The Miracle of Apologetics

[_rcrocket]

And, it was the quintessential straw man. Describe the Church and how it operates in a way that it doesn't even remotely, and with no evidence to boot, and then attack that paradigm. Truly, truly remarkable as to what passes for logic on this board. You all fawn over him, to boot.

The truth is that most members of the church simply don't care about these issues, Bob. But cinepro's point, which most of us seem to have understood, is that, when these issues do arise, it's the apologists who are relied on to resolve the problem, not necessarily the Brethren.

And need I say again that sneering does not become you.

I sneer faithfully and well.

Let's examine the point again, now your point "When these issues do arise, it's the apologists who are relied upon to resolve the problem, not necessarily the Brethren."

Again, a sweeping generalization -- just like Cinepro's.

What issues? A one word change in the preamble to the Book of Mormon?

I mean, wouldn't there by some evidence to support this claim?

What about all the other "issues?" Were apologists relied upon to lead to a change in the priesthood? Now, there's an "issue." Were apologists relied upon to lead to the most recent changes to the Book of Mormon -- slight word changes here and there? Now, there's an "issue." Were apologists relied upon to excommunicate the September Six, to pursue Prop 8, to oppose Big Love? Now there's "issues."

No doubt, the output of FARMS does have some impact upon the way the Brethren think about history and procedure. Before FARMS it was other thinkers and intellectuals in and outside of the Church, from political advisors and friends in the East (Kane, Bennet), to intellectuals in the Church (Roberts, Widstoe). The Church doesn't just consult a Sybillian oracle to get direction as to procedure; it follows the Matthean mandate to make a decision in council then operate of that decision. But FARMS is just one more resource for the Brethren to use, but it is shocking and absurd to adopt Cinepro's opening thought that apologists now speak ex cathedra.

[_cinepro]

The observation in my OP is specifically referring to Church members who care about such things,

Remarkable. Your opening post made sweeping generalizations about what the Church thinks and does and how the Brethren receive or don't receive revelation, and the apologetic role in all that. Now, you say that your opening post is limited specifically to Church members who care about such things, which I think is less than 5 people in your stake.

Pretty easy to create a straw man, I'd say, but please for consistency's sake don't burn the man down at the first challenge.

I thought I was specific enough in the following paragraph:

But for those who have an interest in the Church, the scriptures, and the "details" behind the stories and doctrines, I think it is easy to overlook the miracle of Apologetics and scholars, and Apologetic theories, and their ability to grant us knowledge that eluded even previous prophets and apostles.

I was referring to the Church members who have the desire and initiative to read and study and ask questions beyond what they get in the Sunday School lessons. I don't think I made any claim as to how many of these kinds of people there are in the Church (or your stake). I am merely interested in the idea that for those people, their line if inquiry will take them away from the statements of the Prophets and Apostles, when in the past it was the Prophets and Apostles who were at the forefront of revealing knew knowledge about the scriptures and the stories contained therein.

For example, look at the example of Noah's ark and Nehor. Nehor recognizes that if one doesn't want to accept the official LDS view of Noah and the worldwide flood, you have to punt and discount every statement on the Church website that contradicts the Local Flood theories. Instead of turning to the words of the Prophets and Apostles to learn more and more, we must turn away from them (and instead turn towards the theories of the apologists and scientists.)

But seriously, rcrocket, you keep trying to make this about me personally, when I'm just trying to explore an idea. It's kind of like your weird reaction to my comments about the New Year's Youth Program. I would apologize if the subject of this thread hits a nerve and you just can't abide it, but based on your reaction to the "Brand New Year" thread, I suspect you may be

I'm perfectly open to the idea that my observation is half-cooked, off-base and just plain wrong. I'm open to the idea that it is irrelevant, and has no practical application. But can clarify what your specific problem is? You say I wasn't specific enough, but as I quoted above, I did say I was only referring to Church members who have a desire to increase their understanding about certain subjects.

I think it is most likely that I am wrong for one reason: Church leaders in the past spoke about "advanced topics" when in fact they shouldn't have, and they focus on the "basics" because that is the only thing that is important. The current situation is an improvement over the past. (But to that I would ask why they would continue to promulgate not just the "basics", but erroneous teachings as well, and require Church members to search outside sources for the true picture of the scriptures.)

