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

[Gabriel]

Kishkumen, your response along with Physic Guy's succinct and 'on the money' reply a couple of posts before yours really do tell it all.

People do find their own paths and adhere to their own views - hopefully, with respect for others. Though the 'respect' part can be questioned, I see. What about conspiracy theories? What about views that cause obvious harm as Jim Jones and David Koresh led their followers to their deaths?

Perhaps that's why the golden rule ("Do unto others ...) and even the Hippocratic oath ("Above all else, do no harm") are universal and have stood the test of time.

I think it is fine to question on what basis one group criticizes others. It is fine for Mainstream Christians to question the basis upon which LDS Christians view other churches as apostate. It is fine for LDS Christians to question the place of the Bible in much of Protestant Christianity. Still, a lot can be said without getting too caustic or insulting.

Generally speaking, I agree with you that societies should judge groups generously, only intervening when objective harm is being done as a result of the group's fundamental teachings and practices. That does not mean all tragedies will be avoided, but a reasonable and salutary balance can be struck between freedom of worship and the safety of society.

The only constraint I see placing on groups is when their activities cross the line into criminal territory. I tend to be more sympathetic toward New Religious Movements and their leaders. It is not infrequently the case that suspicion and paranoia about "cults" is a big factor in exacerbating the negative features of these groups. When the larger community or state authorities are too invasive, that can be its own source of problems. Still, groups can't have a blank check to do whatever they want. They must still follow the law.

Conspiracy thinking? What to do about it? I don't know. We have a real mess on our hands. The eagerness to embrace the latest online rumor that flatters one's own viewpoint is a problem that has gotten away from us. I don't think we have yet found any good solutions to this crisis of information.

Well said, Kishkumen. And I wish to let it be known that as a Papist and member of The Great and Abominable Church™ (otherwise affectionately known as The Whore of Babylon©), I concur with the above.

[Physics Guy]

If the Enlightenment was a great revolt against intellectual authority, then I think we’re only now starting to see the kind of use that intellectual authority did have. We are approaching an Endarkenment, perhaps. Wackos of the world, unite: you have nothing to lose but your inhibitions.

Much as I personally might appreciate a Platonic system of rule by physicist-kings, going back to Middle Ages wouldn’t be a good option even if it were possible. Proliferation of ignorance bubbles might just be a price of modernity. In most countries it isn’t such a pressing problem, because it’s still a lot easier to get a blog than a gun.

[dastardly stem]

Except all religions believe additional things tagged on to believing God loves you. This is not an exclusively Mormon thing at all. You have to believe in Jesus and Catholic Priesthood, or Jesus and sola scriptura...or...plenty of other silly things.

It‘s true that most religions believe their own sets of additional things, but since I never said anything about how much other religions believed, the “except” is a non sequitur.

If we’re now raising the question of how much other religions believe beyond God loving us, though, then it’s really not true that they all require believing the same amount of additional stuff.

Some denominations of some faiths are explicitly quite limited in what they profess. Most others may officially have longer lists, but require such modest participation from their adherents that in practice nobody has to think too much about what exactly they believe. Some people do consciously believe a lot of detailed doctrines, of course, but many members of large religions really do not.

Mormonism, at least in the largest CoJCoLDS branch, seems to be on the high end of the demand spectrum. And a lot of the demands for time and money seem to be absurd unless you take things like the Mormon priesthood quite seriously.

One can say it with admiration, that Mormons take their beliefs seriously and act accordingly. That does also have a downside from some points of view.

Sounds like I was mistaking something you said. So might as well call it all good and move on before I slaughter it worse. Have a good one.

[Rivendale]

Elder Bednar was asked recently what he thought of most Christian religions and he said they are deceived. And when pressed about his own beliefs being deceived he just said you have to have faith.

I can't speak for David Bednar, but I wonder if he would agree with me that the critical difference is just what one has faith in. Biblical Christians believe the Bible tells the truth about God. Latter-day Saints believe God loves us, and wants us to know about Her/Him. If Biblical Christians are deceived, then there still might be some other ways to find out about God. If Latter-day Saints are deceived, then there is no way to find anything out about God.

The core of the argument against Bednar had to do with the epistemology of how one reaches ones belief that something is true. If both the Christian and the Mormon do the exact same thing and arrive at different conclusions how do we know which one is correct?

[Kishkumen]

Well said, Kishkumen. And I wish to let it be known that as a Papist and member of The Great and Abominable Church™ (otherwise affectionately known as The Whore of Babylon©), I concur with the above.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Catholic. It is a wonderful tradition. Flawed indeed, but so many lovely parts too. Without Catholicism, Western Europe would not exist as we know it.

