Seeking Simple Answers from Apologists on Tough LDS History Issues

No offense J. Stapley. But as one new to blogging, new to realizing these are legitimate questions to ask about the LDS church I am quite interested. They seem like key questions which could be the reason for causing people to leave the LDS church. If there are “apologetic” responses to these questions they should be put forward and discussed. If these responses help someone to see how they can remain within a religious tradition that is very important to them then it seems worthwhile to create this list.

If the apologist responses seem oversimplified and try to skirt the real issues then it is also helpful to have these things posted. It can help individuals decide whether these issues are serious enough for them to leave a tradition which is very important to them. That could be an equally important process to go through.

On the other hand perhaps none of these issues are important enough to cause people to make major life decisions. I guess my support of John’s post here is selfish. I want to know about some coping mechanisms for some of these issues which are intensely hard to swallow as a active member of the church. I also want to know if there are no real adequate or soul satisfying answers because I’d like to think I am honestly searching for truth. I know I don’t do that all the time and I probably seek for comfortable places more than I like to examine truth claims, but my ideal is the search for truth so there it is.

I have no problem with posting about these things, S. It is just that all the information of what appologists think about these issues is readily available. I’m pretty sure John is familiar with all the standard responses. I am interested why he didn’t just include them and make some sort of cogent analysis or something.

P.S. I honestly and sincerely don’t feel qualified or capable to answer for the apologist. I’d like to see FAIR and/or notable apologists go on the record here. I think it would be a valuable exercise–focusing on high-level simplicity and clarity–something often lacking in these discussions.

If you think these things are really easy/obvious, please do start the ball rolling and help me/us fill in the boxes. Maybe this will be a really fast thing if we get started now.

Hm…I don’t doubt that there are tons of people that don’t know about this stuff. John, I would suggest that you try filling it out and then ask your readers if it is correct.

Part of the trouble is that not everything can be distilled into a few sentances. So sure, Joseph had 30 some-odd wifes. The answer to why and how isn’t so strait forward.

And if you wanted to be truely the superman for Mayan Elephant, you would refer in your posts to the best appologetic sources for these issues. I don’t think that I am over estimating your capacity. If I am, many appologies.

P.S. I’ll take 5 sentences, if 3 is too few. :)

John,
I don’t think that you intend it as such, but this comes across as grandstanding. You might want to wait on this until you have had your face to face with the apologists that you want a response from. At this point, I don’t think that they feel they will get a fair hearing in this forum and they don’t seem to be entirely convinced of your good will. I think that you may need to build better relationships with them before you can expect them to fill out that chart for you, especially when they have already attempted to answer many of these questions. Saying that you don’t have the time to do the research and summarize it yourself is hardly going to earn their respect and help either.

I think your heart is in a good place, but I think that you are going about this in a wrong-headed manner.

HP. interesting thought. though i dont agree.

what i find interesting is that the dan was very able to respond to questions, but he was selective in how he responded. thats natural for any debate and he is consistent in his style. the only thing that could possibly be considered at all direct in the grid is that it contains the debate and asks for yes/no answers. where, typically, the FARMS approach may be to answer questions about a hat or breastplate with responses about paper/onerock/scissors or paper/2rock/breastplate.

John, I think you’ve been beaten to the punch. There are a couple resources that already do this sort of thing here:

https://www.fairlds.org/apol/

and here

https://www.fairwiki.org

Although you might want to hand your list of claims over to the wiki people so they can make sure they have article stubs on it.

Is “We don’t completely understand why yet, but we are working on understanding it better,” ever an acceptible for the explanation column?

Or would that immediately be paraded around as triumph, victory, Game, Set, Match in the rebuttal column?

As an active member of the Church and an occasional visitor to the blogernacle, I would personally love to see a succinct apologetic take on the above issues.

These are questions I’ve struggled with but have never heard an official ‘apologetic’ answer that addresses all of them. Thanks for putting this together, John. I look forward to reading the results.

“I’m looking for a high-level, aggregated list of topics…where the basic facts are stipulated up front, and very concise answers/justifications are given.”

This pretty much what the wiki does– short answers with references at the bottom.

John, these are my own thoughts, and done off the top of my head. (It’d be helpful for discussion if you numbered your points) Like others I do wonder a bit about the point. Still, as Frank mentioned, Fair has been trying to take care of these things via its wiki. Although clearly the wiki is very much a work in progress. (There’s no entry on money digging yet, for example)

1. I think all apologists accept this historic fact. The typical explanation is probably best found in say Bushman where Joseph is weened off the trappings used to facilitate revelation. But as others said, even the U&T is basically a stone to convey information and the Liahona isn’t much different. It seems odd to attack Joseph for misunderstanding such things and trying to use them as technology rather than through faith a call upon God’s power. I think Joseph certainly learned that by the end. Does learning Joseph was a money digger and somewhat superstitious bother people? Certainly. Should it? I don’t think it does. I think it’s more an issue of the unfamiliar seeming shocking while we accept far more unusual and strange items simply because we’re familiar with them. Things like virgin births, annointing eyes with mud (found not only in the NT but in Egyptian magic), drawing lots to discern the spirit, and so forth. The folk traditions of the 19th century are simply unknown and thus seem odd to us while we accept our own, equally strange biases.

2. I think everyone acknowledges that the translation was done via the spirit and not “with the text” in any normal way. I’ve never read anything in any LDS context asserting otherwise. I’m surprised anyone even sees this as an issue since clearly Joseph couldn’t read the script. The issue isn’t whether Joseph read the book (since he *couldn’t* read it) but whether there is a fundamental relation between the produced text and the book.

3. Once again everyone agrees Joseph had multiple wives, with the debate just being over the exact number and which ones he had marital relations with. I’ve never heard anything else taught, although certainly given our uncomfort with polygamy we don’t focus on it.

