LDS: What if a New Prophet rose up and declared your church apostate?

[O.S.Luke]

Dennis:

Sometimes, you might be mistaken. Admit it! Your logic is a bit faulty - and this time, I’m not the only one pointing it out.

And by the way - it’s non sequitur.

I still stand by my assumption that though you might claim the high ground on logic, definitions of ad hominem, etc…but it stands to reason that YOUR claims might not be right just becuase YOU say so.

I’m not LDS - I agree with you on this topic. But if you’re going to engage in honest debate, you may have to take a different tack than your present.

As Jerusha said in a earlier post: :whacky:

One hint: quoting Wikipedia is like quoting a secondary or tertiary source. Good debate requires the quoting of primary sources.

 

[Jerusha]

If the Mormon church has the courage and humility to admit to its errors and institute the radical reforms needed, then I have great respect for them. If others ridicule it with logic like Dennis’, that is their problem.

At this point, such a reform is their only chance for survival. But they must do it for themselves, asking for feedback in places like this.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Dennis:

Sometimes, you might be mistaken. Admit it! Your logic is a bit faulty - and this time, I’m not the only one pointing it out.

I am not perfect, but where is my logic faulty in this context?
O.S. Luke:
And by the way - it’s non sequitur.

I was in a hurry, sheesh…
O.S. Luke:
I still stand by my assumption that though you might claim the high ground on logic, definitions of ad hominem, etc…but it stands to reason that YOUR claims might not be right just because YOU say so.

When have I done this? I try to support all my claims with evidence and logic. I admit, I may not always be successful, but I do try to at least be consistent.
O.S. Luke:
I’m not LDS - I agree with you on this topic. But if you’re going to engage in honest debate, you may have to take a different tack than your present.

And what track am I presenting exactly? In what way have I not engaged in an honest debate?
O.S. Luke:
As Jerusha said in a earlier post:

One hint: quoting Wikipedia is like quoting a secondary or tertiary source. Good debate requires the quoting of primary sources.

I don’t understand what Jerusha’s remarks have anything to do with what you are talking about. Honestly, I get the idea that you do not like philosophical debate. You seem to be more concerned with emotional appeals and “let’s all hold hands” spirituality. That’s fine, but it does not belong in rational debates. I use logic as a tool. It is very helpful in pointing out holes in the reasoning process. You may think it sophomoric, but if it was good enough for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, it is good enough for me.

BTW I used Wikipedia for a definition. Is their definition wrong?

Peace

 

[Robert_in_SD]

So, to get us back on topic…

(1) What if a Mormon came along and declared the LDS church was now in apostasy? Would you believe him?

His claim would be consistent with the claims I have seen LDS members make on this thread, that human nature demands a cylce of apostasy and restoration. Assuming - arguendo - that the LDS position is now true, then every LDS member would have to take such a claim seriously - at least at the outset.

(2) What proof would you be asking for?

Another good question. There does not seem to be much proof of the “great apostasy” - yet LDS are willing to accept that it happened as gospel. What proof would be necessary to prove the latest greatest apostasy?

(3) What if he said all you needed was a testimony of the Holy Spirit to see he was telling the truth?

Another good question, as that seems to be the defining proof necessary at present for acceptance of the “great apostasy.”

(4) What if he had other Mormon followers who claimed they had received this testimony? How could you say they were wrong?

Again, the existence of others who confirm the personal HS testimony of the person declaring the latest greatest apostasy would also need to be given credit and weight, just as the same “feelings” are offered as “proof” of the “great apostasy.”

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

I am not perfect, but where is my logic faulty in this context?

It’s been pointed out numerous times by numerous people, in posts other than these. That’s the point, Dennis - you’re not a very good listener, IMO.

dennisknapp:

I was in a hurry, sheesh…

If you’re going to point out the forensic faults of others, you probably deserved that one, my brother.

dennisknapp:

When have I done this? I try to support all my claims with evidence and logic. I admit, I may not always be successful, but I do try to at least be consistent.

And that’s precisely what we’ve done - pointed out your stretches of logic and consistency. You just don’t want to hear them!

dennisknapp:

I don’t understand what Jerusha’s remarks have anything to do with what you are talking about. Honestly, I get the idea that you do not like philosophical debate. You seem to be more concerned with emotional appeals and “let’s all hold hands” spirituality. That’s fine, but it does not belong in rational debates. I use logic as a tool. It is very helpful in pointing out holes in the reasoning process. You may think it sophomoric, but if it was good enough for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, it is good enough for me.

