The Miracle of Apologetics

[_moksha]

Critics often complain that the heavens are "silent", and that God has been negligent in His proclivity to reveal knew and interesting things. But if the apologists are correct in their theories and suggestions, then God hasn't been silent, he has just shifted his conduit from the pulpit to the Fair Wiki.

Prophecy may come around every generation or two or three. You get Speculation with every issue of their Book Review.

[_cinepro]

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.

I'm sorry Nehor, but it is the official doctrine of the LDS Church that the Flood of Noah was worldwide. This is taught in the Old Testament, The Book of Mormon, The Book of Moses, and reinforced continually over the last 180 years in every sort of official Church publication, including the current Sunday School curriculum (taught to every adult member of the Church every 4 years) and the college-level CES courses.

The internal evidences in Genesis clearly refer to a worldwide flood; Noah may have thought his local geographical area was the "Earth", but God's wording of the covenant clearly shows that God was referring to the entire planet.

This is an excellent example of the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles, and official Church publications all being in harmony on a subject, but modern scholars and apologists developing new theories and asking you to disregard all that has been said before. Nevermind that the "limited Flood theory" makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like it might be more "scientific" (and less falsifiable), so it must be taught.

In this case, if someone were to search the scriptures and the words of the Prophets and Apostles and the official Church publications, they would arrive at a conclusion diametrically opposed to modern apologetic theories. Thus, apologists must insist that we ignore or "reinterpret" the voluminous claims and clarifying statements made on the subject.

If the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles, and official Church curriculums and publications are mistaken on this subject, then it opens the door to a whole host of repeated, blatant errors being made on all sorts of subjects. Mistakes that the Prophets and Apostles seem to be unaware of, and totally unable to correct.

[_cinepro]

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

It seems every time you have made an assumption about me or my motivations, you have been curiously off the mark. I suspect you have read few of my posts over the years, and have a very selective memory for those you have read. If your impressions have been formed largely from my recent participation on this board, then I would guess that it is also being colored by your experiences with other "critics" on this board, and the overall tenor of the discussions.

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.

I agree. My OP is referring primarily to those members who are interested in such things.

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.

My primary motivation for posting has always been the opportunity to explore ideas that can't be satisfactorily discussed in any other medium. I've found posting anonymously allows me to speak more freely, and keeps me from taking it seriously enough to become "vain". This comment handily supports my first comment above.

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 observation in my OP is specifically referring to Church members who care about such things, and wish to take the time and effort to further explore such details and new information. I agree that most Church members couldn't care less.

[_The Nehor]

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.

I'm sorry Nehor, but it is the official doctrine of the LDS Church that the Flood of Noah was worldwide. This is taught in the Old Testament, The Book of Mormon, The Book of Moses, and reinforced continually over the last 180 years in every sort of official Church publication, including the current Sunday School curriculum (taught to every adult member of the Church every 4 years) and the college-level CES courses.

The internal evidences in Genesis clearly refer to a worldwide flood; Noah may have thought his local geographical area was the "Earth", but God's wording of the covenant clearly shows that God was referring to the entire planet.

This is an excellent example of the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles, and official Church publications all being in harmony on a subject, but modern scholars and apologists developing new theories and asking you to disregard all that has been said before. Nevermind that the "limited Flood theory" makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like it might be more "scientific" (and less falsifiable), so it must be taught.

In this case, if someone were to search the scriptures and the words of the Prophets and Apostles and the official Church publications, they would arrive at a conclusion diametrically opposed to modern apologetic theories. Thus, apologists must insist that we ignore or "reinterpret" the voluminous claims and clarifying statements made on the subject.

If the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles, and official Church curriculums and publications are mistaken on this subject, then it opens the door to a whole host of repeated, blatant errors being made on all sorts of subjects. Mistakes that the Prophets and Apostles seem to be unaware of, and totally unable to correct.

