The problem with LDS apologetics

[jay santos]

Interesting. I hope Lebowski takes note of this conversation. Nothing uncivil on my part and yet again I have to end the conversation on the High Note by pointing out what an ignorant shit jay santos seems to be.

If you can't analyze an issue and adjust your assumptions/beliefs based on others insight/opinions while retaining hope that the Best solution is still undiscovered, well then, continue in ignorance my friend. Your all or nothing approach hopefully excludes you from any profession involving the hard sciences.

Sorry I meant it a little more playful than you took it. I dont think you're grasping what im saying though.

[Scorcho]

She was 16.

I was simply referencing the first sentence in the Salt Lake Tribune article, that stated she was 14. If the Tribune is wrong, and she was 16, considering the time period, that’s a huge difference in age.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I was simply referencing the first sentence in the Salt Lake Tribune article, that stated she was 14. If the Tribune is wrong, and she was 16, considering the time period, that’s a huge difference in age.

If memory serves, Helen Kimball was 14 when she became one of Joseph Smith's plural wives. The better known, and probable first plural wife, Fanny Alger, was 16 when she married Joseph Smith.

[FMCoug]

Interesting. I hope Lebowski takes note of this conversation. Nothing uncivil on my part and yet again I have to end the conversation on the High Note by pointing out what an ignorant shit jay santos seems to be.

If you can't analyze an issue and adjust your assumptions/beliefs based on others insight/opinions while retaining hope that the Best solution is still undiscovered, well then, continue in ignorance my friend. Your all or nothing approach hopefully excludes you from any profession involving the hard sciences.

I don't think he meant it that way. It was perhaps a poorly chosen analogy. And it didn't help that he used the same black and white / contorted logic in it that he is trying to use in the thread.

[taekwondave]

That is a good point. Even if the church were to have an honest discussion about all the thorny issues, and a sizable proportion of the membership either left or stopped serving as faithfully as before, it would still be a church of good people. There's different churches all around that don't require nearly the same level of commitment we do, and yet they do good all the time.

It's my bias and personal experience, but I see a definitely see a trend of members gravitating towards group 2. If this continues to happen, we may find ourselves justifying doing good for good's sake, and not because of the infallibility of the church and its leaders. This seems like the main impetus for a lot of churches out there. It may not be a bad place to end up.

I see nothing wrong with a pragmatic view of doing good, do you? I mean, I know the idea of "doing good for good's sake" kind of includes this, but I just want to make sure, because I really believe that "doing good" is good for you; not that it will be good for you after you die, and not just because telling yourself that you did something nice makes your ego feel nice (or call that the Spirit, whatever), but because doing good for others is actually self-serving, if that makes sense.

It has been my experience that "as I do unto others, so do they unto me likewise." So it behooves us as people, absent any edict from God or threat of damnation, to take to heart the teachings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount and in other places in the New Testament and BOM, simply because it makes life a more peaceful, enjoyable experience all around. Home and visiting teaching is aptly called "friendship-ing" at times, and I truly feel that friendship is the richest thing life has to offer. So if we really took home and visiting teaching to the next level, to that true level of... just being really good friends with as many of your neighbors as you can, life will simply be richer.

The doctrine of "the true church" need not insist on miraculous angelic visitations or hidden plates of gold or people rising from the dead to have a vibrant, active nature. If truth, not dogma, becomes the focus of the church, if notions such as original sin and the need for eternal salvation are replaced by a humble acceptance of how we are both perfect and imperfect, or rather, perfectly imperfect, and the church is used, not to pound the same old catholic dogmas of authority and revelation and miracles into our heads and the threat of hell as the reasons for filling our lives with love...but rather, just as a pragmatic necessity.... what could be so wrong with that?

What's wrong with recognizing that the teachings of Jesus serve us; that seeing others as extensions of ourselves--the whole world as one big happy family, is the great key to happiness? What could be wrong with that? Who cares about anything else? If we can't be happy here we can't be happy there, right? So why not drop the bullshit and focus on the stuff every sage worth two nickels has taught us since the beginning of time, which is to simply love one another?

The original post seems to suggest (if I am not mistaken) that unless we accept the church's dogmas as fundamental facts beyond question, that we will never achieve the one-ness that Jesus spoke of ("if ye are not one..."), but I must emphatically disagree. To the contrary, I think it is that stuff that is currently standing in the way of the church he envisions and hopes for (both Jesus, and the original poster on this thread).

*edit afterwards - I guess I just think it's better to say, "I'm not as happy as I could be. If I could find some more truth, and align my thoughts and habits more fully with it, I could change that" than to say, "I'm not as good as I could be. If I don't shape up, I won't make it to the celestial kingdom." They can both drive you to do the same things, I guess, but I think there is a more positive energy that emanates from the former than from the latter, and I think the doctrines/dogmas of our church, just like those of pretty much every other church I've come across, inhibits that.

