Episodes

Radio Free Mormon: 157: Bad Apologetics

RFM gives a workshop in identifying and dismantling bad apologetics, using the Adam-God Theory as a classic example!

Play

4 thoughts on “Radio Free Mormon: 157: Bad Apologetics

  1. Hmmmm….why was it even called a ‘theory’? I’m sure Brigham taught it as doctrine. Theory downgrades its place in history. Is that part of apologetics too?

    And I would rename equivocation in this case as a type of gass lighting?

    Lastly, I think , as you discovered, that Brigham was very clear about what he meant. While there may be some surface differences, on a fundamental level, the modern church still follows this bizarre train of thought, even tho they want to package it in a more digestible manner than good old blunt Brigham did. He was about as delicate as a bull in a china shop.

    Here’s what I say they’ve kept, if I’m understanding the doctrine….

    …with multiple God’s all over the place, the confusion about who is God and how that all works remains just as ambiguous and confusing.

    ……they haven’t dropped the doctrine of God having been a man as we are, who has now advanced to a God

    …..the doctrine crudely admits that a polygamist wife will fill planets with offspring, which is talked about in hushed tones and still part of the belief.

    ….temple polygamy is still practiced and polygamy is believed in as the ultimate reward.

    the dropping of the other details are irrelevant if they keep the ones I’ve mentioned.

    The feigned outrage from the leaders (because they’ve been embarrassed by the discovery of Brighams indelicate teaching) doesn’t change the fact that they still hold to the most offensive tactics of the doctrine today. Brigham didn’t have to tiptoe around these weird ideas in his one man run dictatorship in the wiley west with the tumbleweeds. He had no need of apologists. His pride wouldn’t have allowed it anyway, I dare say.

    i’m no seasoned apologist or researcher, just an arm chair amateur trying to apply a bit of common sense. What do I know?

    I know this much…I sure don’t miss the smoke and mirrors. That was an interesting look at what you did for a time. Wow. They didn’t deserve you!

  2. My thought on the connection between Adam-God and Joseph Smith, Jr. is Joseph’s teaching that the “Ancient of Days” is Adam. Most Jews and Christians interpret the Ancient of Days as being God (Yahweh for Jews and either the Father, Son or Holy Ghost for different Christians). Since the Ancient of Days is God, if Adam is the Ancient of Days, therefore Adam is God.

  3. Thanks for your excellent work on the Adam/God Doctrine. You made it very clear.

    One thing I’m not sure is correct is the bit about Brigham Young changing the way the seniority in the Quorum is counted. I read an article on John W. Young, Brigham’s son that was quite interesting. Brigham ordained him as an Apostle when he was 11 years old. This was so that he would have seniority in the Quorum when Brigham died, and thus a dynasty would be created in the Church of Youngs as prophets. This article said that the QUORUM changed the method of counting seniority AFTER Brigham died, specifically to block John W. from ascending to the predisency (John W had a reputation as something of a loser.) That’s why the method of counting seniority was changed. So which is the correct reason? I don’t know for sure. But I throw that out there for what its worth. John W. would also make a great podcast subject, as he led a colorful (dubious) life in the East, and was supported with copious amounts of cash doled out of the tithing coffers by his dear old dad. Cheers!

    • Hi, Neal!

      Thanks for the added detail about Brigham’s son and the whole ordaining him as an apostle at age 11 gambit.

      I didn’t go into that much detail in the podcast because I thought it would detract from the main point I was trying to make. (That and I probably forgot.) ;^)

      I think (!) I touched on this episode back in my Apostolic Coup d’etat episode a few years back but I could be mistaken about that.

      Anyway, thanks for your great sense of historical detail and for keeping me honest!

      I appreciate your comments and your listenership!

      RFM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*