Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[thirdnep11]

if you believe this then I would say you have been misinformed on the Catholic church. ecumenical councils are more the norm and there is much study by many people over much time before anything is proclaimed “ex cathedra” as dogma. further, this is always documented from which we derive catechisms that eliminate “fuzziness” from what we believe AND (more importantly) these cannot change. one pope or council or however you choose to view the instrument of the magisterium cannot contradict a previous one. development of an established position can become more detailed. application of the deposit of faith can be made to new situations but the canon is closed and all doctrine must conform to the perfect revelation of Christ that we already have.

in spite of this dissensions have arisen in both churches.

If the function of the Pope is not to expound the meaning of scripture and establish doctrine (with the consent of governing bodies) than what does he do?
Is he not the representative of Christ on the earth?
Does he not guide the church?
If the answer to either of these two questions is Yes, then he is in essence the same as our Prophet.
I know it may sicken you to think that there is even a shadow of similarity between our churches, but there is. Whether you will admit it or not there are more than a few.
And yes that means you have to admit we have a couple things right, and I know that may hurt but it’s true.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

If the function of the Pope is not to expound the meaning of scripture and establish doctrine (with the consent of governing bodies) than what does he do?

Is he not the representative of Christ on the earth?
Does he not guide the church?
If the answer to either of these two questions is Yes, then he is in essence the same as our Prophet.
I know it may sicken you to think that there is even a shadow of similarity between our churches, but there is. Whether you will admit it or not there are more than a few.
And yes that means you have to admit we have a couple things right, and I know that may hurt but it’s true.

Thirdnep11:

Just because some johnny-come-latelies like you mormons think that IMITATING us Catholics in hierarchical structure makes you

“have a couple things right”

misses the point COMPLETELY: mormon pantheology is NOT mainstream Christianity. And THAT is the difference that makes us parsecs apart.

Gee, mormons founded a university (BYU) like us Catholics. That makes us the same:whacky:

Mercy!

Robert

 

[majick275]

Disagree if you like but there are a number of occasions where Jesus held Peter, James and John in higher esteem and allowed them to witness events that the other members of the quorum were not allowed to see ie; the daughter of Jairus, the mount of transfiguration, the garden of gethsemane, not to mention the promise to Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom of God. Also in the book of Acts we see Peter sitting in judgment of the saints. Peter also received special revelation regarding the consumption of what was previously unclean animals.

all catholics accept the primacy of Peter. He was the first pope. we just don’t agree that he was an LDS style “prophet, seer and revelator” or "president of the church in the LDS sense. nor do we see a "first presidency with appointed counselors.

Our Quorum of Apostles numbers 12. It is true that the members of the 1st Presidency hold the office of Apostle, but they are no longer members of the Quorum.

yet peter james and john were. nor is there definitive evidence that the apostles were a quorum of 12 as a perpetual governing body.

We do however see evidence in the Bible that the Quorum was to continue. After the death of Judas, Peter along with the other members, chose Mathias. The Apostles of old knew of the importance of having a quorum of Apostles with 12 members.

yet paul makes 13… hmmm. teh calling of mathias was to fulfill the prophecy “let another take his bishopric”. furthermore if you look at the criteria set out for mathias you see a unique time period where these apostles can only exist from those who were there in person during Christs ministry.

I see no evidence of this in the Catholic Church. And while I’m on the topic of choosing church officers I should say that the LDS church follows exactly the example set in the book of acts.

that’s because you negelect the communion of saints. we believe the 12 apostles are still serving God. they just do it from heaven now. I have to disagree with you on acts. the LDS church does NOT have all things in common like the description of the church in acts. during that period they started with 12 apostles and added paul to make 13. you have 15. they called 7 men to “serve at table” to free up the apostles time. much after JS started your church you had all kinds of “seventies” and then changed that program. Acts describes an ecumenical council like the catholic church has always done. there is no description of a “prophet” revealing the lords will or the “president” of the church making the decision. Acts shows “prophets” who are NOT apostles even. the apostles set up churches NOT wards or stakes or missions. these are new inventions not a restoration. they call presbyters to lead these churches which you may equate to elders
(we would say priests) in any case they are stake presidents or high councils or even prsiding high priests.

It is true when the church was organized the first presidency did not exist. There were 6 members of the church at its organization, obviously they could not have a quorum at that time. Joseph and Oliver had been ordained apostles and affirmed by the members as the 1st and 2nd elder of the church. Later on 14th Feb 1835 the quorum of 12 Apostles was organized as has been extant since. Realize at its conception the church was not large nor mature enough to require a first presidency, but it has always been headed by an Apostle.

and when did they bump up to 15 apostles?

