The Mopologetic Tactical Retreat

[_Dr. Shades]

You may have egg (or other breakfast morsels) on your face when Elder Bednar devotes his next conference speech to explaining Kae-E-Vanrash.

And the odds of that happening are approximately 10,000,000 to 1.

I won't hold my breath.

[_guy sajer]

Something has got me thinking---namely, this tidbit from DCP:

Why do you think Hinkley's answer [concerning eternal progression] was so ambiguous?

I can only speculate, but I suspect that he wasn't eager to discuss a doctrine that he considered sacred and that he knew would be jarring and weird both to the (very possibly agnostic and/or irreligious, certainly skeptical) reporter interviewing him and to the largely skeptical audience that would read the interview, neither of whom (in any case) likely possessed the doctrinal foundation necessary to make proper sense of the subject. I myself prefer not to discuss certain things in certain venues. And the fundamental nature of God is one of those things: Several times, on this very board (including just two or three days ago), I've backed away from discussions of that topic, though I would be happy to discuss it elsewhere, with certain people, under the right circumstances and if I felt moved upon to do so. I simply won't discuss them on an internet message board with critics. There are subjects that I consider very sacred, and, even, where I believe myself to have received specific inspiration regarding them. This is one of those.

It seems to me that one of the crucial strategies of LDS apologetics these days is to simply avoid discussing certain hot-button items. The Good Professor has stated elsewhere that he will never, ever discuss Adam-God in public. (Presumably because he considers it "very sacred"?) Basically, certain things seem to be so utterly problematic from a Mopologetic standpoint that the only recourse is to throw up the hands in desperation.

So, I'm curious: What other subjects seem "off-limits," Mopologetics-wise? Certainly, the very existence of the aptly named MADboard proves that a very chiliastic attitude vis-a-vis defense of the Church is in play. Further, I think that the appointment of John Gee as "official" fall-guy for the Book of Abraham is another indicator that LDS apologetics is in a state of tactical retreat. I am wondering if others have observed any other examples....

So, let me get this straight. The nature of God, perhaps THE most basic, important doctrine of Christianity (Mormonism) is "too sacred" to discuss in public?

Riiight.

What's too sacred to discuss in public are embarrassing Mormon beliefs that the general public rightly considers silly.

[Guest]

So, let me get this straight. The nature of God, perhaps THE most basic, important doctrine of Christianity (Mormonism) is "too sacred" to discuss in public?

Riiight.

What's too sacred to discuss in public are embarrassing Mormon beliefs that the general public rightly considers silly.

When I was young I was often told the Mormon religion was self evident and plain and easy to understand. It so struck harmony with the soul that many Christians already believed the basic tenants of the religion in contradiction to the actual creeds.

In reality, it is difficult to find a doctrine that doesn't need to be baby sat to some degree or another. The idea that Mormon doctrine is so sophisticated that it cannot be readily explained to intelligent outsiders is just laughable--especially to those of use who do understand it thoroughly.

[_bcspace]

In reality, it is difficult to find a doctrine that doesn't need to be baby sat to some degree or another.

Only to the extant that people still cling to their erroneous traditions/notions/mores.

The idea that Mormon doctrine is so sophisticated that it cannot be readily explained to intelligent outsiders is just laughable--

I agree. The doctrine is quite simple to explain.

[_Gadianton]

I tried it Scratch! It was fun!

[_Scottie]

I agree. The doctrine is quite simple to explain.

This little ruse is starting to get a little old, BC.

[_truth dancer]

Hey BC,

I agree. The doctrine is quite simple to explain.

Then why don't the leaders explain it?

;-)

Lots of believers think they can explain it but they all have a different version of what is or is not truth and/or doctrine which are not always compatible. ;-)

~dancer~

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The gospel seems to be more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy, in my opinion. Granted the two can be combined (ie one can be considered orthodox by doing what orthodoxy does) but in general the specifics about hair-splitting doctrines seem to take a backseat to behavior, in general. This is not to say that orthodoxy doesn't play a role, even a large role, but if I had to rate the two based on common (read: my) LDS experience, I'd put praxy before doxy.

[_Trevor]

They will emphasize the Ha-Ko-Kau-Beams (Hot Cocoa Beams). Now, why don't you all get so deep into your cups, that Obliblish seems like an obvious thing to say?

I take issue with your uninspired translation, although you were so close. After peering at the seer stone at the bottom of my tophat, I have concluded that it is "hot cocoa beans."

[_antishock8]

Mormon Apologia

Critic: X-Y-Z

Mormon Apologist: Bulls*** bullsh*** bullsh*** bullsh**.

Crtic: That's bulls***.

Mormon Apologist: Ad Hominem