DiscussMormonism.com

In 1968, an American military officer explained the decision to bomb and shell the village of Ben Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." When I see what some apologists do to LDS doctrine, history, and scripture, I realize that, in order to save the LDS church's truth-claims, they must destroy the church that is and create an imaginary religion that they can defend.

Just today I've been told that the LDS church does not necessarily hold that Adam and Eve actually existed, or that they were the first humans and parents of all humans who came after them; that the priesthood ban, which prophets, apostles, and scripture all describe in terms of race, had nothing to do with race; that it's doctrine that Cumorah wasn't necessarily in New York.

A slightly different approach is the one that rewrites or redefines scripture so that it is no longer problematic. Thus, steel isn't steel, swords aren't swords, smelting isn't smelting, horses aren't horses, and chariots aren't chariots. And when Joseph Smith said in canonized scripture that he translated from Egyptian papyri, he really didn't; further, when he explained the vignettes shown in the facsimiles, he wasn't really explaining what they were.

It seems to me that many apologists seek to defend the church by diluting its truth-claims or distorting them such that they no longer mean anything.

This is not defending the LDS church.

They may be defending Internet Mormonism, but they certainly aren't defending Chapel Mormonism.

Dr. Shades wrote:They may be defending Internet Mormonism, but they certainly aren't defending Chapel Mormonism.

Silly Shades! Don't you know that the terms, "Chapel Mormonism" and "Internet Mormonism" don't really exist? ;-)

That's Liz doing her best Simon impersonation.

MrStakhanovite wrote:That's Liz doing her best Simon impersonation.

No. Simon was offended by the use of the term, "Mormon" altogether. Remember? ;-)

liz3564 wrote:No. Simon was offended by the use of the term, "Mormon" altogether. Remember? ;-)

LOL, I totally forgotten that.

Silly Shades! Don't you know that the terms, "Chapel Mormonism" and "Internet Mormonism" don't really exist?

The concepts don't actually exist in any paradigm. Most active TBM's I know are quite familiar with the criticisms of the Church. The dichotomy occurs between who I call Fielding-McConkites and the rest.

The concepts don't actually exist in any paradigm. Most active TBM's I know are quite familiar with the criticisms of the Church. The dichotomy occurs between who I call Fielding-McConkites and the rest.

So Chapel Mormons = Fielding-McConkites and Internet Mormons = "the rest"?

Interesting view.

And true: Most active TBMs you know are probably Internet Mormons.

Runtu wrote:In 1968, an American military officer explained the decision to bomb and shell the village of Ben Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." When I see what some apologists do to LDS doctrine, history, and scripture, I realize that, in order to save the LDS church's truth-claims, they must destroy the church that is and create an imaginary religion that they can defend.

Just today I've been told that the LDS church does not necessarily hold that Adam and Eve actually existed, or that they were the first humans and parents of all humans who came after them; that the priesthood ban, which prophets, apostles, and scripture all describe in terms of race, had nothing to do with race; that it's doctrine that Cumorah wasn't necessarily in New York.

A slightly different approach is the one that rewrites or redefines scripture so that it is no longer problematic. Thus, steel isn't steel, swords aren't swords, smelting isn't smelting, horses aren't horses, and chariots aren't chariots. And when Joseph Smith said in canonized scripture that he translated from Egyptian papyri, he really didn't; further, when he explained the vignettes shown in the facsimiles, he wasn't really explaining what they were.

It seems to me that many apologists seek to defend the church by diluting its truth-claims or distorting them such that they no longer mean anything.

This is not defending the LDS church.

Your post makes an important point, and one to which I would like to see the apologists attempt a response.

The kinds of claims you refer to by the US Military in 1968 were a recurring theme in our training as US Marine recruits preparing for battle in Viet Nam in the late 1960's. While a few of the older and better educated saw the irony in these claims, most of the newly minted warriors, myself included, were happy to believe, and believe in, these kinds of military doctrine.

A lot of good it did us, or the country. About one in three of the young men that I went through advanced infantry training (ATR) with, starting in February of 1966, came back from Viet Nam in coffins, if they came back at all.

I know this because the senior enlisted personnel at Camp Pendleton maintained our black and white Company photographs, Company by Company, and would indicate the casualties as they were reported through command with a red "X" over the faces of the fallen. I was able to have a look at my so altered Company photograph at Camp Pendleton in 1971.

Sorry for the slight personal derail, but Rutu has a good point, and I was trying to show that the analogy might hold on an even deeper level. Attempting to change the Gospel to make it more appealing to rational people actually destroys what the Gospel is (or was). Apologetic revisionism simply highlights the inconsistencies and even silliness of the "restored" gospel and thereby robs it of any credibility or value it might have once had.

Not only is it likely that the apologists will not succeed in making the Gospel more appealing to people who use logic and reason, they may well damage or destroy it in the eyes of many who were perfectly happy with the Gospel as they had been indoctrinated into it before the apologists tried to "fix" things.

The apologists quest here reflects the same mindset as that of a military officer shelling a village in an attempt to win the hearts and minds of its inhabitants. As we used to say, only half jokingly, "fighting for peace" is like "f***ing for virginity".

bcspace wrote:The concepts don't actually exist in any paradigm. Most active TBM's I know are quite familiar with the criticisms of the Church. The dichotomy occurs between who I call Fielding-McConkites and the rest.

Simple BS. Whenever BC says something like this it should set up alarm bells. BC don't crow about intellectual dishonesty anymore when you continually peddle such dog poo as this. Moses of us here have as much experience in the church as you. Indeed a few of us were hobby defenders. Most active TBMs have little to no clue about the criticisms against the church. In fact most intentionally avoid such things.