The Miracle of Apologetics

[_cinepro]

If you're under the impression that Prophets are supposed to teach Book of Mormon geography, the reasons for commandments, and history then you're beyond hopeless.

I partially agree with you.

I acknowledge, understand, and agree that Prophets and Apostles aren't expected to stand in General Conference and discourse on the intricacies of Book of Mormon geography, or whether or not Job was a real person. They are supposed to declare the doctrine, testify of Christ, and make sure the Church is running on course.

But I think you understate the boundaries placed on Prophetic revelations. From Joseph Smith on, LDS Prophets and Apostles have taught on subjects including evolution, the scope of Noah's flood, the reason for the priesthood ban, how many Hill Cumorah's there are, and numerous other subjects. And these opinions were taught in LDS Church meetings and publications.

It isn't a matter of Prophets and apologists having uniquely distinct areas of concern. There are many places where apologetic theories supplant, contradict or greatly modify doctrines and teachings still taught by the Church today.

This isn't a criticism in any way. It's just an observation. I, for one, fully support the efforts of apologists to redefine and add to LDS doctrines, teachings and understanding of different things. It's just a curious development that for any subject upon which the theories of apologists disagree with the statements of LDS Prophets or apostles, apologists always insist that we ignore the Prophets and Apostles in that specific instance and give preference to their words.

And for many subjects, if and LDS asks what a good resource is for further study, the words of past Prophets and Apostles are never given in preference to modern apologetic writings.

I suspect this will change over time, and apologetic theories on evolution, Adam and Eve, Noah's flood/Tower of Babel, the reasoning behind the priesthood ban and polygamy, the number of Hill Cumorah's etc. will seep into official Church publications and public discourses from Church leaders.

But what an odd situation to have the cutting edge of knowledge being the scholars and scientists, while the Prophets and Apostles get relegated to continually rehashing safe doctrine and inspirational stories.

[_rcrocket]

But what an odd situation to have the cutting edge of knowledge being the scholars and scientists, while the Prophets and Apostles get relegated to continually rehashing safe doctrine and inspirational stories.

Let me dig out my New Testament. Oops. Looks like they spend almost of their time rehashing safe doctrine and telling inspirational stories.

Look, the Church ain't no New Age philosophical society where we all sit around and contemplate our existence. We're not a debate society. We're not a historical society.

There's been a lot of effort to pull the church in those directions. Today's New Age moral relativism is yesterday's intellectual spiritualism of the renegade Godbeites (who couldn't quite jettison their plural wives, just as you can't quite jettison the Church).

[_The Nehor]

If you're under the impression that Prophets are supposed to teach Book of Mormon geography, the reasons for commandments, and history then you're beyond hopeless.

I partially agree with you.

I acknowledge, understand, and agree that Prophets and Apostles aren't expected to stand in General Conference and discourse on the intricacies of Book of Mormon geography, or whether or not Job was a real person. They are supposed to declare the doctrine, testify of Christ, and make sure the Church is running on course.

But I think you understate the boundaries placed on Prophetic revelations. From Joseph Smith on, LDS Prophets and Apostles have taught on subjects including evolution, the scope of Noah's flood, the reason for the priesthood ban, how many Hill Cumorah's there are, and numerous other subjects. And these opinions were taught in LDS Church meetings and publications.

It isn't a matter of Prophets and apologists having uniquely distinct areas of concern. There are many places where apologetic theories supplant, contradict or greatly modify doctrines and teachings still taught by the Church today.

This isn't a criticism in any way. It's just an observation. I, for one, fully support the efforts of apologists to redefine and add to LDS doctrines, teachings and understanding of different things. It's just a curious development that for any subject upon which the theories of apologists disagree with the statements of LDS Prophets or apostles, apologists always insist that we ignore the Prophets and Apostles in that specific instance and give preference to their words.

And for many subjects, if and LDS asks what a good resource is for further study, the words of past Prophets and Apostles are never given in preference to modern apologetic writings.

I suspect this will change over time, and apologetic theories on evolution, Adam and Eve, Noah's flood/Tower of Babel, the reasoning behind the priesthood ban and polygamy, the number of Hill Cumorah's etc. will seep into official Church publications and public discourses from Church leaders.

