Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_Darth J]

I do not necessarily say defenses or responses to critique are meant to be persuasive in explaining why the official teachings of the church are credible.

Then what precisely is the point of Mormon apologetics?

As I said, the rationale to appeal to personal opinion and speculation in defending against criticism is to explain that the conclusion offered in the criticism (perhaps that Nephites never existed) is not the only conclusion to draw.

Let's pretend that I am a defender of the faith addressing criticism of men of black African lineage being denied the priesthood prior to 1979. The Official Proclamation revoking the priesthood ban offers no reason as to why it had suddenly become acceptable to the Lord for black men to hold the priesthood. However, in the absence of official doctrine, we are free to speculate. It is also a valid tactic to offer personal opinion and speculation when defending criticism of the Church. So I take something that was said in General Conference:

Elder George F. Richards
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, April 1939

Punishment of Those Not Valiant

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin.

But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom.

What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm. he Lord, through one of his servants, addressing the angel of the church of the Laodiceans, said:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou were cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

To members of the Church I would ask, are any of us of that class today-lukewarm, indifferent and neutral-a lesson to be learned from the experiences of others who have gone before. I firmly believe that God had something to do with the recording of these events, and having them preserved and handed down to us from generation to generation, that we might read, and reading, profit thereby. We are under direct command of the Lord to search the scriptures, where these things are contained. We have been admonished in this conference so to do.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, April 1939

It is written in our own revelations that only those that can abide the celestial law can endure celestial glory. As we sow so shall we reap. We are reaping now, here on the earth. Blessed and fortunate are we, the sons of Joseph, the descendants of Israel, for we are reaping the consequence of our righteousness before ever we lived on this earth. Just as Brother George F. Richards has indicated that our poor benighted negro brethren are suffering the consequence of their sowing at some other time and place, so as certainly shall we hereafter reap what we are sowing here and now.

President George F. Richards
President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, October 1947

The Negro race have been forbidden the priesthood, and the higher temple blessings, presumably because of their not having been valiant while in the spirit. It does not pay to be anything but valiant.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard.
(President of Northwestern States Mission.)
Conference Reports, April 1915


My brethren and sisters, we are here reaping the reward of our, former labors, and we are going hereafter to reap the consequences of our lives and works here. We know, from the doctrines that we have received, that men and women have existed before coming into this life, for countless ages, and that we have been developing certain qualities, and the reason we are separated into great classes, as the Negro race and the other races on the earth, is not a matter of caprice. God did not take three beautiful children yesterday morning, and say to one, You go to the Negro woman, and to another one, You go to that Chinese mother, and to another, You go down to that beautiful Christian home. In my opinion, there were classes and races, and separation into different groups and conditions before we came to this world, and all are getting what they are entitled to receive here. But this is as far as we will travel together, for after this life, some will get a celestial glory, and some a terrestrial glory, and some a telestial, and we will no longer journey in a great class, or in a great company, made up of all classes. I believe that, while there will be classes in the spheres to which we will belong, we shall be grouped on separate planets. If we comply with all requirements we will be prepared to go into the highest places for further advancement, and that is celestial glory, and it is gained by obedience to celestial law. The celestial abode will be upon this redeemed earth, for God has declared that it will fulfill the purpose for which He has created it, and it will no longer need to have the light of the sun by day nor moon and stars by night, but will have power to emit its own light. It shall be the home of those who overcome, and who have kept the law, and who have measured up to all the requirements.

Then I combine what was taught by LDS leaders with my personal opinion and speculation that all of the less valiant spirits have already been born and died, so spirits who are now being born into the bodies of black men were valiant enough in the pre-existence that they can have the priesthood in this life, and that's why the priesthood ban was lifted.

Would you encourage an apologist to take this approach? Why or why not?

[_Darth J]

You do realize the Church generally acknowledges that people don't obey perfetly, even church members? the level of obedience is most often between God and individuals. Here you wish to suggest perfect obedience is required that is not the spirit of the message.

Nobody said anything about "perfect" obedience. We are talking about systematic, consistent disobedience.

There is also precedent in the Mormon narrative for Joseph Smith losing the power of God for unrighteousness. He lost the ability to translate the golden plates for a time because he was not righteous.

2. Joseph Smith indisputably did seek to cover his practice of plural marriage. His practice of plural marriage, being contrary to the Lord's commands, was by definition sinful. Therefore, he did seek to cover his sins, and would have lost his priesthood authority if D&C 121 is true. That means that the LDS Church cannot be true, since the founding prophet lost his priesthood authority. But if D&C 121 is false, then the Church is false for canonizing a false scripture.

Covering his practice of plural marriage is not necessarily covering his sin though. His sin, I'll grant for argument's sake, was the means of practicing it. We do not know if ultimately he repented of that. Also, we need suppose that if Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority the Church is false, per se. That's an unwarranted assumption it seems.

If:

(1) he was sinning; and

(2) he was covering it up;

then he was covering up his sins.

