There's something strange about 'the Mormon debater'

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:42 am

Life

I think that that particular quote reflects the Mormon belief that it and it alone possesses divine authority to officiate in God's name and receive revelations from God for the whole world. If you've got some differing interpretation a la BCSpace with the First Presidency evolution statement, I'd be interested in hearing it out of interest in human psychology.

Now that I've answered your question, why don't you answer a question for me:

If Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth and his church was a fraud, would you want to know? Even considering it might rock your marriage (if you're married), destroy your friendships, your identity, etc....would you want to know? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:46 am

I haven't read all the replies, but have been meaning to add a comment since this thread started. Mormon apologists are a classic example of what Shermer discusses in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. In particular, smart people believe weird things for nonsmart reasons, but then apply their "smart skills" to defending the weird thing. Men in particular are more prone to this than woman, according to Shermer.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:26 am

Tal Bachman wrote:Life

I think that that particular quote reflects the Mormon belief that it and it alone possesses divine authority to officiate in God's name and receive revelations from God for the whole world. If you've got some differing interpretation a la BCSpace with the First Presidency evolution statement, I'd be interested in hearing it out of interest in human psychology.

Does this authority to officiate or receive revelations prohibit anyone else (even those who disbelieve in God) from espousing, teaching or discovering truth in general?

If Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth and his church was a fraud, would you want to know? Even considering it might rock your marriage (if you're married), destroy your friendships, your identity, etc....would you want to know? Yes or no? Why or why not?

I'll answer with a question of my own: If Joseph Smith did tell the truth and his church is actually God's church, that God exists, would you want to know? Even considering it might rock your marriage (if you're married), destroy your friendships, your identity, haircut, etc....would you want to know? Yes or no? Why or why not?[/quote]

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:26 am

beastie wrote:I haven't read all the replies, but have been meaning to add a comment since this thread started. Mormon apologists are a classic example of what Shermer discusses in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. In particular, smart people believe weird things for nonsmart reasons, but then apply their "smart skills" to defending the weird thing. Men in particular are more prone to this than woman, according to Shermer.

What an odd person Shermer is to believe such a thing!

Post by **_harmony** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:07 am

Tal Bachman wrote:Life

I think that that particular quote reflects the Mormon belief that it and it alone possesses divine authority to officiate in God's name and receive revelations from God for the whole world.

For the church, yes. For the whole world? I'm not sure that's correct.

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:14 am

Does this authority to officiate or receive revelations prohibit anyone else (even those who disbelieve in God) from espousing, teaching or discovering truth in general?

---Why would it? Isn't it clear enough?

If Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth and his church was a fraud, would you want to know? Even considering it might rock your marriage (if you're married), destroy your friendships, your identity, etc....would you want to know? Yes or no? Why or why not?

I'll answer with a question of my own: If Joseph Smith did tell the truth and his church is actually God's church, that God exists, would you want to know?

---Of course! What in the world do you think this is all about?!

Now answer the question: Would you want to know? Why or why not?

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:16 am

harmony wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Life

I think that that particular quote reflects the Mormon belief that it and it alone possesses divine authority to officiate in God's name and receive revelations from God for the whole world.

For the church, yes. For the whole world? I'm not sure that's correct.

---It may not be correct, but that's LDS doctrine.

How long have you actually been a member?

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:26 pm

Tal Bachman wrote:
Does this authority to officiate or receive revelations prohibit anyone else (even those who disbelieve in God) from espousing, teaching or discovering truth in general?

---Why would it? Isn't it clear enough?

Apparently not, Tal. That's why we're discussing it. So if I read you correctly you are saying the truth claims of the Church do not prohibit other religions (theistic, atheistic and otherwise) from believing, discovering or teaching truth?

Now answer the question: Would you want to know? Why or why not?

Of course, Tal. As a corollary, if my wife actually did not love me though she tells me she does, I'd want to know that, too. I'm that kind of crazy guy.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:27 pm

Tal Bachman wrote:
harmony wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Life

I think that that particular quote reflects the Mormon belief that it and it alone possesses divine authority to officiate in God's name and receive revelations from God for the whole world.

For the church, yes. For the whole world? I'm not sure that's correct.

---It may not be correct, but that's LDS doctrine.

How long have you actually been a member?

It's actually not LDS doctrine. Nothing in the teachings of the Church indicates that people will be held accountable for covenants they never even made based merely on the fact that the Church exists or that they have a periphery knowledge that it exists.

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:20 pm

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:
harmony wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Life

I think that that particular quote reflects the Mormon belief that it and it alone possesses divine authority to officiate in God's name and receive revelations from God for the whole world.

For the church, yes. For the whole world? I'm not sure that's correct.

---It may not be correct, but that's LDS doctrine.

How long have you actually been a member?

It's actually not LDS doctrine. Nothing in the teachings of the Church indicates that people will be held accountable for covenants they never even made based merely on the fact that the Church exists or that they have a periphery knowledge that it exists.

---It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant most church members are of their own church's claims. I don't know whether it's tragic or comic, or if I should just tune them all out. It's certainly embarrassing.

I guess official statements entitled "“The Family: A Proclamation to the WORLD" , weren't enough of a tip-off, were they? Or statements like "The prophets, seers, and revelators have had and still have the responsibility and privilege of receiving and declaring the word of God for the WORLD. He has been ordained and set apart as the prophet, seer, and revelator to the WORLD."

Wake up, bro.

By the way, the point in question has NOTHING to do with "being held accountable for covenants they never even made", etc. It's like you're spontaneously changing the topic in mid-sentence. The point is that it is LDS doctrine, and always has been, that the LDS prophet is the only man authorized by God to reveal his will not just to the Mormon church, but to the world. Hence the repeated presence of the word "WORLD" in the statements above, and about four thousand others.