Question for MSJack, re: LDS arguments

[_Simon Belmont]

"It's not just a numbers thing. Not only are Mormons smaller in numbers, but the critical voices often have the better arguments. Religions tend to be stuck holding the bag on defending positions that are blatantly, obviously inferior or self-contradictory to just about everyone else. It doesn't matter how well a religious believer argues that position; it will always be the losing argument. And let's face it, no one likes to lose all or most of the time."

For the most part, yes, I think I'd agree with that.

[_sock puppet]

"It's not just a numbers thing. Not only are Mormons smaller in numbers, but the critical voices often have the better arguments. Religions tend to be stuck holding the bag on defending positions that are blatantly, obviously inferior or self-contradictory to just about everyone else. It doesn't matter how well a religious believer argues that position; it will always be the losing argument. And let's face it, no one likes to lose all or most of the time."

For the most part, yes, I think I'd agree with that.

Why do you suppose that is?

[_Simon Belmont]

Why do you suppose that is?

It's ultimately a matter of personal evidence vs. empirical evidence.

[_MsJack]

Yup. I knew that the terribads on our forum would think the Catholic-Lutheran thing was a great argument.

Catholic-Lutheran simply has the advantage of time.

Wrong. Catholic-Lutheran also had the advantage of Lutherans not wanting to identify as Catholics. If Luther had wanted to call his movement "New Catholicism" or "Reformed Catholicism" or something, that would be another story. In the case of fundamentalist Mormons, those groups continue to self-identify as "Mormon." Trying to deny a group a label that it has self-selected is usually problematic (case in point: the "Mormons aren't Christians!" debate).

In contrast, the Community of Christ has actively sought to shed its "Mormon" identity. That is a group that will probably obtain a greater divorce from TCoJCoLDS with the passage of time.

It would not be good if fundamentalist Mormons only use the term Mormon because it would be quite confusing for outsiders.

They aren't trying to "only" use the term Mormon. They're trying to use the term "fundamentalist Mormon," similar to how one group of Baptists may call themselves "Southern Baptists." Denying that they are "Mormons" at all is what's confusing.

Well, if luther insisted on using the term catholic to describe his breakaway church it wouldn't be too silly. Right?

Why would it be?

There needed to be a distinction.

Agreed, but the amount of distinction needed is the prerogative of the new splinter group. Some new sects choose to identify with their parent movement, and some declare that they are sufficiently different to be regarded as a new movement. Self-identity is not the ultimate factor, but it is a very significant one. For my own part, I need to hear a really, really good reason why self-identity should be denied before I'm going to agree.

Now if Luther would have insisted on using the term catholic, the wars between the catholics and protestants would have been even more bloodier then they were.

viewtopic.php?p=518137#p518137

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that since there can be differences between what the church leaders say and what apologetic responses might be, apologists are at a disadvantage. For example, one may have a valid and strong argument, but that argument may travel very close to crossing the line of "false doctrine."

Pretty close, though I don't think I would use the term "false doctrine."

Apologetics is the defense of religion X.

Religion X teaches Y. Y is an extremely weak position.

If apologist does not defend Y, and instead contradicts it, apologist is not really being an apologist.

Either apologist defends Y and loses the argument, or apologist isn't really engaging in apologetics (and will probably be criticized for not really defending what the church teaches). I think we've all seen threads where both have taken place.

[_Simon Belmont]

Apologetics is the defense of religion X.

Religion X teaches Y. Y is an extremely weak position.

If apologist does not defend Y, and instead contradicts it, apologist is not really being an apologist.

Either apologist defends Y and loses the argument, or apologist isn't really engaging in apologetics (and will probably be criticized for not really defending what the church teaches). I think we've all seen threads where both have taken place.

Okay, so in your opinion does Y contain inherently bad arguments? Moreso than any other religious argument?

[_sock puppet]

Why do you suppose that is?

It's ultimately a matter of personal evidence vs. empirical evidence.

What weight, if any, for your own personal beliefs do you give to anyone's but your own personal evidence?

