Boylan the Debater

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Philo Sofee »

Bill_Billiams wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:00 am
consiglieri wrote:
Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:43 pm
Now that is an interesting idea!
I think it would be a great idea. But Boylan is only interested in debating Sola Scriptura or the Priesthood. So you would probably have to float one of those topics of you are going to coax Boylan out of his troll cave.
Boylan wouldn't stand a chance on priesthood...
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Philo Sofee »

Bill_Billiams wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:40 am
The mental image of Boylan wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with a Bowie knife for a zoom call is hilarious and symbolic.
I wonder how he could be talked into doing it..... :lol:
Bill_Billiams
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 11:23 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Bill_Billiams »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:04 pm
Bill_Billiams wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:40 am
The mental image of Boylan wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with a Bowie knife for a zoom call is hilarious and symbolic.
I wonder how he could be talked into doing it..... :lol:
Tell him it will own the "progmos" and he would do it lol
Bill_Billiams
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 11:23 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Bill_Billiams »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:03 pm
Boylan wouldn't stand a chance on priesthood...
When Boylan challenges people to debates he uses a thesis that puts pressure on his opponent but leaves him with an easier defense. The debate thesis he uses for the priesthood is, "The Bible affirms an ordained ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, not a priesthood of all believers merely." Under this thesis, Boylan would never have to affirm or defend anything uniquely LDS. He could parrot Roman Catholic arguments, never mention the LDS priesthood, and if he "won" the debate he would still use it as proof of the superiority of LDS doctrine. Even though all he would actually have done is show weaknesses in the protestant position but give no affirmation on what priesthood we should actually embrace (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, some other restorationist movement). There are also several topics jammed into the thesis, which muddies the waters and allows for escape routes if Boylan got cornered. Ultimately, its a deceptive debate tactic to try to get your inexperienced opponent to agree to a thesis like that.

A fair and relevant thesis would be, "the New Testament affirms the LDS priesthood." This is a single topic with a clear affirmative and negative position. But that thesis would leave Boylan with an impossible task. He knows this but he is a slippery little snake lol.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Philo Sofee »

Bill_Billiams wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 8:07 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:03 pm
Boylan wouldn't stand a chance on priesthood...
When Boylan challenges people to debates he uses a thesis that puts pressure on his opponent but leaves him with an easier defense. The debate thesis he uses for the priesthood is, "The Bible affirms an ordained ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, not a priesthood of all believers merely." Under this thesis, Boylan would never have to affirm or defend anything uniquely LDS. He could parrot Roman Catholic arguments, never mention the LDS priesthood, and if he "won" the debate he would still use it as proof of the superiority of LDS doctrine. Even though all he would actually have done is show weaknesses in the protestant position but give no affirmation on what priesthood we should actually embrace (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, some other restorationist movement). There are also several topics jammed into the thesis, which muddies the waters and allows for escape routes if Boylan got cornered. Ultimately, its a deceptive debate tactic to try to get your inexperienced opponent to agree to a thesis like that.

A fair and relevant thesis would be, "the New Testament affirms the LDS priesthood." This is a single topic with a clear affirmative and negative position. But that thesis would leave Boylan with an impossible task. He knows this but he is a slippery little snake lol.
Excellent insights! Thanks for sharing. Yes, the apologist Jacob Hansen has the exact same issue on priesthood in the New Testament. Once we get specific, very SPECIFIC, they cannot show a legitimate restoration of priesthood, since there is no elaboration of it in the New Testament. It is as easy as falling off a log to show how Mormons misread and mistranslate the Greek of the Book of Hebrews also. When we get to Joseph Smith inventing the priesthood, that is even easier to demonstrate.
Bill_Billiams
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 11:23 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Bill_Billiams »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 10:18 pm
Yes, the apologist Jacob Hansen has the exact same issue on priesthood in the New Testament. Once we get specific, very SPECIFIC, they cannot show a legitimate restoration of priesthood, since there is no elaboration of it in the New Testament. It is as easy as falling off a log to show how Mormons misread and mistranslate the Greek of the Book of Hebrews also. When we get to Joseph Smith inventing the priesthood, that is even easier to demonstrate.
Exactly! They know the entire things rests on eisegesis and unverifiable "restoration." So they find more deceptive ways to look like they are defending it, when they really aren't.
User avatar
MsJack
Deacon
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:27 am
Location: Des Plaines, IL, USA
Contact:

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by MsJack »

I'm surprised anyone would think priesthood is a strong point for Mormonism. The Mormon priesthood isn't taught in the New Testament or the early church, which makes little sense given how central it is to LDS Church organization, and it doesn't work to say "because wicked men removed plain and precious things" as there would be no reason to completely remove such a useful control. Those "wicked men" could simply claim that they were the true bearers of this priesthood and use it to wield power. There was no reason to delete it with surgical precision.

But that's not how we see the early church functioning; councils are used to decide controversies, not the final say of a single bishop, pope, or prophet. Even the Council of Jerusalem (AD 50, Acts 15) did not work by saying, "Peter, what should we do?" They talked through the problem and it appears to be James who has the final word, taking his cue from Paul and Barnabas. We start seeing local councils again in the second century. The Protestant idea of a priesthood of all believers is based on 1 Pet and Hebrews, but also conciliar authority, which was absolutely present in the early church.