[taekwondave]

Our auditors are here this week. As a consequence of the paucity of eating establishments in our burgh' our local office manager has prepared a delictable cornicopia of lunch items for the auditors and much of our local staff. One such item is shredded cheesy funeral potatoes, made with real life Idaho potatoes for real life Idahoans- save the auditors they come from Brigham City! Both the bitter stringpulling exmos and the priestcraft lovin' apologists can piss off. Today, I dine on many calories and I know my religious subculture is true!

I feel like I get smarter when I read you; and funnier. I probably don't. But it's a nice thought.

[Northwestcoug]

I see nothing wrong with a pragmatic view of doing good, do you? I mean, I know the idea of "doing good for good's sake" kind of includes this, but I just want to make sure, because I really believe that "doing good" is good for you; not that it will be good for you after you die, and not just because telling yourself that you did something nice makes your ego feel nice (or call that the Spirit, whatever), but because doing good for others is actually self-serving, if that makes sense.

It has been my experience that "as I do unto others, so do they unto me likewise." So it behooves us as people, absent any edict from God or threat of damnation, to take to heart the teachings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount and in other places in the New Testament and BOM, simply because it makes life a more peaceful, enjoyable experience all around. Home and visiting teaching is aptly called "friendship-ing" at times, and I truly feel that friendship is the richest thing life has to offer. So if we really took home and visiting teaching to the next level, to that true level of... just being really good friends with as many of your neighbors as you can, life will simply be richer.

The doctrine of "the true church" need not insist on miraculous angelic visitations or hidden plates of gold or people rising from the dead to have a vibrant, active nature. If truth, not dogma, becomes the focus of the church, if notions such as original sin and the need for eternal salvation are replaced by a humble acceptance of how we are both perfect and imperfect, or rather, perfectly imperfect, and the church is used, not to pound the same old catholic dogmas of authority and revelation and miracles into our heads and the threat of hell as the reasons for filling our lives with love...but rather, just as a pragmatic necessity.... what could be so wrong with that?

What's wrong with recognizing that the teachings of Jesus serve us; that seeing others as extensions of ourselves--the whole world as one big happy family, is the great key to happiness? What could be wrong with that? Who cares about anything else? If we can't be happy here we can't be happy there, right? So why not drop the bullshit and focus on the stuff every sage worth two nickels has taught us since the beginning of time, which is to simply love one another?

The original post seems to suggest (if I am not mistaken) that unless we accept the church's dogmas as fundamental facts beyond question, that we will never achieve the one-ness that Jesus spoke of ("if ye are not one..."), but I must emphatically disagree. To the contrary, I think it is that stuff that is currently standing in the way of the church he envisions and hopes for (both Jesus, and the original poster on this thread).

*edit afterwards - I guess I just think it's better to say, "I'm not as happy as I could be. If I could find some more truth, and align my thoughts and habits more fully with it, I could change that" than to say, "I'm not as good as I could be. If I don't shape up, I won't make it to the celestial kingdom." They can both drive you to do the same things, I guess, but I think there is a more positive energy that emanates from the former than from the latter, and I think the doctrines/dogmas of our church, just like those of pretty much every other church I've come across, inhibits that.

No, I don't. I think it's what drives many faithful people to do good. From my perspective, our 'one-truth' mindset is in the minority of Christian churches. I think it can give us extra pressure to do good, since eternal consequences seem to hinge on so many small decisions. But it isn't necessarily altruistic. I don't have great evidence, but it seems that faithful non-members I know don't have the one-true church excuse to fall back on, so their service is based on doing good for good's sake.

[SloanHater]

If memory serves, Helen Kimball was 14 when she became one of Joseph Smith's plural wives. The better known, and probable first plural wife, Fanny Alger, was 16 when she married Joseph Smith.

Helen was sealed to Joseph at the age of 14 and continued to live with her parents. There is no evidence, or even speculation, that her relationship with Joseph was more than a formality.

Fanny, age 16, is believed to have been a wife in every sense of the word. Though any 'evidence' of the true nature of their relationship is hearsay, at best.

The distinction between sealing and marriage is important when discussing the first polygamous relationships.

[CardiacCoug]

Interesting thread.

I've thought a lot about the fact that my ideal Church would be similar to the Community of Christ (women with Priesthood, alternative approaches to BOM and Joseph Smith acceptable, etc.) but with the vitality and energy of the LDS Church. That's probably an impossible combination, but I think the Church will slowly evolve in that direction -- think how different the Church is today from 100 years ago.