4. Once again I’ve never seen anyone object to this. I think everyone concedes that Joseph practiced polygamy in secret to avoid persecution for it and that this certainly involved lying about it. Given the nature of the persecution (and what the persecutors eventually did do) I don’t think many can assert this is too problematic – especially given that earlier polygamist, Abraham’s, own actions regarding his marital state.

5. Everyone acknowledges polyandry although there are disputes about how many of the marriages were for time or instead for eternity and how many were intended to be practical marriages.

6. Once again it would be silly to assert Joseph never slept with people he was married to. (After all the Utah polygamists did) One can argue that (as in Utah) some marriages weren’t practical ones and probably didn’t involve sex. But certainly many surely did – although there isn’t clear evidence on the issue.

7. Regarding seeing the Book of Mormon and the spiritual eyes bit, that was Martin Harris’ statement. But it doesn’t imply others didn’t. Nor did Harris feel this wasn’t something real. Further it isn’t clear this is the *only* experience of Harris. (Harris also said he sat with the plates on his knee for an hour and a half)

8. I’m not sure on the details about which blacks held the priesthood, but I believe that is right. I think the blacks and the priesthood issue probably involved some big mistakes and unfortunate probably wasn’t something Joseph clarified.

9. The issue of swords is a difficult one. There are the Aztec swords but that doesn’t explain the metal issue. The main apologetic answer is that absence of find doesn’t imply non-existence. The claim is that they would have rusted. I recognize many might find this one unsatisfying. (I think it one of the few of your list that someone might find legitimately troubling)

10. I think the DNA issue is misleading as you portray it. Apologists (long before the DNA issue) asserted it was a local influx into a large pre-existing body of people. So not finding Indians as primarily of Israelite descent shouldn’t be unexpected. Rather it is what we expected to find way back in the 80’s.

oops. I type too slow. I came in second.

Thanks Me.

Updated to include your responses.

John,

not hard to find:

https://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Metals#Steel

also, there is a summary right below it if you want a really short answer. i think the project is still getting going so you should probably submit to them any unanswered questions or answers so they can fill it out.

Yes, this is why I am still waiting for you to tell me where the Book of Mormon talks of hundreds of thousands of steel weapons. Many “artifacts” _have_ been found. But none of them will be modern steel if that is a mis-chaacterization of the word.

So pony up :). Where does the Book of Mormon mention metal weapons in the quantities you purport?

1 Ne. 16: 18
18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

2 Ne. 5: 15
15 And I did teach my people to abuild buildings, and to bwork in all cmanner of wood, and of diron, and of copper, and of ebrass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Jarom 1: 8
8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine bworkmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

Ether 7: 9
9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

Ether 14: 4
4 And it came to pass that the brother of Shared did give battle unto him in the wilderness of Akish; and the battle became exceedingly sore, and many thousands fell by the sword.

Virtually the entire Book of Mormon (within the BOM) talks about tens and even hundreds of thousands dying by the sword, but here’s a small sampling:

Mormon 6
10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.

11 And when they had gone through and hewn down aall my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

That the type of stuff that starts to make people wonder, I guess. So I’m asking you….please draft a 3-5 sentence response to this, and I’ll post it to the cell. That’s all.

1 Ne. 16: 18
18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

2 Ne. 5: 15
15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Jarom 1: 8
8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine bworkmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

Ether 7: 9
9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.

Ether 14: 4
4 And it came to pass that the brother of Shared did give battle unto him in the wilderness of Akish; and the battle became exceedingly sore, and many thousands fell by the sword.

Virtually the entire Book of Mormon (within the BOM) talks about tens and even hundreds of thousands dying by the sword, but here’s a small sampling:

Mormon 6
10 And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst; and they passed by me that they did not put an end to my life.

11 And when they had gone through and hewn down aall my people save it were twenty and four of us, (among whom was my son Moroni) and we having survived the dead of our people, did behold on the morrow, when the Lamanites had returned unto their camps, from the top of the hill Cumorah, the ten thousand of my people who were hewn down, being led in the front by me.

12 And we also beheld the ten thousand of my people who were led by my son Moroni.

13 And behold, the ten thousand of Gidgiddonah had fallen, and he also in the midst.

14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.

15 And it came to pass that there were ten more who did fall by the sword, with their ten thousand each; yea, even all my people, save it were those twenty and four who were with me, and also a few who had escaped into the south countries, and a few who had deserted over unto the Lamanites, had fallen; and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.

That the type of stuff that starts to make people wonder, I guess. So I’m asking you….please draft a 3-5 sentence response to this, and I’ll post it to the cell. That’s all. How do apologists account for the lack of weaponry and armory and metals uncovered as artifacts?

“10. I think the DNA issue is misleading as you portray it. Apologists (long before the DNA issue) asserted it was a local influx into a large pre-existing body of people. So not finding Indians as primarily of Israelite descent shouldn’t be unexpected. Rather it is what we expected to find way back in the 80’s.”

While I realize that this is technically true, the general populace of the church certainly believes, and was taught in seminary and church, that native inhabitants of the Americas are all literal descendants of Lehi’s band. I was recently taken to task rather strongly for daring to suggest otherwise in a Gospel Doctrine class. I was also assured that we believe Polynesians are Lamanites. I realize that’s just one teacher, but certainly no one in class seemed to think I had anything of merit to say. My two kids, 15, and 20, now say that they’ve been taught in seminary and church that all native americans are descendants of Lehi. I don’t think there’s anyway to make a good case that this wasn’t very common doctrine in the church for a very long time.

I appreciate what you are doing here. I’m an active member that finds it incredibly tedious to slog through FAIR’s typical responses to these issues and I feel that in the process that the answers that they provided get lost in reams of superfluous rhetoric. A simple “Yes” or “No” and a clear and succinct explanation is something that I have found lacking in any forum that I’ve been to. I can always continue into an in-depth study on any of the issues if I’m dissatisfied with the short answer.

