Christian Apologetic Patterns

[cynth]

Quote

It's one of the abiding myths of the toxic message board where "salgare" (aka "Rockslider") hangs out that I've been "silenced" by the Brethren.  Certain folks there take deep and obviously gratifying pleasure in that thought.

Thankfully, Peterson, you can let go of that concern.  From what I've seen lately, there seems to be very little attention paid to you any longer at that message board.  Whoever it was who was taking 'gratifying pleasure' in observing you has apparently moved on. 

Even when the OP here posted there after being banned from this thread, here's the (underwhelming) response:

Quote

I guess I'm post-Petersen. Peterson? Anyway, I don't see his relevance nowadays, silenced or not. I know many of y'all clashed with him in recent years and so it's part of this subculture's history. Not sure what lessons were learned.

 

Edited April 9, 2016 by cynth

[PeterPear]

OP: "I'm very interested in if other Christian Apologetics follow similar patterns as to those of Mormon apologists. "

No. LDS Mormon Apologists believe they know more than the founder of their Church. They will concede Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet, but that LDS Apologists know more than Joseph Smith.

Notice below how LDS Apologists have relied on the critics of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so they also can be critical of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Making sure you believe the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about - especially about Book of Mormon geography, elevates the importance of the LDS Apologist over the statements made by Joseph Smith.

Notice below how geography is mixed in with "scope" "historical scale" "literary form" or "cultural content" of the Book of Mormon.

In other words Joseph Smith was a big dummy and the LDS Apologists have the key of the knowledge of God to the keystone of their religion - obtained over a sixty year period.

So how does this differ from other Christian Apologetics? Not much - when other Christian Apologetics will claim Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

 

To put the matter clearly: Joseph Smith did not fully understand the Book of Mormon. 

 

One thing all readers share with Joseph is a partial understanding of the book’s complexities. Indeed, many thingsabout the book were simply unknowable in 1830. Over the last sixty years, Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, and other scholars have shown the Book of Mormon to be truer than Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could know. Consequently, what Joseph Smith knew and understood about the book ought to beresearch questions rather than presumptions. Thanks in large part to his critics, it is becoming clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the book.39

 

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/22/2/S00003-5176a03b6d5fc3Roper.pdf

 

 

Edited April 9, 2016 by PeterPear

[Daniel Peterson]

57 minutes ago, cynth said:

Thankfully, Peterson, you can let go of that concern.  From what I've seen lately, there seems to be very little attention paid to you any longer at that message board.  Whoever it was who was taking 'gratifying pleasure' in observing you has apparently moved on. 

 It would be nice if your claim were true.

 

But it's not.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe you can help me see how the Church isn't "authoritarian"?

For example, you mention councils and decentralization.  Can you provide some examples of ways in which councils and local leaders or members wouldn't be expected to be obedient to the policies contained in the Handbook of Instructions, or the doctrines and teachings contained in the scriptures as interpreted by the leaders in SLC?

Richard Bushman and other scholars have emphasized the conciliar nature of the Church and the decentralized (horizontal) administration of it.  Think for example of a typical ward council, which is key to effective governance of a ward, or of the necessary use of a stake high council.  Many people erroneously imagine the LDS Church structure to be vertical and authoritarian, and I vividly recall discussing this with a dear anti-Mormon friend many years ago.  She put into my hands "The Far West Record," and told me to read it and see how Joseph Smith was a dictator.  I had never read it before, and it was a real eye-opener for me.  Far from being a dictator, that Record made it clear to me that Joseph was checkmated by councils in his attempts to rid himself of Sidney Rigdon, just as one example.

There is indeed a Handbook of Instructions, and the authoritative Scriptures, but none are applied with the tenacity of Roman Catholic Canon Law, nor like the directives of the Supreme Soviet.  Just the opposite.  More like Loosey Goosey.  A lot of gentle persuasion in the midst of nice, harmonious relationships.  If Mormons seem so agreeable to certain norms, it isn't because the Gestapo is present, but because they already see the value of the Plan of Salvation and want to be cooperative.  Like considerate drivers on the highway of life, they see the value in being gracious and honest in their dealings.  No Sword of Damocles need be displayed.  You have seen it up close and personal, cinepro.  How does it seem to you? Why is it that Mormons are so turned off by a certain authoritarian candidate?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The words LDS Church and decentralization should not even be mentioned in the same sentence.

............................................................

See my response to cinepro.

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Richard Bushman and other scholars have emphasized the conciliar nature of the Church and the decentralized (horizontal) administration of it.  Think for example of a typical ward council, which is key to effective governance of a ward, or of the necessary use of a stake high council.  Many people erroneously imagine the LDS Church structure to be vertical and authoritarian, and I vividly recall discussing this with a dear anti-Mormon friend many years ago.  She put into my hands "The Far West Record," and told me to read it and see how Joseph Smith was a dictator.  I had never read it before, and it was a real eye-opener for me.  Far from being a dictator, that Record made it clear to me that Joseph was checkmated by councils in his attempts to rid himself of Sidney Rigdon, just as one example.

