DiscussMormonism.com

One of the things I'm seeing more and more over at MAD is apologists laughing because EV's are discounting Mormonism while still remaining Christians.

For every criticism of the Book of Mormon, the apologists will fire back with "Well, the Bible has the same problems and you still believe in it!"
If they point out the fallibility of LDS Prophets, apologists claim that prophets of the Bible did the same thing.
Conflicting doctrines? Well, you can find those in the Bible too!
They believe Christianity based on faith? Well, might as well believe in Mormonism on faith! What's the difference?

According to apologists, people have absolutely NO basis for not believing in Mormonism while continuing to believe in Christianity.

This line of thinking drives me nuts. How would you determine if ANY religion is false? If an EV were investigating JW's, the exact same logic could be used. There is no good reason to NOT believe in JW's, right?

As long as the mainstream Salt Lake church can make judgments regarding what does, and does not, constitute "Mormonism," or the correct implementation of Joseph Smith's "restoration," then the Christian church can do the same regarding what does or does not constitute "Christianity." That doesn't mean there won't be disputations and refutations on both counts.

Several times a year we hear LDS Church leadership denounce the contemporary practice of polygamy as outside the mainstream.

They can't then cry foul when mainstream Christianity denounces practices or beliefs of Mormonism as outside the mainstream. Religious traditions have long been concerned with preserving the faith and protecting against error and heresy; Mormonism is no different, so should understand that.

Heck, no one needs to discredit Mormonism. It discredits itself!

KA

Scottie wrote:One of the things I'm seeing more and more over at MAD is apologists laughing because EV's are discounting Mormonism while still remaining Christians.

For every criticism of the Book of Mormon, the apologists will fire back with "Well, the Bible has the same problems and you still believe in it!"
If they point out the fallibility of LDS Prophets, apologists claim that prophets of the Bible did the same thing.
Conflicting doctrines? Well, you can find those in the Bible too!
They believe Christianity based on faith? Well, might as well believe in Mormonism on faith! What's the difference?

According to apologists, people have absolutely NO basis for not believing in Mormonism while continuing to believe in Christianity.

This line of thinking drives me nuts. How would you determine if ANY religion is false? If an EV were investigating JW's, the exact same logic could be used. There is no good reason to NOT believe in JW's, right?

Well, quite frankly, this does have an internal logic (as warped as it might be). If you can accept the weirdness that is the Bible at face value, you should be able to accept just about anything. It then becomes not a matter of which theology makes the most sense, but which fairy tales appeal most to you (a.k.a. which one you were likely born into, or the one that preaches a morality that most closely aligns with your own).

Some Schmo wrote:Well, quite frankly, this does have an internal logic (as warped as it might be). If you can accept the weirdness that is the Bible at face value, you should be able to accept just about anything. It then becomes not a matter of which theology makes the most sense, but which fairy tales appeal most to you (a.k.a. which one you were likely born into, or the one that preaches a morality that most closely aligns with your own).

I'm in agreement with you here, Schmo...

How is Mormonism "weird", but the Bible is just fine??

To me, it screams that they are ALL false.

Well, there's some evidence for the Bible (places, persons, events) vs. ZERO evidence for the Book of Mormon.

edit - i should probably give some credit to Nahom - even though it's only a teeny-tiny amount. :)

Scottie wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:Well, quite frankly, this does have an internal logic (as warped as it might be). If you can accept the weirdness that is the Bible at face value, you should be able to accept just about anything. It then becomes not a matter of which theology makes the most sense, but which fairy tales appeal most to you (a.k.a. which one you were likely born into, or the one that preaches a morality that most closely aligns with your own).

I'm in agreement with you here, Schmo...

How is Mormonism "weird", but the Bible is just fine??

To me, it screams that they are ALL false.

I'm not sure the question is whether one is "weirder" or not, since they can all be viewed as "weird" to some extent, but whether or not one is the legitimate heir of another, or even a blood relation.

Who Knows wrote:Well, there's some evidence for the Bible (places, persons, events) vs. ZERO evidence for the Book of Mormon.

edit - I should probably give some credit to Nahom - even though it's only a teeny-tiny amount. :)

You gotta give Sheum credit too. I still can't figure that one out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't any evidence that the miracles or supernatural claims in the Bible ever took place. There is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever really lived.

Scottie, I'm glad you posted this. I don't understand how one can critique Mormonism while still believing in the Bible.

My personal opinion is that an EV, Catholic, Muslim or any religion really would find major issue that would challenge their faith and may cause them to abandon it if they applied the same critical thinking and analysis to their own faith that they do to the LDS religion. So yes, I think this argument has some merit.

GoodK wrote:You gotta give Sheum credit too. I still can't figure that one out.

Can't wait till the apologists find some ancient word resembling neas, cureloms, and cumoms. lol.