Paula, the danger with anecdotes is that they are just that. I don’t deny in the least that many members have odd views of their own theology and history. That’s true of most religions where (frankly) most members don’t really do much research of their own beliefs. (For instance the average mainstream Christian when asked about God describes modalism, a heresy, and not trinitarianism) I could count of hundreds of false things I’ve heard in church. But formally the church doesn’t teach this.

John is right that some GAs have taught this and believed it. But that ultimately is irrelevant. Mormons don’t believe in inerrancy and GA speculation is not the equivalent of Mohammed channelling God word for word.

I do understand about the use of anecdotes, but short of a survey of the general population that’s the best I can do. But of the many people I’ve discussed this with, most of them believe that current native americans are literal descendants of
Lehi and his children. Just saying that the apologists didn’t believe this doesn’t really address the issue here.

Paula, all depends upon what the issue is. I’ve said it many times, say it in Sunday School and priesthood all the time, and will continue to say it. What the average Mormon believes is a bad choice for deciding what the average Mormon ought believe.

The problem is that many folks, especially those who’ve become disaffected, lambast the church for what the typical Mormon believes. This was a point made in the other (neverending) thread. Yet religion is ultimately a very personal question. It is the individual’s responsibility to search out answers and there are no shortage of books from faithful Mormons that address all these issues. It’s just that most Mormons never read them. (Well, many have a bunch of Nibley books, typically unread, on the shelves)

Criticizing the church for ignorance of its populace, while true, is ultimately pointless. Further it’s simply the typical state of individuals. I can point out that the typical American knows almost nothing about their government, about science, or about a myriad of important things they ought know. I think knowing about more esoteric religious history is arguably less significant if one has had a spiritual conversion. (I’m not in the least devaluing such research, I love it myself, simply pointing out that I have a hard time criticizing those who don’t study that hard – religion is largely about practice and not scholarship)

Notice it states that the people of Lehi “separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites.”
A Nation is a political group, not necessarily a blood related group. It implies a societal organization.
Throughout the Book of Mormon, Lamanites vastly outnumber Nephites, even early on. This seems to indicate that this group consisted of particularly large numbers of former inhabitants. This group then could still well be the “principle ancestors of the American Indians.”

John,

It seems to me that the refutation would be pretty simple. None of the scriptures specify that large groups of people had metal swords. The few mentions of metal weapons are with small, very early, groups. The only mention of many people dying by sword does not say they the swords were metal. Thus any sharp edged lever would probably qualify, such as the weapons we do observe in ruins.

John asked for an answer to the polygamy/Expositor question. My short answer:

The Expositor focused on two main complaints: (1) that Joseph Smith had too much power and (2) that he was secretly engaged in the immoral practice of polygamy. The Expositor was published to “expose” (hence the name) Joseph as a despotic tyrant, and it did so using some of the most defamatory language possible. Joseph (as mayor) and the city council declared it a public nusance and ordered its destruction. Some have argued that action was legal based on the city charter and the pre-14th Amendment interpretation of the 1st Amendment. But right or wrong, the destruction of that press enflamed the already-angry surrounding populace and lead directly to Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths.

There — 5 sentences.

“the world cannot always be explained by bulletpoints, or even a slick-looking power-point presentation. Unlike you, I trust that the “common man” has the intellectual wherewithal to read, say “Rough Stone Rolling,” if they are genuine interested in these issues. Most are not, for better or worse. But this highly unreadable, bite-sized, fleeting chart you threw together is not going to help anyone.”

Thanks Sandy.

yeah, bulletpoints and bulletholes sometimes do about the same thing. but, in this case i think it could be a good reference point. i would like to see it completed.

as for summary information. if you think this is a brief synopsis. i heard once that all you needed to know about the church could be summarized in six little presentations. and those presentations had lots of bulletpoints and little anecdotes and metaphors to help convey the spear-it. in fact, the first discussion adresses everything in this chart in only, woooo hoooo, are you ready….4 pages. isnt that special? and, thats ALL one needs to know, along with a little bit of real intentia, of course.

as for rough stone rolling. i say b.s. there are many threads about rsr, you can go all over the place and get your counter arguments on that one. first, he is just a dude writing a book, if it was the be-all end-all, then let the whiteshirts endorse it. more, the preface itself is a crock of shame. he says right there at the start that if you dont believe or if you disagree its cuz you have the spirit of contention or whatever (i am paraphrasing). what a clownish history presentation to start like that. and then, he forgets a few things, like, helen mar kimball for example. oooooops. so, i dont suppose thats a good book to read after saying damn or hell or drinking a diet coke during the day, cuz the spirit will be gone and none of it will make sense.

now for your big huge blanket slam of the day. “intellectual wherewithal ???????????????” are you kidding me? you have that wherewithal and you happen to also have the measuring stick for who else does or does not? and it all comes down to reading and subscribing to bushman and his ilk? you have got to be joking, right? shall we add “lack of intellectual wherewithal” to slothful and ignorant? and everyone who arrives at the point of shock to learn of these topics is simply short of intellect. wow.

now, when should one read rsr? before the mission? before baptism?

and, what about the folks that do read RSR and are shocked by what they read? then what, they had the intellectual wherewithal, but lost it on page 41, paragraph 5?

enough from me. thats a longwinded rant that can be summarized as – I are idiot and i stopped reading rsr mid book and i look forward to a few bullets from the apologist camp and the slothful, idiot, ignorant satan camp.

#7
While all these things fanned the flames of anti-Mormon sentiment, he was very nearly lynched/martyred/illegally esecuted in 1838 in Missouri prior to any of these occurrences.