Again might I say that the functions of a given office may change with need, but the fact is the ancient church clearly had a president, 12 apostles, a quorum of 70 (also in Moses time) and they clearly understood the need for this priesthood structure to continue.

no they did not. peter was one of the 12. he was prime but there was no separate “quorum”. nor did it stay at 12 for long. the 72 are a different matter and are nowhere described as having a function similar to the various forms of seventies in the LDS church.

Obviously it did not continue as the Catholic does not today, nor did it then chose new Apostles.

and where do you see this requirement for this structure to perpetuate?

And as a side note, The office and title of Pope did not exist in the scriptures, nor in the earliest histories of the church.

you might want to do a bit of research on that. your own arguments favor the primacy of peter. this coupled with the calling of apostles as Bishops and their successor bishops leading those churches seems to support the papacy. the ECF’s were consistent on this as well. as to titles no they didn’t first call him pope. he was bishop of rome. (still is) the term of endearment came later but the office is the same.

 

[majick275]

If the function of the Pope is not to expound the meaning of scripture and establish doctrine (with the consent of governing bodies) than what does he do?
Is he not the representative of Christ on the earth?
Does he not guide the church?
If the answer to either of these two questions is Yes, then he is in essence the same as our Prophet.
I know it may sicken you to think that there is even a shadow of similarity between our churches, but there is. Whether you will admit it or not there are more than a few.
And yes that means you have to admit we have a couple things right, and I know that may hurt but it’s true.

have you even browsed the library here at CA? a quick reading of one of the articles on the papacy would help.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:
There are a couple of studies that I occasionally like to mention (especially after nobody indicates they have read)
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html
You are mistaking an in-house (mormon study to justify being mormon) conclusion based upon a given premise with an empirical study conducted outside of interests and influences.

Robert,
I am unsure whether to read the above is you being misinformed or you employing ad hominem. Let me start by saying that the article I link (and claim to have been unread by folks on this thread) is written by two evangelical Christians. One of whom has ceased to be an evangelical in part due to the difficulty of answer LDS apologetics as an evangelical (he is not about to become a LDS, but he does mention his engagement of LDS apologetics as part of his reason for ceasing to identify as an EC).
The importance of this article is that it invites critics of the CoJCoLDS to a higher level of dialogue largely by showing that a large and scholarly group of LDS are busy at the higher level making the case for the CoJCoLDS. This thread is an example of the lower level of dialogue (including my “neener, neener” I offered but at least claimed was not powerful pro-LDS evidence).

Regarding the “issues” mentioned here, I would advocate that the method I used to learn about Catholic issues be used before I expend my time.
Take your issue, search google for it and anti-mormon. Read the response.

I have seen nothing new on this thread that has not been responded to except for the few things I have offered against the Catholic truth claims. I have not seen apologetic responses to these either here or elsewhere.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3332153&postcount=621

Charity, TOm

 

[Elric]

It seems to me that while critics of the CoJCoLDS enjoy the back-patting intellectual superiority of claiming that to be intelligent, informed, honest, … (add many positive characteristics) is to cease to be a LDS; this is not only not the case it is often true that the opposite occurs.
Now, my observations and the observations offered by our critics hardly make for convincing arguments to be generalized across a population so …

Really?

So the suggestion is that dropping out of University/College shows a lack of intellegence?

You will forgive me if I dont subscribe to this train of thought and call the whole idea bogus.

This idea would also suggest that not going to University/College means that there is little in the way of intellegence, which of course leads into all kinds of insulting inuendos and racial slurs.

Not really the smartest suggestion that you would want to put foward.

 

[TOmNossor]

Really?

So the suggestion is that dropping out of University/College shows a lack of intellegence?

Not precisely Elric.
There is a positive correlation between intelligence (IQ) and educational attainment.
I think most would acknowledge that there is a correlation between being educated/informed in general and educational attainment, though this is probably less strong for post graduate and doctorate degrees.

It is my position that my observation is that the intelligent and informed are not more likely to be former LDS than the less intelligent and uninformed. It seems to be the position of some critics of the CoJCoLDS that the intelligent and informed are more likely to depart the CoJCoLDS OR to be “fringe members.” This argument by critics is presumably offered to suggest that the falsity of the CoJCoLDS is somehow the informed and/or honest position. Said critic would likely say (and it was essentially said earlier in this thread) that there may be some anomalies (and some of these can be attributed to dishonest LDS supporters, fringe believers, and …) but generally the reasoned conclusion is that LDS should cease to be LDS and non-LDS should not join.
Not only do I reject this conclusion, but I offered the closest studies I know of to support my position, while acknowledging that this is not some perfect demonstration of correlation.