A lot of local Church leaders are more aware of problematic elements of Church history than we often assume. But I still think the only way you keep many of the smart, educated, worldly (in the good sense ) people in the Church is to inoculate them by offering an approach that doesn't require them to believe obviously untrue things.

You need to teach people that they can appreciate and be inspired by parts of the Book of Mormon without believing it is literal history (i.e. that the BOM can be true without being historical). You need to teach people that they can love the concept and ideal of eternal families but still believe that not even Prophets know what happens after we die.

I think John Dehlin's approach would be hugely helpful in keeping many of the subset of people in the Church who are currently apostatizing in droves. I agree with Santos that these people might not be as committed to making difficult sacrifices as the true believers. But with all due respect to the true believers, smart and educated people want to go to Church with other smart and educated people. What did Mike Waters always say about a few zealots gathered around a campfire? That may be where the Church is headed in the era of the internet and increasing secularism if they can't offer an alternative approach.

[Portland Ute]

Interesting thread.

I've thought a lot about the fact that my ideal Church would be similar to the Community of Christ (women with Priesthood, alternative approaches to BOM and Joseph Smith acceptable, etc.) but with the vitality and energy of the LDS Church. That's probably an impossible combination, but I think the Church will slowly evolve in that direction -- think how different the Church is today from 100 years ago.

A lot of local Church leaders are more aware of problematic elements of Church history than we often assume. But I still think the only way you keep many of the smart, educated, worldly (in the good sense ) people in the Church is to inoculate them by offering an approach that doesn't require them to believe obviously untrue things.

You need to teach people that they can appreciate and be inspired by parts of the Book of Mormon without believing it is literal history (i.e. that the BOM can be true without being historical). You need to teach people that they can love the concept and ideal of eternal families but still believe that not even Prophets know what happens after we die.

I think John Dehlin's approach would be hugely helpful in keeping many of the subset of people in the Church who are currently apostatizing in droves. I agree with Santos that these people might not be as committed to making difficult sacrifices as the true believers. But with all due respect to the true believers, smart and educated people want to go to Church with other smart and educated people. What did Mike Waters always say about a few zealots gathered around a campfire? That may be where the Church is headed in the era of the internet and increasing secularism if they can't offer an alternative approach.

How do we know people are leaving the church in droves?

[pellegrino]

How do we know people are leaving the church in droves?

I believe he said that it was a subset of people.

[Portland Ute]

I believe he said that it was a subset of people.

Okay, how do we know that any subset is leaving in droves?

I'm not being confrontational here.

Droves makes it sound like it's happening at an unusually high rate.

Is this subset growing? Do we have any data to back that up?

Maybe I'm being obnoxious, but I'm really just wondering if there have been any studies done that are of any value or if this is mostly anecdotal.

[pellegrino]

Okay, how do we know that any subset is leaving in droves?

I'm not being confrontational here.

Droves makes it sound like it's happening at an unusually high rate.

Is this subset growing? Do we have any data to back that up?

Maybe I'm being obnoxious, but I'm really just wondering if there have been any studies done that are of any value or if this is mostly anecdotal.

I have no hard data, but anecdotal data abounds. Teryl Givens, Bushman, and Dehlin would be able to tell you roughly how many people are coming to them for help and how many have left the church because of it. Jensen acknowledged it as well in that article (though he later contradicted himself). I think there are good indicators that the church is losing more people over these issues than they have before. The question would be how many that is. I don't know that we can get an accurate number for it.

[UtahDan]

Helen was sealed to Joseph at the age of 14 and continued to live with her parents. There is no evidence, or even speculation, that her relationship with Joseph was more than a formality.

Fanny, age 16, is believed to have been a wife in every sense of the word. Though any 'evidence' of the true nature of their relationship is hearsay, at best.

The distinction between sealing and marriage is important when discussing the first polygamous relationships.

The Helen Mar Kimball marriage does appear to be more dynastic than anything else. If I believe anything about Nauvoo polygamy and polyandry it is that you can't generalize about it.

[Portland Ute]

I have no hard data, but anecdotal data abounds. Teryl Givens, Bushman, and Dehlin would be able to tell you roughly how many people are coming to them for help and how many have left the church because of it. Jensen acknowledged it as well in that article (though he later contradicted himself). I think there are good indicators that the church is losing more people over these issues than they have before. The question would be how many that is. I don't know that we can get an accurate number for it.

I just wonder sometimes if this isn't a case of a tempest in a teapot. Sometimes it seems that way. Especially when I look around me at my ward. I don't see people leaving in droves.

When I fixate on my feelings/thoughts, read CUF, Dehlin, etc., I really start to believe that everyone in the Church is on the verge of leaving. However, when I go to church on Sunday, I really feel like I am alone.

I don't know if that makes sense...