Granted, we have a tendency to demonize the other side when looking at events from their side can make their fear much more comprehensible, but I just don’t can’t envision a lynch mob comprising the best, brightest and most upstanding of its concerned citizens.

Clark, I realize that all religious belief eventually has to come down to a spiritual witness, but one needs to keep one’s brain working too. And if the spiritual witness is so important,why does FAIR even bother? The main idea in this particular issue, #10, is that, correctly or not, a major belief, of many members of the church and its leaders, was that the modern day native Americans were literal descendants of Lehi. It’s not on the level of whether or not your garments protect you from harm, or some other folk belief. So if FAIR wants to make a clear rebuttal to the claims that DNA evidence proves that native Americans are not literal descendants of Israel, FAIR needs to deal with that very widely held belief, not just say that we never really taught that. The statement that I quote above is just one of many and I used that because I happened to have it on my computer, but googling I happened to find a site from the perpective of a sincere believing Mormon who thinks that the whole limited geography idea is a heresy (the reaction of the folks in my ward). The quotes here that he’s assembled are good evidence of church leaders’ teachings over the years. Now I also realize that you’re probably going to say that the Journal of Discourses isn’t doctrinal. How about the Ensign? So what sources can one trust?

https://snipurl.com/u91z

Ok. I’m replacing this, “The typical explanation is probably best found in say Bushman where Joseph is weened off the trappings used to facilitate revelation. But as others said, even the U&T is basically a stone to convey information and the Liahona isn’t much different. It seems odd to attack Joseph for misunderstanding such things and trying to use them as technology rather than through faith a call upon God’s power. I think Joseph certainly learned that by the end. Does learning Joseph was a money digger and somewhat superstitious bother people? Certainly. Should it? I don’t think it does. I think it’s more an issue of the unfamiliar seeming shocking while we accept far more unusual and strange items simply because we’re familiar with them. Things like virgin births, annointing eyes with mud (found not only in the NT but in Egyptian magic), drawing lots to discern the spirit, and so forth. The folk traditions of the 19th century are simply unknown and thus seem odd to us while we accept our own, equally strange biases.”

with this

“Joseph had 19th century sensibilities which included a belief in seer stones and other divining instruments. God worked within this context to use Joseph as an instrument to bring about the restoration.”

Thanks, Paul!

I remember a FARMS article from ’99 that dealt with ancient Meso-American weapons. Spanish conquistador encountered what the indigenous peoples called a macuahuitl. They said that this weapon was just as serviceable as their steel swords and could seperate a limb from a body, such as an arm, with little to no problem. Essentially the macuahuitl is reminiscent of a cricket bat with sharpened obsidian on the edges. But as per steel, you got me.

Paula, I honestly think for most apologists they seek to understand. That is, having a spiritual witness, they still seek to understand the details. The details might not ultimately matter. (Does it really matter what a Nephite sword looked like?) But they are terribly interesting even if they don’t necessarily make one a better Christian. Further some people have weak testimony. Having answers for how it is possible to believe and be rational is important. Without the spirit I agree there is no rational reason to be a Mormon. However it is quite possible to be a rational and honest Mormon. But the spirit is always prime.

As for FARMS and FAIR and widely held beliefs, they do address them. My point is that critics who address Mormonism by an appeal to the masses miss the whole point of what is at debate. I fully admit that the average religious person of any religion is woefully ignorant of their religion. I don’t think that is ultimately a problem because religion is primarily about changing ones way of living not about archaeological facts. (Which isn’t to say religions don’t make assertions with archaeological implications) To say that the average Mormon ought know their history extremely well seems to miss the point of religion. (IMO)

As for what sources one can trust: God. That’s ultimately it. The prime problem among critics (and frankly often among believing Saints) is that they seek for a bunch of statements that they can build a religion around. That’s the way Evangelical use the Bible, for instance. But it just isn’t a part of Mormonism, even though lots of Mormon prophets have engaged in proof-texting. We simply have as our doctrines a basis of direct revelation and the rejection of anything akin to a doctrine of inerrancy. That’s not to say we don’t have texts that are more authoritative than others. But what people want to use to make Mormonism intelligible just isn’t a part of Mormonism. We have people who use that sort of exegesis. (Bruce R. McConkie for instance) But even Elder McConkie was quick to back off doctrines he got wrong, which in my eyes says a lot about his humility towards the method.

“Joseph had 19th century sensibilities which included a belief in seer stones and other divining instruments. God worked within this context to use Joseph as an instrument to bring about the restoration.”

I’d probably add in the line, “just as he spoke to previous generations in terms of their understanding.”

One can’t read the OT without realizing that there were a lot of cultural trappings that God made use of that were alien to us. NT as well, as my mud on the eyes example by Christ demonstrates. (It was, as many have noted, simply a technique of healers and magicians of the era)

John,

Sorry…I didn’t mean to get your thread shut down on Fair.

John, i just the fair thread. sorry mate. i wish i could have posted there.

and completely off topic – is there a thread on here where i could post a question about the relationship sunstone and dialogue have had with signature books, now or historically? was there was any affiliation at all?

Clark Goble wrote:

I disagree. True, the Spirit is what confirms the truthfulness of the Gospel, however, living a Mormon lifestyle has many benefits (physical health – obeying the word of wisdom, strengthens families- against immorality, provides opportunities for people to serve others and sacrifice for God, teaches Christ-centered principles, etc) Deciding to live an LDS lifestyle definitely seems to be a rational choice.

But I also wanted to thank you for your comment:

That seems to be important to remember in this discussion with so much emphasis on making historical issues. However “fun” it may be to get to the bottom of these issues (and I truly have enjoyed following this discussion), I think the core questions we all must ask ourselves are

1. What is my relationship with God?
(

2. “What is my testimony based on?”

