The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[Limnor]

Fair enough.

If he presents a solution that is reasonable will you abandon previously held assertions?

I'd love to hear his response that covers the basis/bases of what I've presented to him (I think it explains reality 'on the ground') along with my reply to ResIpsa.

Limnor, I do not profess to be any smarter than anyone else. On the contrary, I know my limitations. That's why I'm always interested in what others have to say as long as it's civil without personal insults that lead off in directions that are a waste of time.

I'm always open to learning as I would hope others are also.

Regards,
MG

Ok, but a fair warning seems appropriate.

Your claim of humility is not as important as the structure of the exchange itself.

You’ve invited others to “explain reality on the ground,” but you’ve also positioned your own framework as the default reality by framing the argument within your terms.

It’s a clever challenge, I’ll grant you that. To engage, the conversation must be accepted on your premises, and I’ll also grant that your approach can be oddly effective for thoughtful interlocutors—and may even lead to growth. But no one should be under the illusion that you may change your mind, as you have avoided committing to that stipulation.

However, I think it is fair to explain that it is essentially a dare to others to step into your conceptual ring.

The risk, of course, is that once a person does so, they are already playing your game.

[Limnor]

A Lament.

What bothers me about this situation, MG, is that you are a person, just like me, but I see you as caught in a trap.

I’ve called what Joseph has done is to set a trap a couple of times here, and I’ll take the time to explain.

The gospel—the good news—was never meant to be a debating position or a scoreboard of correct belief. It was a message of liberation, a call to rest from the anxious need to be perfect, to be right, to defend, to prove.

That’s what makes Joseph’s construction so tragic by contrast: it turned faith into performance, salvation into a system of proving worthiness and doctrinal precision.

What makes it even sadder to me is that this trap runs directly against the heart of Jesus’ message.

Where Jesus offered release from fear and self-justification, Joseph built a framework that depends on them—that’s the trap. The irony is heartbreaking—the very thing that was meant to set people free became a structure that keeps them striving.

Jesus’ message was that truth isn’t something you own, it’s something that frees you.

While I’ve described a mistrust of you, MG, it doesn’t mean I don’t hope that you are set free from that trap.

[Limnor]

I feel compelled to explain why Joseph was.

There’s a moment of real clarity in the Old Testament about why God allows false prophets to rise. Deuteronomy 13 explains that such figures appear “to test you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

In other words, and in line with why I think your challenge serves a purpose to allow for growth, MG, is that deception itself serves a purpose—it reveals what people truly love.

A false prophet doesn’t exist because God loses control, but because He allows discernment to be exercised.

The presence of someone persuasive, but untrue, becomes a way of exposing whether people love truth enough to keep loving it, or comfort enough to settle for imitation.

[Limnor]

Aaaand I’ve strayed from my original intent of coming here to discuss a book….

I guess love does conquer all.

[huckelberry]

If Jesus truly rose from the dead and cared a lot about a church, I’d expect that church today to be a lot bigger than the COJCOLDS.

What do/would you see as a logical scenario of events within the confines/reality of the world as it was anciently (and how it had evolved/developed) and as the world is now in which the true Church of Jesus Christ (assuming that there might be one) would be anything more/different than what it is (assuming that the CofJCofLDS is God's church/organization) ?

Human minds cannot or at least should not be forced. History cannot be rewritten, cultures and societies developed independently from one another. Evolutionary factors are of course natural and expected.

Agency reigns supreme.

Where, when, and how would you expect that the true church of Jesus Christ would be bigger than it is? Again, on the hypothetical that the Mormon missionaries are teaching the truth.

Regards,
MG

.MG. l suppose if you assume the churches God established in the first century lost God's favor and God wanted to start a new church he liked in 19th century America then it is possible such church could be the size of the LDS church. Growth takes time.

This is reasonable if you accept the assumptions. I doubt physics Guy finds these reasonable assumptions. In referencing size I think he means if God cares about his church he would not abandon the first ones.

[huckelberry]

One could view Christianity as aiming this way for the past 2000 years. How to put that into action is not so clear however.people wish for justice and are hoping Jesus will return divinely establishing it. There is also a hope people will internalize Jesus aims over time growing closer to the goals.

