as necessary in order to resolve evidential claims that the scriptures are simply wrong about something.

If the apologists aren't willing to take the LDS scriptures seriously, then why should you? Why should anyone? If it can mean anything they need it to mean in order to avoid some conflict with reality, then it doesn't really mean anything. Not to mention, if some clever apologist out on the Internet somewhere is the only person able correctly to interpret a given scripture (in just such a way as to avoid some conflict that he or she has perceived between that scripture and evidence we have from the world), just how likely it is to you that God would have set it up this way? You really think Brother Schmoe on the Internet has got it all figured out, when President Doe hasn't got a clue? That's the way God set this thing up? Really?

[DBMormon]

Sounds like it was his own death that stopped Joseph from completing the translation.

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, . . .

I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.

Do we know how he translated the one sentence we have? seer stone, conventional methods, revelation with no object? we don't.

Also, the church doesn't know it was frauded till many many years later... why wasn't what translation we had released? as far as I know we have no evidence of any translation beyond the one sentence. Is it possible there was rumor that he was doing a complete translation from the warsaw paper? do we have any first hand evidence of a continued translation?

[ALarson]

Do we know how he translated the one sentence we have? seer stone, conventional methods, revelation with no object? we don't.

Also, the church doesn't know it was frauded till many many years later... why wasn't what translation we had released? as far as I know we have no evidence of any translation beyond the one sentence. Is it possible there was rumor that he was doing a complete translation from the warsaw paper? do we have any first hand evidence of a continued translation?

You just gave a perfect example of why apologetics fall short.

We have a statement MADE BY Joseph Smith and you still say, well....but..."is it possible"?

Which are people going to go with when doubting?

Edited February 14, 2013 by ALarson

[Calm]

Do we know how he translated the one sentence we have? seer stone, conventional methods, revelation with no object? we don't.

Also, the church doesn't know it was frauded till many many years later... why wasn't what translation we had released? as far as I know we have no evidence of any translation beyond the one sentence. Is it possible there was rumor that he was doing a complete translation from the warsaw paper? do we have any first hand evidence of a continued translation?

Have you read Don Bradley's treatment?

[Ahab]

The thing that ultimately sinks it all, to me, is the LDS "Holy Ghost"-based epistemology. That is, listening to "the Spirit" as a supposed way of coming to know that things we believe, or want to believe, really are true. There's simply no good reason why anyone should believe this. Once this domino falls, everything else pretty much sorts itself out over time.

But that domino, as you call it, will never fall. Someone may not believe God communicates to us through his Holy Spirit, for whatever reasons they don't believe that, but once they have heard from God through him there is no longer any doubt that he does. And then at that point it's just a matter of learning the things he will tell us, and has told us, while distinguishing the influences we get from other sources.

And we actually agree on a lot more than we disagree on... speaking of those who testify to have learned from God directly through the Holy Spirit. I think the differences mainly stem from not having enough experience in distinguishing the influence of Holy Spirit from the other influences we feel, but as we get better and better at discerning that difference things become clearer and clearer.

People like you actually bolster our position, Sethbag. You freely admit you don't recognize the influence of the Holy Spirit in your own life so it's no wonder why you don't know what you don't know. And then there are people who do claim to have heard from the Holy Spirit who don't agree with us who know what the Holy Spirit has taught us, simply showing us they're not adept at distinguishing the influence of the Spirit, either. And then there are those of us who have heard what we've heard from God, and we know whose influence that is.

We're on solid ground here. People like you just don't know what you are missing.

[omni]

But what you state above does not include all that was written about this. Here are Joseph's own words (recorded by his secretary, William Clayton in his journal):

And:

Sounds like it was his own death that stopped Joseph from completing the translation.

Ouch! Start shifting your cog dis into overdrive folks.

[omni]

Do we know how he translated the one sentence we have? seer stone, conventional methods, revelation with no object? we don't.

Also, the church doesn't know it was frauded till many many years later... why wasn't what translation we had released? as far as I know we have no evidence of any translation beyond the one sentence. Is it possible there was rumor that he was doing a complete translation from the warsaw paper? do we have any first hand evidence of a continued translation?

