Why Do Biblical Christians Think God Doesn't Inspire the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[drumdude]

It’s just too emotionally painful for most Mormons to discuss their religion critically, after decades of indoctrination to stay away from anything “anti” lest their fragile little faith be damaged.

Drumdude, do you think that my faith is fragile?

I don’t know about your faith, I’m speaking about the vast majority of Mormons from my former ward who reflexively shut down anytime something “anti” came up.

Which is exactly what they’ve been instructed to do since childhood by their church leaders.

[Philo Sofee]

That’s a pretty bold claim…

The boldness of a claim doesn't always make it false.

It is false however. It is ridiculous to think God only cares about Mormons and ignores the rest of the world. I find inspiration in everyone since we are all made in God's image. That to me makes much better sense. To pretend Mormons are the only ones being enlightened just doesn't convince me that is a loving god at your helm. Since the parent analogy is strong in Mormonism with earthly and heavenly parents, an analogy comes to mind. Would I be able to count you a good father if you only paid attention, helped, and loved 1 child if you were the father of 10? That is just senseless. Why would the Heavenly Father pay attention to only 1 child (Mormonism) and ignore all the others?

[IHAQ]

If the 15 old guys in SLC were making things up as they went along, trying to appear inspired but not being. In what way would the delivery of those 15 old guys be any different than what we see before our very eyes?

IHAQ, I have no idea what the difference would be. And therefore what?

Shouldn't there be a significant difference between 15 old guys in SLC making things up as the go along, and 15 Apostles operating under direct divine guidance? The fact that there isn't points to a rather obvious conclusion...

[IHAQ]

"God" comes in many forms for many different people, it's time for you to look beyond the end of your own nose Kevin...

I've been looking beyond the end of my nose for a long time, IHAQ. Have you encountered a version of deity that makes more sense than a deity that answers questions, like the Latter-day Saint missionaries describe? If so, please tell me about said deity.

I have yet to find a version of deity that makes sense. Today's religions are just modern equivalents of Sun God worship. Todays financial donations are given on the same basis that the worshippers of the past gave human sacrifices. It's all a load of man made, inconsistent mumbo jumbo when you look at it rationally, objectively, and consistently.

Relying on what the LDS Church tells you is, well, unreliable.

What does unreliable even mean?

It means "not able to be relied upon".

I don't actually care about how reliable the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' teachings are; all I care about is whether or not God has chosen the leaders of that church to speak for Her/Him.

What would be the hallmarks of a leader of a religion that had been chosen by a supernatural, all knowing, all powerful deity ("God")? Personally I'd be looking for extreme consistency, unbelievable accuracy, impossible foresight etc.

[Chap]

I don't actually care about how reliable the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' teachings are; all I care about is whether or not God has chosen the leaders of that church to speak for Her/Him.

What would be the hallmarks of a leader of a religion that had been chosen by a supernatural, all knowing, all powerful deity ("God")? Personally I'd be looking for extreme consistency, unbelievable accuracy, impossible foresight etc.

As I see it, there is a big flashing red warning light that comes on even before we begin to discuss the reliability of the supposed deity's choice of a spokesperson to address humanity on the said deity's behalf.

The question is this: why cannot the supposed deity address humanity directly? That way its message would be conveyed clearly, comprehensibly, and directed to the people for whom it was intended. I have seen some believers say that the disadvantage of this would be that there would then be no necessity for the exercise of faith on the part of the audience of the deity's utterances. However, if a human intermediary were to be used, the faith required to be exercised would not be faith in the deity, but faith in the intermediary, and it is very hard to see why it should be considered in anyway commendable to repose such faith in a mere human being.

Leaving that aside, however, I do agree that if the deity uses an intermediary, it would seem absolutely obvious that the intermediary chosen should be a person known to be habitually truthful and generally worthy of confidence. I cannot see any benefit whatsoever in the choice of an intermediary who is in any way known to be unreliable, or morally dubious. And yet, over and over again, we have been invited to believe in the supposed divine message conveyed by people from whom, as the saying goes, you probably would not want to buy a used car. There is of course one rather obvious example of such a person, who is frequently referred to on this board …

All that is yet another example of the kind of things that make me basically reject deity talk is simply not making any sense.