Christianity can and has had those qualities (eschatological, justice, etc), but it leaves out the Judaism. And adds the atonement theology, which has nothing to do with Jesus at all.

I realize Paul that your view here is neither dumb or thoughtless. I find I have grown to see the matter in the opposite way. I think Jesus was all about atonement. It is difficult to debate so I am not going to prove you wrong but might enjoy exploring the matter.

What do you think was so important about temple worship he would risk his life to criticize it.

[Physics Guy]

What do/would you see as a logical scenario of events within the confines/reality of the world as it was anciently (and how it had evolved/developed) and as the world is now in which the true Church of Jesus Christ (assuming that there might be one) would be anything more/different than what it is (assuming that the CofJCofLDS is God's church/organization) ?

Human minds cannot or at least should not be forced. History cannot be rewritten, cultures and societies developed independently from one another. Evolutionary factors are of course natural and expected.

Agency reigns supreme.

Where, when, and how would you expect that the true church of Jesus Christ would be bigger than it is? Again, on the hypothetical that the Mormon missionaries are teaching the truth.

Why do you only want an answer that starts from the assumption that "the CofJCofLDS is God's church/organization" and "that the Mormon missionaries are teaching the truth"? If we're just going to assume those things from the start, then there is no point at all in asking whether Jesus Christ's church would be likely to bear his name or send missionaries throughout the world, because the question has already been answered by that initial assumption.

I thought you were making an argument to try to establish those things, as deductions from the facts that the CofJCofLDS does have "Jesus Christ" in its name and does proselytise globally. If you were making that argument, then it is a good counter-argument not to assume that your conclusions are true, but instead to note that any organisation can have "Jesus Christ" in its name, without actually being God's church, and that other churches besides the CofJCofLDS have done a lot more global proselytising in Jesus's name, so that if sending missionaries all over the world is the way to recognise the true church then the CofJCofLDS is at the back of the pack.

I mean, that's how arguments work, right? An argument is what gets you to a conclusion that you didn't start out by assuming, by starting from something on which everyone agrees, and applying logic.

It's okay to make arguments about hypothetical scenarios, rather than about how things actually are. People can have interesting debates about whether pirates would still be better than ninjas if ninjas could fly, without anyone having to believe that ninjas can actually fly. So I don't necessarily mind assuming things about the LDS church that I don't actually believe, for the sake of argument, to clarify logical points. Perhaps this is all that you meant to ask me to do?

If so, could you clarify the argument that you're actually making? At the moment my impression from your posts is that you're asking me to respond to your argument that the CofJCofLDS must be God's church, but my response has to assume that the CofJCofLDS is God's church. This makes no sense.

[Marcus]

At the moment my impression from your posts is that you're asking me to respond to your argument that the CofJCofLDS must be God's church, but my response has to assume that the CofJCofLDS is God's church.

Welcome to mentalgymnast's world.

This makes no sense.

It never does.

[Rivendale]

At the moment my impression from your posts is that you're asking me to respond to your argument that the CofJCofLDS must be God's church, but my response has to assume that the CofJCofLDS is God's church.

Welcome to mentalgymnast's world.

This makes no sense.

It never does.

Circular logic is baked into Mormonism and a good example is Moroni's promise. You have to ask with a sincere heart which is code for the believer must already established the belief beforehand. Another one is making the assertion that Mormonism is true because Joseph is a prophet of god because Joseph said he was a prophet of god.

[Physics Guy]

Simply demonstrating that a circle is at least self-consistent is still something. The world is complicated, and humans aren't very smart, so the bar that should be low, of constructing a worldview that is at least self-consistent, is actually not so easy for us. It's worth discussing whether a position is even internally consistent, because it doesn't go without saying, humans being what we are. It's not bizarre to just emphasise how self-consistent one's position is. Self-consistency is a non-trivial achievement.

It's still a long way short of truth. Self-consistency is a big plus, practically, because it means that you could decide to believe in this thing and then have a decent chance of never having to worry about it all ever again. On the other hand, though, a belief system that has no connection to anything that might possibly disprove it is also a belief system that won't help you deal with reality when it bites. That's where truth is hard to beat.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.