An additional note: This trend is probably most obvious in the shift in quality of the Ensign magazine. Until the mid-1980's, the magazine regularly featured articles on scholarly subjects and "advanced" topics (including articles by John Sorenson himself). But in the late '80s and early '90s, there was a drastic shift to more "inspirational" content as if they were trying to mimic that Watchtower publications.

[_cinepro]

What about all the other "issues?" Were apologists relied upon to lead to a change in the priesthood? Now, there's an "issue." Were apologists relied upon to lead to the most recent changes to the Book of Mormon -- slight word changes here and there? Now, there's an "issue." Were apologists relied upon to excommunicate the September Six, to pursue Prop 8, to oppose Big Love? Now there's "issues."

I agree. I don't think apologists, scholars and scientists are running the Church, or somehow involved in policy and procedural matters (except of course for those GA's who are scholars and scientists ).

But I do think the apologists, scholars and scientists have assumed the role of "interpreters of scripture" (both literally and figuratively), keepers of the history, and explainers of the doctrine, all roles that were previously held by the Prophets and Apostles themselves. And in those cases where there is a conflict between the two (scope of Noah's flood, physical death before the Fall, location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, etc.) apologists Trump the Prophets and Apostles.

I'm not arguing that it means the Church is less true than it once was. There is no rule that says the Lord's True Church can't have a cadre of scholars to help interested members figure out which stuff the Church is teaching that isn't true. It's just an observation, and if it is a valid one, I would be curious to know how it happened, and what it means for the future.

In a way, this means that the true "critics" of the Church are the apologists, scholars and scientists who are examining the statements of the Prophets and Apostles and letting us know which we should believe, and which we shouldn't. It's like doctrinal quality control. They help weed out the personal, fallible opinions of the leaders (that the the leaders themselves believe are "true"), and help the interested members come to a more correct understanding of these things. It's like what the Holy Ghost is supposed to do, but these guys have a web page.

[_krose]

[fawning mode on]
Excellent thread, cinepro, with very good, thoughtful points.
[/fawning mode off]

I have always had difficulty understanding how liberal Mormons (and other Bible believers, for that matter) can bend their beliefs to fit the scientific facts that become too obvious to deny. I give them credit for not trying to deny the evidence, but the contortions required to keep believing look painful.

I can't see how people are able to fit modified concepts such as guided evolution, a local Noah's flood, limited Book of Mormon geography, vastly outnumbered Nephites, etc., onto the seemingly clear language of scripture, as well as the words of so many apostles and prophets.

Perhaps it's because I didn't try it. As I became more educated, I came to see that the biblical/temple creation account couldn't be true, because I could not deny the fact that the earth is ancient and that life evolved gradually. Also, there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, but plenty against it. Rather than trying to make my beliefs fit the "reality on the ground," I abandoned the beliefs. I dismissed the biblical accounts as fiction, and determined that the prophets who taught that these stories were real events were uninspired.

[_rcrocket]

But seriously, rcrocket, you keep trying to make this about me personally, when I'm just trying to explore an idea. It's kind of like your weird reaction to my comments about the New Year's Youth Program. I would apologize if the subject of this thread hits a nerve and you just can't abide it, but based on your reaction to the "Brand New Year" thread, I suspect you may be

It is not always about you.

In a way, this means that the true "critics" of the Church are the apologists, scholars and scientists who are examining the statements of the Prophets and Apostles and letting us know which we should believe, and which we shouldn't. It's like doctrinal quality control. They help weed out the personal, fallible opinions of the leaders (that the the leaders themselves believe are "true"), and help the interested members come to a more correct understanding of these things. It's like what the Holy Ghost is supposed to do, but these guys have a web page.

There you go again. Empowering the "apologists" with ex cathedra authority.

What is your very best example of apologists engaging in "doctrinal quality control." I care not a whit about their opinions, but I'd like proof as to all the "issues" you claim have been resolved by the Church using apologia. I'll grant you the preamble, for now, to the Book of Mormon. What else?

[_The Nehor]

For example, look at the example of Noah's ark and Nehor. Nehor recognizes that if one doesn't want to accept the official LDS view of Noah and the worldwide flood, you have to punt and discount every statement on the Church website that contradicts the Local Flood theories. Instead of turning to the words of the Prophets and Apostles to learn more and more, we must turn away from them (and instead turn towards the theories of the apologists and scientists.)

If there was a punt it was from common interpretation to seeking the source of all truth, i.e. God. It was not a punt to the apologists who I trust less then I do Prophets and Apostles who I in turn trust less then God.