But then why did Joseph create the entire backstory of the "person with whom they were found"?

[DBMormon]

You just gave a perfect example of why apologetics fall short.

We have a statement MADE BY Joseph Smith and you still say, well....but..."is it possible"?

Which are people going to go with when doubting?

No, I agree he is translating, but by conventional means and not divine. He used his training in other languages and he thought he matched a hieroglyphic.... it very reasonably translates into the sentence we have from Joseph.

http://en.fairmormon...nderhook_Plates

Did Joseph Smith attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Don Bradley presented compelling evidence during his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation that Joseph Smith did indeed attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates. ^[1] Bradley noted that William Clayton's account is likely representing personal and specific knowledge acquired from Joseph Smith, since evidence indicates that he made his journal entries that day while he was at the Prophet's home. Clayton's account states that Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

Edited February 14, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Have you read Don Bradley's treatment?

I have and agree with his theory and see it as highly reasonable. translation was a conventional translation of one hieroglyphic he thought matched and when he couldn't go any further he stopped.

[DBMormon]

But then why did Joseph create the entire backstory of the "person with whom they were found"?

He didn't. there were at least two members and two nonmembers at the find. Joseph wasn't there. some witnesses and listeners to the story have obviously played the telephone game.

Edited February 14, 2013 by DBMormon

[omni]

d

He didn't. there were at least two members and two nonmembers at the find. Joseph wasn't there. some witnesses and listeners to the story have obviously played the telephone game.

Remember this was a faithful member of the church who wrote this. He had no axe to grind and had every reason to be accurate. I find it hard to believe that a detailed description such as the one Clayton gave could have been created from a game of telephone unless Joseph told at least some sort of origin story.

[DBMormon]

Which are people going to go with when doubting?

One thing I did that was able was to try and step outside of my emotion for a while. I wrote down the issues that I felt put the most difficulty on the restoration being real...from my perspective (everyone's issues will differ) and then read what positive I could find on each really trying to understand the faithful perspective. I asked if that was reasonable or a stretch.... I also looked at what I saw as evidences of the gospel... and asked myself do these hold any weight? After determining they were reasonable, the other side held weight..... it became easy to see a few things

for me

1.) both conclusions take some mental gymnastics in regards to a piece of the puzzle here or piece of the puzzle there.

2.) both conclusions had evidence

3.) facts are used to draw a conclusion but when you take some of the facts out and add other facts you can have a different conclusion. None of us have all the facts nor do we all have the same facts.

4.) in the end I decided for myself that if God was real, that he would not compel me to believe. That I was free to act and not be acted upon

5.) I saw smart people on both sides and different conclusions. Terryl Givens and Jan Shipps for example

6.) God if he is real and if the BOM is what it claims - has told us we are each different, that each of us has different gifts, that some shall know by the HG and others shall believe on their words. He gave us Moroni 10:3-5 and Alma 32 and the parable of the seed. He gave us Abraham who is blest for every good thing he does and Jesus who is scourged for his perfection beaten and crucified. God himself has set up way too many ways know him and not every way will work with anyone. so there is no litmus test for how to gain belief

7.) I still felt torn, and used what I interpreted as a divine experience to break the tie.

I am comfortable saying one can reasonably come to either conclusion holding more weight in their mind. I also see no ability in the church to increase one's chance at salvation (that mormons have better odds then God's other children at getting back to the father) but I do think the refiner's fire of mormonism may help me get there quicker, then I would without it.

Edited February 14, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, . . .

I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.

Was Joseph told they were found with a skeleton? if so why did he have reason to doubt that. then a character on the plates looks strangely familiar to a character he knows the translation of. I see that as very reasonable. I have no problem with his repeating what others had told him about how it was found nor his translating by conventional means rather then divine. I have no issue with this. Which is my point, very informed people on both sides feel they have reasonable conclusions. I see the restoration as a fraud as just as tricky to work through