If it is based on historical facts, then, as a house with a sandy foundation, it will not stand very long amidst so many questions that have arisen regarding the history of the church.

I appreciate John’s efforts to bring a simple explanation of these hard to understand historical points to the many Latter-day Saints with similar doubts and questions.

And then the second quote:
“To say that the average Mormon ought know their history extremely well seems to miss the point of religion. “

“So I’m always somewhat worried when I express my inability to understand those who associate with the church without believing in it.”

clark, i admire that you even acknowledge that such a person, meaning one that attends church but lacks a “testimony”, even exists. really. as much as i disagree with much of what you say, i admire this point.

there are lots of those sorts of folks. some are independently trying to find their way or forge their own path. some are simply following a tradition. and some are going just to keep the peace at home.

thanks clark. i hope you arent willing to heap the ‘idiot, slothful, ignorant’ label on those same folks. they are probably the same ones that sift through much of the information we have been discussing here. some dig deep and others may just want the 6 lesson discussion bullets of apologetics.

ciao man.

We might ask ourselves: why do we need apologetics? Are there apologetics for “gravity”? Or atheism?

“Are there apologetics for ‘gravity’?”–Ryan

Never read Galileo, eh? There are beautiful, moving passages in his Dialogue that are about what you would get from a fireside speaker sharing his testimony of his topic.

Clark, back in the post which you started with “Paula”, (and John, we really need numbered posts) you kind of missed my question. Let’s assume that a member of the church honestly is trying to figure out what sources he or she should listen to. Of course God is the ultimate answer, but then does that mean that each of us is just supposed to rely on whatever answers God gives us individually? We’re not supposed to rely on the many sources that the church provides? But if we are supposed to read those and learn from them, which ones are trustworthy? Larry King interviews with Pres. Hinckley? The Ensign? Deseret Books? The Journal of Discourses? FAIR documents? ( Not an official church source I realize). My point is that your statement, that apologists knew in the 80s that the BofM had to be based on a limited geography, really avoids the whole issue here. Are members now supposed to ignore the many, many statements of church leaders in the past, as well as the introduction to the book itself, and listen to FAIR? Am I stupid to have listened to my institute teacher in 1985 rather than the apologists? What other widely taught church doctrines am I naive to be trusting? I’m not trying to be anti-Mormon or argumentative, just trying to make very clear what the problem is here. I think that the FAIR responses I’ve read to this just totally ignore the real questions that many people have about this. That article I linked to was a very good example of what I mean.

I think the table was a good idea. Clark and others did a god job in answering. I would like to see BoA addressed as well. Though I’m unsure how concise the answer can be as the whole issue is somewhat complex and aplogists don’t seem to agree on any one answer.

If you can indulge an idea. FARMS/ FAIR and other organization also offer many evidences of the autheniticity of the BoM, BoA, church history, etc. Perhaps a similar table outlining these evidences and refutations by our non-believing friends can be offered. I’d be interested in seeing that. Immediately the Civil war prophesy and plausible locations for bountiful in the middle east come to mind.

Thanks

“(only certain apologists can get a color copy,”

Hmm, why is that? You mean the church has in its possession the only extant autograph from a biblical figure, who is also the father of three of the world’s religions, and they keep it hidden? I thought DCP said the church doesn’t really hide stuff. Oh, wait, he’s one of those apologists who gets to look at stuff the rest of us can’t see. I forgot. And it’s funny how DCP never really answered the charge that the church hides documents. He simply argued that many archives limit access to rare documents. Of course, there is a difference between limited access and NO access, but that distinction seems to be lost on Brother DCP.

Here is a color copy of some of the fragments. Regrettably, it is small. The book, “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus” has a much better fold out copy including many more fragments.

For those who want the skinny on the Book of Abraham problems, but do not have the time to read all that I have linked to, here is a short summary: https://trialsofascension.net/mormon/abraham.html

There you will also find links to many other issues with Mormonism. I love this site because its tone is very calm and rational.

I wonder if anyone can point me towards statements by church leaders which promote a limited geography view of the Book of Mormon?

paula,

Check out the following article by Dallin H. Oaks

The Historicity of the Book of Mormon

The article is not specifically about LGT, but his remarks refer to it quite favorably. Here is a brief quote from the article:

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

John I’ll second the request for number posts since these topics tend to generate a lot of posts. I usually only check once a day so a lot of comments come between what I wish to reply to and the location of my reply.

Paula, the issue of what sources someone should listen to is different from what sources are authoritative. Myself I tend to read most things I find informative. I have quite a few books on my shelves by authors at best unsympathetic to the church and in some cases hostile.

The issue of “trustworthy” is a different question as well from what is authoritative and what someone should listen to. Indeed it is the conflating of these issues by people both inside and outside of the church that I find problematic. If you are asking, what writings should I read that don’t contain speculation, interpretation, or error, then my answer is you shouldn’t read. All do, including the scriptures. That’s why you have to always read with the spirit. Leave that out and you’ll always end up eventually going astray.

So to me the question you ask illustrates what I take to be the problem. The safest best, if you want something along those lines, is to stick to the scriptures and recent conference talks.

My personal feeling though is that CES materials generally are quite poor and shouldn’t be appealed to as too helpful. (They are often, in my opinion, misleading)

Beyond that one should always read with what some call the heremeneutics of suspicion. That is one shouldn’t consider the text trustworthy but suspicious. That applies equally to apologetic writings in my view. I find them valuable but clearly they are just speculations combined with the best reasoning of the author. But even among apologists there are quite a few disagreements.

oh, thanks for the clarification clark.

though, i still it should be removed from the table, out of context it implies that EVERYBODY knows.

:) when you said-“stick to the scriptures and recent conference talks,” you were referring to 1974 issues of the improvement era, right? and nothing more recent, no? :) just joshin with ya there clark.