[Jersey Girl]

Much to my delight, I have discovered that, among all the numerous atheists on this forum, there are a few Biblical Christians. In particular, Jersey Girl and Msnobody appear to be Biblical Christians, and I suppose there may be more that I haven't noticed. I'm not going to ignore any atheists who respond to this post, but I'm really addressing it to those few Biblical Christians. Why do you think that God hasn't chosen the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to speak for Her/Him?

Hello there KevinSim. I saw your thread the other day but haven't gotten round to replying here. Yes, there is at the moment myself, msnobody, and huckleberry who I see has contributed to this thread. There's another poster who isn't active right now so I won't say who they are because well, they aren't here.

On to your question. I don't think that God has chosen the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to speak for Her/Him because I think God speaks for Himself and has through scripture and continues to speak to the individual via the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit or as in Mormon terminology, the Holy Ghost.

I didn't read all of the replies on this thread. That's a fact. I did read a couple. I think I saw something about continuing prophecy or revelation, that sort of thing.

So if I am right about that, I would tell you that I don't accept Mormon scripture as Christian nor do I see a need for continuing revelation. I say that mainly because I don't see anywhere in the New Testament that says...stay tuned there's more to come...type of thing. Anyway, that's my initial response off the top of my head as it were.

I saw another statement here of yours that I want to address. I'll get to that eventually.

p.s. If this is of interest to you at all. Infant baptized in the Presbyterian church. Raised in a non-denominational church that really, it was a Protestant leaning community church. Attended church for most of my adult life, have been to other churches and ceremonies as a visitor including LDS, Catholic, Hindu, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist. Haven't been to a Jewish synagogue for any type of service but I would like to. I did visit one as part of a tour. I'd also like to visit what we think of as a Black Gospel church.

Currently unchurched and have been ever since I left my SBC years ago. Didn't like some stuff that was going on and I bailed. I'm now one of those folks who attends on holidays and special services--memorials and funerals, weddings. Never thought that would ever be me and yet, it is.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for sharing some of the story of your religious journey, Jersey Girl!

[dastardly stem]

The core of the argument against Bednar had to do with the epistemology of how one reaches ones belief that something is true. If both the Christian and the Mormon do the exact same thing and arrive at different conclusions how do we know which one is correct?

Yes, that's right. If we say people can determine truth based on what they believe, call that faith and a witness from the Spirit, then anything goes, really. There is no basis for truth. One man's truth is another man's lie. The big issue religion adds to the equation on truth is its all guesswork. If one says, "my religion is true. God has told me so" and that telling is some inner witness, what we have is nothing more than someone believing they know the truth because they believe it. We have no reason to think there's a God telling someone anything. It's possible there's a hidden character telling a few people silly things. But the problem we have is everything we have in reality is predictable on naturalism as far as we can carry any explanation on anything. There is nothing we've found and explained that is explained by this hidden God hypothesis. In fact, as we run with the hidden God hypothesis we have to change up the meaning of each word in the hypothesis as we gather more information and learn more about reality. That's not to say everything is explained on naturalism. It very well might not be. But as far as we've learned, there is nothing explained by God. So if we use God as the hypothesis and say God is the source of truth, then we need something, anything to even give someone reason to think there's a God at all. Otherwise we're just believing in a hidden device that we know nothing about and assuming our feelings or ideas are God defining objective truth.

If we say something like "God speaks through the Bible and that's how we know truth", we're again simply assuming our beliefs are true because that is what we really want. People only think God speaks through the Bible because they believe that already and any feelings or ideas they get that feel divine must really be God because they felt them and thought them and felt divinity in it. Sadly though, anyone can be inspired by many writings, perhaps any writing. And since we have no reason to think there's a God, we're stuck assuming our preferred ideas and feelings are objective truth. But there's nothing testable there...there's nothing predictable. It's unfalsifiable. And yet we have Bednar and other religious folks running around telling everyone they have a secret to objective truth because they felt it and thought it and wanted their feelings and ideas to be divine. I say, no thanks, Bednar and co. That sounds more like arrogance and the way to foolishness.

[Chap]

Without Catholicism, Western Europe would not exist as we know it.

I'm not sure that is an unmixed compliment to Catholicism. I wonder too how far the nature of Western Europe itself did not contribute to creating Catholicism as we know it? Once there was a (Western) Roman emperor, then there was the Pope. And so on.

[Kishkumen]

I'm not sure that is an unmixed compliment to Catholicism. I wonder too how far the nature of Western Europe itself did not contribute to creating Catholicism as we know it? Once there was a (Western) Roman emperor, then there was the Pope. And so on.

Oh, the Roman Empire is definitely responsible for Catholicism.