NOM

A couple of years ago, I locked horns with Dan Peterson, who is a well known scholar- at least to some- in the LDS Church.

My discussion with him stemmed around my not giving any credence to what Jos. Smith's mom Lucy had to say in her book, about the episode regarding Jos. Smith's leg, when he was a young boy, and how he refused to take any liquor to help with the pain prior to surgery. My argument was that Lucy wrote the episode- if indeed she did write it-it could have been written by a ghost writer- three decades after the event occurred. That's a long time. Think back thirty years folks. Can you be sure any story you tell is true- based on memory alone? I cannot. She was not noted for her brilliant memory- but she was well known for her interest in the Temperance movement. She did not like booze and figured everyone else should be denied the choice to drink or not.

The Church has used the episode for years to show how even as a boy Jos. Smith knew he should not drink liquor....though as an adult he drank plenty.

Good ol' Dan slashed back, as he does, telling me that he believed Lucy and if I didn't I should go quietly away and not bug him, words to that effect.

How do you reason with someone like that? What was Christopher Hitchen's saying, "Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". To LDS apologists like Dan Peterson- they expect you to prove a thing wrong, rather than having them prove it right. I tend to side with Christopher Hitchens. Just because someone writes or says something- it doesn't mean it is true. Who can prove if Lucy Smith told the story correctly? No one then, and certainly no one now. Good grief.

So, alas, I don't see a need to worry myself about the Dan Petersons of the world. Apologize away. It does not mean what you or they say is true.

As we have said many times- the truth stands by itself- it is independent of what people think of it- it just is....the truth.

Apologists know who they are catering to, and as such approach the facts under that mindset.

At least when talking about the more "well known" LDS apologists, it has never been about the truth. They have two missions that get them out of bed in the morning: Keep members faithful to the church by giving them plausible deniability, and make sure that Joseph Smith is defended at all costs.

It's just that simple. It doesn't make it any easier to accept, but no matter how many times they say prophets are just people, they will go to the death defending Joseph Smith marrying two fourteen year old girls as the work of God.

They don't speak for the church. They actually disclaim it. So I care not one iota for their opinions and sophistry. I care what the church taught/teaches that was/is a lie. Not how some might excuse it who don't even speak for the church.

There are some very intelligent apologists. But being intelligent doesn’t make you right or the things you say true. It only makes people inclined to give you more credence than they sometimes should. And it makes average people doubt their own good sense.

Being intelligent doesn't automatically free someone of all their biases. Make them above politics or having an agenda. Keep them from being manipulative or even evil. Some of the world's worst characters were quite well spoken and really smart people.

In the early days of the church the apostles and missionaries used to openly debate others who questioned the foundation of Mormonism. And those LDS leaders actually did fairly well against people who didn’t have all the facts at their disposal. But now many of the cracks in the story of Mormonism are coming to light in a way that cannot be hidden as in the past.

Do we see LDS apostles having the courage to stand toe to toe with their critics? No, because they end up saying inspiring stuff like, "I am not a Dodo" thank you Mr. Holland.

Instead they put on airs and wait to see if the congregation rises when they come into the room or stays seated until they leave.

I feel sorry for the "apostles" who are so busy being business men running the corporation that they must hide behind the skirts of apologists who, as Dogbite says, have absolutely zero authority to speak for the church.

We are right to give apologists little credence, but what of their puppet masters?

I've been engaging with a self-proclaimed apologist the last couple days on Quora. I cited Joseph's vision of an angel with a drawn sword in coercing young girls to marry him and compared it with D&C 121:37 (...amen to the priesthood of that man) against exercising unrighteous dominion in the name of the priesthood. First he told me the scriptures are wrong. Then he told me if Joseph *actually* coerced young girls, then Joseph was wrong. Then this:

The fact that Joseph Smith received a revelation does not mean it was recorded correctly. All scripture must be read by discerning its principles by the power of the Holy Ghost since NOT every scripture has been recorded correctly and that includes the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

So now, coercion is also okay, since the scripture entry was wrong. Or, if not okay, it's at least not going to remove the authority with which Joseph spoke. WTAF?

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:07 pm I've been engaging with a self-proclaimed apologist the last couple days on Quora. I cited Joseph's vision of an angel with a drawn sword in coercing young girls to marry him and compared it with D&C 121:37 (...amen to the priesthood of that man) against exercising unrighteous dominion in the name of the priesthood. First he told me the scriptures are wrong. Then he told me if Joseph *actually* coerced young girls, then Joseph was wrong. Then this:

The fact that Joseph Smith received a revelation does not mean it was recorded correctly. All scripture must be read by discerning its principles by the power of the Holy Ghost since NOT every scripture has been recorded correctly and that includes the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

So now, coercion is also okay, since the scripture entry was wrong. Or, if not okay, it's at least not going to remove the authority with which Joseph spoke. WTAF?

No apostle or prophet has denied the angel and sword revelation or said it was written incorrectly and those apostles/prophets supposedly have a much bigger slice of the Holy Ghost pie than anyone else on earth. Remember, THAT'S THEIR JOB to properly interpret scripture and revelation!