I am not sure how this would lead to “racial slurs.” I could perhaps seek to inform myself on what you might have meant, but I would rather ask you what you meant. I assure you, I had no intention of offering a “racial slur” with my data.

BTW, have you read Mosser and Owen’s article:
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

It is my opinion that they specifically try to remove some of the polemics offered on this thread by showing the “myths” associated with the LDS scholarship (and the perpetuation of issues frequently offered by our critics).
If Mosser and Owen are correct, then much of this thread is a waste of time. The true investigator could make quick work of much that is on the CON list.
Charity, TOm

 

[Elric]

Not precisely Elric.
There is a positive correlation between intelligence (IQ) and educational attainment.

Please dont do the evasion/re-direction bit, its not helping.

It is my position that my observation is that the intelligent and informed are not more likely to be former LDS than the less intelligent and uninformed. It seems to be the position of some critics of the CoJCoLDS that the intelligent and informed are more likely to depart the CoJCoLDS OR to be “fringe members.” This argument by critics is presumably offered to suggest that the falsity of the CoJCoLDS is somehow the informed and/or honest position. Said critic would likely say (and it was essentially said earlier in this thread) that there may be some anomalies (and some of these can be attributed to dishonest LDS supporters, fringe believers, and …) but generally the reasoned conclusion is that LDS should cease to be LDS and non-LDS should not join.

It is my position that such studies as you presented are bogus and dont show that anyone is more intellegent by not dropping out of University/Collage or less intellegent by dropping out.

They dont show anything.

Not only do I reject this conclusion, but I offered the closest studies I know of to support my position, while acknowledging that this is not some perfect demonstration of correlation.

It is a bogus study that shows nothing, you cant show who is smarter than who with a stuyd like that and they were stupid to even try.

I am not sure how this would lead to “racial slurs.” I could perhaps seek to inform myself on what you might have meant, but I would rather ask you what you meant. I assure you, I had no intention of offering a “racial slur” with my data.

If you follow the theory through, you get to those that dont go to University/Collage and how their intellegence must be low. Then you have the small ammount of certain minority groups/races that dont go to University/Collage and you have a whole new suggestion right there.

BTW, have you read Mosser and Owen’s article:
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

I had a look, then stopped with the BoM being an anciet text.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Really?

So the suggestion is that dropping out of University/College shows a lack of intellegence?

Good reply Elric.

That “study” is beyond the pale: it is based upon several presumptions in its attempt to “pretend” to arrive at a “truth.”

Similar to the whole cloth of mormonism, doncha think?

Of course, is a supreme irony that many graduate students (tom nossor wears the cologne of one: eau de superieur) forget that those people whose works they are pontificating about at BYU were in the main NON college attendees or graduates:

Shakespeare, Chaucer, Keats, Tennyson, Dickens, Hopkins, Whitman, Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Faulkner, Hemingway, cummings, Einstein, Faraday, Adam Smith, the list is legion.

But it sure makes tom nossor feel good to find ‘intellectual support’ for mormonism, sort of like a burning in the bosom:thumbsup:

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

It is my opinion that they specifically try to remove some of the polemics offered on this thread by showing the “myths” associated with the LDS scholarship (and the perpetuation of issues frequently offered by our critics).

If Mosser and Owen are correct, then much of this thread is a waste of time. The true investigator could make quick work of much that is on the CON list.Charity, TOm[/QUOT

E]

Look, Tom, that is NOT the point of that evangelical paper.

The authors contend that that evangelicals have to answer mormon apologists on their current allegations re ‘truth of mormonism’ in order to refute them.

And why is that? Because (as the report points out but you assume something else from) mormon scholars know ancient languages. Whoopee.

So a person brought up in a methodist infused culture (upstate new york) uses the same images and roughly the same tropes in his ‘bible’ is PROOF that the BoM is “an ancient text.”?

Hardly. By a few thousand parsecs, tom.

Finding similarity is STYLE does not** bless** the BoM.

Those poor evangelicals should know that.

Why then, any thing written in some prior author’s style becomes *a priori *on par with and equal in worth to the earlier work, right Tom?

That’s what mormon “scholars” believe.

Robert
[/quote]

 

[truthsilence]

There are a couple of studies that I occasionally like to mention (especially after nobody indicates they have read)
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

Charity, TOm

TOm,

I haven’t read through all of your comments, but I did take a look at the Farms page Come to Zarahemla re: Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?.

I am curious to know if you have also read Beckwith Owen and Mossers more recent book: The New Mormon Challenge.