But what an odd situation to have the cutting edge of knowledge being the scholars and scientists, while the Prophets and Apostles get relegated to continually rehashing safe doctrine and inspirational stories.

The cutting edge of knowledge within the Church rests with the inspired, those that teach the 'safe' doctrine in a way that changes lives. Apologists are a fringe society.

I fully oppose any effort by Mormon Apologists to rewrite or redefine doctrine. Any apologist who asks me to ignore the words of Prophets and Apostles gets their book chucked out.

[_Tarski]

But what an odd situation to have the cutting edge of knowledge being the scholars and scientists, while the Prophets and Apostles get relegated to continually rehashing safe doctrine and inspirational stories.

Let me dig out my New Testament. Oops. Looks like they spend almost of their time rehashing safe doctrine and telling inspirational stories.

Look, the Church ain't no New Age philosophical society where we all sit around and contemplate our existence. We're not a debate society. We're not a historical society.

A cynic might say is was a society that tells you what hoops you must jump though and what chunk of your paycheck it will cost you to obtain your piece of pie in the sky.

[_The Dude]

This isn't a criticism in any way. It's just an observation. I, for one, fully support the efforts of apologists to redefine and add to LDS doctrines, teachings and understanding of different things. It's just a curious development that for any subject upon which the theories of apologists disagree with the statements of LDS Prophets or apostles, apologists always insist that we ignore the Prophets and Apostles in that specific instance and give preference to their words.

Apologists don't come up with new theories as long as the traditional ones hold together. It's when critics appear to have the upper hand, and it becomes evident that the statements of LDS Prophets and Apostles were in error, that apologists insist we ignore the Prophets and give preference to their words. The curious thing is how these new theories come from academic channels instead of Priesthood authorities. I also support their efforts, because at their root is a tacit admission that LDS Prophets have been in error. (Convoluted denials notwithstanding)

[_The Nehor]

A cynic might say is was a society that tells you what hoops you must jump though and what chunk of your paycheck it will cost you to obtain your piece of pie in the sky.

This is why I feel bad for cynics.

[_cinepro]

The reality, however, is that without exception, the general authorities have taken two different approaches. The overwhelming primary approach is that they adopt the hemispheric model, and that Cumorah is that hill in New York. The second is that they say it doesn't really matter, although this is a distant second. These FARMS apologists do not speak for the Church on this matter and nobody in authority claims that they do. Elder Oaks is on record saying that he finds the theory interesting, but that's it.

I never meant to imply that LDS apologists (even those paid by the Church) somehow speak for the Church. My interest is only in the phenomenon of a Church that prides itself on "continuous revelation" slowly delegating the dissemination of new knowledge about the scriptures and doctrines to those who don't have authority to speak for the Church in the first place, when in the past Church leaders have addressed such issues. There is precedent, counselor.

The last I checked, the Church has an official statement on evolution. It takes no position.

You're right. But apologists seem to be on the cutting edge by supporting a theory of "God directed Evolution". While many LDS reject evolution outright (a result of past and current teachings and doctrines from official Church sources), the "future" of LDS thought on the subject is no doubt being written by LDS scholars and apologists, not Prophets and Apostles.

I suppose, if one can figure out the mind of Joseph Smith himself. But, to a huge extent, what is known or not known about these events (leaving the Book of Abraham to one side) is based upon what people think Joseph Smith was thinking.

Until the Kinderhook plates were proven (via scientific testing) as frauds, Church members accepted them as authentic. An LDS with slightly out-of-date Church materials and an aversion to Google may still think they were authentic. And as far as I know, not a single shred of "knowledge" about the post-1966 Joseph Smith papyri has ever been uttered by an LDS Apostle or Prophet. It's all been left for the scholars, apologists and critics to hash out. And these are source documents for ancient scripture! (or maybe not; it would be awesome for a Prophet to tell us either way).

Truth be told, LDS general authorities have had no reason and no occasion to opine as to the presence of others. So they haven't. Why is it important that there were others or there were not others? Does it all come down to the DNA issue and is that why "others" are so important?

The most vivid example of relevance would be the Church's understanding of the polynesians.

But I am perfectly willing to accept those things which just aren't a concern to Church leaders, and thus fall by default to unofficial sources. But in the past, the lineage of Native Americans/Pacific Islanders has been a huge concern for Prophets and Apostles.

