Scott Gordon On The Meaning Of 'apologetics'

[pogi]

I suspect that many Mormons do not agree with all the teachings of the current and past leadership of the church (that you find in the manuals published by the educational division) but they choose to remain there because they have been taught that there is no other real church of Jesus Christ outside of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

When you regard yourselves as the only "true" church, all other churches fall under

the category of "false".

 

If someone is not afraid to disagree with previous church teachings, what makes you think that they are going to blindly accept the teaching that all other churches are false, or that this is the only true church?  I don't think you give enough intellectual and spiritual credit to those who choose to stay despite unanswered questions.   

 

When someone comes to the conclusion that the church is false, they leave.   People choose to stay because they have not come to the ultimate conclusion that the church is false.  It really is that simple.  No one stays in a false church because all other churches are also false. 

Edited February 7, 2015 by pogi

[why me]

 

 

I'll play the game again.  Why doesn't the church have their own people answer to the questions?  Why do the apologists even have to have existed all these years?  I don't think the essays are enough. 

 

History is made up of interpretations. I have no idea how any church can comment on things that happened years and years ago. And what kind of interpretations can they give that would convince you. And who would the church have to answer questions? And what should the answers be? The catholic church does not have their own apologists but there are catholics who act as apologists. Likewise for the lds church. What would be enough? First, critics want the church to come forth with history interpretations. The essays attempt to do this. We also have the JSPs and Hyrum's papers too. Little by little more is coming forth. Soon, the lds church will be the most open church on the planet. No other church is addressing their history like the lds church now. And of course, as the church does this, lds apologists will have less work to do.

 

But....there will be a critic response....you will read the response....listen to critic podcasts..... and remain in the position that you are now in. Thus, the problem. Apologists can offer an interpretation...it is up to you to believe in that interpretation.

[Calm]

Palmer mentions that apologists haven't pinpointed where he got information wrong in the book that got him disfellowshipped, do you know if that is correct?

Have you read the reviews of his work?  I think he is in denial.  Not posting links because this is a derail, but they are easy enough for you to find (grant palmer, review)

Edited February 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[Kevin Christensen]

Palmer mentions that apologists haven't pinpointed where he got information wrong in the book that got him disfellowshipped, do you know if that is correct?

He's kidding himself.

See, for instance:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/An_Insider%27s_View_of_Mormon_Origins

Also, see the detailed reviews of Palmer at the Maxwell Institute.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/periodical/review-volume-15-issue-number-2/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[why me]

Palmer mentions that apologists haven't pinpointed where he got information wrong in the book that got him disfellowshipped, do you know if that is correct?

I was just looking at the D&C student manual and I turned to section 132 in the student manual to see if it mentions joseph smith's polygamy and sure enough it does and it also mentions why it happened and a shortage of women was not the answer. Also, there was a quote from Woodruff Woodward about emma denying that joseph practiced polygamy her entire life but that he knew that the prophet was a polygamist and emma gave permission for several of these women to be sealed to him. Here is the quotation from the student manual:

 

President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: “Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:131.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng

 

So, how can members complain about not knowing about joseph's polygamy? Now we can see being an apologist is not easy. Here we have members falling for the idea that the church kept joseph's polygamy secret and yet it is in the manual and it has been there for a long time. My copy is from 1981. It seems that their is a lot of ignorance out there which is self made. The manual also has emma lying about it and her dislike of it. So what is an apologist to do? Now of course, the church went into more detail about it but it certainly did not hide it.

Edited February 8, 2015 by why me

[Jeanne]

History is made up of interpretations. I have no idea how any church can comment on things that happened years and years ago. And what kind of interpretations can they give that would convince you. And who would the church have to answer questions? And what should the answers be? The catholic church does not have their own apologists but there are catholics who act as apologists. Likewise for the lds church. What would be enough? First, critics want the church to come forth with history interpretations. The essays attempt to do this. We also have the JSPs and Hyrum's papers too. Little by little more is coming forth. Soon, the lds church will be the most open church on the planet. No other church is addressing their history like the lds church now. And of course, as the church does this, lds apologists will have less work to do.

 

But....there will be a critic response....you will read the response....listen to critic podcasts..... and remain in the position that you are now in. Thus, the problem. Apologists can offer an interpretation...it is up to you to believe in that interpretation.

No one needs to comment on anything that happened years and years ago.  I believe that ALL churches can and do ignore or hide what is in the past.

[Hestia]

Tacenda is on break from this thread.

[why me]

No one needs to comment on anything that happened years and years ago.  I believe that ALL churches can and do ignore or hide what is in the past.

And yet, this is what apologists are asked to do. It is an impossible job and one that critics of the lds church demand that the lds church do. I know of no other church where this is required. And this is why the critics have the upper hand because they have managed to turn the discussion to the past and not the present. And convince members that they should have been taught church history if they were in high school. Quite a gimmick.

[Jeanne]

Look at the lists of spiritual gifts in the church. To some is given the gift of administration. To others, the gift of knowledge. All of the members of the church are the church. Not just a few at the top, or a few who work in the church office building, or who happen to have a job writing manuals, or doing PR. The Greek Ekklesia simply means the assembly, or gathering. Even the scriptures have accounts of Moses being tired out by having to deal with every probem, and being encouraged to delegate. If the prophet has a leak in his basement, he calls a plumber. The point is, we have all committed to helping each other. Why insist that the only ones that matter are those who have official stamps on their heads?

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

AS of right now, John Dehlin is still a member.  Why aren't all levels of LDS helping him?

[Jeanne]

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

 

Scott, is there a way around this statement?  Maybe there is or maybe I've somewhat proven my point.

 

ETA:  Or is the answer in the second sentence?  You see it's really just hidden unless you're an insider.

There are descendants of the early 1900;s that can vouch for fathers in jail from law promises broken.

[Kevin Christensen]

AS of right now, John Dehlin is still a member.  Why aren't all levels of LDS helping him?

Lots of LDS are trying to help him, in one way or another. For the record, I've tried to help him on several occasions over the past several years. The kind of help he likes best is public approval backed by donations and applause. The kind of help he likes least involves anything less than that, or that requires him to read and carefully consider important information that does not flatter his current opinions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Pahoran]

I think it goes much further than that.  I heard that Grant H. Palmer (whom I doubt could be

considered as an amateur) was disfellowshipped in 2004 after his controversial work "An Insider's

View of Mormon Origins".  But then again, you have this in almost all faith systems.  You start

disagreeing with the key teachings of one and you are labelled as 'anti-'; and soon expelled on

the grounds of apostasy.

 

Some of his youtube videos on his points of disagreement make sense. I suspect that many

Mormons do not agree with all the teachings of the current and past leadership of the church (that

you find in the manuals published by the educational division) but they choose to remain there

because they have been taught that there is no other real church of Jesus Christ outside of

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Regards,

Jim

Whether or not Mister Palmer is an amateur, he could only be an "apologist" for his own anti-Mormon ideology.

Because, make no mistake: Mister Palmer rejects the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ every bit as emphatically as you do. His "Insider's View" is exactly, and only, an anti-Mormon pamphlet, a bit like a Chick tract, but with footnotes, and not so well illustrated.

Regards,

Pahoran