Here’s a review.

tektonics.org/books/newmormrvw.html#Review

 

[PaulDupre]

And as a side note, The office and title of Pope did not exist in the scriptures, nor in the earliest histories of the church.

Pope is not an office or a title. It’s an affectionate nickname for the Bishop of Rome. It is Italian for “Papa”.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Disagree if you like but there are a number of occasions where Jesus held Peter, James and John in higher esteem and allowed them to witness events that the other members of the quorum were not allowed to see ie; the daughter of Jairus, the mount of transfiguration, the garden of gethsemane,…

The reason for that is simply that “in the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every truth be established”.

…not to mention the promise to Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom of God. Also in the book of Acts we see Peter sitting in judgment of the saints. Peter also received special revelation regarding the consumption of what was previously unclean animals.

We agree with you there. Peter was the chief apostle, and so was preeminent in all things. The Bishop of Rome speaks from the Chair of Peter, with the same authority

Our Quorum of Apostles numbers 12. It is true that the members of the 1st Presidency hold the office of Apostle, but they are no longer members of the Quorum. We do however see evidence in the Bible that the Quorum was to continue. After the death of Judas, Peter along with the other members, chose Mathias.

This isn’t scripture chase, this is real life. Let’s look at the passage in context:

21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
-Acts 1:21-26

This passage is clear that the requirements to be one of the 12 are:

1. He must be a man who “accompanied us (the remaining 11) all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us”
2. He must be a witness to the resurrected Christ (ie: he saw him after he rose from the dead).

No man after the first century AD could possibly meet both of the biblical criteria to be an apostle.

The Apostles of old knew of the importance of having a quorum of Apostles with 12 members. I see no evidence of this in the Catholic Church. And while I’m on the topic of choosing church officers I should say that the LDS church follows exactly the example set in the book of acts.

They cast lots? That’s ridiculous. There is a clear rule of succession in the LDS presidency, with the senior apostle always being sustained as the new president. It has been that way since Brigham Young and there has never been a question of who will succeed the late president.

Again might I say that the functions of a given office may change with need, but the fact is the ancient church clearly had a president, 12 apostles, a quorum of 70 (also in Moses time) and they clearly understood the need for this priesthood structure to continue.

The 70 issue was already addressed (it was 72), and was never portrayed as an “office”. No, the bible never says there was a president.

Yes, there was a need to continue the authority of the apostles after they were gone. The keys were handed down to the bishops, who are the successors to the apostles and hold the keys to this day, with the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) at their head.

Paul (a former Mormon now Catholic)

 

[PaulDupre]

Here’s one: every man a priest…

Actually, we Catholics also believe that every validly baptized Christian (male and female) holds the common priesthood of the baptized.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” 74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” 75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

941 Lay people share in Christ’s priesthood: ever more united with him, they exhibit the grace of Baptism and Confirmation in all dimensions of their personal family, social and ecclesial lives, and so fulfill the call to holiness addressed to all the baptized.

Paul

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm,

I haven’t read through all of your comments, but I did take a look at the Farms page Come to Zarahemla re: Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?.

I am curious to know if you have also read Beckwith Owen and Mossers more recent book: The New Mormon Challenge.

Here’s a review.

tektonics.org/books/newmormrvw.html#Review

Yes, I have. It is the best book critical of Mormonism written by theists by leaps and bounds. It is the only one that I actually own.
Have you read it?

I have also read most of the lead-in material and almost all of the responses. I eagerly await more on Creation ex Nihilo from Copan and Craig, but there last book was a disappointment as it did not engage Ostler’s response to them.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I actually embrace a position of William Lane Craig in opposition to a position advocated by Ostler (they both reject the Catholic position as untenable).
I also referenced this book earlier in this thread to, specifically in relation to the fact that Craig Hazen had pointed to the intellectual reasons some early LDS sited for becoming LDS.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Robert and Elric (and truthsilence again),

My point is that there is no reason to accept the position of critics that to be intelligent or informed is to cease to be a LDS. I had no intention of demeaning college or other dropouts and was quite shocked that a racial thing was linked to anything I said.
There is no intelligent/informed meter we can hook up to the apostate and faithful masses. I have been called dishonest and an anomaly on this thread presumably because I am a convert defender of the CoJCoLDS rather than a multi-generational LDS thinker. I BTW have a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering, so I am hardly a scholarly elite (though I do respect insights gained through degree programs, still arguments should be based on their inherent merits not the education of the one arguing).
Now, concerning Mosser and Owen’s paper. It is not hosted on a FARMS site and it was not solicited by FARMS. It was a call to arms for evangelicals who rely upon the likes of James White to do their scholarship. The New Mormon Challenge was a rather direct and very positive result from this.
That being said, Robert, Mosser and Owen specifically decry the type of criticism offered on this thread. They specifically say that these criticisms have been answered by LDS in the pasts. This is why their paper IMO is relevant to this thread.
BTW, if you think The New Mormon Challenge offers a challenge to LDS (and it does); you should read Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

If the function of the Pope is not to expound the meaning of scripture and establish doctrine (with the consent of governing bodies) than what does he do?

