Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

If a person takes the position that the LDS Church is not responsible for statements made by Mormon leaders that are not official doctrine, on the basis that such things are merely speculation or personal opinions, then why would a person taking that position be justified in relying on speculation or personal opinion to defend what the Church actually does teach?

Please note that your personal agreement or disagreement with the premise is irrelevant to the question.

I can disagree with the way you wish to portray it, though, DJ. I certainly do not feel any one person is responsible for the statements by the Church. I can certainly be a part of the Church and not be responsible for every word uttered by those who have been in authority over the past 180 years. Indeed, I do not feel I, as one who wishes to defend against attacks by critics, at least in part, ought to be obligated to respond to every critique offered in response to some particular words by LDS leaders, particularly leaders who are no longer living. My pariticipation in the Church, in my eyes, does not require I square with every position. You take that to mean, it seems, that if I say I'm not responsible for any old claim made by some long gone leader, then I ought not be able to offer possibilities not mentioned by any leaders of the Church in response to efforts to prove the Church false. Your attempted corrolary is not very astute. I'd call it an attempt to equate apples with oranges.

[_stemelbow]

Yes. Skeptics who have the "its not official doctrine" thrown in their face when critiquing LDS teachings by past leaders, apostle and prophets, have every right to demand that the apologist explanation likewise conform to "official doctrine" status.

That is just stupid. You guys seem to want to have some cake and eat it too. If any particular defender agrees with you in terms of disagreeing with past LDS leaders words, then why int he world would you suggest we too can't respond unless we respond to any and all criticisms with "official doctrine"? You guys just want to paint your opponents in a corner and beat them with a bat, it seems.

Apologists do not however adhere to this fair standard of exchange and use doctrine to their advantage, but disregard it when attempting to defend other certain teachings, IE the global flood, the fall of man and other teachings.

It is craziness.

Apologists are humans who can have their own opinions. You think they should not and should be robots who agree with every idea espoused by LDS leaders for the past 180 years. Tlak about craziness.

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

If a person takes the position that the LDS Church is not responsible for statements made by Mormon leaders that are not official doctrine, on the basis that such things are merely speculation or personal opinions, then why would a person taking that position be justified in relying on speculation or personal opinion to defend what the Church actually does teach?

[_Darth J]

.......efforts to prove the Church false.

What is the negative sought to be proven by the indisputable fact that Joseph Smith's actual practice of plural marriage violates the conditions set out in D&C 132?

[_Buffalo]

That is just stupid. You guys seem to want to have some cake and eat it too. If any particular defender agrees with you in terms of disagreeing with past LDS leaders words, then why int he world would you suggest we too can't respond unless we respond to any and all criticisms with "official doctrine"? You guys just want to paint your opponents in a corner and beat them with a bat, it seems.

Apologists are humans who can have their own opinions. You think they should not and should be robots who agree with every idea espoused by LDS leaders for the past 180 years. Tlak about craziness.

Feel free to disagree with your leaders all you like. But if you're free to disregard a prophet's statement as non-doctrinal, why should your non-doctrinal defense of the church not receive the same treatment?

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

If a person takes the position that the LDS Church is not responsible for statements made by Mormon leaders that are not official doctrine, on the basis that such things are merely speculation or personal opinions, then why would a person taking that position be justified in relying on speculation or personal opinion to defend what the Church actually does teach?

I"ve already addressed this a couple of times, DJ. But foryou, I'll do it again. If a critique is offered for what the Church teaches, then a response can be given in a number of ways. So let's think of an example. If a critique arises that say, there never were Nephites because there is no archaeological evidence to suggest there were Christ believing people living int he Americas at the time th Book of Mormon claims. Well what is so wrong with a Sorenson coming along and offering what he sees as a possibility? For some reason you seem to be under the impression that it is wrong because Sorenson, lets say for teh sake of argument, might disagree with BY's words regarding race and in essence suggest he, personally, disagrees with the words of BY (i'm not advocating Sorenson himself takes this position, but he could). I really don't see a corrolary.

[_stemelbow]

What is the negative sought to be proven by the indisputable fact that Joseph Smith's actual practice of plural marriage violates the conditions set out in D&C 132?

I don't know. I'm speaking about efforts to prove the church false, which is not necessarily the same as efforts to prove Joseph Smith wrong in practice.

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

If---

1. The rationale for believing the official teachings of the LDS Church is that such teachings are the inspired words of prophets and apostles who have authority to speak for God;

2. The rationale for apologists attempting to defend such teachings is that they are defending the inspired words of prophets and apostles who have authority to speak for God;

and

3. The rationale for apologists not bothering to defend certain teachings of Mormon leaders is that such teachings have not been officially adopted by the Church, and therefore are simply that leader's personal opinion or speculation.

Then:

What is the rationale for finding personal opinion and speculation to be persuasive in explaining why the official teachings of the Church are credible?

[Guest]

What is the negative sought to be proven by the indisputable fact that Joseph Smith's actual practice of plural marriage violates the conditions set out in D&C 132?

I don't know. I'm speaking about efforts to prove the church false, which is not necessarily the same as efforts to prove Joseph Smith wrong in practice.

Stemelbow:

The LDS Church has canonized D&C 132 as scripture.

D&C 132 gives the following conditions for plural marriage:

*The consent of the previous wife must be sought
*The plural wives must be virgins
*The plural wives must be vowed to no one else
*A man's plural wives "are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth"

D&C 132:61-63

Joseph Smith:

*Only on occasion sought Emma's consent
*Entered plural marriage with women who were not virgins
*Entered plural marriage with women who were already married to another man
*Did not "multiply and replenish the earth" with his plural wives

The LDS Church has canonized D&C 121 as scripture. This scripture says the following:

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

D&C 121

If D&C 132 is a true scripture, then in order to for Joseph Smith to keep his priesthood authority, D&C 121 must be false. But if D&C 121 is false, then the LDS Church is false, because it has canonized a false scripture.

If D&C 132 is a false scripture, then the LDS Church is false, because it has canonized a false scripture.

If D&C 121 and 132 are both true, then Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority for violating the commandments found in D&C 132. If Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority, then the LDS Church is false, because Joseph Smith could not have passed on his priesthood authority (that authority having been revoked by the Lord per D&C 121).

How is proving the Church false "not necessarily the same as efforts to prove Joseph Smith wrong in practice"?

[_stemelbow]

What are we going to do here, continue to repeat ourselves but use different words? Okay. I guess i can play along for a while.

Stemelbow:

If---

1. The rationale for believing the official teachings of the LDS Church is that such teachings are the inspired words of prophets and apostles who have authority to speak for God;

2. The rationale for apologists attempting to defend such teachings is that they are defending the inspired words of prophets and apostles who have authority to speak for God;

and

3. The rationale for apologists not bothering to defend certain teachings of Mormon leaders is that such teachings have not been officially adopted by the Church, and therefore are simply that leader's personal opinion or speculation.

Then:

What is the rationale for finding personal opinion and speculation to be persuasive in explaining why the official teachings of the Church are credible?

Oh brother…I’m not saying a response to a critique is necessarily meant to explain why an official teaching of the Church is credible. Its often an attempt to suggest the critique itself is faulty in that it requires a conclusion that does no exhaust possibility. Just because you might conclude it is impossible that Nephites ever existed, does not mean Sorenson is forced to accept your conclusion. Indeed, he has offered reasons to think that the conclusion “it is impossible that they ever existed” is not the only conclusion available. One can reasonably conclude there is room in the environments of Mesoamerica that there were Nephites.