Apologetics: Not In Vain

[BCSpace]

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?

 

You might be interested in this video cast of John Dehlin with Brian Hales (and I'm seriously considering getting the books).  It is so chock full of interesting information that I found it very easy to listen to all in one go:

 

http://mormonstories.org/brian-hales-12-myths-regarding-joseph-smiths-polygamy/

 

Notice that his evidence for the two children (Myth #4) is still inconclusive.  Notice how testy Dehlin gets near the end as his house of cards comes crashing down.

 

Here are the 12 myths he addresses:

 

1. Joseph Smith had a reputation as a womanizer.
2. The Joseph Smith – Fanny Alger relationship was not a plural marriage.
3. Joseph Smith’s polygamy was all about sex, in other words, “multiply and replenish the earth.”
4. Joseph Smith had no children by his plural wives.
5. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with 14 year olds.
6. John C. Bennett was a polygamy insider in Nauvoo.
7. None of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages were non-sexual “eternity-only” sealings.
8. Joseph Smith’s teachings allow sexual polyandry.
9. Some of Joseph Smith’s marriages included sexual polyandry.
10. Joseph sent men on missions so he could be sealed to their wives.
11. Joseph Smith threatened to destroy the reputation of any woman that turned him down.
12. Emma Smith never supported plural marriage.

Edited August 26, 2013 by BCSpace

[Tacenda]

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 poor;y attempted rewrites of the questions put on the board at the "Swedish Rescue" meeting.

I think, speaking of experience and reading forums, that some will just leave the church the minute they come across stuff like this.  Then there are some that stick with it, long enough to accept it and live as a Mormon, but not believe it.  And then there are some, that leave it and come back.  I'm wondering if it takes leaving it, to come to believing it again.  Crazy right?  

Edited August 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[BCSpace]

I honestly believe that of those who fall into anti Mormonism such as this, many are just trying to find excuses especially considering the dilapidated intellectual state of "antiMopologetics".

[cdowis]

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

  

 

It was in response to my invitation to join us here on mormondialogue.org.  He also does not respond to comments on his youtube videos.

 

When he talks to people on the phone, he is in his element.  He can make outrageous comments and the caller does not have the church or historical resources to respond.  A discussion forum allows thoughtful and informed responses.  I have invited other radio ministers here, and they refused in each case.

 

Rob Bowman is an exception, because he has alot of experience working thru discussion groups, so he is accustomed to this format.

[Ahab]

I think, speaking of experience and reading forums, that some will just leave the church the minute they come across stuff like this.  Then there are some that stick with it, long enough to accept it and live as a Mormon, but not believe it.  And then there are some, that leave it and come back.  I'm wondering if it takes leaving it, to come to believing it again.  Crazy right?  

I think everyone who thinks about leaving the Church should also think about why they first joined the Church.  Was it just because the rest of the family were members and they just wanted to be in it with their family, or was it because they received a testimony from God to tell them the Church was the true Church of Jesus Christ?  

 

It's not like the Church has to be perfect to be the true Church of Christ.  It just has to be the true Church when God says that it is.

[Nevo]

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.

 

I think cinepro makes an important point here: definitive answers are elusive for many of the issues that trouble doubting members. Those amateur apologists who believe they can easily answer virtually any question put to them, and that their responses will be powerfully compelling to the "intellectually honest," are indulging in fantasy. I think Daniel Peterson's concept of "humble apologetics" represents a much more mature and potentially productive approach and I wish more defenders would embrace it.

[USU78]

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.

 

In Book IV of Blackstone's Commentaries, section 13, at 150-152, the subject of criminal libels is dealt with, which surely was part and parcel of the research conducted by the Nauvoo City Attorney at the behest of the mayor and city council.  I quote a bit of it:

 

"In this, and the other instances which we have lately considered, where blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical, seditious, or scandalous libels are punished by the English law, some with a greater, others with a less degree of severity, the liberty of the press, properly understood, is by no means infringed or violated.  The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state:  but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published."

 

That the city chose to proceed civilly, and in rem against the press, and not criminally, and in personam against the publisher(s), can and should be seen as a much gentler and less invasive state censure than putting the liberty of the publisher(s) at risk via criminal prosecution.

 

We should not be found guilty of criminal uncharitableness in our judgments of people whose times we little understand . . . not that this is likely to impress cinepro.  Assuming the worst of JSJr and the city council and city counsel are and are likely to remain the kneejerk position.

[Calm]

 I think Daniel Peterson's concept of "humble apologetics" represents a much more mature and potentially productive approach and I wish more defenders would embrace it.

Also video:

 

http://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/28/daniel-peterson-humble-apologetics/

[BCSpace]

I think cinepro makes an important point here: definitive answers are elusive for many of the issues that trouble doubting members. Those amateur apologists who believe they can easily answer virtually any question put to them, and that their responses will be powerfully compelling to the "intellectually honest," are indulging in fantasy. I think Daniel Peterson's concept of "humble apologetics" represents a much more mature and potentially productive approach and I wish more defenders would embrace it.

 

I disagree.  "Legal and kosher" has the greatest payoff and as it turns out, is probably true.  It is now popular to couple the issue with the declaration of martial law and the charge of treason.  The problem for critics is that the call up of the Nauvoo Legion was also legal and kosher and for valid reason.

 

Consider also the types of things that trip up "doubting" members.  For example, that the artwork of the Church depicts one of the methods of translation or one of the reports of how it was done and not another.  So what?  It has no bearing on the doctrine of the Church.  Looking through some clear stones, possibly attached to a breastplate, is no less strange than looking at another stone in a hat because it doesn't have any brightness or contrast controls.  What doctrine changes?  Nothing.  The criticism is yellow journalistic and it is not unreasonable to answer it with a little righteous indignation if the situation warrants.

