Mortal Man Mops the Floor with the Apologists

[_Doctor Scratch]

Although it has now grown rather lengthy, I hope that people have been following a positively riveting thread on the aptly named MADboard. In the OP, MM established that "official" Church doctrine (in the form of one of the lesson manuals) states that Abraham himself penned the Book of Abraham. Obviously, this is a mighty contradiction of some of the pet apologetic arguments, and "Scotty Dog" Lloyd, Will Schryver, and others immediately came clamoring into the thread, flailing their arms in desperation. The long and the short of it is that Mortal Man has opened up a can of Whoop Ass and the Mopologists are enduring what can only be described as an epic smackdown:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ys-lesson/

A few highlights:
---MM showed that Andrew Skinner, a FARMS board member, is a wave-causing Chapel Mormon who has directly contradicted the apologetics of John Gee.
---An episode of The Brady Bunch was used to make "crazy Israeli" Volgadon look like the provincial moron that he is.
---Mortal Man said, "The only real shocks for me were the over-the-top ad hominem attacks in FARMS review articles," which, of course, set off fireworks in the mind of MAD's chief apologist, who has been on a hate-fueled bender ever since. I had to laugh when DCP posted links to a bunch of FARMS articles and then demanded that Mortal Man show where the "polemics" are in each of them. (Does The Good Professor really think he's making a good point? Why doesn't he just post a general link to the MI's website, like he usually does?) I would urge Mortal Man to simply cite DCP's own article:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=149

Sometimes it is necessary to climb down from the wall. Sometimes it is even necessary, as Nehemiah's construction workers did, to labor with one hand while the other holds a sword (see Nehemiah 4:13-23).

Or his own admission here:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 9&start=57

I like wit and a polemical edge

In any event, Mortal Man stuck quite fervently to his position that the apologists are interested in discrediting critics (which they denied, insisting that critics somehow "discredit themselves"). I think that my favorite post among all the ten pages of the thread was this one:

I invite MM to demonstrate that any of these, let alone a significant proportion of them, are disgraced with "gratuitous polemics" or dedicated primarily to discrediting critics:

Since, according to MM, "gratuitous polemics" and a primary purpose of discrediting critics are principal characteristics of FARMS publications, it should be quite easy for him to demonstrate his accusation with the now forty-two (42) specimens of FARMS publishing that I've supplied for him.

Okay Dan, you win. In fact, I'd say that you and the other representatives of FAIR and FARMS on this thread have completely discredited me. Was that your primary purpose?

Lol.

[_bcspace]

In the OP, MM established that "official" Church doctrine (in the form of one of the lesson manuals) states that Abraham himself penned the Book of Abraham.

Good to see the standard for doctrine being used. Hopefully MM had a proper quote for his claim and not one that was contextually vague? Seminary graduation party tonight for my daughter and I don't have the inclination to go find it right now.

[_Yahoo Bot]

It is fascinating that Church antagonists try to describe Church doctrine as something ex cathedra in a manual of regulations when, in fact, the Church teaches that it is not that way. The supreme straw man argument, I suppose. Doctrine is known only who keep his will -- nobody else.

The Book of Abraham was, indeed, penned by Abraham. I don't think he penned the scrolls.

[_bcspace]

It is fascinating that Church antagonists try to describe Church doctrine as something ex cathedra in a manual of regulations when, in fact, the Church teaches that it is not that way.

Actually, the Church itself states that it is precisely that way.

The supreme straw man argument, I suppose. Doctrine is known only who keep his will -- nobody else.

Only in the sense of understanding it well enough to be saved by obeying it. Of course that makes criticism by unbelievers rather empty.

[_Gadianton]

Oh man, I'm so glad I'm not an apologist posting over at MAD. It's pretty hilarious that 42 selections were cherry picked for the purpose of proving the apologists' point that they don't deal in attack pieces. How about a random sample of 42?