Clark Goble:

The problem I have with people relying on the Spirit is that the Spirit has a rather nasty habit of confirming whatever one hopes is true and has some expextation that it could actually be true. In other words, it only works with what you are already familiar with.

Ask any faithful, spiritually in tune member of this church that is not yet familiar with the BoA problems to re-read the Book of Abraham and ask God if it is what it purports to be, the translation of ancient papyri that Abraham wrote with his own hand, that it contains the true story of what happened to Abraham and the true astronomy of the Universe. I bet 9 times out of 10, the Spirit with powerfully, movingly confirm that it is true. I am very confident that I can show that it is not true, but is a fraud. The Spirit only confirms what the person believes they are supposed to believe.

And people of all sorts of churches and religions feel God convey to them that their religion is true. Yet, they cannot all be right for they contradict each other.

Those feelings are deceptive and cannot be trusted. The Spirit is nothing more than elevation and is not a reliable source of truth.

I love that the Church encourages people to pray about the myths it tells. Because after they receive a witness and then find out the story they were told isn’t true, their faith in the Spirit is undermined and they can then free themselves from being deceived by their own feelings. I love that the church is falsifiable.

Reality is reliably constructed to make the truth difficult to believe. We are here to be tested and tried. We are God’s children. It children can hack their way into a video game and find find Easter Eggs, one can imagine that the greatests minds of Humanity could crack anything easy without any difficulty whatsoever.

Science, through observation, has thus far discerned the nature of Light, Time, Space, Matter, Energy, Life, Thought and Social Dynamics. Carefully and meticulously have brilliant men recorded their observations throughout history.

We are here to walk by Faith. Faith is an essential component of the Divine. God does not need OUR faith but WE need our Faith to become like him. Through Faith all things in the world and reality are achieved. We understand, yet we do not truly understand. We have a rudimentary understanding that our observation has a tangible effect upon the world around us, yet we do not accept the logical conclusion that the concept can extend into other areas as well.

There will be another Star. I, for one, wait in eager anticipation of that day, in hopes that those who currently reject the Truth can be warned of the inevitable decline and disassociation with it.

There is no proof, no miracle, no occurance in which the masterful reality created by God will not begin to disolve, disollute, decay and disemble. That *IS* the nature of our reality.

Dave S,

Relax man! I come in peace :).

The longer I view this thread the more I see this whole apologetics/ anti thing in the same light as a cheesy professional wrestling program. Both sides view the other as the evil bad guy. No attempts are made to really understand the other guy and nobody ever concedes anything. What’s the point of this forum then?

“The longer I view this thread the more I see this whole apologetics/ anti thing in the same light as a cheesy professional wrestling program. Both sides view the other as the evil bad guy. No attempts are made to really understand the other guy and nobody ever concedes anything. What’s the point of this forum then?”

excellent point and question.

i dont expect to ever change the apologists either. nor do i expect they will ever stop apologizing and i do not expect the church to change.

what i would like to see happen as a result of shared dialogue is probably overly optimistic, admittedly. i would like to see the following:

-some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that the transition away from being an active LDS member to disengagement is difficult, and emotional.

-some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that those that do not agree with them are neither slothful, nor idiotic, nor ignorant.

-increased realization by those that struggle with the lds doctrine and culture that they are not alone, they are not crazy, they are not evil and that there is not a disappointed god sitting on the edge of the universe waiting to hurl lightening bolts and thunder at them.

-stronger families and extended families by the greater awareness of these issues and the personal considerations many members are making to satisfy believing active members in their family.

-honesty and clarity for children and converts. this one is clearly not possible to affect here or on any other board. but its still my wish that children were not taught in a way that would create shock and awe when they finally found the real truth in the journals mormon whatever it is that dan said is standard reading material.

ME,

I’m no apologist, but I can offer the following as an active convert.

–some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that the transition away from being an active LDS member to disengagement is difficult, and emotional. I acknowlege this as I have seen the pain this causes, especially considering the additional pain brought from prideful members who view this as a blow to their own testimony.

-some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that those that do not agree with them are neither slothful, nor idiotic, nor ignorant. I acknowlege this. However, most of my family isn’t LDS. I think this attitude is evident in some and is ridiculous( See my wrestling comment :) .

-increased realization by those that struggle with the lds doctrine and culture that they are not alone, they are not crazy, they are not evil and that there is not a disappointed god sitting on the edge of the universe waiting to hurl lightening bolts and thunder at them. I consider this as a goal as well whenever my calling requires I contact disaffected members. I hope you are successful in this.

–stronger families and extended families by the greater awareness of these issues and the personal considerations many members are making to satisfy believing active members in their family. Agreed that this should happen both ways. I know many members who also make these considerations for their non-believing children and other family. Keep this quiet, but I spent last sunday at the beach with my in laws and took the day off from church. All in name of family relationships :).

-honesty and clarity for children and converts. this one is clearly not possible to affect here or on any other board. but its still my wish that children were not taught in a way that would create shock and awe when they finally found the real truth in the journals mormon whatever it is that dan said is standard reading material. I converted three years ago and feel I was given way more honesty and clarity from the LDS than from the anti’s that my previous church sent into my home to apparetly firghten my children :). It is my goal to be completely honest in raising my children LDS and think I’m doing well thusfar, so good luck.

P.S. I probably butchered the italicizing, please bear with me.

yeah john, you massacred the quoting and formatting. recoginise, repair and abandon wordpress my friend.

Thanks for your comments.

