Church sanctioned apologetics/apologists and other thoughts

[msnobody]

I sort of lost track of things when I went back to school several years ago.

1. I'm sure this is a multi-faceted question. Does the church have any church sanctioned apologists? if so, who are they?

2. Also, I was listening recently to John Dehlin's church disciplinary/excommunication pod casts from like 2014-2015. I can understand why the church would question someone wanting to remain a member of the church when that person no longer holds belief in the core doctrines of the church.

It seems to me that the GAs are familiar with issues such as the Book of Abraham, DNA, and other issues. in my opinion, they have had ample time to investigate and address these issues with their members.

[dastardly stem]

I sort of lost track of things when I went back to school several years ago.

1. I'm sure this is a multi-faceted question. Does the church have any church sanctioned apologists? if so, who are they?

The only church sanctioned apologists are the General authorities when they act as apologists (which is honestly fairly rare, I think). And even then the church, which happens to be the other GAs, could reject any apologetic offered by another GA and say he was just speaking as a man. But the easy answer to your question is no. There aren't any defined Church sanctioned apologists.

2. Also, I was listening recently to John Dehlin's church disciplinary/excommunication pod casts from like 2014-2015. I can understand why the church would question someone wanting to remain a member of the church when that person no longer holds belief in the core doctrines of the church.

Me too. I just doubt that's what the Church was doing. The Church won't bother with me, because I'm not making a fuss like Dehlin and probably couldn't impact anyone if I tried anyway. I'd say the move against Dehlin was an attempt to message to members that they should not listen to him or his type. I don't think BYP (Philo) or RFM (Consig) have been through a discipline and they certainly have made public that they no longer hold believe in the core doctrines.

It seems to me that the GAs are familiar with issues such as the Book of Abraham, DNA, and other issues. in my opinion, they have had ample time to investigate and address these issues with their members.

i think some do, to some extent or another. I'd maintain though, some are blissfully ignorant for the most part. They likely have heard the complaints but haven't really given much notice to them, or given them much consideration.

[msnobody]

It seems to me that at some point this has to all come crashing down. You can only remove so many blocks before Jenga comes crashing down.

From an outsiders perspective, I think it is time for the church to exercise intellectual integrity, and examine everything from the basics much like The Worldwide Church of God did years ago.

[dastardly stem]

It seems to me that at some point this has to all come crashing down. You can only remove so many blocks before Jenga comes crashing down.

From an outsiders perspective, I think it is time for the church to exercise intellectual integrity, and examine everything from the basics much like The Worldwide Church of God did years ago.

What's the worldwide church of God and where are the findings of it's move to examine everything?

Religion has a way of weaseling out of every criticism. The imagined God is tricky, knows more than us and will seemingly do everything in his power to hide himself and his truths, even to the point of lying to everyone. That has been religion's way of staying afloat. You simply can't defeat illogic with logic, irrationality with rationality. You have to first convince people to accept rational thinking and then we'll all be better off.

[drumdude]

It works much better for them if they have apologists who are independent. This way each apologist can argue something different in a shotgun approach to try and explain away difficult issues. And if one approach takes heat for being bigoted or embarrassing, they have plausible deniability that they were never involved in the particular apologetic approach.


It’s exactly how you would expect prophets and the one true church to operate, right?

[msnobody]

It seems to me that at some point this has to all come crashing down. You can only remove so many blocks before Jenga comes crashing down.

From an outsiders perspective, I think it is time for the church to exercise intellectual integrity, and examine everything from the basics much like The Worldwide Church of God did years ago.

What's the worldwide church of God and where are the findings of it's move to examine everything?

Religion has a way of weaseling out of every criticism. The imagined God is tricky, knows more than us and will seemingly do everything in his power to hide himself and his truths, even to the point of lying to everyone. That has been religion's way of staying afloat. You simply can't defeat illogic with logic, irrationality with rationality. You have to first convince people to accept rational thinking and then we'll all be better off.

Here is a link to a video about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb76qyaC824

[BeNotDeceived]

It seems to me that at some point this has to all come crashing down. You can only remove so many blocks before Jenga comes crashing down.

From an outsiders perspective, I think it is time for the church to exercise intellectual integrity, and examine everything from the basics much like The Worldwide Church of God did years ago.

There is no honesty and integrity with the corporation that owns the religion. The 12 essays that cast serious doubt on the entirety of the foundational claims of the 'church' were released (er, buried) on the church's website in 2014 and yet to this day, 95% of the membership are entirely unaware of them as are missionaries, MP's, SP's and Bishops. I can't think of anything more abhorrent than these young kids being expected to pay $500/month of their own hard-earned money while their 'church' has $32 billion in the stock market and $124 billion in an Ensign Peak account to go out and teach a narrative their church admitted 8 years ago wasn't true while continuing to hide the fact that its founder was a con-man and contrived the entire religion through plagiarizing the works of others and with his own imagination by telling an oral story while looking at a rock in a hat!!!