Repentance means confessing and forsaking one's sins. Joseph Smith neither confessed nor forsook his practicing plural marriage contrary to the Lord's commandments, literally up to his dying day. By definition, we would have to know if he repented, since confession is the start of the repentance process.

If Joseph Smith lost the keys to the priesthood, then the modern LDS Church cannot legitimately claim to have the priesthood keys now---considering that the LDS Church claims its leaders have the priesthood keys through Joseph Smith.

By the way, a conclusion arrived at by deductive reasoning is not an "assumption."

[_Themis]

I acknowledge that in responding to criticisms by suggesting there are more possibilities then required by said critiques I am doing much like my math teacher if'n a critic offers critiques for his opinion of bigfoot.

Just as long as you establish a possibility as plausible or probable then you're fine. :)

[_bcspace]

1. The Church teaches that the exercise of priesthood power depends on obedience to commandments.

........

If the teachings of the Church are true, then Joseph Smith lost the authority of the priesthood because he was not obeying the commandments. Therefore, Joseph Smith could not have continued to exercise the priesthood, so the Church is false.

Somewhere in the middle of all this, you switched from the ability to use priesthood power with the ordination of the priesthood itself.

[_Darth J]

1. The Church teaches that the exercise of priesthood power depends on obedience to commandments.

........

If the teachings of the Church are true, then Joseph Smith lost the authority of the priesthood because he was not obeying the commandments. Therefore, Joseph Smith could not have continued to exercise the priesthood, so the Church is false.

Somewhere in the middle of all this, you switched from the ability to use priesthood power with the ordination of the priesthood itself.

How do you propose that Joseph Smith could continue to use priesthood power if he lost the authority?

[_bcspace]

How do you propose that Joseph Smith could continue to use priesthood power if he lost the authority?

You seem to be forgeting your own quote of Scott:

However, the conferring of authority alone does not of itself bestow the power of the office. The extent to which we can exercise the power of the priesthood depends upon personal worthiness, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and obedience to His commandments.

So the question remains, when did Joseph Smith lose his authority? Losing the ability to exercise the power usually does not necessarily mean the loss of one's ordination.

[_Darth J]

You seem to be forgeting your own quote of Scott:

However, the conferring of authority alone does not of itself bestow the power of the office. The extent to which we can exercise the power of the priesthood depends upon personal worthiness, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and obedience to His commandments.

So the question remains, when did Joseph Smith lose his authority? Losing the ability to exercise the power usually does not necessarily mean the loss of one's ordination.

But I quoted the Lord as well as Richard G. Scott. In D&C 121:37, the Lord says that unrighteousness means "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

That means that Joseph Smith lost both the authority and ability to exercise the authority he no longer had.

Thank you for clarifying this important point, bcspace.

[_bcspace]

So the question remains, when did Joseph Smith lose his authority? Losing the ability to exercise the power usually does not necessarily mean the loss of one's ordination.

But I quoted the Lord as well as Richard G. Scott. In D&C 121:37, the Lord says that unrighteousness means "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

That means that Joseph Smith lost both the authority and ability to exercise the authority he no longer had.

Thank you for clarifying this important point, bcspace.

But according to official doctrine (Scott), this is not how one would interpret that verse. You're getting better at accepting the Church's definition of doctrine but your ability to actually use it is lacking.

I also recommend reading the manual on this and the surrounding verses. Repentance is certainly possible.

[_Darth J]

But according to official doctrine (Scott), this is not how one would interpret that verse. You're getting better at accepting the Church's definition of doctrine but your ability to actually use it is lacking.

I also recommend reading the manual on this and the surrounding verses. Repentance is certainly possible.

Just for fun, let's go with this.

Joseph Smith, for argument's sake, didn't lose his ordination to the priesthood. He just lost the ability to do anything with it. Things like:

--receive revelation
--guide the Church
--ordain a successor to preside over the Church
--pass on priesthood keys
--etc.

Wow, things sure are looking up for the Prophet now!

Now, let's do talk about doctrine. Official LDS doctrine is that to repent, a person has to confess and forsake his sins. I suppose that Joseph Smith COULD have regained his priesthood authority if he confessed that he was practicing plural marriage contrary to the way the Lord commanded, and then stopped doing it.

And Joseph Smith did indeed acknowledge his sins and forsake them when.....umm......uhh........

[_stemelbow]

Would you encourage an apologist to take this approach? Why or why not?

I would not encourage it. The first sign for me would be that such an approach relies on statements made pre-1978. I mean what you did here is probably not far off from what others tried to do around 1978. In my eyes understanding evolves a little over time, and in time and evolution ideas to express the why of things or the how of things becomes more and more reasonable. Inevitably this leads to periods of time when speculation may lead to misunderstanding, or direct the conversation in the wrong direction. For instance, Mike Reed's recent presentation, as I understand it, showed that people, at least some, were familiar with the notion that ancient people engraved words onto metal plates. If his argument holds up then notion that Joseph Smith couldn't have known it becomes moot, because whether he did or not doesn't matter as much as whether he could have.