[IHAQ]

As I see it, there is a big flashing red warning light that comes on even before we begin to discuss the reliability of the supposed deity's choice of a spokesperson to address humanity on the said deity's behalf.

The question is this: why cannot the supposed deity address humanity directly? That way its message would be conveyed clearly, comprehensibly, and directed to the people for whom it was intended. I have seen some believers say that the disadvantage of this would be that there would then be no necessity for the exercise of faith on the part of the audience of the deity's utterances. However, if a human intermediary were to be used, the faith required to be exercised would not be faith in the deity, but faith in the intermediary, and it is very hard to see why it should be considered in anyway commendable to repose such faith in a mere human being.

The other issue with this, in terms of faith, is the intermediary would lose the supposed benefit of needing to have faith. There are so many examples over time that show Church Presidents cannot be trusted to be reliable, yet still those Church Presidents continue to promote the mantra that members can "always trust the President of the Church". I don't understand the repetitious gullibility of members. They simply don't learn.

[malkie]

As I see it, there is a big flashing red warning light that comes on even before we begin to discuss the reliability of the supposed deity's choice of a spokesperson to address humanity on the said deity's behalf.

The question is this: why cannot the supposed deity address humanity directly? That way its message would be conveyed clearly, comprehensibly, and directed to the people for whom it was intended. I have seen some believers say that the disadvantage of this would be that there would then be no necessity for the exercise of faith on the part of the audience of the deity's utterances. However, if a human intermediary were to be used, the faith required to be exercised would not be faith in the deity, but faith in the intermediary, and it is very hard to see why it should be considered in anyway commendable to repose such faith in a mere human being.

The other issue with this, in terms of faith, is the intermediary would lose the supposed benefit of needing to have faith. There are so many examples over time that show Church Presidents cannot be trusted to be reliable, yet still those Church Presidents continue to promote the mantra that members can "always trust the President of the Church". I don't understand the repetitious gullibility of members. They simply don't learn.

(my bolding)

I agree completely, IHAQ, and yet I was one of them!

[IHAQ]

I've been looking beyond the end of my nose for a long time, IHAQ. Have you encountered a version of deity that makes more sense than a deity that answers questions, like the Latter-day Saint missionaries describe? If so, please tell me about said deity.

I have yet to find a version of deity that makes sense. Today's religions are just modern equivalents of Sun God worship. Todays financial donations are given on the same basis that the worshippers of the past gave human sacrifices. It's all a load of man made, inconsistent mumbo jumbo when you look at it rationally, objectively, and consistently.

Relying on what the LDS Church tells you is, well, unreliable.

What does unreliable even mean?

It means "not able to be relied upon".

I don't actually care about how reliable the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' teachings are; all I care about is whether or not God has chosen the leaders of that church to speak for Her/Him.

What would be the hallmarks of a leader of a religion that had been chosen by a supernatural, all knowing, all powerful deity ("God")? Personally I'd be looking for extreme consistency, unbelievable accuracy, impossible foresight etc.

Bumping for KevinSim

[bill4long]

If Latter-day Saints are deceived, then there is no way to find anything out about God.

That one made me spit up V8 out of my nose. My Hindu, Catholic, and Pentecostal friends, who are very much into spiritual experiences and "confirmations", would take great exception with your statement.

A better way to put it is this: if everyone who has spiritual experiences about (what they think is) God are deceived, then there is no way to find anything out about God. That may actually be true. But just because Mormons are deceived, it doesn't mean everyone else is. Your statement has an unstated assumption: that the method Mormons use to "find out about God" is the only valid (or even a valid) method to find stuff out about God.

[Rivendale]

If Latter-day Saints are deceived, then there is no way to find anything out about God.

That one made me spit up V8 out of my nose. My Hindu, Catholic, and Pentecostal friends, who are very much into spiritual experiences and "confirmations", would take great exception with your statement.

A better way to put it is this: if everyone who has spiritual experiences about (what they think is) God are deceived, then there is no way to find anything out about God. That may actually be true. But just because Mormons are deceived, it doesn't mean everyone else is. Your statement has an unstated assumption: that the method Mormons use to "find out about God" is the only valid (or even a valid) method to find stuff out about God.

Bednar was supposedly asked this question. If a Mormon and a person of another faith use the same epistemological method to arrive at the truthfulness of their faith who is right? He claimed they are all deceived because Mormons have keys and authority. Then he said he had to go.