Guy,

some of my brothers have left the church. some left in their youth and another after a temple marriage. they didnt blink twice. they couldnt give two [somethings] about the church. so, agreed, its not the same for everyone.

its nice of you to stick up for peterson/midgley. however, they could not be more clear or direct in their comments. not knowing about the items in dehlin’s grid is, in their opinion as expressed in this blog, the result of ignorance and slothfulness. true, it was another commenter that added the intellectually diminished camp which has not been refuted in the slightest.

guy, you didnt understand the lightning comments? does this help:

I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche,scaramouche will you do the fandango-
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-
But Im just a poor boy and nobody loves me-
Hes just a poor boy from a poor family-
Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-
Bismillah! no-,we will not let you go-let him go-
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let him go
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go let me go
No,no,no,no,no,no,no-
Mama mia,mama mia,mama mia let me go-
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me,for me,for me-

That should clear it all up for you. but if not, it goes like this, anecdotally: “oh mayan, we love you so much, and we want you to know that we will love you, but also, you have turned your life over to satan and we fear the consequences on your children for doing that. we love you. now go back to church right this minute.”

or, here is another: “oh molly, we are so sorry your husband and our son has succombed to satan and stopped believing in the book of mormon. if you choose to leave him because of this, we will help you. we love you and understand that you would leave him, and take the children, so they would have the spirit and the priesthood in their home.”

oh. fyi. those stories are not fiction in the slightest, as you know.

and as for the shock and awe that were not your experience, and that you consider to be spin. THAT, is exactly my point. too many folks dont believe it exists – but it does. we can debate the reasons for it and whether its the fault of the shocker or the awed, but, there is not debating guy, IT HAPPENS. and i wish more people understood that it happens, and showed sympathy rather than dismissing it as “[not] the real life, [is this] just fantasy”.

“Strong families come from unconditional love for each other.” Careful, Guy, you are straying toward the outer perimeter of the Lord’s doctrinal campsite here. Elder Nelson says “unconditional love” is a false doctrine. The true church teaches that God’s love is conditional and, by extension, parents should emulate God so their love also should be conditional. So, methinks you should repent of this notion of unconditional love and embrace LDS orthodoxy.

Thanks, Guy. This is turning into a love fest. May the god or goddess of your choice bless you and yours as well.

John,

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

There are no simple apologetic answers to the warts that cover mormon history. It’s like buying a car that you know was totaled in a head on collision, then rebuilt and now the used car sales man is trying to answer your question of “Was this car totaled?”

The bell of mormon history does not ring when struck with the hammer of investigation. It merely goes “thud”.

Take for polygamy for example. Some will tell you it was a commandment from god, and he was FORCED by god to disobey the 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law, lie to his wife, the public, and the general body of his followers and even his friends.

How on earth can you get a simple answer from the question, “Did Joseph Smith cheat on his wife, and lie about it?”, from a mormon apologist whose entire work is to defend the sale of the totaled car at all costs?

Porter, it seems like this is true of Christianity in general. Take Abraham. The question is merely how recent the history one deals with is. If one is going to raise these sorts of questions one will find they are there with any religious system.

Now I don’t mean this in the sense of saying “we’re no worse than those other guys” as a kind of justification. Far from it. Rather (as the figure of Abraham demonstrates) religion, especially Christian and Jewish religion, is about faith. There has to be that challenge. If you demand from religion no challenges, that it be as easy to believe as what is firmly established in science, with no work on the individual’s part then you’ll always be disappointed.

I think that Joseph Smith and the early Saints were challenged by God. And I think individuals as they read the history will be challenged as well. There are two ways to react to that challenge. One can turn to God, who will give partial answers and demand an exercise of faith, or one can simply reject it all.

Contrary to what some have asserted, I think all apologists recognize that this is a difficult challenge and that some will simply reject it. I think some will reject it and then still accept Christianity or an other religion which to me ultimately ends up being problematic. (I’ll avoid stronger terms) I think what makes Mormonism so interesting is that the fact it has the divine within history so recently is that it forces this conversation. It forces us to grapple with issues that perhaps religions with a more distant encounter with the problematic divine don’t. (Although some do – I think Catholics, for instance, force a similar choice – although perhaps in a slightly different fashion from Mormons)

What I see critics demanding of apologists is that they make religion easy. Not necessarily in the performance, but in the belief. But religion is not easy to believe and should never be. So what the critics are demanding is precisely what religion denies.

So feel free to make the cynical asides. But I strongly feel there is something fundamental in life that you are missing. It is very easy to believe in things after scientists struggle to make it manifest. It is much harder to grapple with reality directly and make it manifest yourself.

Some thoughts –

First, apologists generally respond to something – and just about anything can be seen as apologetic. There has been an ongoing scholarly discussion, for example, on the two views of King David as revealed in the Old Testament. One side sees the OT account as being somewhat historically accurate. The other side sees it as being apologetic. These two views are contradictory (and only fairly recently have there been any real attempts to harmonize them). On the one side we have the glowing example of a man (with a few faults – Bathsheba, the census, etc.) On the other hand, we have a murderous schemer. The text seems to go out of its way to disassociate David from the deaths of Abner and Ishbaal, from which he benefited – is this because David had no involvement and the author wanted to make it clear, or is it a response to a prevalent public belief that he was involved (and the conclusion is that based on the strenous effort in the apology, he probably was involved).

Apologetics is often unsatisfying. In a way, apologists favor things like systematic theology (which is difficult to have in Mormonism). They like to find ways to include everything, they like to elimante conflict, increase harmony. And the responses are often unsatisfying in every way – because the issue isn’t to create something satisfying. Often in internet dicsussions, an apologist will invoke multiple arguments for his point of view – often oblivious to the fact that these arguments are mutually exclusive. (This is true of the pro-mormon as well as the anti-mormon – after all, Vogel’s view of Joseph Smith’s authorship really isn’t compatible with the Spaulding related theories).

I am viewed as something of an apologist (at least thats the label I get a lot). I would rather see myself as a theologian. My views are not always popular, but they are often (at least I hope they are) provocative. And I try to avoid simply putting up an argument to “win” the debate.

