tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post7454639608769167529..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Review: Day of Defense by Scott ThormaehlenJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30871837807635722832013-03-07T23:43:28.097-06:002013-03-07T23:43:28.097-06:00"The idea is to create the Biblical reasoning..."The idea is to create the Biblical reasoning first"<br /><br />Scott,<br /><br />I have been troubled by this for some time. Polygamy may be a practice one can justify in the Bible, but what Biblical reasoning can possibly be made to explain J.Smith's POLYANDRY? Why would he ever need to marry a married woman? Especially when some were still married to faithful LDS men? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76152215485892248912013-02-26T10:17:17.258-06:002013-02-26T10:17:17.258-06:00Jeff, you are correct. The only thing Leonard sug...Jeff, you are correct. The only thing Leonard suggests is that there were a couple of orhpans J. Smith married. There is nothing I could see about there being more women or men due to deaths, persecution, etc. In my original drafts something may have been removed or moved around, but Leonard doesn't suggest this from what I read. In Day of Defense, there were only two statements about this myth and they have been removed. <br /><br />The issue of plural marriage in DofD relies mainly on the doctrinal and recorded means for why it is practiced. I do not go into the the wives of Joseph Smith, or how it was implemented, for good or for bad. The idea is to create the Biblical reasoning first, and perhaps a later addition can get into other stigmas about this issue.Scott Thormaehlenhttp://beonejohn1721.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64814497677925283242013-02-26T00:36:53.570-06:002013-02-26T00:36:53.570-06:00In my book, I said it was written to "help in...In my book, I said it was written to "help initiate within the LDS community a "sophisticated rubric" for dealing with misconceptions" towards our faith, not that IT was the sophisticated rubric. Hence, much of the research was left out. I figure the best way to talk to non-members is with the Bible, not with information from the Maxwell Institute or very much from FAIR. For more seasoned critics, that would be necessary and much needed. <br /><br />It felt like a daunting task to take on alone exactly how Joseph Smith implemented the practice of plural marriage. I hoped that if I could lay out the biblical foundation, that would be a good starting point and allow someone else in the community to pick up the other pieces, or do so myself in a revised addition. <br /><br />Many of the sources are very difficult to find and not really shared in the LDS community on some of this controversial topic matter.<br /><br />As far as Islam and Judaism, I never meant to deconstruct the faiths, but only to show the 3 major religions evolved out of 1, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Such a split in light of the O.T. is unprecedented and I figured the best way to talk about which of the Christian sects followed more closely to the Bible, I had better set the foundation for why this bigger split exists. The LDS Church claims to be the one true Church and I figured looking to the O.T. as a pattern that such a concept once existed would set the tone for the rest of the book...that in 1830 the last dispensation began. Scott Thormaehlenhttp://beonejohn1721.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27598932949177308572013-02-25T20:24:03.733-06:002013-02-25T20:24:03.733-06:00Thank you Jeff and Scott. Thank you Jeff and Scott. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16585406657712046982013-02-25T14:01:55.748-06:002013-02-25T14:01:55.748-06:00Eveningsun
On point number 1, about Islam, their ...Eveningsun<br /><br />On point number 1, about Islam, their ultimate authority was 1,400 years ago and all I am asking is IF anyone has any distinguishable characteristics that allow one investigating Islam to know for within reason which of the sects is consistent. That is not to say they do not, but the LDS Church has a simple and consistent connection with where the N.T. left off. Peter, James, and John appeared to J. Smith and gave him the priesthood. That falls in line with the Great Apostasy and the need for a restoration as described by the N.T. that I go into with the book. Also, are Muslims Gentiles? Where does the Bible say this lineage will have the Gospel? <br /><br />Number 2, this book will be marketed primarily to the LDS audience and to those who understand Mormonism to some degree, whether through a negative light or struggle with basic stigmas. <br /><br />The point about living prophets and discussing Christianity, Islam, and Judaism draws on the a pattern one can easily examine in the Bible, a book all these groups claim to revere. This pattern is that God calls prophets and very few religions today that are spread all over the earth, building the kingdom, claim to have a prophet. In the end it is up to the reader to decide. My mind has been made up, with the evidence I address and much much more that I never intended on answering that you will not find i the book.