[Doctor Scratch]

I sort of lost track of things when I went back to school several years ago.

1. I'm sure this is a multi-faceted question. Does the church have any church sanctioned apologists? if so, who are they?

Hi there, msnobody.

This is an interesting question, and it doesn't have a simple answer. And bear in mind that if you ask he apologists themselves, they will likely tell you different. That said, I honestly believe that the answer is: Yes, the LDS Church has "sanctioned apologists." These include the former members of FARMS (i.e., the "old" Maxwell Institute), FAIR, Book of Mormon Central, and the people involved with the Interpreter Foundation. If you were to ask the apologists, they would drag you into an argument about semantics--i.e., what do you mean by "sanctioned"? They would claim that they are operating on a purely voluntary level, and that the Church isn't actually "supporting" them or "sanctioning" them, or whatever else.

But there's a problem with that. First, the LDS Church "sanctions" these projects simply by allowing them to exist. They could intervene if they wanted to, or if they thought the apologists were causing problems, but they don't--even in spite of the fact that they clearly *do* cause all kinds of problems (such as provoking people into leaving the Church). Meanwhile, the Church has "sanctioned" apologetics in many other ways: i.e., by "sheltering" FARMS at BYU, and by lending moral support in the form of speeches, "pats on the back," and that kind of thing. The Church has also paid for its employees to attend the annual FAIR Conference.

Meanwhile, thousands of dollars have been "funneled" into these apologetics organizations using rather shady "shell organizations" such as the More Good Foundation. I.e., on the tax forms, you can see that some arm of the LDS Church put money into the offers of the MGF, and then this money was shifted over to FAIR or Interpreter or some other frankly apologetic organization.

So, yes: the Church *does* have "sanctioned" apologetics, but it's done in a roundabout and somewhat "sneaky" way. My sense is that the Brethren like having aggressive apologists when they're effective, but they also want plausible deniability, hence all this contortionist avoidance. Meanwhile, there are some of the Brethren who have taken issue with things that the Mopologists have done--hence (e.g.) the ejection of DCP from the Maxwell Institute, or the scolding that was doled out to Gee and DCP in the wake of their article attacking the JSPP.

[msnobody]

I sort of lost track of things when I went back to school several years ago.

1. I'm sure this is a multi-faceted question. Does the church have any church sanctioned apologists? if so, who are they?

Hi there, msnobody.

This is an interesting question, and it doesn't have a simple answer. And bear in mind that if you ask he apologists themselves, they will likely tell you different. That said, I honestly believe that the answer is: Yes, the LDS Church has "sanctioned apologists." These include the former members of FARMS (i.e., the "old" Maxwell Institute), FAIR, Book of Mormon Central, and the people involved with the Interpreter Foundation. If you were to ask the apologists, they would drag you into an argument about semantics--i.e., what do you mean by "sanctioned"? They would claim that they are operating on a purely voluntary level, and that the Church isn't actually "supporting" them or "sanctioning" them, or whatever else.

But there's a problem with that. First, the LDS Church "sanctions" these projects simply by allowing them to exist. They could intervene if they wanted to, or if they thought the apologists were causing problems, but they don't--even in spite of the fact that they clearly *do* cause all kinds of problems (such as provoking people into leaving the Church). Meanwhile, the Church has "sanctioned" apologetics in many other ways: i.e., by "sheltering" FARMS at BYU, and by lending moral support in the form of speeches, "pats on the back," and that kind of thing. The Church has also paid for its employees to attend the annual FAIR Conference.

Meanwhile, thousands of dollars have been "funneled" into these apologetics organizations using rather shady "shell organizations" such as the More Good Foundation. I.e., on the tax forms, you can see that some arm of the LDS Church put money into the offers of the MGF, and then this money was shifted over to FAIR or Interpreter or some other frankly apologetic organization.

So, yes: the Church *does* have "sanctioned" apologetics, but it's done in a roundabout and somewhat "sneaky" way. My sense is that the Brethren like having aggressive apologists when they're effective, but they also want plausible deniability, hence all this contortionist avoidance. Meanwhile, there are some of the Brethren who have taken issue with things that the Mopologists have done--hence (e.g.) the ejection of DCP from the Maxwell Institute, or the scolding that was doled out to Gee and DCP in the wake of their article attacking the JSPP.

That is much like I thought.

[msnobody]

Regarding John Dehlin’s pre-disciplinary council recording, I think I heard the stake president (?) say that if Mr. Dehlin resigned from church membership, it would be announced to the stake or at stake level. Are all person’s who resign membership— is it announced at stake level?