Tone Of Mormon Apologetics

[Calm]

People of all faiths get these same impressions. Do you think life would be more cohesive if the church stepped back a little on "the one true church" mentality? And allowed the position that as long as you're a believer, you're all in the true church. Do you see this happening, as has been done with the Community of Christ church? I'm going to get flak for this, but it is a dream of mine. But I know this is an impossibity. I can hear it now, "well, leave then".

I don't see a need for either extreme and certainly no one has to leave because they desire in some way to create a greater feeling of fellowship with those who don't believe that the Church is "the one true church". Robert Millet has been putting a lot of effort into doing just that, for example.

We can and do allow the position that one outside the LDS faith can be a true seeker of God and receive the Spirit. We don't even limit that to Christians. We also hold the position that for certain ordinances required by God to allow us to progress to exaltation, to finishing our seeking, so to speak, and finally find God in the fullest way possible, one must accept the authority of LDS over these ordinances and participate in them, but even with that, there is a lot of leeway in discussing deep, meaningful fellowship relations with others.

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

And allowed the position that as long as you're a believer, you're all in the true church. Do you see this happening, as has been done with the Community of Christ church? I'm going to get flak for this, but it is a dream of mine. But I know this is an impossibity. I can hear it now, "well, leave then".

No. There would be no need for a restoration if it went this way. Why have a restoration if all who believe in Christ are in the true church? If this does happen, the lds church will lose its purpose for being.

Edited July 4, 2012 by why me

[why me]

People of all faiths get these same impressions.

I am not so sure about this. In the book of mormon there is a promise: if you pray about this book being true, you will get an answer that it is. And when people pray and the answer comes as a confirmation of truth, I do think that this is repeated in other faiths.

[Thinking]

We have backed off the "one true church" thing and in fact speak more about the fullness of the Gospel than the exclusivity of it.

Really?

In the hour we have been together, the Lord has deepened your belief in Him and strengthened your testimony. You have heard more than words and music. You have felt the witness of the Spirit to your heart that there are living prophets on the earth in the Lord’s true Church and that the path to happiness lies within His kingdom. Your testimony has grown that this is the only true and living Church on the earth today. (Henry B. Eyring, April 2011 GC)

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/general-young-women-meeting/2011/03/a-living-testimony

Edited July 4, 2012 by Thinking

[John Ping Pong]

Good grief. Does this cr*p really go on at the Maxwell Institute? Can I get hold of a general authority [just as] the apostates [claim to do]?

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.

[wenglund]

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.

I agree with Doyle on this, which is why I considered it ill-advised for so many people to react adversely to Greg Smith's article about Dehlin before they had even read the article.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

Really?

The GA in your link spoke about the holy ghost too. When one prays about the book of mormon and receives a witness from the holy ghost that it is true, it becomes very difficult to leave the church alone. We can see this with many ex-members. The holy ghost and testimony go hand in hand.

[John Ping Pong]

I agree with Doyle on this, which is why I considered it ill-advised for so many people to react adversely to Greg Smith's article about Dehlin before they had even read the article.

The plan at this point seems to be to withhold release of Greg Smith's article and force us to rely on those who claim to have read it.

The very fact the paper itself has been suppressed is itself suggestive.

[Calm]

The very fact the paper itself has been suppressed is itself suggestive.

You are right, it is suggestive that Greg Smith is a man of honour.

[Thinking]

The GA in your link spoke about the holy ghost too. When one prays about the book of mormon and receives a witness from the holy ghost that it is true, it becomes very difficult to leave the church alone. We can see this with many ex-members. The holy ghost and testimony go hand in hand.

What does this have to do with my contention that the LDS Church has not backed off the "one true church" thing?

[wenglund]

The plan at this point seems to be to withhold release of Greg Smith's article and force us to rely on those who claim to have read it.

The very fact the paper itself has been suppressed is itself suggestive.

Interesting conspiracy theory. More interesting is how it violates the "capital mistake" you recently espoused. You really ought to use an hypocrisy checker prior to posting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Ping Pong]

Interesting conspiracy theory. More interesting is how it violates the "capital mistake" you recently espoused. You really ought to use an hypocrisy checker prior to posting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is a fact that a 100-page paper written by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin exists. (Unless you would care to dispute it.)

It is a fact that it has not been published in the FARMS Review, though it was slated to be.

It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.

It is a fact that certain persons claim to have read the manuscript and without giving any details are yet not reticent to give their opinion.

The fact a person refuses to produce evidence for inspection is itself evidence.

Funny that Wade should rhyme with Lestrade.

Good evening, Inspector.

Edited July 4, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[Calm]

It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.

The author does not want it to be made public until he is fully aware of why it was suppressed in the first place. Unlike certain others I will not mention, he is not prone to rely on rumours and rumours of rumours for making his judgments. He prefers actual facts, not made up ones. IOW, he is a man of integrity and wisdom.

Your above argument is so full of gaps and assumptions in place of actual facts and correct inferences that I am surprised your avatar is not hiding his face. He would be ashamed if it had been him.

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

It is a fact that a 100-page paper written by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin exists. (Unless you would care to dispute it.)

It is a fact that it has not been published in the FARMS Review, though it was slated to be.

It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.

It is a fact that certain persons claim to have read the manuscript and without giving any details are yet not reticent to give their opinion.

The fact a person refuses to produce evidence for inspection is itself evidence.