<br /><br />To continue with point number 2, a few things can tell you who the mantel was passed to. For one, the Community of Christ lost their "prophetic line" years ago when there were no more direct descendants of Smith. Also, where did J. Smith ever say it would pass from himself to his son, and not the 12 apostles? Also, didn't J. Smith acknowledge that the saints would be established in the Rockies? Where did the Community of Christ remain? Also, assuming the mantel fell to Brigham Young along with the other 12 Apostles, I'm pretty sure the Church in SLC is documented well enough to show that at no point did the descendants of Warren Jeff's predecessors correctly assume the mantle. The practice ended with the Manifesto. J. Smith said the Church would spread over the earth, Jeff's group are in isolated areas of Texas, AZ, UT, and Canada from what I understand. Also, I don't see any of the groups you mention as having missionaries all over the earth. Those are just a few characteristics I can think of that distinguish the groups. One could speculate, why not there other groups? But one would first have to find a connection of how the other branches are more correct and are they the Gospel spreading to all the earth? <br /><br />I would look at current LDS leadership and ask wherein have they erred in past scripture and doctrine during General Conference or otherwise? Prophets are moral teachers...the current LDS authorities are just that.Scott Thormaehlenhttp://beonejohn1721.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68256504383582659982013-02-25T13:28:47.875-06:002013-02-25T13:28:47.875-06:00Scott, you write that you "would like to see,...Scott, you write that you "would like to see, as the LDS Church can provide, what characteristics one can definitively point to identifying the right Islamic sect?"<br /><br />OK, so the difference between the Mormons and the Muslims, the difference that somehow makes Mormon claims more defensible than Muslim claims, is that the Mormons have living prophets. Their Ultimate Authorities live in the present; Muslim's Ultimate Authorities do not.<br /><br />I guess I'm supposed to be reassured that Mormonism offers me a living prophet as a conduit to God's truth. Awesome! Just what I've been looking for! But wait.... <i>Which</i> living Mormon prophet is the right one? There are so many different living prophets to choose from! There's Thomas Monson, Warren Jeffs, Vernon Whiting.... So I guess I still need to know what "characteristics can one definitively point to identifying the right Mormon sect?"<br /><br />There are some tough questions here that you seem more willing to ask about Islam than about Mormonism. You're claiming not only that there continue to be living prophets, but also that you know who they are. Why should I believe either claim? Maybe it would be nice if there <i>were</i> living prophets, just as it would be nice for everyone to get a nice shiny pony, but just because something would be nice doesn't make it so.<br /><br />Again, maybe it would be nice if Thomas Monson <i>were</i> a living prophet, but how can I possibly know whether the prophetic mantle was passed on to him through Brigham Young (and the LDS Church), and not to others through Joseph Smith III (and the Community of Christ), or to yet others through James Strang, or to yet others through Lorin Woolley and the Hildale polygamists? Each of these Mormon sects makes the same claims to legitimacy that you make for your own sect.<br /><br />It's all so confusing! How do you know that <i>you</i> are right and <i>they</i> are wrong? You cannot possibly appeal here to the notions of living prophets and continuing revelation, because the other sects believe in those notions, too, every bit as strongly as you do.<br /><br />So why should I believe your claims, and not those of, say, a follower of Warren Jeffs?<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33045158580362565132013-02-25T12:36:31.268-06:002013-02-25T12:36:31.268-06:00Anonymous...
I appreciate your comments:
<......Anonymous...<br /><br />I appreciate your comments:<br /><br /><...the LDS Church does believe itself to be the one true church (and the others to be, at best, apostate). It's been this way ever since Joseph Smith claimed he was told in his vision that none of the existing churches were true. It's not as if the LDS Church believes considers itself just one among many equally valid ways of understanding the divine mysteries. The Church believes it is right and the others are wrong, and I'm not sure that its apologetics can ever really get away from that.<br /><br />Of course, it's not just the LDS Church that defined itself in opposition to other religions. Christianity did so, right from its start with Paul. Judaism also did so (whether you consider Judaism to start with Abraham's repudiation of his father's idol worship or with the much later prophetic denunciations of the religions being practiced in the "high places").><br /><br />However, regarding polygamy, Jacob 2 in the BOM tells us the purpose. I also don't believe more than 3% of the Church practiced authorized polygamy nor was it necessary for eternal life unless the prophet asked/commanded certain members to engage in such marriages. I purposely did not get into the supposed abuses or bad practices of the saints, especially those attributed to Joseph Smith. My intentions with the book are to provide a biblical basis for some of Mormonism's oddest beliefs, not to rely so much on extra-biblical research and modern "problems." I believe the Church is perfect and the people are not. If even the prophet himself became proud and married himself to too many women, perhaps that is what he was cut down? I don't know that there is enough primary source material to give hard evidence to the prophets behavior or where to find it...so I admittedly do leave the more seasoned apologetics or critics with remaining questions on issues I chose not to tackle. My book was meant to be short to keep the attention of the reader and provide, perhaps not a "sophisticated rubric" as much as an "Into to Mormonism and the Bible." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Scott Thormaehlenhttp://beonejohn1721.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46995547176393400502013-02-25T12:16:59.142-06:002013-02-25T12:16:59.142-06:00I've written Jeff addressing some of his conce...I've written Jeff addressing some of his concerns. I hope to see those integrated into a revised review. My hope was not to condemn other religions, but to identify characteristics of the O.T. and N.T. combined, that create a simple pattern: that God uses prophets and continually adds or provides modern revelation. <br /><br />One thing I do, is question how can we know which division of Islam is true? They answer that there are no more prophets, so I would like to see, as the LDS Church can provide, what characteristics one can definitively point to identifying the right Islamic sect? What are most Americans missing to bridge the death of Muhammed with modern Islam? In the LDS faith one can easily look to the structure of the 12 Apostles as being prophets, seers, and revelators carrying the work of Joseph to the Rockies. Did Joseph Smith not say that the saints would settle in the Rockies? People might pretend that Mormon divisions muddy the water and make it so it is indistinguishable to identify if Brigham and the following prophets carried on the true faith...but is it really that muddied? <br /><br />Also, at what point does a Jew look at their own history, and by what standard or evidence do they continue their religion, breaking away from God's pattern? Besides, all Christians before the Church grew into Greece and Rome, were composed of a Jewish membership. The idea isn't to focus on bashing other religions, as it is to point out characteristics, and ask tough questions. Merely having the blood of a Jewish person does not make that person in modern days endowed with the "right religion." The point of Chapter 1 is to put the three larger faiths of the God of Israel: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity in perspective as to why there are so many religions. The first stigma that Day of Defense addresses is "God is too big for one religion". My purpose is to ask, since when? Sure, there are a lot of divisions...but the Bible provides a simple blue print for how God works...and I simply argue that the LDS Church, through the faith of a young, humble truth seeker, God continues his marvelous work in the same manner he always has.<br /><br />I appreciate the remarks and the critical analysis of Day of Defense.Scott Thormaehlenhttp://beonejohn1721.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82505458728439029802013-02-24T13:27:12.394-06:002013-02-24T13:27:12.394-06:00Credit where credit is due: Jeff, I appreciate the...Credit where credit is due: Jeff, I appreciate the way you respond here to Thormaehlen's treatment of polygamy. To your comments about the problems with the "gender-imbalance" defense, I would add that in the pre-1890 church plural marriage was consistently and enthusiastically defended as an eternal and theological rather than a temporary and practical issue. It was never presented merely as a solution to a short-term problem (which, as you rightly note, wasn't a problem in the first place).<br /><br />I also like the honest way you respond to the problem of defending one's own faith without denigrating others, as when you write that Thormaehlen's criticism of Catholicism "would play better if Mormon history had always reflected such ideals and did not have its own tarnish." (In truth, Catholicism <i>is</i> a lot more tarnished, but then again it's had a lot more time to compile its record.)<br /><br />Having said that, I will also say that, while tolerance and mutual respect are fine, the LDS Church <i>does</i> believe itself to be the one true church (and the others to be, at best, apostate). It's been this way ever since Joseph Smith claimed he was told in his vision that none of the existing churches were true. It's not as if the LDS Church believes considers itself just one among many equally valid ways of understanding the divine mysteries. The Church believes it is right and the others are wrong, and I'm not sure that its apologetics can ever really get away from that.<br /><br />Of course, it's not just the LDS Church that defined itself in opposition to other religions. Christianity did so, right from its start with Paul. Judaism also did so (whether you consider Judaism to start with Abraham's repudiation of his father's idol worship or with the much later prophetic denunciations of the religions being practiced in the "high places").<br /><br />If reading Thormaehlen on these kinds of issues leaves you feeling dissatisfied, I would recommend some much meatier, smarter, better informed, and more challenging books that you will truly find worth reading, starting with James Carroll's wonderful <i>Constantine's Sword</i>, David Nirenberg's recent <i><a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Anti-Judaism/" rel="nofollow">Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition</a></i> (reviewed <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/123971/a-world-without-jews?all=1#" rel="nofollow">here</a>), and John Gray's <i>The Silence of Animals</i> (reviewed <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2013/02/reviewed-silence-animals-progress-and-other-modern-myths-john-gray" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com