Everytime we call you on this, you come out with this defense. I’ve never said it was sophomoric (YOU said that… that’s dishonest debate, Dennis, to put words in my mouth). And we’ve pointed out YOUR holes, YOUR faults in logic, YOUR faults in reasoning. We’ve pointed them out ad nauseam, but you’ve chosen to tell us we’re wrong.

Logic is a tool (my bold words). But it is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Even when used correctly.

dennisknapp:

BTW I used Wikipedia or a definition. Is their definition wrong?

Anyone can edit Wikipedia - it’s not always right. In any type of debate using the citation of sources, I’d never use a secondary or tertiary source… unless I didn’t want to win the argument.

 

[majick275]

I’m still claiming that we KNOW the answer to the OP because it has happened more than once. Someone rises up and just “claims” prophetic authority to act on Gods behalf here on earth. some people “feel the spirit” that he’s a true prophet others that he’s an apostate and some feel nothing at all. Those that believe in him freely allow him to alter doctrine, scripture, practices, etc. thinking that since he’s really the “prophet” he speaks for God. The ones who oppose him find all of his words to be in opposition to scripture and any proposed changes to be the desires of Satan because their own “prophet” calls him apostate and they beleive in their own prophet because the “Spirit” gave them a testimony. The ones that don’t care just drift along as their whims guide them. It happened with Strang, Page, Rigdon, JS3, Lebaron and many others.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

It’s been pointed out numerous times by numerous people, in posts other than these. That’s the point, Dennis - you’re not a very good listener, IMO.

If you’re going to point out the forensic faults of others, you probably deserved that one, my brother.

And that’s precisely what we’ve done - pointed out your stretches of logic and consistency. You just don’t want to hear them!

Everytime we call you on this, you come out with this defense. I’ve never said it was sophomoric (YOU said that… that’s dishonest debate, Dennis, to put words in my mouth). And we’ve pointed out YOUR holes, YOUR faults in logic, YOUR faults in reasoning. We’ve pointed them out ad nauseam, but you’ve chosen to tell us we’re wrong.

Logic is a tool (my bold words). But it is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Even when used correctly.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia - it’s not always right. In any type of debate using the citation of sources, I’d never use a secondary or tertiary source… unless I didn’t want to win the argument.

Who are all these people? I don’t see why you choose to come to my threads and berate me. If what do angers you, I am sorry.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

Good lord, Dennis… you don’t anger me. You just don’t accept the criticism that I and others (Jerusha, Amgid, Casid, Malachi4U on this thread) have offered. Part of debate and logic is to point out lapses and faults. That’s all I (and others) were doing. You don’t deal with that well, that’s all. I’m sorry to upset you.

Peace be with you.

 

[jim1130]

O.S. Luke:

Good lord, Dennis… you don’t anger me. You just don’t accept the criticism that I and others (Jerusha, Amgid, Casid, Malachi4U on this thread) have offered. Part of debate and logic is to point out lapses and faults. That’s all I (and others) were doing. You don’t deal with that well, that’s all. I’m sorry to upset you.

Peace be with you.

Tire of the Apostasy discussion generated by the Mormons. Tehre are other more grave issues and the Apostasy conversations are more like a smoke screen toa void real issues, such as the plurality of gods, baptizing the dead, how God originated from a god and that we will all become gods of our own universes/creations some day, etc.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

I’m still claiming that we KNOW the answer to the OP because it has happened more than once. Someone rises up and just “claims” prophetic authority to act on Gods behalf here on earth. some people “feel the spirit” that he’s a true prophet others that he’s an apostate and some feel nothing at all. Those that believe in him freely allow him to alter doctrine, scripture, practices, etc. thinking that since he’s really the “prophet” he speaks for God. The ones who oppose him find all of his words to be in opposition to scripture and any proposed changes to be the desires of Satan because their own “prophet” calls him apostate and they beleive in their own prophet because the “Spirit” gave them a testimony. The ones that don’t care just drift along as their whims guide them. It happened with Strang, Page, Rigdon, JS3, Lebaron and many others.

I’m with you, maj… I wrote a lengthy reply noting a number of LDS ‘prophets’ that have organized splinter groups and included several Catholic sede vacantist groups who have ‘elected’ their own popes but never hit the “Submit Reply” button as I realized that the question is answered just by pointing out that there have been LDS splinter groups from the very beginning of the church and hat a quick look at the history of the LDS church will sufficiently answer the question.

