Apologists and the sources they cite

[_richardMdBorn]

As most of you know, I'm an evangelical. One frustration I have with LDS apologists is my perception that they have a double standard about sources. On the one hand, they frequently dismiss comments made by a succession of LDS prophets since they do not appear in the 4SW. On the other hand, they cull through the ECFs for references which appear to support LDS positions. These references are not considered authoritative by evangelicals, EOs or RCs. If they have the right to limit authority to the 4SW (and perhaps the current prophet), why can't I limit the scope of the writings I consider authoritative?

[_asbestosman]

I would think that the right way to reference ECFs is to point out what sort of thoughts these people had and perhaps showing that we're no more heretical than they are. It would be incorrect to use ECF to show what RC or EOs consider (or considered) to be doctrine. Likewise I think it fine to show what various LDS prophets thought on various issues, but it would be wrong to use that to point out official LDS doctrine.

[_dartagnan]

I would think that the right way to reference ECFs is to point out what sort of thoughts these people had and perhaps showing that we're no more heretical than they are.

Granted, but some of these guys like Origen were later deemed heretics anyway, so it really defeats the purpose to draw parallels with former heretics to prove you’re not a heretic.

It would be incorrect to use ECF to show what RC or EOs consider (or considered) to be doctrine.

Right and I think the more sophisticated and experienced apologists know better than to do that.

Likewise I think it fine to show what various LDS prophets thought on various issues, but it would be wrong to use that to point out official LDS doctrine.

Well the problem with this idea is that the apologist’s concept of “official doctrine” is not only unknown to most new critics, but also the majority of Mormons. Most Mormons consider general conference talks doctrine. A thorough research of this subject would reveal that the distinction between doctrine and “official” doctrine is a relatively recent apologetic innovation. The genius behind it is that the apologists have managed to make this seem mainstream as well as the traditional paradigm, but it isn’t.

It is just a convenient way to dismiss most LDS criticisms by saying the Church hasn’t come out and officially stated it is doctrine. But in reality this is irrelevant since the concept doesn’t really exist. At least it didn’t for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the majority of the prophets up until Bruce R. McConkie.

But back on point, I have a problem with the way apologists use citations as well. Bokovoy is a textbook case. He spends more time trying to cite as many different scholars as he can, without really making it known to his audience that these scholars do not agree with his overall conclusions. It is a smoke and mirror charade that Nibley used to employ. He is on record in saying modern scholars today are following Joseph Smith’s lead on the Divine Council. What a ridiculous thing to say. Most divine council commentators probably never heard of Joseph Smith or his teaching on this matter. Besides, Smith was merely following the lead of those learned Jews he had been consulting in his day.

And when I refute him on one point he appeals to scholarly consensus, but on other points where consensus doesn’t support him, he simply claims that the minority is smarter than the majority. How can you argue with someone like this? He has the game rigged from the start. Nothing he says can be wrong. Ever.

[_karl61]

I was thinking today about why the LDS church doesn't bring out the writings of christians in 150 AD 250 AD and 350 AD. a hundred years is not that long. Church writers love to talk about the catholic church in the years from 500 AD until 1500 AD but you can't put that method of critical thinking on the LDS church history. The church says that the protestant reformation prepared the way for the church but the protestant churchs never has liked Mormons infact they were able to change and mold Mormonism into the way a way that was acceptable to them. Protestants wrote the laws and the Mormons needed to comform or be destroyed so they skipped angle protection and went with the way protestants wanted them to be.

[_The Nehor]

As most of you know, I'm an evangelical. One frustration I have with LDS apologists is my perception that they have a double standard about sources. On the one hand, they frequently dismiss comments made by a succession of LDS prophets since they do not appear in the 4SW. On the other hand, they cull through the ECFs for references which appear to support LDS positions. These references are not considered authoritative by evangelicals, EOs or RCs. If they have the right to limit authority to the 4SW (and perhaps the current prophet), why can't I limit the scope of the writings I consider authoritative?

I read the ECFs for insight, similar to the way in which I read apocrypha and pseudipigrapha (I know I misspelled this). If they insist that they are authoritative I would then make them hold them all as authoritative.

Since no one will ever agree on what is and is not authoritative I do not think this will go anywhere. The key to this game on both sides is to make as much as you can authoritative for the other guy so you have much to attack while minimizing your own to prevent attack. The merry-go-round keeps spinning.