But apologists come from both sides of the fence. Take the comment above about “spiritual eyes”. Palmer (who I know you like John), talks a lot about the idea that the “eyes of our understanding” is equivalent to “second sight”. It is an apologetic argument. If we take the time (and I have) to go back through early 19th century and late 18th century literature, we get the phrase “eyes of our understanding” used quite a bit (it is, after all, Biblical), and some of the other phrases used by early LDS – and they are not used in a way which is compatible with Palmer’s notion of “second sight”. So Palmer’s argument hinges around this idea that all of these LDS were part of a community within the community – they all shared a common magic world view. And then, once we have defined this community, we can redefine their language, making it different from the larger community in which this small group existed. But there isn’t any evidence for this, and Palmer really doesn’t justify how he decides who is in and who is out. But it does suit the purposes of the argument, and so it is apologetic in nature.

Much like the LDS community using Jacob 2:30 to defend polygamy. It was never invoked until quite some time after the practice was started – and only after charges were made in print that claimed that the Book of Mormon called polygamy an abomination. The Book of Mormon text supports the practice of polygamy only in the most general sense – and never directly, and the defenses which have been made (the apologies) have created a meaning for the BoM text which will persist, and which (at least in my studied opinion) has nothing to do with the intentions of the author. In fact, it seems likely that Jacob, who is trying to dismantle the practice, would be somewhat dismayed to see it used to defend it.

Now, let me admit also that I get a fair share of grief over the idea that I like to obscure the issue, to cloud it, to introduce a great deal of meaningless discussion to hide the real problem. My objective is to understand the issues as best I can (of course, I also have spent a great deal of time thinking about how I think). I view myself as a postmodernist. I tend to view interpretation as being more about difference. We know better what something doesn’t mean than what it does.

And of course, 3 to 5 sentances is rather useless – except to create an easy target (apologetics does this a lot quite frankly). Because 3 to 5 sentances cannot really address any of these issues.

One of my favorite topics is the horse in the Book of Mormon. (But this is applicable to the concept of swords that you bring up above). A discussion of what the horse always stems from a previously assumed position of 19th century translation of an ancient text or 19th century authorship. And if a translation, we have to talk about what that means – what sort of a translation is it, how much of the translator is included, what can be said about the original source from the translation, and how do we distinguish from issues in the text related to the translation as opposed to issues which may have existed in the source. And so on. And of course we cloud the issue. But the reality is, despite what Marco Polo wrote, we know that he encountered a rhinoceros in Java and not a unicorn (as he calls it). Even though his text says unicorn, and is always translated as unicorn (when translated into English) and so on. So, we find the known real world isn’t reducible to the same sorts of simple answers we want either.

Having said all of that, let me comment on a few of your statements John, starting with number 3:

Joseph Smith publicly denied he was practicing polygamy

Clinton clarified his position by suggesting that it depends on the definition of the word “is” (an interesting point really, because syntactically, the notion of being comes in three distinct meanings which are generally merged into one or two distinct words in most languages – but in different groupings). When we suggest that Joseph Smith was denying his polygamy, are we suggesting that he believed that he was engaged in the polygamy that he was denying? Or did he mean something else by polygamy, perhaps referring to the status of state recognized marriages to multiple women? Or even to common law marriage?

This isn’t to suggest that he wasn’t attempting to mislead, but rather, as Clinton, that perhaps he was splitting hairs with his language – maybe even as a way of dealing with his own qualms of lying.

Part of the issue with your statement (2) is the idea of the Anthon transcript. No matter whether or not Joseph was looking at the Gold Plates as he translated it, he prepared a translation of some specific characters allegedly from off of the gold plates, and presented a translation as specifically being a translation of these characters. So for us to say that the plates were not used is to belie the fact that they were presented as being intimately connected. Further, the whole Anthon episode must be dealt with when dealing with this issue. We cannot simply suggest that these characters were not copied directly from the plates but were reproduced by Joseph with his face buried in the hat. So while the plates were not apprently in direct use for most of the translation, I don’t think this can be said for all of it with any degree of certainty.

For number 7, the answer is yes. But the real question is were they any more of an issue than Joseph’s publication of the Book of Mormon, than Joseph’s starting a new faith, than Joseph’s declaration of political intentions, and so on. The issue being was the two you bring up any more significant than any number of other factors, because this would seem to be the gist of your question.

For number 8, I can’t help but think, in your comments, that you have been influenced by Palmer’s unwarranted assertion that this is a reference to second sight.

In simply answering these issues (and answers been filled in), it leaves me wondering about these other points. Do we, in simply answering the issue come across as accepting your perspective of the “problem”? Instead, I would rather focus on the questions before I want explore responses. Inevitably we are going to learn a lot about ourselves in the process.

Ben

[Comment by Devin — August 1, 2006 :] “I appreciate what you are doing here. I’m an active member that finds it incredibly tedious to slog through FAIR’s typical responses to these issues and I feel that in the process that the answers that they provided get lost in reams of superfluous rhetoric . . .”

Devin,

It seems to me by your comments above that you may be confusing “FAIR” with the message board that is *hosted* by FAIR – but that does not necessarily represent FAIR positions.

Gee, that’s nice about your mom, Ann, but it totally misses the point of Devin’s post and my reply.

Devin, please refer to the FAIR topical guide if you’d like to read apologetic essays without the “noise.”

See: https://www.fairlds.org/apol/

Steve, while it definitely has some biases and places where there are disagreement over interpretations and sometimes facts, Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness does a good job going through the polyandrous relationships. I don’t think one could argue in the least it was about reproduction. I think Compton’s theory of dynastic marriages makes a lot of sense. But I think ultimately one can’t really say.