How deeply cynical. Truth be told, the study of human history and sociology is a fruitful area in Mormonism. Facts and details have been exhumed that general authorities could not possibly have known. I find it interesting how little some of the general authorities knew of certain circumstances, how they erred and sometimes dissembled under pressure.

That really wasn't the point of my OP. I was just observing that the trend for new knowledge and understanding of almost anything having to do with the Church or its doctrines seems to come from outside the channels of revelation, which isn't as it was in the past.

Sts Peter and Paul would have never withstood Cinepro's cynical view of what religion "ought to be," although for him religion is a farce and he's just outwardly going along for the ride.

I don't think I've ever really expressed a view of what religion "ought to be", so I don't know how to judge the validity of the first part (you may be right? maybe not?).

I do believe some religions are a "farce" (Scientology, Benny Hinn), but I don't think the CoJCoLdS is a "farce".

Although I do believe some aspects of the Church could be considered a "farce". Like our ward's recent roadshow. That was definitely a farce.

And you say "outwardly going along for the ride" like it's a bad thing.

[_silentkid]

The curious thing is how these new theories come from academic channels instead of Priesthood authorities.

These new theories may come from academic channels, but they are not bereft of priesthood authority or revelation. I'm pretty sure that Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin and other notable apologists have prayed for a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of their theories and have received those feelings of peace and enlightenment that they are entitled to as confirmed members of God's true church. They have felt the guiding hand of the lord in their search for explanations to difficult gospel issues. They are the new breed of preisthood authority, even Academic Authorities, which are far superior to those General ones.

[Guest]

Let me dig out my New Testament. Oops. Looks like they spend almost of their time rehashing safe doctrine and telling inspirational stories.

Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible.

This isn't really about the modern Prophet's reluctance to bring forth more scripture.

Maybe these somewhat rhetorical (but nevertheless realistic) questions can help you see where I'm coming from:

1. A friend confides that she is having difficulty understanding why God would deny black people the priesthood for 100+ years. She wants to learn more about the ban.

Do you tell her to search the scriptures, and the words of the Prophets available at LDS.org, or do you refer her to the FAIR Wiki and other apologetic writings?

2. Your brother has questions about Noah's ark, and whether the covenant signified by the rainbow applied to the whole planet. He is also wondering about whether or not Noah was a real person, and whether the flood itself covered the whole planet.

Do you tell her to search the scriptures, and the words of the Prophets available at LDS.org, or do you refer her to the FAIR Wiki and other apologetic writings?

3. Your son is a first year biology student at BYU. After learning about evolution, he has questions about whether or not Adam and Eve were really the first humans on the planet, and whether all living humans are descended from them. He also doubts that Adam lived ~6,000 years ago. He also wants to know if there was any physical death for plants, animals and people before the Fall of Adam.

Do you tell him to search the scriptures, and the words of the Prophets available at LDS.org, or do you refer him to the FAIR Wiki and other apologetic writings?

4. Your daughter comes home from seminary, and says she isn't clear about who will be resurrected. Will it be everyone, or just the righteous?

Do you tell her to search the scriptures, and the words of the Prophets available at LDS.org, or do you refer her to the FAIR Wiki and other apologetic writings?


In any area where there isn't an "overlap" with science, we look at the scriptures and words of the latter day prophets as the simple and final truth. But the second any "scientific" bearing is taken, suddenly there are a bazillion reasons to read the scriptures and prophetic utterances a different way, or set them aside in favor of more enlightened views.

[_The Nehor]

You're right. But apologists seem to be on the cutting edge by supporting a theory of "God directed Evolution". While many LDS reject evolution outright (a result of past and current teachings and doctrines from official Church sources), the "future" of LDS thought on the subject is no doubt being written by LDS scholars and apologists, not Prophets and Apostles.

This is what I mean by not getting the larger picture. How many LDS know or care about the apologists and their cutting edge theories? Most of the General Authorities know little about Apologetics and don't follow it at all. Critics have ballooned a relatively small budget organization on the fringe of the Church into a shadow organization that secretly controls the Church and the pattern of popular thought within it. I've lived over half of my life in the Church without knowing about it. My father who has served as Bishop, High Counselor, and other supposedly 'high' callings knew the name but had no idea what they did when I mentioned it in passing while visiting last night.