Funny that Wade should rhyme with Lestrade.

Good evening, Inspector.

In all your exuberance to list facts, you missed the most important, and only relevant fact of all--i.e. the fact that we do not have the pertinent facts as to why, exactly, the article has yet to be publishes, which means we do not have the facts as to any alleged "plan", let alone a plan to "withhold" the article for the purpose of "forcing us to rely those claiming to have read it," or that he "doesn't want it made or available," or "refuses to produce evidence for inspection." This means that you didn't have the pertinent data prior to theorizing, and thus made the "capital mistake" you previous cautioned against. In short, you quickly showed yourself to be a hypocrite.

And, since you seem open to finding humorous connection with names, you will get a good laugh out of the fact that your chosen screen name is euphemistically connected with out houses, which I find remarkably apropos given the quality of your posts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 4, 2012 by wenglund

[John Ping Pong]

The author does not want it to be made public until he is fully aware of why it was suppressed in the first place. Unlike certain others I will not mention, he is not prone to rely on rumours and rumours of rumours for making his judgments. He prefers actual facts, not made up ones. IOW, he is a man of integrity and wisdom.

I am afraid it is you who appear to be making up facts as you go along, now.

Your above argument is so full of gaps and assumptions in place of actual facts and correct inferences that I am surprised your avatar is not hiding his face. He would be ashamed if it had been him.

Nonsense. You are too timid in drawing your inferences.

[John Ping Pong]

And, since you seem open to finding humorous connection with names, you will get a good laugh out of the fact that your chosen screen name is euphemistically connected with out houses, which I find remarkably apropos given the quality of your posts.

It appears you are no fan of Louis Prima.

[wenglund]

It appears you are no fan of Louis Prima.

While it is true that I am not a fan of Louis Prima (one tends not to be a fan of people one has never heard of), there is no data in my post upon which to theorized this, let alone presume that it "appears" such...which brings us once again ironically to your quote about "capital mistake." LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

What does this have to do with my contention that the LDS Church has not backed off the "one true church" thing?

Not much. However, the problem here is simple: general authorities say things all the time. And it is always amazing that quotations are pulled out of a hat to make a point about the lds church. Since GAs say things and their writings and speeches are in church publications, it becomes very difficult to make a point about a general trend. Lets look at it this way: over a hundred years ago, BY makes a statement which is recorded by a second person and then suddenly this quotation is pulled out of a hat in 2012 to make a point about lds beliefs. Does that make sense?

I think that the poster was referring to the fact that the general trend is to stress something else besides the one, true church.

Edited July 4, 2012 by why me

[why me]

It is a fact that a 100-page paper written by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin exists. (Unless you would care to dispute it.)

It is a fact that it has not been published in the FARMS Review, though it was slated to be.

It is a fact that it has not been made available to the general public, which indicates the author does not want it to be made available.

.

Good evening, Inspector.

This is not true. The paper will eventually come forth. Finding space for a large paper is not easy. Most journals have been reserved for articles for at least a couple of months. And then one must find a publication to put the piece in.

[Calm]

I am afraid it is you who appear to be making up facts as you go along, now.

No, I am not. I know the man and have talked with him on this very subject. He will not make a decision about releasing the paper publicly until he knows enough of the facts for the suppression of the paper by Dr. Bradford....and for that to happen people need to talk to him, including some that are unavailable to do so at this time.

As I said, a man of integrity and honour and wisdom...and patience when necessary, which is what everyone wants more of in the discussion it would seem, though sadly so many proclaiming the need seem to lack those qualities for themselves.

Nonsense.

You are too timid in drawing your inferences.

Very well then. I infer that you are a poser. And I am not defining that as a "difficult or perplexing question or problem".

http://www.encyclope...O999-poser.html

Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Anijen]

Would Bruce R. McConkie calling critics of the church "dogs" be an ad hominem? I would say it is. I say it gives his talk some teeth. I also recall a very great person calling pharisees "whited sepulchers"

In my opinion I like Daniel C. Petersons style. I also like Pahoran and Seleks too.

[KevinG]

While it is true that I am not a fan of Louis Prima (one tends not to be a fan of people one has never heard of), there is no data in my post upon which to theorized this, let alone presume that it "appears" such...which brings us once again ironically to your quote about "capital mistake." LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade you poor soul. Let me fix the glaring omission for you,

[KevinG]

What does this have to do with my contention that the LDS Church has not backed off the "one true church" thing?

We have not backed off the idea that we are Christ's established church with His full authority in this dispensation. We have gotten kinder and gentler in dealing with other faiths and recognizing their truths (see Paul's admonition).

The difference is in the emPHasis.

If you are holding your breath waiting for the LDS to accept other religions as authoritative when it comes to the ordinances and priesthood don't bother. The restoration of the Gospel is a foundational belief.

[wenglund]

Wade you poor soul. Let me fix the glaring omission for you,

I am sorry, but I keep getting distracted by the lady's outfit (it has been decades since I have seen the barely shrouded manifestation of a bullet-bra), so I am not sure how this makes JPP's point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 5, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

I am sorry, but I keep getting distracted by the lady's outfit (it has been decades since I have seen the barely shrouded manifestation of a bullet-bra), so I am not sure how this makes JPP's point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It has nothing to do with his point at all. I just felt bad for anyone lacking Louis Prima exposure. Here is some more (v09ce only):

[media=]

Edited July 5, 2012 by KevinG