Something has got me thinking---namely, this tidbit from DCP:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
shipwreak wrote: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....
Mormons pride themselves on being a peculiar people, and Mormonism certainly has many peculiar beliefs. Some things are simply so far out there that there is no way a Mormon can discuss it with a non-peculiar person without sounding like a complete wacko. Basically, there are certain beliefs that are impossible to defend in front of an audience of normal people, or I should say non-peculiar people. An obvious topic that is off-limit on most Mormon message boards and which Mormons are commanded by their leaders to not talk about is the temple. For those of us who have been to the temple, it's really not a big deal. It's a little weird and ritualistic, but probably no stranger than a fraternity initiation. I think the only reason Mormons can't talk about the temple is because it got it's start as sort of a secret fraternity initiation in Nauvoo, and the secret society aspect of it has become a tradition.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
I don't know if it can be considered a "tactical retreat," but there are two issues that no apologist will touch with a 10-foot pole:
The explanation of figures in Facsimile #2. C'mon--the sun receives its light through the medium of Kae-E-Vanrash, which it borrows from Oblilish, which is equal in its time and revolutions to Kolob, known to the Egyptians as Ha-Ko-Kau-Beam? GIMME A BREAK!
Joseph Smith's run for the presidency of the United States of America. C'mon--The guy was already a prophet and head of his own private militia, but that wasn't enough so he had to be president too? If that doesn't scream out "megalomania," what does?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Mister Scratch wrote:Something has got me thinking---namely, this tidbit from DCP: 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.
Heck, this sounds really interesting and I missed when it happened. Any details?
* What the Nauvoo expositor actually reported (which essentially a conservative 85% was dead on)
* Joseph and Hyrum's cowardly escape to the rockies (a commandment given by God, but not followed to it's fulfillment because he caved to a handful of people calling him a coward).
* Brigham Young commanding the members in Nauvoo not to follow the forward party (which they unfaithfully did - and paid with their lives. Makes it tough to saint the ancestors)
Dr. Shades wrote:I don't know if it can be considered a "tactical retreat," but there are two issues that no apologist will touch with a 10-foot pole:
The explanation of figures in Facsimile #2. C'mon--the sun receives its light through the medium of Kae-E-Vanrash, which it borrows from Oblilish, which is equal in its time and revolutions to Kolob, known to the Egyptians as Ha-Ko-Kau-Beam? GIMME A BREAK
You may have egg (or other breakfast morsels) on your face when Elder Bednar devotes his next conference speech to explaining Kae-E-Vanrash.
Dr. Shades wrote:I don't know if it can be considered a "tactical retreat," but there are two issues that no apologist will touch with a 10-foot pole:
The explanation of figures in Facsimile #2. C'mon--the sun receives its light through the medium of Kae-E-Vanrash, which it borrows from Oblilish, which is equal in its time and revolutions to Kolob, known to the Egyptians as Ha-Ko-Kau-Beam? GIMME A BREAK
You may have egg (or other breakfast morsels) on your face when Elder Bednar devotes his next conference speech to explaining Kae-E-Vanrash.
I can't wait. I mean surely the Lord's anointed know more about the sun than those silly scientists. For one thing the scientists say the sun is really, really big when it's obvious just by looking at it that it's about the size of the moon. Eaither the sun isn't as big as they claim or the moon isn't as small as they claim. Which is it you silly scientists?
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
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.
What more is there to discuss? Hinkley stumbled over some words but ended up saying the right thing. Adam-God never existed. etc.
Mister Scratch wrote:Something has got me thinking---namely, this tidbit from DCP: 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.
Heck, this sounds really interesting and I missed when it happened. Any details?
James Clifford Miller
Essentially, a spot at BYU was set aside for Gee so that he could take of a "chief residency" as the primary defender of the Book of Abraham. According to several accounts, Gee hurriedly rushed through the defense of his doctoral dissertation---hurried so much and so dubiously, allegedly, that his dissertation chair, Robert Ritner, abandoned the whole process.
Further, none of the "main" apologists seems much interested in dealing with the Book of Abraham in any way whatsoever. The defenders consist of Gee, and a few dabblers and dilettantes, such as Will Schryver. The "big shots" such as DCP and Hamblin don't want anything to do with this "hot potato." I would imagine that the Book of Abraham is one of those subjects contained in Prof. P.'s "Do Not Publicly Discuss" file.
Dr. Shades wrote:I don't know if it can be considered a "tactical retreat," but there are two issues that no apologist will touch with a 10-foot pole:
The explanation of figures in Facsimile #2. C'mon--the sun receives its light through the medium of Kae-E-Vanrash, which it borrows from Oblilish, which is equal in its time and revolutions to Kolob, known to the Egyptians as Ha-Ko-Kau-Beam? GIMME A BREAK
You may have egg (or other breakfast morsels) on your face when Elder Bednar devotes his next conference speech to explaining Kae-E-Vanrash.
I can't wait. I mean surely the Lord's anointed know more about the sun than those silly scientists. Which is it you silly scientists?
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?