So....if he is saying that the scripture or revelation must be interpreted by the power of the Holy Ghost and all of the leadership since and including Joseph saw nothing wrong with this revelation, or the coercive way it was implimented, what makes him think he's so special that he can go against them?

Isn't a more logical theory that Joseph recieved no revelation at all but came up with an angel story to elicit sympathy from the women he was approaching? It's SO much easier to explain and understand than to be forced through all the mental gymnastics required here.

Daniel Peterson is a severe narcissist. He HAS to be the Smartest Person in the Room or his universe implodes. Expert in the usage of petty personal attacks, with a phD in obfuscation, DP is a perfect tool in the ongoing struggle to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of the average church member.

Need a dogmatic hatchet man to drive back the inroads being made by real historians and the bright lights of the Internet? Dr. Peterson is the Apologist for you.

Buy with confidence.

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:09 pm Isn't a more logical theory that Joseph recieved no revelation at all but came up with an angel story to elicit sympathy from the women he was approaching? It's SO much easier to explain and understand than to be forced through all the mental gymnastics required here.

This is another instance where Joseph Smith's reputation will be protected, but apologists will throw God under the bus instead. Joseph didn't send the angel, God did. God was perhaps being coercive from our limited point of view, but Mormons often operate under Divine Command theory, although they rarely acknowledge this point. Whatever God does is morally just and good by definition. I don't enjoy talking to apologists either.

The church operates on faith promoting fiction. Take away the pioneer stories and not much is left to inspire. They have to defend these stories or it all goes up in smoke.

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:14 am

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:09 pm Isn't a more logical theory that Joseph recieved no revelation at all but came up with an angel story to elicit sympathy from the women he was approaching? It's SO much easier to explain and understand than to be forced through all the mental gymnastics required here.

This is another instance where Joseph Smith's reputation will be protected, but apologists will throw God under the bus instead. Joseph didn't send the angel, God did. God was perhaps being coercive from our limited point of view, but Mormons often operate under Divine Command theory, although they rarely acknowledge this point. Whatever God does is morally just and good by definition.

Right, and it makes the members reliant strictly upon the word of leadership. They give lip service to receiving personal revelation, but the reality is "pray all you want and then do what we say".

Which of the two principles below is correct???

From LDS hymn:

"For this eternal truth is given,
That God will force no man to heaven”

Paraphrased from Joseph:

"An angel with a flaming sword said practice plural marriage or God will destroy you..."

Answer:
The correct one is whichever one leadership decides at that moment.

Makes you wonder what the real meaning is of "relying on the arm of flesh."???

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:07 pm

The fact that Joseph Smith received a revelation does not mean it was recorded correctly. All scripture must be read by discerning its principles by the power of the Holy Ghost since NOT every scripture has been recorded correctly and that includes the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Another fallback might be that the angel was pranking Joseph, but forgot to give the essential wink. So it was simply a miscommunication that had multigenerational consequences.

It's fascinating just how different the Churches the Brethren espouse, and the one the apologists live in, actually are.

When I was a TBM I always felt guilt when I tried to push the boundaries like that. I promptly repented each time and gave myself 10 lashes. The problem was obviously with my lack of faithfulness and not the Brethren's Church.

I guess these guys have their market. And I can understand the desperation of the people buying this BS--it really hurts to have your TBM world come crashing down, therefore elaborate defense systems are necessary... Sad.

I have reached a point that I can't force myself to read apologetics. If those guys have to go to such great lengths to convince themselves that they can never be wrong, that's their problem, not mine. In the end, Abraham's signature is a really picture of a libations table. Make all the excuses you want.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:39 am I have reached a point that I can't force myself to read apologetics.

I like assisting apologists with their stories. Think what a heady rush it must be whenever one of the Brethren repeats one of these apologetics. Suddenly millions of people will totally believe what you wrote and will take strong oaths defending such things as Minnie Mouse giving her full approval for Mickey to take unto himself a new Chinese bride, Mousie Tung.

I never had much stomach for reading apologists. What was the most off-putting was how dismissive and insulting and condescending they would be to or about someone that didn’t agree with them while at the same time accusing THEM of ad hominem attacks etc. Felt like crazy making.

Sometimes I play a game with my kids that we call "Make It True."

Someone makes a ridiculous claim, such as "Every car engine in Canada contains a human head." The more obviously false, the better. Someone takes up the position of defender by explaining how it could possibly be true. Other people ask questions trying to show that the explanation is crap. The defender defends all previous statements. The more plausible-sounding, the better. The longer a round goes, the more ridiculous the explanations get.

They love it. I haven't told them yet that I modeled it on apologetics.

moksha wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:51 am I like assisting apologists with their stories. Think what a heady rush it must be whenever one of the Brethren repeats one of these apologetics. Suddenly millions of people will totally believe what you wrote and will take strong oaths defending such things as Minnie Mouse giving her full approval for Mickey to take unto himself a new Chinese bride, Mousie Tung.

Is this confirmation that a Chinese company is buying Disney? Perhaps this was foretold by plans to make a live action version of "Mulan".