Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

What is the rationale for finding personal opinion and speculation to be persuasive in explaining why the official teachings of the Church are credible?

[_Buffalo]

What are we going to do here, continue to repeat ourselves but use different words? Okay. I guess i can play along for a while.

Stemelbow:

If---

1. The rationale for believing the official teachings of the LDS Church is that such teachings are the inspired words of prophets and apostles who have authority to speak for God;

2. The rationale for apologists attempting to defend such teachings is that they are defending the inspired words of prophets and apostles who have authority to speak for God;

and

3. The rationale for apologists not bothering to defend certain teachings of Mormon leaders is that such teachings have not been officially adopted by the Church, and therefore are simply that leader's personal opinion or speculation.

Then:

What is the rationale for finding personal opinion and speculation to be persuasive in explaining why the official teachings of the Church are credible?

Oh brother…I’m not saying a response to a critique is necessarily meant to explain why an official teaching of the Church is credible. Its often an attempt to suggest the critique itself is faulty in that it requires a conclusion that does no exhaust possibility. Just because you might conclude it is impossible that Nephites ever existed, does not mean Sorenson is forced to accept your conclusion. Indeed, he has offered reasons to think that the conclusion “it is impossible that they ever existed” is not the only conclusion available. One can reasonably conclude there is room in the environments of Mesoamerica that there were Nephites.

Be fair, Stem. You're not really answering his question at all.

[_stemelbow]

D&C 121

If D&C 132 is a true scripture, then in order to for Joseph Smith to keep his priesthood authority, D&C 121 must be false. But if D&C 121 is false, then the LDS Church is false, because it has canonized a false scripture.

Not really. You have clearly made assumptions, and leaps, in order to arrive at the conclusion that Joseph Smith could not have kept is priesthood authority, if D&C 121 is true. He could have failed in his practice of polygamy and still not have covered his sins, nor gratified his pride, nor his vain ambition, nor did he necessarily exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men.

If D&C 132 is a false scripture, then the LDS Church is false, because it has canonized a false scripture.

That’s silly. You know what else remains in the canon? The Song of Solomon, which LDS generally do not consider scripture. Your conclusion here is just not realistic from an LDS perspective.

If D&C 121 and 132 are both true, then Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority for violating the commandments found in D&C 132. If Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority, then the LDS Church is false, because Joseph Smith could not have passed on his priesthood authority (that authority having been revoked by the Lord per D&C 121).

How is proving the Church false "not necessarily the same as efforts to prove Joseph Smith wrong in practice"?

Your logic failed you as per above. He didn’t necessarily lose his priesthood authority for violating any commandments.

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

What is the rationale for finding personal opinion and speculation to be persuasive in explaining why the official teachings of the Church are credible?

Oh settle down, DJ. I just answered this to be the best of my desires. I do not necessarily say defenses or responses to critique are meant to be persuasive in explaining why the official teachings of the church are credible. If that is not my position how do you expect me to just straight up answer your question as if I go along with the notion? I simply disagree that my effort is to persuade critics that the official teachings are to be taken as credible.

As I said, the rationale to appeal to personal opinion and speculation in defending against criticism is to explain that the conclusion offered in the criticism (perhaps that Nephites never existed) is not the only conclusion to draw.

That is directly addressing your question. I will note you are not satisfied when LDS folks answer your questions, or at least it seems like it. I can't help your level of content though.

[_Themis]

As I said, the rationale to appeal to personal opinion and speculation in defending against criticism is to explain that the conclusion offered in the criticism (perhaps that Nephites never existed) is not the only conclusion to draw.

A number of people also conclude Bigfoot exists on supposed evidence or just the possibility of it.

[_stemelbow]

A number of people also conclude Bigfoot exists on supposed evidence or just the possibility of it.

I know I've met some such peole--one was my math teacher. Do you think I mean to suggest that means I also must accept that Bigfoot exists? I don't see why.

[_Darth J]

He could have failed in his practice of polygamy and still not have covered his sins, nor gratified his pride, nor his vain ambition, nor did he necessarily exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men.

