Has 'Apologetics' influenced the official Church position?

[_Drifting]

I've read quite a bit of the propoganda that the hobby defenders of the Church have produced. It don't not seem to me to have been taken on board by the Church. The contortions and obfusctaion, the renaming and repositioning and reframing all seems to amount to all lot of effort for nothing.

I concede that I may be wrong and that the Church may take more notice of this field of self appointed pseudo-acadamic misdirection, but I can't seem to find any evidence that it does.

Can someone point out where Apologia has influenced change in the Church?

[_Dr. Shades]

Can someone point out where Apologia has influenced change in the Church?

Sure. In the "for public consumption" edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday, the church arranged for the introduction to say that the Lamanites are "among" the ancestors of the American Indians as opposed to the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians.

[_Drifting]

Can someone point out where Apologia has influenced change in the Church?

Sure. In the "for public consumption" edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday, the church arranged for the introduction to say that the Lamanites are "among" the ancestors of the American Indians as opposed to the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians.

Was that apologetics or was it DNA research that prompted the shift?

[_DrW]

The visible influence of apologetics on the public pronouncements of the top Church leaders seems to be much less than one might think given the massive credibility problems that the Church faces because of its history and corporate behavior.

However, apologists do serve an important purpose. Think about what they have to do, and how they do it. Apologists cannot be seen as contradicting the policies of the Church and so their job is to select, twist, ignore, excuse, and misrepresent the facts so as to create a tortured path of possibility from the facts to a specific otherwise untenable doctrine or teaching.

No Semitic DNA in the per-Columbian New World genome?

No problem - nobody knows what Jaredite or Lehite DNA looked like anyway. so how would they know if there was any of it the the Native American DNA in the first place?

Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian papyri that was actually a copy of the Book of Breathings of which there are several other copies, and incorrectly filled in and specifically misnamed entities represented in scenes from the papyri while doing so?

No problem - everyone knows that the original scroll was ten times longer than the existing portions and the Book of Abraham was on those missing parts, even though every feature recorded by eye witnesses regarding the scrolls can be seen on the extant papyri.

Anyway, I digress. The apologists provide a means by which members who want to believe the accumulation of myths, lies and misrepresentations that comprises modern Mormon teachings can continue to do so.

Amateur apologists and some members I have met really do know the stuff that FAIR and the MI put out. They think it is credible and will cite it in response to questions and expressed doubts about the LDS Church and its teachings.

So, IMHO, apologists do not exist to affect official Church policy or teachings. Rather, their role is to draw a crooked and sometimes broken line between those policies and teachings and the facts, such that the faithful can squint their eyes, and in their own minds, connect the two.

[_bcspace]

Can someone point out where Apologia has influenced change in the Church?

I think it's possible that apologetics has cleared up some erroneous private interpretations but not doctrine. Evolution in the context of preAdamites would be one such example as evidenced by the 1931 statement.

Sure. In the "for public consumption" edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday, the church arranged for the introduction to say that the Lamanites are "among" the ancestors of the American Indians as opposed to the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians.

The change is also reflected in the Church's online scriptures. I don't see this as a change at all in doctrine but a clarification to keep critics from misinterpreting among the possible meanings of 'principle' one of which is "most important".

[_Buffalo]

However, apologists do serve an important purpose. Think about what they have to do, and how they do it. Apologists cannot be seen as contradicting the policies of the Church and so their job is to select, twist, ignore, excuse, and misrepresent the facts so as to create a tortured path of possibility from the facts to a specific otherwise untenable doctrine or teaching.

...

So, IMHO, apologists do not exist to affect official Church policy or teachings. Rather, their role is to draw a crooked and sometimes broken line between those policies and teachings and the facts, such that the faithful can squint their eyes, and in their own minds, connect the two.

Case in point:

The change is also reflected in the Church's online scriptures. I don't see this as a change at all in doctrine but a clarification to keep critics from misinterpreting among the possible meanings of 'principle' one of which is "most important".

[_Drifting]

Can someone point out where Apologia has influenced change in the Church?

I think it's possible that apologetics has cleared up some erroneous private interpretations but not doctrine. Evolution in the context of preAdamites would be one such example as evidenced by the 1931 statement.

Sure. In the "for public consumption" edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday, the church arranged for the introduction to say that the Lamanites are "among" the ancestors of the American Indians as opposed to the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians.

The change is also reflected in the Church's online scriptures. I don't see this as a change at all in doctrine but a clarification to keep critics from misinterpreting among the possible meanings of 'principle' one of which is "most important".

I think you will find it's "principal" which is a different word entirely. Also the first mention of native American ancestors described them as "literal" - I think it was an official source that said this....

[_Dr. Shades]

Sure. In the "for public consumption" edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday, the church arranged for the introduction to say that the Lamanites are "among" the ancestors of the American Indians as opposed to the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians.

The change is also reflected in the Church's online scriptures. I don't see this as a change at all in doctrine but a clarification to keep critics from misinterpreting among the possible meanings of 'principle' one of which is "most important".

How can one group of ancestors be "more important" than any other?

[_bcspace]

I think you will find it's "principal" which is a different word entirely

Yes. Typo on my part. But I used the correct definition for what was meant.

How can one group of ancestors be "more important" than any other?

The ones that leavened the rest of the population comes to mind. For example, the ones that carried on the traditions spoken of, or the lineage etc.

[_just me]

Hasn't apologia existed in the church since the founding of it?

So, it would be hard to say what has been influenced by it or not. Especially when early leaders were involved in it. At least how I understand apologetics.

I mean, good grief, tons of doctrinal changes were made in the first couple decades.