You make several assumptions. One, that God's wording of the covenant is perfect and that he wasn't speaking according to what Noah understood.

I'm not a proponent of the 'limited flood theory'. I have no idea how pervasive it was. I refuse to be locked in by an obscure scriptural reference and my enemies demanding I have to accept and I refuse to have to respond to every new theory created rationally with incomplete knowledge.

To my knowledge, the Prophets and Apostles have one primary goal, the exaltation of humanity. That is where God will not let them lead us far afield without intervention. That is their trust. Everything else is between me and God...though of course my exaltation is also between me and God, I just let them help more there.

[_Danna]

2. Cinepro states: "Apologists allow us to better understand the story of Adam and Eve, how they were born from mortal, non-human mortal parents who themselves were the result of evolutionary development. Such knowledge eludes even modern LDS church leaders and curriculum writers." The last I checked, the Church has an official statement on evolution. It takes no position. As one who has studied the controversy surrounding Man: His Origin and Destiny, I can fairly state that the general authorities who have weighed in on the subject with some precision have supported the prospect of evolution and have done a better job about it than those who oppose evolution. I, personally, don't really know whether inter-species evolution is all that sustainable (where suddenly, a descendant can no longer breed with a fellow descendant but can breed with a new descendant), but I see the argument and have read the literature. It is not inconsistent with Church teaching and the Church doesn't teach it one way or t'other.

Invalid statement. Google and/or Wiki: "ring species"

(Sorry to be abrupt, am trying to get through fascinating thread)

[_cinepro]

You make several assumptions. One, that God's wording of the covenant is perfect and that he wasn't speaking according to what Noah understood.

I make no assumptions. I'm just the messenger.

It is the LDS Apostles and Prophets (and correlation committee, and CES scholars) who have made and perpetuated the "assumption" that it was a world-wide flood. The fact that we need apologists and/or scientists to rectify this perpetuated error is the point of the thread. You claim that the Prophets and Apostles are operating on mistaken assumptions, and we need apologists and scientists to straighten them out.

(But I will point out that if God's covenant was just according to the local area Noah was familiar with, it borders on being silly (and is definitely irrelevant)).

I'm not a proponent of the 'limited flood theory'. I have no idea how pervasive it was. I refuse to be locked in by an obscure scriptural reference and my enemies demanding I have to accept and I refuse to have to respond to every new theory created rationally with incomplete knowledge.

Genesis 7-9 tells one of the most widely known Bible stories of all time. I would suggest "Noah and the Ark" could be the most widely known and iconic story in the entire Old Testament. An entire Sunday School lesson is devoted to it every 4 years. The covenant with Noah is the only covenant that is actually tied to a reoccuring, universally known natural phenomena (the rainbow). It may be many things, but "obscure" is hardly one of them. And this isn't a case of "milk before meat", where Primary kids are taught a simpler "worldwide" flood, and more advanced knowledge is revealed as we get older. Even the college students and adults are taught the literal, worldwide version of the story. The "advanced" and nuanced understanding is available only to those who search for scientific or apologetic explanations. Which is the point of my OP.

To my knowledge, the Prophets and Apostles have one primary goal, the exaltation of humanity. That is where God will not let them lead us far afield without intervention. That is their trust. Everything else is between me and God...though of course my exaltation is also between me and God, I just let them help more there.

I'm not the one that made them speak on the matter. They are the ones who keep bringing it up. If they want to change course and admit that maybe the Church's traditional "worldwide" interpretation isn't the correct one, or that the whole story just isn't important to our exaltation, then I would drop the issue and never bring it up. Just like I never bring up the many truly obscure (and never mentioned) bits of irrelevant esoterica in the Old Testament.

[_rcrocket]

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.

[_silentkid]

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.

PWND by the straw man. Slink away, cinepro. Slink away.

[_rcrocket]

PWND by the straw man. Slink away, cinepro. Slink away.

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.

[_Runtu]

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.