 

In the case of this relative, I think I was humble anyway except in the case of one of the loaded questions. Here is how I ended:

 

"None of these questions is new and all have been answered satisfactorily in the intellectually honest sense.  One is therefore left to choose which voice they will listen to; which choice is the plan of salvation summed up in 2 Nephi 2."

Edited August 26, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

In Book IV of Blackstone's Commentaries, section 13, at 150-152, the subject of criminal libels is dealt with, which surely was part and parcel of the research conducted by the Nauvoo City Attorney at the behest of the mayor and city council.

 

I referenced Blackstone in my answer to the relative's questions.

[BCSpace]

I think everyone who thinks about leaving the Church should also think about why they first joined the Church.

 

We had an apostle visit our Stake and I wish I could remember which one because we've had several in the last few years, but he taught us the same thing, that when in doubt, remember the first things that caused us to believe.

[foster]

I honestly believe that of those who fall into anti Mormonism such as this, many are just trying to find excuses especially considering the dilapidated intellectual state of "antiMopologetics".

 

Because no one leaves the Church but to sin, right? People never come across information that is "new" to them, which information is not addressed by the Church.

Edited August 26, 2013 by foster

[foster]

I disagree.  "Legal and kosher" has the greatest payoff and as it turns out, is probably true. 

 

In other words it is inconclusive? Which illustrates the problem with "biased" apologetics. In post 26 you appear to mock John Dehlin, based on something being inconclusive. Yet in another post you admit something is inconclusive but it should be accepted as true.  You can not have it both ways,

Edited August 26, 2013 by foster

[BCSpace]

I honestly believe that of those who fall into anti Mormonism such as this, many are just trying to find excuses especially considering the dilapidated intellectual state of "antiMopologetics".

 

Because no one leaves the Church but to sin, right?

 

 

 

Notice I said "many", not "all".  Btw, unbelief is sin in the scriptures so your statement is technically correct.

 

People never come across information that is "new" to them, which information is not addressed by the Church.

 

When I look at the Swedish Rescue, by the very nature of some of the questions, it is obvious that either some of the doubting members in the room were not honest or their sources of information were not honest.  I did mention that in my answer to my friend's relative.

Edited August 26, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I disagree.  "Legal and kosher" has the greatest payoff and as it turns out, is probably true.

 

In other words it is inconclusive?

 

 

In other words, there is no evidence to support that it wasn't legal and kosher the remaining evidence conclusively shows legal and kosher.

[USU78]

Because no one leaves the Church but to sin, right? People never come across information that is "new" to them, which information is not addressed by the Church.

 

Is that what BCS said?  I think not.  You are being histrionic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I disagree.  "Legal and kosher" has the greatest payoff and as it turns out, is probably true.  It is now popular to couple the issue with the declaration of martial law and the charge of treason.  The problem for critics is that the call up of the Nauvoo Legion was also legal and kosher and for valid reason.

 

It was my understanding that the destruction of the printed edition was probably legal, but the destruction of the actual press itself was not?

[foster]

In other words, there is no evidence to support that it wasn't legal and kosher the remaining evidence conclusively shows legal and kosher.

A statement which demonstrates you otherwise choose to ignore the evidence to the contrary; which leaves us once again in the inconclusive realm.

[helaman38]

It was my understanding that the destruction of the printed edition was probably legal, but the destruction of the actual press itself was not?

[Jude2]

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.

 

The Lord kept trying to warn Joseph about going after "the persuasions of men" every time he did it got him in trouble. It's okay the Lord surely forgave him but let the consequence happen.  

[BCSpace]

It was my understanding that the destruction of the printed edition was probably legal, but the destruction of the actual press itself was not?

 

What makes you think that?

 

A statement which demonstrates you otherwise choose to ignore the evidence to the contrary; which leaves us once again in the inconclusive realm.

 

Feel free to present any evidence I may have ignored.

[foster]

 

 

 

Feel free to present any evidence I may have ignored.

 

Let us not be insulting to each other, your participation on another board, demonstrates my claim. I am not out to prove the Joseph Smith a false prophet or besmirch his character. But your, without knowing what you actually presented, it appears from your responses here,  you both deny outright someone because it is inconclusive and you appear to wholeheartedly accept something that is inconclusive.  In the end, you responses seem inadequate and biasedly dismissive of counter "evidences", and if the person goes to verify your claims that person will be disappointed and might likely feel betrayed.

 

The best answer I can think of for any of the "issues", would be to provide several of Emma Smith responses to things that troubled her. She knew Joseph Smith to be a Prophet, but wished she didn't know some things; there really isn't much more beyond that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What makes you think that?

 

From FAIR:

 

The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.

 

 

From this dialogue article:

 

Calling  a  newspaper  a  nuisance  was unusual,  but  the  Council  may  have been  on  good  grounds  because  of  the  fear  of  mob  action  and  the  scurrilous and  defamatory  character  of  the  paper's  articles.  There  was,  however,  no legal  justification  for  the  destruction  of  the  press,  and  the proprietors  might have  sued  the  council  for  recovery  of  the  machine's  value. 

 

What makes you think it was legal to destroy the actual press?

Edited August 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BCSpace]

Looks like I'm good then.  If you have no evidence to present that it wasn't legal and kosher, then we can freely dismiss such assertions.

[BCSpace]

The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed.

 

On what basis?  That some citizens thought it was high handed?

 

 

There  was,  however,  no legal  justification  for  the  destruction  of  the  press,  and  the proprietors  might have  sued  the  council  for  recovery  of  the  machine's  value.

 

They might have.  But on what grounds?