Apologetics: Not In Vain

[BCSpace]

A friend of mine has a very close and beloved relative who used to be very active but is now in a state of apostasy.  Been that way for some years.  I recently found out that the relative with my friend had been to several bishops and stake presidents (their present and former) and had not got any answers to questions of the anti Mormon variety.  The friend, whose testimony is too strong to be shaken, had nevertheless despaired of getting answers to the questions being asked.

 

As an aside, while I wish more local leaders knew the answers or at least how to find the answers to these questions, I don't necessarily blame them for not knowing or not attempting.  It can take hours of research for the inexperienced and people in this state often don't listen to reason and also some don't like to "bash".  In addition, the numbers of people, in my experience, going inactive or leaving the Church for "anti Mormon" reasons is low.  Plus, the mission and callings of these leaders lead mostly to where the field is all ready to harvest.

 

Recently in a leadership training meeting with the GA's, the "Swedish Rescue" was briefly mentioned; or more accurately, the NY Times article.  The counsel given in context was simply to be, and that the Church will be, more present on the internet and other venues.  My friend and I were discussing it afterwards and that's when he mentioned his relative and the problems he was having.  I mentioned that apologetics was of great interest to me and that I had some experience in it.  A few days later, my friend came to me with a list of questions from his relative.

 

So I went to work.  Most of them I could answer easily and others took a little research.  Among the questions asked were BoM translation, plural marriage and "polyandry", the BoA, the destruction of the printing press, etc.

 

In a couple of hours, I felt really good about the answers and sent them.  Now to my knowledge, the relative has not yet seen the answers I gave and given my experience with the "hard cases", I think it unlikely my answers will have much immediate impact on this relative.  However, my friend said he and his wife experienced immediate relief and a feeling of peace they have not experienced in a long time after reading my response.

 

I am really tempted to post here the actual questions and my answers for your review and critique as I want to help others as well as become more polished and perfected in my answers.  I think my main flaw will be that I was too quick and missed some better quotes and references but even after reviewing it several times after sending it, I am still very confident.  However, the information revealed in the questions that were asked lead me to believe that perhaps this relative might lurk or post on this or other boards and I so want to keep things as private as possible for now.  If here, might this relative guess based merely on this post?  Perhaps.

 

However, at the very least, I want to thank you all for making this experience, which has already paid off, possible.  No matter what happens regarding the relative, at the very least some people have been given hope and have been strengthened.  The answers we have available to us always lay to rest anti Mormon criticism in the minds of the intellectually honest and embarrass and discomfit those who are not.  Sometimes our answers may not be the be all end all of some issues but they make it impossible for a "critic" to force a negative conclusion.

 

While I have some knowledge and expertise in this area, the fact of the matter is that I would not be as good at apologetics as I am without the rest of you and FAIR, FARMS, SHIELDS, and other organizations, as well as those of you who have written, published, or spoken in defense of the Church over the last 30 years and more in any venue.  Your work and research has provided other similar experiences for me and many others.

 

Kudos to you.

[cinepro]

I'd be curious what the best explanation of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press is.  Do you try and convince them it was legal and kosher, or that Joseph acted wrongly but we should accept it for cultural/contextual reasons?  Or that he royally screwed up but he was imperfect and so it shouldn't damage our faith.

[BCSpace]

I went with legal and kosher.

[foster]

What is a good explanation for the polyandary?

[foster]

I went with legal and kosher.

Did Elder Oaks even state destruction of the press itself was legal? Rather than just the papers?

[BCSpace]

What is a good explanation for the polyandary?

 

Lack of cohabitation.

 

I went with legal and kosher.

Did Elder Oaks even state destruction of the press itself was legal? Rather than just the papers?

 

I don't know.  But unless his references differ from mine, I don't think it matters.

 

Another way to look at it is if the destruction of the press disqualifies JS as a prophet...and I don't think it does even without the following...then we must necessarily disqualify Jesus as the Christ because he violently cleansed the temple of commerce, twice.

[foster]

Jesus cleansed His Fathers House, not really a comparison there. As for the polyandry, if Brian Hales is correct about the two children he claims were Josep's lack of cohabitation is meaningless.

[BCSpace]

Jesus cleansed His Fathers House, not really a comparison there.

 

 

Sure it is.  People didn't and don't believe in Jesus either.  If he had been any other person, he surely would have been apprehended on the spot.

 

 

As for the polyandry, if Brian Hales is correct about the two children he claims were Josep's lack of cohabitation is meaningless.

 

Not by a long shot.  Is Olive Frost one of the "polyandrous" cases?  In addition, Hales argues that Sylvia Lyon considered herself divorced from her first husband and therefore is not one of the "polyandrous" cases.

 

"Have you checked the children?" remains, and would still remain if Hales' hypothesis turns out to be the case, an excellent point to press on the whole plural marriage issue and seems to be enhanced by Brian Hales' own arguments.

 

While I am not saying JS never had sex with perhaps some of his wives, that JS was a womanizer, that he was some sort of "horn dog", etc. is not supported by the evidence.

 

All in all, it does not appear that JS was involved in any polyandrous marriages at all in any real sense.

Edited August 26, 2013 by BCSpace

[foster]

Sure it is.  People didn't and don't believe in Jesus either.  If he had been any other person, he surely would have been apprehended on the spot.

So because the followers of Joseph Smith did not immediately seize him after the destruction of the press, then that proves Joseph Smith is a Prophet? 

 

 

Not by a long shot.  Is Olive Frost one of the "polyandrous" cases?  In addition, Hales argues that Sylvia Lyon considered herself divorced from her first husband and therefore is not one of the "polyandrous" cases.

 

Next time I am accused of violating a rule or law, I will try the "I did not think I was" defense. Ignorance is no defense. Belief that one is doing right is not defense either.  