1. The Church teaches that the exercise of priesthood power depends on obedience to commandments.

Richard G. Scott
November 2008 Ensign

The priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God. That authority is essential to the fulfillment of His work on earth. The priesthood we hold is a delegated portion of the eternal authority of God. As we are true and faithful, our ordination to the priesthood will be eternal.

However, the conferring of authority alone does not of itself bestow the power of the office. The extent to which we can exercise the power of the priesthood depends upon personal worthiness, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and obedience to His commandments.

Gordon B. Hinckley
May 2000 Ensign

Every worthy man, regardless of nationality, ethnic background, or any other factor, is eligible to receive the priesthood. His obedience to the commandments of God becomes the determining factor. Its bestowal is based only on worthiness before the Lord.

If the teachings of the Church are true, then Joseph Smith lost the authority of the priesthood because he was not obeying the commandments. Therefore, Joseph Smith could not have continued to exercise the priesthood, so the Church is false.

If the teachings of the Church are false, then the Church is false.

2. Joseph Smith indisputably did seek to cover his practice of plural marriage. His practice of plural marriage, being contrary to the Lord's commands, was by definition sinful. Therefore, he did seek to cover his sins, and would have lost his priesthood authority if D&C 121 is true. That means that the LDS Church cannot be true, since the founding prophet lost his priesthood authority. But if D&C 121 is false, then the Church is false for canonizing a false scripture.

If D&C 132 is a false scripture, then the LDS Church is false, because it has canonized a false scripture.

That’s silly. You know what else remains in the canon? The Song of Solomon, which LDS generally do not consider scripture. Your conclusion here is just not realistic from an LDS perspective.

The edition of the King James Bible printed by the LDS Church explicitly says that Song of Solomon is not considered scripture. There is no such provision for the edition of the Doctrine and Covenants printed by the LDS Church.

D&C 121 purports to be a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Song of Solomon does not.

If D&C 121 and 132 are both true, then Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority for violating the commandments found in D&C 132. If Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority, then the LDS Church is false, because Joseph Smith could not have passed on his priesthood authority (that authority having been revoked by the Lord per D&C 121).

How is proving the Church false "not necessarily the same as efforts to prove Joseph Smith wrong in practice"?

Your logic failed you as per above. He didn’t necessarily lose his priesthood authority for violating any commandments.

Then either the teachings of modern church leaders are false, meaning that the Church is false, or the teachings of modern church leaders are true but you are rejecting them, making you apostate.

[_Themis]

I know I've met some such peole--one was my math teacher. Do you think I mean to suggest that means I also must accept that Bigfoot exists? I don't see why.

I never suggested you did, but maybe I am be to subtle in showing that you and other apologists do the same things as your Math teacher. I am sure if feels justified, and may think their is plenty of evidence.

[_stemelbow]

DJ,

If the teachings of the Church are true, then Joseph Smith lost the authority of the priesthood because he was not obeying the commandments. Therefore, Joseph Smith could not have continued to exercise the priesthood, so the Church is false.

You do realize the Church generally acknowledges that people don't obey perfetly, even church members? the level of obedience is most often between God and individuals. Here you wish to suggest perfect obedience is required that is not the spirit of the message.

2. Joseph Smith indisputably did seek to cover his practice of plural marriage. His practice of plural marriage, being contrary to the Lord's commands, was by definition sinful. Therefore, he did seek to cover his sins, and would have lost his priesthood authority if D&C 121 is true. That means that the LDS Church cannot be true, since the founding prophet lost his priesthood authority. But if D&C 121 is false, then the Church is false for canonizing a false scripture.

Covering his practice of plural marriage is not necessarily covering his sin though. His sin, I'll grant for argument's sake, was the means of practicing it. We do not know if ultimately he repented of that. Also, we need suppose that if Joseph Smith lost his priesthood authority the Church is false, per se. That's an unwarranted assumption it seems.

[_stemelbow]

I never suggested you did, but maybe I am be to subtle in showing that you and other apologists do the same things as your Math teacher. I am sure if feels justified, and may think their is plenty of evidence.

I acknowledge that in responding to criticisms by suggesting there are more possibilities then required by said critiques I am doing much like my math teacher if'n a critic offers critiques for his opinion of bigfoot.