The Miracle of Apologetics

[_rcrocket]

The (fairly) recent changes to the Book of Mormon's intro would strongly suggest otherwise, counselor.

That's it? That's the best you can do?

Hmm -- why not cite the civil rights movement as a basis for the priesthood change?

Why not cite the New Testament example of Paul being forced to move his mission to Rome because of secular authorities? Where was God in that move?

DCP has said that many of the Apostles are well-read in FARMS's Mopologetic materials. Certainly, I have seen Elder Oaks and others quote from apologetic publications.

Somehow, I don't think that Dr. Peterson speaks for general authorities. But, as my posts above indicate, I don't deny the fact that some general authorities draw upon publications that rely upon scholarly findings. I'm sure that Mormon scholarship leads to such things as memorials, seminars, and other things celebrating or investigating Church history and doctrine.

First of all (as you'll learn in my new thread), I feel confident that the top apologists have been called by the GAs to serve as apologists.

Sure thing. That's laughable and naïve.

[_Mister Scratch]

The (fairly) recent changes to the Book of Mormon's intro would strongly suggest otherwise, counselor.

That's it? That's the best you can do?

Bob---

Above, you mentioned Polynesian DNA. And now, here, you've omitted it. I wonder why?

Hmm -- why not cite the civil rights movement as a basis for the priesthood change?

Why not cite the New Testament example of Paul being forced to move his mission to Rome because of secular authorities? Where was God in that move?

Hmmm.... Probably because organized, Church-sanctioned apologetics post-dates both of these things?

DCP has said that many of the Apostles are well-read in FARMS's Mopologetic materials. Certainly, I have seen Elder Oaks and others quote from apologetic publications.

Somehow, I don't think that Dr. Peterson speaks for general authorities.

Well, then, you think wrong. Just ask the folks at MAD. Just ask some of the apostles themselves---perhaps even the apostles who set apart The Good Professor.

But, as my posts above indicate, I don't deny the fact that some general authorities draw upon publications that rely upon scholarly findings. I'm sure that Mormon scholarship leads to such things as memorials, seminars, and other things celebrating or investigating Church history and doctrine.

Face it: the closest thing the Church has to revelation these days is Mopologetics. How that must gall you.

[_rcrocket]

Well, then, you think wrong. Just ask the folks at MAD. Just ask some of the apostles themselves---perhaps even the apostles who set apart The Good Professor.

Unlike you, the sun doesn't rise and set for me on the basis of what happens with the hacks and fools who inhabit MAD. I'm sure they have strong opinions about themselves, and may think the sun rises and sets with them as well, but it don't. You're naïve.

Face it: the closest thing the Church has to revelation these days is Mopologetics. How that must gall you.

As you well know by know, nothing ruffles or galls me in the least. You keep claiming such, but it simply does not. I think that "Mopologetics" consumes about half a percent of the thinking of one or two general authorities for small periods of time and that's it. The Church does not have an apologetic department. The writers for the curriculum and the Ensign don't regularly consult FARMS publications. It be true, however, that some of the authors themselves in the Ensign may author articles as well for FARMS, but FARMS is nothing more than a hobby for some.

[_The Nehor]

First of all (as you'll learn in my new thread), I feel confident that the top apologists have been called by the GAs to serve as apologists. I don't think they are "speculating" at all, and I think that they believe they are sincerely doing the Lord's work.

In 20 minutes speculation becomes confidence with no evidence and no knowledge whatsoever. How do you function in society? I'm genuinely curious.

[_rcrocket]

But now, LDS with a similar desire to learn must often turn to unofficial apologetic/scholarly sources. Which is all fine and dandy, until those unofficial sources have to tell you not to pay attention to certain past prophetic statements (which at the time were considered "official" to Church members).

For somebody who lives in California you have a remarkably narrow Wasatch Front mentality.

I doubt there are more than 10 people in your stake who "must turn to unofficial apologetic/scholarly sources" to answer any question. I don't even subscribe to FARMS Review. I have visited the FAIR site maybe 20 times in my life. My ratio of books is 10:1 Signature Books vs all other church authors.

The day to day Saint relies upon the Scriptures, faith and prayer, and not the musings of Thomas Aquinas or his LDS counterpart.

For those who turn to scholarly sources, it is impossible to categorize them as orthodoxy versus heretical. All articles run the gamut. Just as Anglicanism spawned a host of commentators -- C.S. Lewis and the deep ranks of higher critics -- so has Mormonism spawned a host of commentators; some good, some bad. They write to see their writing in print, for the same reason you spend so much time on this board, to satisfy your own vanity.

But, people find meaning and wisdom in scholarship (or even pseudo-scholarship). But, just because people consult the Expositor's Bible for biblical commentary doesn't mean that the reader has given up on seeking inspiration directly from the Bible.

The Church and its members just don't work the way you tell us it does. It is isn't as black and white as you indicate -- the stupid sheep follow MAD and its hacks and fools, and the intelligent and gifted find wisdom in cynicism. There are all sorts of grades in between.

[_The Dude]

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?

I tell them to fast and pray about it. If they want information on the history of the ban, I might recommend something.

If they feel that strongly that they need information, prayer is recommended.

I get him copies of the First Presidency declaration and say that beyond that he can figure it our as he likes.

I give her chapter and verse in the Book of Mormon. That one is easy.

Twelve years ago I went toe to toe with my father on a number of controversial LDS issues: Freemasonry and the temple, Book of Mormon anachronisms, Lamanite DNA (predating Thomas Murphy!), human evolution... etc. In round 1 all he had was his testimony because he wasn't prepared for the issues I raised. In round 2, he prepared himself by reading FARMS apologetics and John Sorenson's book about Book of Mormon limited geography.

Apologists are used to fill the gaps left by Prophets, scriptures and testimonies. And when apologetics works where the others don't, academics become a new source of gospel.

[_Brackite]

I don't think #2 and 3 are answered in the Scriptures.

I believe that the LDS Scriptures Teach and clearly Point to a World Wide Flood of Noah.

Please Check Out and See:

The Flood of Noah:

[_The Nehor]

I don't think #2 and 3 are answered in the Scriptures.

I believe that the LDS Scriptures Teach and clearly Point to a World Wide Flood of Noah.

Please Check Out and See:

The Flood of Noah:

I don't think they prove any such thing. Noah didn't know how pervasive the flood was and I see nothing to suggest that Moroni and/or Ether was doing anything more then being poetic.

[_Ray A]

and I see nothing to suggest that Moroni and/or Ether was doing anything more then being poetic.

Perhaps Joseph was also being poetic about Moroni appearing in his room.

[_The Nehor]

and I see nothing to suggest that Moroni and/or Ether was doing anything more then being poetic.

Perhaps Joseph was also being poetic about Moroni appearing in his room.

Nope.