There is indeed a Handbook of Instructions, and the authoritative Scriptures, but none are applied with the tenacity of Roman Catholic Canon Law, nor like the directives of the Supreme Soviet.  Just the opposite.  More like Loosey Goosey.  A lot of gentle persuasion in the midst of nice, harmonious relationships.  If Mormons seem so agreeable to certain norms, it isn't because the Gestapo is present, but because they already see the value of the Plan of Salvation and want to be cooperative.  Like considerate drivers on the highway of life, they see the value in being gracious and honest in their dealings.  No Sword of Damocles need be displayed.  You have seen it up close and personal, cinepro.  How does it seem to you? Why is it that Mormons are so turned off by a certain authoritarian candidate?

Sorry, but I don't think you understand what "authoritarian" means.  Every authoritarian system of any size has local leadership; simple logistics would indicate that you can't micromanage a large group of people.  Certainly, local LDS leadership has the freedom to choose people for callings, plan meetings and activities, and oversee the budget they are given. 

But they have absolutely no freedom or authority beyond the bounds that are strictly set out by the leadership in Salt Lake City.  For example, remember this...?

Plan to hold shorter LDS meetings in Boston Stake cancelled

Local leadership didn't even have the "authority" to do something as simple as decide how long their meetings should be.  The same is true for any meaningful decision regarding teachings, policy or doctrine.   

I'm not saying that having authoritarian, centralized leadership is a bad thing; certainly if Jesus is at the head of the Church and communicates His will through the First Presidency and Q12 I should want for them to be authoritarian. 

[cinepro]

20 hours ago, cynth said:

Thankfully, Peterson, you can let go of that concern.  From what I've seen lately, there seems to be very little attention paid to you any longer at that message board.  Whoever it was who was taking 'gratifying pleasure' in observing you has apparently moved on. 

Even when the OP here posted there after being banned from this thread, here's the (underwhelming) response:

 

Yeah, I don't think so.  This pretty much sums up their feelings towards him...

 

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, cdowis said:

I understand the church in Sweden has had a rough time of it.  When you get back, please tell us how things are going there now.

Indeed, when I saw the date I was worried that there might not be any Mormons left by June...

[Daniel Peterson]

41 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Indeed, when I saw the date I was worried that there might not be any Mormons left by June...

Don't get your hopes up, cinepro.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Daniel Peterson

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 6:58 PM, Chaos said:

You are refusing to respond to questions. You are refusing to provide sources. We are not impressed. Poster removed and he can save face by blaming the moderators. No need to thank us Salgare.

The poster was removed from his own thread???

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The poster was removed from his own thread???

Oh, the irony !!

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but I don't think you understand what "authoritarian" means.  Every authoritarian system of any size has local leadership; simple logistics would indicate that you can't micromanage a large group of people.  Certainly, local LDS leadership has the freedom to choose people for callings, plan meetings and activities, and oversee the budget they are given. 

But they have absolutely no freedom or authority beyond the bounds that are strictly set out by the leadership in Salt Lake City.  For example, remember this...?

Plan to hold shorter LDS meetings in Boston Stake cancelled

Local leadership didn't even have the "authority" to do something as simple as decide how long their meetings should be.  The same is true for any meaningful decision regarding teachings, policy or doctrine.   

I'm not saying that having authoritarian, centralized leadership is a bad thing; certainly if Jesus is at the head of the Church and communicates His will through the First Presidency and Q12 I should want for them to be authoritarian. 

I guess I just don't understand "authoritarianism" the way you do, cinepro.  So, I suppose I should view the LDS Church structure as nearly identical to the Church of Scientology, or to the East German political regime under Soviet control -- with the Stasi constantly checking on everybody.  According to you, the LDS elite exercise tight, centralized, top down bureaucratic control through correlation and total appointive power answerable to none.  Central authority dictates all from SLC and brooks no disagreement, severely punishing those who step out of line.

When "volunteers" are needed, there is no allowance for recalcitrance, and members are regularly "called" (=assigned) to necessary positions -- such as temple workers, missionaries, and the like, and those who drag their feet are shunned or excommunicated.  Anyone suspect is denied a temple recommend, which then becomes the subject of rumor-mongering, or worse.  Is that what you and consigliere have been describing?  Are all of us "just another brick in the wall"?  How come I have never felt that way?  Am I in denial?  Or are you and consigliere just plain wrong -- for whatever reason.

The problem is that careful statistical analysis doesn't seem to me to comport with most Mormons agreeing with authoritarianism -- four child-rearing views being diagnostic -- http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533 .  Simply attending a typical, noisy LDS Sacrament meeting ought to disabuse us of that silly authoritarian description.  Or indeed, a typical ward council meeting, where the order is love.  Does a centralized bureaucracy run the show through professional surrogates, or is the burden born almost entirely by local shoulders?

If we brought in Lawrence M. Friedman (or Tom Friedman, for that matter) as a third-party analyst, would he truly see the LDS Church as primarily hierarchical and centralized, or would he see it as horizontal and flat?  L. M. Friedman, The Horizonal Society (Yale, 1999); T. L. Freidman, The World is Flat (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005).