 

[majick275]

O.S. Luke:

Good lord, Dennis… you don’t anger me. You just don’t accept the criticism that I and others (Jerusha, Amgid, Casid, Malachi4U on this thread) have offered. Part of debate and logic is to point out lapses and faults. That’s all I (and others) were doing. You don’t deal with that well, that’s all. I’m sorry to upset you.

Peace be with you.

I’ll have to support Dennis if that’s who you reference as the opposition. We have yet to see evidence or logic employed by some of those folks. I don’t see any evidence of them ever having valid criticisms of the logic of Dennis’ posts and the fact that you choose to point to miniscule shortcomings in his logic chains while giving a pass to those individuals just doesn’t seem right. We may not have a Toulmin here but Dennis has given supporting facts and a plausible analysis versus the standard LDS “I have a testimony that the church is true” therefore everyone else is wrong and opposing facts must be interpreted wrong or falsified.

 

[dennisknapp]

majick275:

I’ll have to support Dennis if that’s who you reference as the opposition. We have yet to see evidence or logic employed by some of those folks. I don’t see any evidence of them ever having valid criticisms of the logic of Dennis’ posts and the fact that you choose to point to miniscule shortcomings in his logic chains while giving a pass to those individuals just doesn’t seem right. We may not have a Toulmin here but Dennis has given supporting facts and a plausible analysis versus the standard LDS “I have a testimony that the church is true” therefore everyone else is wrong and opposing facts must be interpreted wrong or falsified.

Thanks, majick275.

I am definitely no Toulmin; I had enough of his influence in my English classes at University.

O.S. Luke,

I still do not understand why you feel the need to do this, and now you have used other people to try and make your point. Other people, I might add, who do not share your point of view (except for amgid and Casen). The person on this thread who has truly questioned my logic is amgid, and you yourself agree with me regarding his position.

Jerusha’s comments where not even directed at me, but were a comment of the craziness of the end of Mormon logic, i.e., if one apostasy occurred, why not another, and another, and another, ad infinitum… The twist then is this; if Mormons deny a second “great apostasy” they open the door to questioning the first (assuming the first happened).

Oh, and by the way its Casen, not Cased.:tiphat:
His comment is nothing more than a blanket assertion, lacking any evidence of support. But if a blanket assertion is enough to convict someone…

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

You win, Dennis. Those are the words that I think you so desperately need to hear.

 

[dennisknapp]

You win, Dennis. Those are the words that you so desperately need to hear.

No, just don’t like being wrongly accused, who does.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

No, just don’t like being wrongly accused, who does.

Good Lord!

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Good Lord!

What’s the deal? You seem really emotional about this. It is because I don’t view Methodism as a valid expression of historical Christianity? Ok, you win. Methodism is a valid form of historical Christianity. The way you understand the Fathers and Councils is totally inline with the Scriptures and experience.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

What’s the deal? You seem really emotional about this. It is because I don’t view Methodism as a valid expression of historical Christianity? Ok, you win. Methodism is a valid form of historical Christianity. The way you understand the Fathers and Councils is totally inline with the Scriptures and experience.

I offer a peace offering and you throw it back at me (hence, the “Good Lord” from me - which you’ve misunderstood). Now you bring up stuff I never brought up nor even considered as part of the argument. I’ve said more than once that I respect your Catholic faith. But now you’ve trashed mine with your condescension. I think you have a major problem, my brother.

If you want to continue this mutual admiration society, I suggest you contact me by private message and not disrupt this thread any longer.

Pax,

O+

 

[dennisknapp]

Ok, let’s get this thread back on track.

Peace

 

[amgid]

jim1130:

Tire of the Apostasy discussion generated by the Mormons. Tehre are other more grave issues and the Apostasy conversations are more like a smoke screen toa void real issues, such as the plurality of gods, baptizing the dead, how God originated from a god and that we will all become gods of our own universes/creations some day, etc.

I have never started a single thread on the Apostasy issue, and I don’t recall that many other LDS have either. You guys are the ones who like to bring this subject up. It must bug you! I wonder why!

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

I have never started a single thread on the Apostasy issue, and I don’t recall that many other LDS have either. **You guys are the ones who like to bring this subject up. It must bug you! I wonder why! **

amgid

Let’s see…

No evidence for it.

Based solely on the word of someone who lived 1700 years after the fact.

The “restored” church looks nothing like anything ever seen before in Christian history.

The only proof for it rests on a foundation of straw, ie., subjective experience in the form of a “spiritual testimony.” Oh, and some Catholics were bad people.

The entire LDS position relies on it.

Need I go on?

Peace