Perpetual motion in regards to Mormonism.

[_beastie]

This perpetual motion will continue as long as:

1 - the LDS church teaches that it, alone, has the "real" authority of JC and a "real" prophet, entitled to speak for God

2 - the LDS church teaches that apostates leave the church due to negative character issues (proud, lazy, sinful, satan-influenced, etc)

These two factors ensure that the LDS church will be criticized and analyzed. This perpetual motion, by the way, was initiated by Joseph Smith before there was even a church.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, you are rambling again. Probably still tripping balls from the X you dropped at the Blue Oyster Bar last night? Anyhoo, what is the use of a prophet if everyone can speak to god on the same level? You are not making sense, instead running to silly word games in order to prove your flaccid point.

Everyone can, most don't. You for example. Because they're spiritually immature and/or spiritually weak (again, you) they can't communicate with God and the Prophet tries to help them develop so they can.

so you don't need a prophet but I do. How exactly? And this time explain how without the smarmy arrogance that is your usual routine.

I didn't say I don't need a Prophet. Why in the world should I drop my smarminess or arrogance with a git like you?

[_Trevor]

This perpetual motion will continue as long as:

1 - the LDS church teaches that it, alone, has the "real" authority of JC and a "real" prophet, entitled to speak for God

2 - the LDS church teaches that apostates leave the church due to negative character issues (proud, lazy, sinful, satan-influenced, etc)

These two factors ensure that the LDS church will be criticized and analyzed. This perpetual motion, by the way, was initiated by Joseph Smith before there was even a church.

Excellent points, beastie.

[_Some Schmo]

This perpetual motion will continue as long as:

1 - the LDS church teaches that it, alone, has the "real" authority of JC and a "real" prophet, entitled to speak for God

2 - the LDS church teaches that apostates leave the church due to negative character issues (proud, lazy, sinful, satan-influenced, etc)

These two factors ensure that the LDS church will be criticized and analyzed. This perpetual motion, by the way, was initiated by Joseph Smith before there was even a church.

Excellent points, beastie.

Yep, and it goes to the valid and seemingly overlooked point that Scottie brought up: what about the new questioners?

MG, you make it sound as though the same critics are bringing up the same arguments infinitely, but the reality is that as new people discover (or let themselves think about) the obvious problems with the church, they start to question it. That's natural. Critics come and go; apologists are forever (unless they're willing enough to finally let truth win over their own sense of comfort - and then they can be added to the critic's list).

While the criticisms stay consistent, the people making them don't. And the criticisms will stay consistent until the church remedies them.

[_mentalgymnast]

This perpetual motion will continue as long as:

1 - the LDS church teaches that it, alone, has the "real" authority of JC and a "real" prophet, entitled to speak for God

2 - the LDS church teaches that apostates leave the church due to negative character issues (proud, lazy, sinful, satan-influenced, etc)

These two factors ensure that the LDS church will be criticized and analyzed. This perpetual motion, by the way, was initiated by Joseph Smith before there was even a church.

Excellent points, beastie.

Yep, and it goes to the valid and seemingly overlooked point that Scottie brought up: what about the new questioners?

MG, you make it sound as though the same critics are bringing up the same arguments infinitely, but the reality is that as new people discover (or let themselves think about) the obvious problems with the church, they start to question it. That's natural. Critics come and go; apologists are forever (unless they're willing enough to finally let truth win over their own sense of comfort - and then they can be added to the critic's list).

While the criticisms stay consistent, the people making them don't. And the criticisms will stay consistent until the church remedies them.

What criticisms of the church would you suggest that the church remedy? And by remedy do you mean change doctrine or policy?

It seems as though in the last number of years the church has stepped up to the challenge of meeting some issues head on. Mountain Meadows for example. I think the critics keep bring up issues/criticisms, however, that the church as an institution may have very little it can do about. And again, that's what I mean by "everlastingly". Bringing up over and over and over again those things that the institutional church may have little control or influence over.

Regards,
MG

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Critics aren't the only people that keep apologists working. The average, everyday TBM that actually applies logic and reason to something absurd within Mormonism that he/she is taught and then innocently asks a question that gets others to think will require apologetic tap dancing and mental gymnastics to resolve. You see it every now and then in Gospel Doctrine class when someone asks an innocent question that gets people thinking about the absurdities of Mormonism, you typically have the old blowhard in the back of the class who has read Nibley or Peterson and has the apologetic answer ready.

But the OP is correct. If everyone would just stop questioning Mormonism they wouldn't require apologists. The proper approach to anything taught in Mormonism is to bow your head and say yes.

[_Some Schmo]

And by remedy do you mean change doctrine or policy?

Both, although policy is likely the easier to pull off seamlessly.

What criticisms of the church would you suggest that the church remedy?

That's a lot of bandwidth you're asking me to use...

Personally, the church could go a long way to avoiding criticism if they actually practiced what they preach with respect to family. I know my own respect for the church would increase exponentially if they came out and said something like, "While we believe that the true path to exaltation lies in being an active member of the church, we believe the greater good is family harmony. Therefore, in instances where a family relationship is in danger of harm due to a member's affiliation with our church, we recommend disavowing the gospel in favor of your relationships to your kin."

That's just one example (the most important one to me personally). I could go on all day, but I don't have the energy nor the inclination to go through all my criticisms of the church.

It seems as though in the last number of years the church has stepped up to the challenge of meeting some issues head on. Mountain Meadows for example.

Well, this sounds like a case where your view differs from the critics. Making an attempt at correcting the issue doesn't necessarily equal actually having corrected it.

I think the critics keep bring up issues/criticisms, however, that the church as an institution may have very little it can do about. And again, that's what I mean by "everlastingly". Bringing up over and over and over again those things that the institutional church may have little control or influence over.

Aren't we talking about the true church here? One would think that they'd have the power to correct the issues, given their divine assistance. But first things first; they'd have to actually acknowledge the problems before they could do something about it. Hence, the dance goes on "everlastingly."

[_Trevor]

Critics aren't the only people that keep apologists working. The average, everyday TBM that actually applies logic and reason to something absurd within Mormonism that he/she is taught and then innocently asks a question that gets others to think will require apologetic tap dancing and mental gymnastics to resolve. You see it every now and then in Gospel Doctrine class when someone asks an innocent question that gets people thinking about the absurdities of Mormonism, you typically have the old blowhard in the back of the class who has read Nibley or Peterson and has the apologetic answer ready.

Nice point there.