The bit about Abraham is interesting and brings us to consider a very odd class of apologetics. The church has always taken the view that the books in the Bible are just like those in the Book of Mormon, written as complete personal journal entries. Prophets are chosen, they write in their personal journals, and then their personal journals are bound together as scripture. Here, take this lesson as an example:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 94610aRCRD

As we know from Sunday School, the first five books of Moses comprise the personal journal of Moses. But as an apologist on this board has stated, the Documentary Hypothesis rules the day and is a theory as well established or better than human evolution. This theory, of course, completely undermines Moses as the author of Genesis.

Prior to the 17th century, and currently within the Chapel Mormonism of the 21st Century, both Jews and Christians and Mormons accepted the traditional view that Moses had written the Torah under the direct inspiration—even dictation—of God.

(italics added for effect)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

So now the stage is set, here is the odd and fascinating apologetic:

- The Books of Moses/Abraham etc.. claim to be written as personal journals of these prophets per Chapel Mormonism (and as implied or directly stated by the documents)
- A little research will show the aforementioned claim to be an obvious lie.
- Part of Near Eastern tradition is to make up a bunch of heroic BS, including stealing lore from other cultures, and attribute it to a great man of mythical proportions (or a god) within their own culture.
- The Book of Abraham (and Moses) therefore contain "Hebraisms" in the form of this well established pattern of exaggeration and outright fraud.
- These "Hebraisms" give credibility to the ancient claims about the Mormon texts.

So the bottom line is, because the Mormon texts tell obvious lies, they are true.

The epilogue to this argument is that we can't call these distortions lies, because that makes us guilty of presentism, so all the blood is nicely cleaned up post op.

[_The Nehor]

Personal journals? Really?

[_Darth J]

It is fascinating that Church antagonists try to describe Church doctrine as something ex cathedra in a manual of regulations when, in fact, the Church teaches that it is not that way.

Actually, the Church itself states that it is precisely that way.

The supreme straw man argument, I suppose. Doctrine is known only who keep his will -- nobody else.

Only in the sense of understanding it well enough to be saved by obeying it. Of course that makes criticism by unbelievers rather empty.

How about "Chuck-a-Rama Mormon"? Do you like that better than just "cafeteria Mormon"?

[_KimberlyAnn]

Thanks, Dr. Scratch. I've given little attention to the MAD Board of late, but the thread you linked was quite entertaining.

It's probably revealing that my favorite post was Mortal Man's likening of MADB resident toady, Vance, to Salacious Crumb. I find Vance's online persona positively repulsive and got a real kick out of MM's most apt comparison.

KA

[_Kevin Graham]

As I explained in the other thread, the popular apologetic copout called the "Official Doctrine" distinction (as opposed to "unofficial" doctrine) was a fabrication by the apologists, and eventually the Church just went along with it.

Don't believe me? Then go ahead and show me where "the Church" emphatically states there is a distinction! Before 1982 there was virtually no talk about "official" doctrine. I searched my Gospel Link software that contains literally hundreds of Church published books, magazines, journals, and all other forms of Church literature, and the two words "official doctrine" do not appear together before 1977. In this case someone mailed the Church with a question:

Should that which is written in Church publications and lesson manuals be taken as official doctrine?
Dean L. Larsen, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Aug. 1977, 38

Elder Dean L. Larsen of the First Quorum of the Seventy and Managing Director of Curriculum Resources Church publications fall into four general categories: (1) materials related to the curriculum, such as lesson manuals, teachers’ supplements, and student materials; (2) magazines; (3) administrative documents, such as handbooks, leadership training materials, organizational guidelines and bulletins, etc.; and (4) missionary discussions, tracts, and support materials. All of the materials within these four categories are prepared under the direction of some officially recognized Church agency, and they are reviewed and cleared by the Church Correlation Review committees before they are published and issued to the Church... the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive, nonetheless they are prepared with great care and are carefully screened before they are published. Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures.

