DiscussMormonism.com

One document that I have never seen an apologist respond to is the Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (April 6 and October 22, 1845). It's the second proclamation on the linked page.

It's an official proclamation so it presumably has the same authority and is as official as the endlessly quoted proclamation on the family. Anyway, the line that interests me is this one:

He has revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny.-And we know it.

That quote doesn't seem to offer much wiggle room. They are obviously referring to the Book of Mormon. They are also claiming that it reveals the origin of the aboriginal tribes of America. They also seem pretty sure about this, they are not content to just proclaim it, they also emphasize that they know it.

The logical conclusions seem to be: 1) They saw this continent as empty prior to the records of the Book of Mormon, 2) The migrations listed in the Book of Mormon are the origins of the inhabitants of the Americas, and 3) The Book of Mormon does not describe a limited geography, at least with respect to populations. The events of the book may take place in a limited area, but the populations resulting from the Book of Mormon migrations are hemispherical, not limited.

Do apologists attack the official status of the proclamation (thereby nullifying the proclamation on the family and rendering prop 8 actions incomprehensible)? Or do they find a way to harmonize the language with limited geography theories? Or is there something else I can't think of?

Aristotle Smith wrote: Or is there something else I can't think of?

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel." -- Homer Simpson

That is an interesting find, Aristotle.

The proclamation gets reduced to an opinion, which means basically everything that flows from the mouth of a church leader is also just opinion. But apologists then swing back by saying science is just opinion, always changing, and you can't put your trust in DNA and archaeology either. This attempt to level the playing field is misguided, since the track record of science is objectively better than religion, but it makes them feel better for still trusting their leaders' opinions when good sense calls its value into question.

The apologists will, in lengthy sentences with multiple syllable words and contorted reasoning, basically use the 'Oh, that silly Brigham' excuse that they've pulled out with things like AG theory.

Nimrod wrote:The apologists will, in lengthy sentences with multiple syllable words and contorted reasoning, basically use the 'Oh, that silly Brigham' excuse that they've pulled out with things like AG theory.

They're much more likely to throw Brigham under the bus than Joseph. They've tried very hard to cover Joseph with teflon.

harmony wrote:

Nimrod wrote:The apologists will, in lengthy sentences with multiple syllable words and contorted reasoning, basically use the 'Oh, that silly Brigham' excuse that they've pulled out with things like AG theory.

They're much more likely to throw Brigham under the bus than Joseph. They've tried very hard to cover Joseph with teflon.

Agreed, but there are even a few times when they've dismissed Joseph Smith that way too.

Matthews addresses this one... http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/Proclamati ... e_Apostles

Benson cited it again during conference in 1975.

Kevin Graham wrote:Matthews addresses this one...

http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/Proclamati ... e_Apostles

Benson cited it again during conference in 1975.

Where does he address it? The link is just the text of the proclamations.

He doesn't address it "apologetically" he just talks about it:

Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (April 6 and October 22, 1845) [The Proclamation of 1845 was issued by the Twelve only, because at that time there was no First Presidency due to the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844, and a new First Presidency was not organized until December 1847. The Proclamation was apparently made in response to a revelation given January 19, 1841 ( D&C 124:1-11). It was first printed in a sixteen-page pamphlet in New York City on April 6, 1845, and again in Liverpool, England, October 22, 1845. It was addressed to the rulers and people of all nations. This document was an announcement that God had spoken from the heavens and had restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. It spoke of blessings and of punishments to come, issued a warning voice, and invited all who were interested to assist in the building of the kingdom of God on the earth in preparation for the Savior's second coming. On October 3, 1975, President Ezra Taft Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke of this Proclamation and quoted portions of it in his general conference address (Ensign 15 [Oct. 1975]:32-34). Extracts from the 1845 Proclamation follow. ]

I guess an apologist could argue that only the prophet can declare official doctrine, and this statement was made when there wasn't a prophet leading the Church, nor a First Presidency.