Two steps backwards - Tad R. Callister

[_LDSToronto]

If you haven't listened to Tad R. Callister's conference talk, take ten minutes and listen to it.

There is no mistaking what Tad says - either the Book of Mormon is the unequivocal word of God translated from historical plates, or it's a diabolical hoax. And there are some other nuggets, such as his discourse on false modes of baptism.

Just in case you had the false notion that progress was being made...

H.

[_Aristotle Smith]

My favorite was the absolute double standard that he applies.

Apparently the Book of Mormon is true because...it says good things about Jesus. That's it! Apparently if you say good things about Jesus it must be good and 100% true. Ignore any other historical problem, DNA, horses, steel, etc.. No sir, it says good things about Jesus, therefore it's the word of God.

But of course this doesn't apply to other churches. I can attest from attending my local Methodist church that the preacher says good things about Jesus on a weekly basis (much more often than the LDS church does). But since the Methodist church does baptism by sprinkling, it can't be true according to Callister.

So just to recap: As long as the Mormon scripture manages to say a few good things about Jesus, it's true and you can ignore all the details. But, if other churches say all kinds of good things about Jesus, they are disqualified on a single detail.

[_LDSToronto]

My favorite was the absolute double standard that he applies.

Apparently the Book of Mormon is true because...it says good things about Jesus. That's it! Apparently if you say good things about Jesus it must be good and 100% true. Ignore any other historical problem, DNA, horses, steel, etc.. No sir, it says good things about Jesus, therefore it's the word of God.

But of course this doesn't apply to other churches. I can attest from attending my local Methodist church that the preacher says good things about Jesus on a weekly basis (much more often than the LDS church does). But since the Methodist church does baptism by sprinkling, it can't be true according to Callister.

So just to recap: As long as the Mormon scripture manages to say a few good things about Jesus, it's true and you can ignore all the details. But, if other churches say all kinds of good things about Jesus, they are disqualified on a single detail.

Good catch - I was so focused on the dichotomy he sets up I hadn't seen that.

In one fell swoop he pretty much alienated anyone who may see the Book of Mormon as inspired text, but not necessarily historical. At least he got rid of all those heretics!

H.

[_bcspace]

In one fell swoop he pretty much alienated anyone who may see the Book of Mormon as inspired text, but not necessarily historical.

They should already have been alienated because the Church itself is adamant about the same claims. There has been and will be no change.

[_consiglieri]

I
There is no mistaking what Tad says - either the Book of Mormon is the unequivocal word of God translated from historical plates, or it's a diabolical hoax. And there are some other nuggets, such as his discourse on false modes of baptism.

I agree it was a regrettable discourse, especially using the old missionary comparison about drawing an infinite number of lines through one point (the Bible) but only being able to draw one line through two points (the Bible and the Book of Mormon).

As if there aren't already tons of different religions using both points.

And as if the Bible doesn't have four gospels in it attesting to the reality of the resurrection.

I actually tend to think the more scriptures we have, the more interpretations are possible.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Buffalo]

I
There is no mistaking what Tad says - either the Book of Mormon is the unequivocal word of God translated from historical plates, or it's a diabolical hoax. And there are some other nuggets, such as his discourse on false modes of baptism.

I agree it was a regrettable discourse, especially using the old missionary comparison about drawing an infinite number of lines through one point (the Bible) but only being able to draw one line through two points (the Bible and the Book of Mormon).

As if there aren't already tons of different religions using both points.

And as if the Bible doesn't have four gospels in it attesting to the reality of the resurrection.

I actually tend to think the more scriptures we have, the more interpretations are possible.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Agreed. If all we had was Luke we might be able to squeeze a half dozen denominations from it, but certainly not thousands and thousands.

[_consiglieri]

Agreed. If all we had was Luke we might be able to squeeze a half dozen denominations from it, but certainly not thousands and thousands.

Like the Marcionites!

But seriously, the Book of Mormon gives a better rationale for its own existence, by saying that God loves those in all nations and accordingly gives his word to as many as will receive it.

All the Best!

--Consilgieri

[_krose]

I'm glad someone mentioned this. I was going to start the topic right after the speech, but got busy.

This had to be just about the most pathetic excuse for an attempt at reasoning that I have ever heard from that pulpit, and i was surprised to hear a reference back to it from no less a luminary mind than Dallin Oaks.

So Tad's great-great grandpa decided that the Book of Mormon could only have been written by God or Satan, then (of course) had to come down on the side of God after reading more. I assume this nugget of wisdom has been passed down through the family and never questioned. I guess it never occurred to anyone that humans can write books on their own.

This reminds me of some of the nonsense that passes for logic in Strobel's "Case for ______" books, as well as the "you Mormons are ignoramuses" story LeGrand Richards included in his book. Either the Catholics are right or the Mormons are. It's just that simple. Right. (Didn't I hear that Richards was Callister's grandfather? If so, this all makes a bit more sense.)

[_Buffalo]

I'm glad someone mentioned this. I was going to start the topic right after the speech, but got busy.

This had to be just about the most pathetic excuse for an attempt at reasoning that I have ever heard from that pulpit, and i was surprised to hear a reference back to it from no less a luminary mind than Dallin Oaks.

So Tad's great-great grandpa decided that the Book of Mormon could only have been written by God or Satan, then (of course) had to come down on the side of God after reading more. I assume this nugget of wisdom has been passed down through the family and never questioned. I guess it never occurred to anyone that humans can write books on their own.

This reminds me of some of the nonsense that passes for logic in Strobel's "Case for ______" books, as well as the "you Mormons are ignoramuses" story LeGrand Richards included in his book. Either the Catholics are right or the Mormons are. It's just that simple. Right. (Didn't I hear that Richards was Callister's grandfather? If so, this all makes a bit more sense.)

It was a popular line of reasoning used on my mission.

[_krose]

Another thing that struck me was his assertion that the reason there are numerous Christian sects is because of different interpretations of the Bible. This doesn't sound accurate to me. Is he right about this?

It seems to me that the splits have generally been for political reasons, or following a particular charismatic leader.

Perhaps someone with a better grasp of the history of Christianity can verify that.

Just looking at the different splits of Mormonism, I can't think of any that happened because of a different interpretation of scripture. They have been about succession and disagreements with a president or policy.