The General Handbook of Instructions is not only reviewed by Correlation, but also receives a close auditing from each individual member of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

Church magazines draw their content from a wide range of authors and contributors, in addition to those who serve as professional staff members. Those items that are published in the magazines receive not only the scrutiny and judgment of the editing staffs, but are also subject to clearance by the Correlation Review committees. Committee members are called as a result of their expertise in such areas as Church doctrine, Church history, and Church administration, and serve three different age groups: adult, youth, and children.
Much care is exercised to make certain that the official publications of the Church carry messages that are sound in doctrine and fully in harmony with currently approved policies and procedures. A constant effort is maintained to upgrade and correct the content of these materials so that they can merit the confidence and approval of Church leaders and the general membership.

Notice that the author doesn't directly answer the question, probably because the concept of "official doctrine" is foreign to him, same as it was every other Mormon on the planet. So he responds by assuring the person that these materials were screened by an "officially" recognized Church agency. The entire response is clearly suggesting that these materials are perfectly reliable. So with this level of screening going on, how in the bejeezus could false doctrine or untruths slip through the cracks? Of course it is "official."

Five years later someone mails in another question about "official doctrine":

Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?

Gerald N. Lund, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39–40

Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time...

[After citing a half dozen instances where past Prophets and Apostles had cited this as doctrine, he goes on to say...]

Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

“I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. . . . (emphasis his!)

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us(emphasis his!). Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods . . . the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. . . .

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (emphasis his!)(Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

Of course years later Gordon B. Hinckley turns all of this on its head during the Time Magazine and Larry King interviews.

So where do we see a lot of talk about "official doctrine"? From the apologists, of course. A search on the Maxwell Institute's website pulls up 23 links, with the following chronology:

William J. Hamblin. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume - 2, Issue - 1, Pages: 161-97
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1993

Daniel C. Peterson. FARMS Review: Volume - 7, Issue - 2, Pages: 38-105
A review of "Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism" by Ed Decker
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1995

FARMS Review: Volume - 7, Issue - 2, Pages: 1-2
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1995

FARMS Review: Volume - 7, Issue - 1, Pages: 154-69. A review of "Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend: Effective Ways to Challenge a Mormon's Arguments without Being Offensive" by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1995

FARMS Review: Volume - 8, Issue - 2, Pages: 231-50. A review of "Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend: Challenging the Claims of Latter-day Saints in a Constructive Manner" by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1996

Daniel Peterson, 1998 publication, "Offenders for a Word."

FARMS Review: Volume - 10, Issue - 1, Pages: 97-131. A review of "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship." by David John Buerger Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1998

FARMS Review: Volume - 11, Issue - 2, Pages: 221-64 . A review of "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review" by David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1999

Three Nephites as published in "To All the World: The Book of Mormon Articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism", 2000, William A. Wilson, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute

Barry R. Bickmore. FARMS Review: Volume - 12, Issue - 1, Pages: 275-302
A review of "Christ. In The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism" by Ron Rhodes
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2000

FARMS Review: Volume - 13, Issue - 2, Pages: 109-69
A review of "Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution" by Kurt Widmer. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2001

FARMS Review: Volume - 13, Issue - 1, Pages: 133-64
A review of "Is the Mormon My Brother?" by James R. White
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2001

FARMS Review: Volume - 17, Issue - 1, Pages: 123—70 . A review of "Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith" by Martha Beck. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2005

Frank B. Salisbury. FARMS Review: Volume - 18, Issue - 1, Pages: 307-311
A review of "Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements" by William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2006

A search at the FAIR website pulls up a whopping 46 links discussing the distinction between official and unofficial doctrine.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Kevin,

Thanks for the response. I had never thought of it before. Though now that I think about it, I don't ever recall a discussion of official doctrine growing up. I guess once I heard about it later, I just assumed that it had always been the case.

Though there is one faction inside the church that probably did agree with the apologists for political/tactical reasons from the beginning and that's the correlation department. It's the one department whose job is made easier by having as legalistic and narrow a definition of "official doctrine" as the apologists want. Hence they are more than happy to go along with the apologists on this one.

Although, having listened to the latest Mormon stories podcast on correlation, I have to wonder how much of a difference there really is between the church and the correlation department.