[_Buffalo]

Apologetics is the defense of religion X.

Religion X teaches Y. Y is an extremely weak position.

If apologist does not defend Y, and instead contradicts it, apologist is not really being an apologist.

Either apologist defends Y and loses the argument, or apologist isn't really engaging in apologetics (and will probably be criticized for not really defending what the church teaches). I think we've all seen threads where both have taken place.

Mormon apologists seem to be all about convincing critics that the church actually teaches Z. The fact that every Sunday they go to teach and and listen to Y doesn't seem to cause them any difficulties. Perhaps the the biology department at BYU has come up with a vaccine against sensing cognitive dissonance.

[_Darth J]

My friend agreed with me, but basically admitted that the site owners are stuck arguing that fundamentalist Mormons are not "Mormons" because that's the church's official position. They cannot take a more erudite and accurate position because to do so would mean saying that the church is getting it wrong.

Does that help give you a picture of what I had in mind?

It is rather difficult to say just who owns the name Mormon.

No, it's not. Nobody owns the name "Mormon." blog.php?u=7958&b=2823

The catholic church has the same problem with some eastern catholic churches when it comes to the word catholic.

You just disproved your own argument by distinguishing between "Catholic" and "eastern Catholic."

It would not be good if fundamentalist Mormons only use the term Mormon because it would be quite confusing for outsiders. And the main church would certainly get mixed up with the offshoot church. And this is the problem.

Similarly, it would not be good if Latter-day Saints used the term "Christian," because it would be quite confusing for outsiders who might mistake the LDS Church for a mainstream, traditional Christian church. Right?

And so, the site is right in making a clarification and so is the LDS church.

It isn't a "clarification." It is a disingenuous attempt to tell the rest of the world how to speak. The LDS Church claims to have a monopoly on the name "Mormons," but it demonstrably does not. The LDS Church has already been denied its attempt to trademark the name "Mormon," yet it still insists that the term applies uniquely to itself and its members.

The LDS Church also demands that it be referred to in shorthand as "The Church of Jesus Christ." http://newsroom.LDS.org/style-guide

That is entirely disingenuous also. "The Church of Jesus Christ" is the official name of the Bickertonite church. Not only does the LDS Church want to appropriate the name "Mormon" for itself, as if the other branches of the Mormon movement do not have the right to determine how they will self-identify, the LDS Church also wants to appropriate the name of another branch of Mormondom. And insisting that the LDS Church be referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ" clarifies nothing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_jesus_christ

[_Darth J]

I think this is an exceptionally weak argument and very easily shot down, and the site's Catholic-Lutheran analogy is quite silly.

It's a perfectly cromulent argument. Catholic-Lutheran simply has the advantage of time. Fundamentalists are in the same boat you claim the LDS Church is in. In other words, they're outnumbered and the LDS Church holds all the communications/media advantages with which to make their case.

Nope. It's a matter of substance, something that the LDS Church and its defenders generally don't want to discuss.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-URIT ... &cindex=51

The FLDS have a much, much stronger claim to being called "Mormons" than the LDS have to being called "Christians."

[_Simon Belmont]

No, it's not. Nobody owns the name "Mormon." blog.php?u=7958&b=2823

Whether he made it up or it was told to him through revelation, Joseph Smith owns the name "Mormon."

Similarly, it would not be good if Latter-day Saints used the term "Christian," because it would be quite confusing for outsiders who might mistake the LDS Church for a mainstream, traditional Christian church. Right?

Except Fundamentalist Mormons are not "Mormon," they are "Fundamentalist Mormon" or "FLDS."

It isn't a "clarification." It is a disingenuous attempt to tell the rest of the world how to speak.

How to speak? Does the church have instructions about how to pass air properly through one's vocal chords to make resonating sounds?

Or would it just like to be referred to by its proper name?

The LDS Church claims to have a monopoly on the name "Mormons," but it demonstrably does not.

Where do we claim that?

The LDS Church has already been denied its attempt to trademark the name "Mormon," yet it still insists that the term applies uniquely to itself and its members.

It does.