 

 

All in all, it does not appear that JS was involved in any polyandrous marriages at all in any real sense.

If it was not polyandry, why use the word?

[TAO]

I like your opening post on the thread.  You wrote it quite gently, which was great =D.

[TAO]

If it was not polyandry, why use the word?

 

Eh, you might wanna be careful this one, as it can kinda be construed to be begging the question in a way.  You'll just come to a conflict of definitions.

Edited August 26, 2013 by TAO

[BCSpace]

Next time I am accused of violating a rule or law, I will try the "I did not think I was" defense. Ignorance is no defense. Belief that one is doing right is not defense either.  

 

 

Eh?

 

Edit: OIC.  You've run into the moderation here haven't you? I am so sorry and apologize for them in advance.  They know not what they do.

 

 

If it was not polyandry, why use the word?

 

For convenience because that is the accusation and that then is how I would identify what I am talking about.  For example, the "polyandrous" cases vs. the other plural marriage cases.

 

That is for myself, and I would recommend others do the same.  However, other apologists have evidently chosen to accept the designation, polyandrous, without arguing against the appellation as I do.

Edited August 26, 2013 by BCSpace

[Glenn101]

 

All in all, it does not appear that JS was involved in any polyandrous marriages at all in any real sense.

If it was not polyandry, why use the word?

 

 

Maybe the word is being used incorrectly? If the "marriages" to women who were married to other men were actually sealings for eternity, Joseph was not in a polyandrous situation. Polyandry is a pejorative term applied by critics to the situation and does not accurately describe the relationships. As TAO mentioned. we do come to a conflict of definitions. However, we should be striving for accuracy, not sensatioinalism.

 

As for Silvia Lyon, we really need to wait upon better evidence in order to make a righteous judgement. So far, all of the DNA evidence that can be ascertained has come back negative in cases where Joseph was suspected by some of fathering children in polyandrous or polygamous situations.

 

Glenn

[Storm Rider]

 

Next time I am accused of violating a rule or law, I will try the "I did not think I was" defense. Ignorance is no defense. Belief that one is doing right is not defense either.  

Just curious; are you saying intent has nothing to do with our legal system?

[cdowis]

I'd be curious what the best explanation of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press is.  Do you try and convince them it was legal and kosher, or that Joseph acted wrongly but we should accept it for cultural/contextual reasons?  Or that he royally screwed up but he was imperfect and so it shouldn't damage our faith.

 

See Dallin Oaks' book for a detailed answer.

Basically this was a civil issue, not a criminal one.  The current concept of freedom of the press was not known at that time, and JS was acting under the authority of the city council to deal with a public menance.  The newspaper was inciting to violence.

[ZelphtheGreat]

BC Space, why not post the list of questions and your response. Would be informative even if we don't agree with what you came up with.

[cdowis]

"apologetics on the internet"

 

I have expanded my activities to the comment section on youtube -- both antimormon and athiest videos.  Have been banging away at Hitchens, Dawkins as well as Shawn.

 

Shawn refused to come here to us, so I am going to him.

[Tacenda]

"apologetics on the internet"

 

I have expanded my activities to the comment section on youtube -- both antimormon and athiest videos.  Have been banging away at Hitchens, Dawkins as well as Shawn.

 

Shawn refused to come here to us, so I am going to him.

Shawn who?  If you don't mind me asking.

[cdowis]

Shawn who?  If you don't mind me asking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh9tE58EYLw

[Tacenda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh9tE58EYLw

That's what I thought.  Now I'm remembering in another thread your mentioning a conversation with him where he used the F word, correct? 

 

I know that he won't speak to apologists, but he always says he'd love to talk to someone in authority like a leader of the church maybe a GA, or one of the 12 apostles, or member of the Presidency.  I say, "when pigs fly" that that would ever happen.  I guess he thinks that people like you or a Mormon apologist, can say anything they want to make a case, but not the leaders who are "in charge".    

[helaman38]

I'd be curious what the best explanation of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press is.  Do you try and convince them it was legal and kosher, or that Joseph acted wrongly but we should accept it for cultural/contextual reasons?  Or that he royally screwed up but he was imperfect and so it shouldn't damage our faith.

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That's what I thought.  Now I'm remembering in another thread your mentioning a conversation with him where he used the F word, correct? 

 

I know that he won't speak to apologists, but he always says he'd love to talk to someone in authority like a leader of the church maybe a GA, or one of the 12 apostles, or member of the Presidency.  I say, "when pigs fly" that that would ever happen.  I guess he thinks that people like you or a Mormon apologist, can say anything they want to make a case, but not the leaders who are "in charge".

GA's deal with doctrine and issues of Apologetics every six months, we only need to listen. So it would seem that "pigs to fly" at least twice a year.

[Tacenda]

GA's deal with doctrine and issues of Apologetics every six months, we only need to listen. So it would seem that "pigs to fly" at least twice a year.

I meant that they would not go on his show.  They're too busy anyway.   

[rameumptom]

I've long been an apologist for the Church.  That said, I do not believe we have all the answers. Nor do I believe we need to have all the answers.

 

When it comes to polyandry, we need to realize that Joseph Smith was never afraid of being unconventional.  He produced new scripture. He built cities, even when his people were poverty stricken. Polygamy.  I can't think of many things conventional with him.

 

Why would we think that polyandry could not also be part of the work he did under God's command or approval?

[BCSpace]

BC Space, why not post the list of questions and your response. Would be informative even if we don't agree with what you came up with.

 

I shall eventually. But see the OP for the reason why I don't now.  However, the questions were basically word for word copies or poorly attempted rewrites of the questions put on the board at the "Swedish Rescue" meeting.

Edited August 26, 2013 by BCSpace