Once we get to Joseph Smith's thought in the 19th century, it's even more obvious that the idea developed gradually and was retconned into early Mormonism as Joseph Smith began to realize what Protestants have known since the so-called Radical Reformers of the 16th century: that anyone can claim God talked to them and told them they were right. Joseph Smith needed a way to pull the modern-day revelation ladder up after him, so to speak. Priesthood became the solution.
BA, Classics, Brigham Young University
MA, American Religious History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD Student, Church History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Bill_Billiams
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 28, 2023 11:23 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Bill_Billiams »

MsJack wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:04 am
I'm surprised anyone would think priesthood is a strong point for Mormonism. The Mormon priesthood isn't taught in the New Testament or the early church, which makes little sense given how central it is to LDS Church organization, and it doesn't work to say "because wicked men removed plain and precious things" as there would be no reason to completely remove such a useful control. Those "wicked men" could simply claim that they were the true bearers of this priesthood and use it to wield power. There was no reason to delete it with surgical precision.

But that's not how we see the early church functioning; councils are used to decide controversies, not the final say of a single bishop, pope, or prophet. Even the Council of Jerusalem (AD 50, Acts 15) did not work by saying, "Peter, what should we do?" They talked through the problem and it appears to be James who has the final word, taking his cue from Paul and Barnabas. We start seeing local councils again in the second century. The Protestant idea of a priesthood of all believers is based on 1 Pet and Hebrews, but also conciliar authority, which was absolutely present in the early church.

Once we get to Joseph Smith's thought in the 19th century, it's even more obvious that the idea developed gradually and was retconned into early Mormonism as Joseph Smith began to realize what Protestants have known since the so-called Radical Reformers of the 16th century: that anyone can claim God talked to them and told them they were right. Joseph Smith needed a way to pull the modern-day revelation ladder up after him, so to speak. Priesthood became the solution.
Thank you. Since you posted this I've been able to do some research (with your help) which further brought to light for me how the concept of the LDS priesthood is a theological and historical liability.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by Physics Guy »

MsJack wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:04 am
... it doesn't work to say "because wicked men removed plain and precious things" as there would be no reason to completely remove such a useful control [as Mormon priesthood]. Those "wicked men" could simply claim that they were the true bearers of this priesthood and use it to wield power. There was no reason to delete it with surgical precision.

... Joseph Smith needed a way to pull the modern-day revelation ladder up after him, so to speak. Priesthood became the solution.
This last point does seem like the obvious real reason for Mormon priesthood and the rest of the vague yet elaborate Mormon concept of "keys". But MsJack's first point hadn't struck me before, and it seems pretty compelling once she has stated it. There is indeed no way that anything like Mormon priesthood would have been removed from early Christianity by corrupt apostates, when all they would have had to do was usurp it. We know that early church leaders were trying to impose their authority over wannabe rivals. Denunciations of heretics have survived, and traditions about how teachings and offices could be traced back to apostles. If anything like Mormon priesthood had ever existed in early times, history would still echo with all the claims and counterclaims about who had the real priesthood keys, and who didn't. I don't believe that any such language has survived from the early church. That really shows pretty clearly that any specifically Mormon concepts of priesthood were not restored but invented.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5213
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Boylan the Debater

Post by drumdude »

MsJack wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:04 am
I'm surprised anyone would think priesthood is a strong point for Mormonism. The Mormon priesthood isn't taught in the New Testament or the early church, which makes little sense given how central it is to LDS Church organization, and it doesn't work to say "because wicked men removed plain and precious things" as there would be no reason to completely remove such a useful control. Those "wicked men" could simply claim that they were the true bearers of this priesthood and use it to wield power. There was no reason to delete it with surgical precision.

But that's not how we see the early church functioning; councils are used to decide controversies, not the final say of a single bishop, pope, or prophet. Even the Council of Jerusalem (AD 50, Acts 15) did not work by saying, "Peter, what should we do?" They talked through the problem and it appears to be James who has the final word, taking his cue from Paul and Barnabas. We start seeing local councils again in the second century. The Protestant idea of a priesthood of all believers is based on 1 Pet and Hebrews, but also conciliar authority, which was absolutely present in the early church.

Once we get to Joseph Smith's thought in the 19th century, it's even more obvious that the idea developed gradually and was retconned into early Mormonism as Joseph Smith began to realize what Protestants have known since the so-called Radical Reformers of the 16th century: that anyone can claim God talked to them and told them they were right. Joseph Smith needed a way to pull the modern-day revelation ladder up after him, so to speak. Priesthood became the solution.
An interesting modern development relating to this is the idea of priesthood keys. In the church until recently, the idea was that every leader had their own key to accomplish the duties of their station.

Now, the correlation committee has declared that the actual keys reside only in one person: the president of the church, who is currently Russel M Nelson. And the power from those keys flows out from him to the underlings.

It's all about concentration of wealth and power.
Post Reply