The Pope, in union with the other bishops:

1. protects and defends the deposit of faith passed down from the apostles. He defends doctrine established by Christ and his apostles, but DOES NOT establish new doctrine. There has never been any new doctrine since the apostolic age. Jesus is the full, final and complete revelation of the Father. There is no more to be revealed.
2. interprets scripture in light of that deposit of faith to teach us how to apply it in these times and to come to a fuller understanding of the revelation of Christ as the Church lives the gospel through the ages.
3. He appoints new bishops as necessary and disciplines the ones who require discipline.
4. Inaugurates, or dispenses with, disciplines (practices) that help us live the deposit of faith in our time. Examples of disciplines include priestly celibacy, fasting during Lent, etc.

Is he not the representative of Christ on the earth?

Yes, he is.

Does he not guide the church?

In union with the other bishops, yes.

If the answer to either of these two questions is Yes, then he is in essence the same as our Prophet.

No, he is completely different. He cannot reverse the nature of God (from eternal I AM to mere former human); he cannot command us to commit adultery as JS and BY did; he cannot re-write the bible to suit his whims. He cannot reveal new scripture.

I know it may sicken you to think that there is even a shadow of similarity between our churches, but there is.

Any similarity is due to he fact that the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and the LDS Church is a johnny-come-lately who has copied some of our tradition and bastardized the rest.

Paul

 

[truthsilence]

Yes, I have. It is the best book critical of Mormonism written by theists by leaps and bounds. It is the only one that I actually own.
Have you read it?

I have also read most of the lead-in material and almost all of the responses. I eagerly await more on Creation ex Nihilo from Copan and Craig, but there last book was a disappointment as it did not engage Ostler’s response to them.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I actually embrace a position of William Lane Craig in opposition to a position advocated by Ostler (they both reject the Catholic position as untenable).
I also referenced this book earlier in this thread to, specifically in relation to the fact that Craig Hazen had pointed to the intellectual reasons some early LDS sited for becoming LDS.
Charity, TOm

No, I haven’t read it myself. I had read, when I was LDS, the earlier paper Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It? It didn’t help with my concerns about LDS claims. (Well, maybe it did, for a minute or two).

When I saw your link I wondered what else they’d written since 1997. It sounded like, in the review of New Mormon Challenge, the authors were planning on continuing with a series on Mormonism.

I liked what it said in the review about how people shouldn’t tell other people what they believe. I know what I believed when I was LDS and often it wasn’t what other people would have thought I believed. It also wasn’t compatible what I was hearing at church either…but that’s another matter.

Peace,
Tami

 

[truthsilence]

Robert and Elric (and truthsilence again),

My point is that there is no reason to accept the position of critics that to be intelligent or informed is to cease to be a LDS. I had no intention of demeaning college or other dropouts and was quite shocked that a racial thing was linked to anything I said.
There is no intelligent/informed meter we can hook up to the apostate and faithful masses. I have been called dishonest and an anomaly on this thread presumably because I am a convert defender of the CoJCoLDS rather than a multi-generational LDS thinker. I BTW have a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering, so I am hardly a scholarly elite (though I do respect insights gained through degree programs, still arguments should be based on their inherent merits not the education of the one arguing).
Now, concerning Mosser and Owen’s paper. It is not hosted on a FARMS site and it was not solicited by FARMS. It was a call to arms for evangelicals who rely upon the likes of James White to do their scholarship. The New Mormon Challenge was a rather direct and very positive result from this.
That being said, Robert, Mosser and Owen specifically decry the type of criticism offered on this thread. They specifically say that these criticisms have been answered by LDS in the pasts. This is why their paper IMO is relevant to this thread.
BTW, if you think The New Mormon Challenge offers a challenge to LDS (and it does); you should read Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God

Charity, TOm

TOm,

I’m unsure if your entire reply is directed to me as I don’t recall having much of a dialog with you here. As far as the part about Farms, I did say in my comment that I looked at the link to the Farms site and read re: the paper you mentioned. I wasn’t implying the paper itself was hosted or solicited by Farms.

Peace,
Tami

 

[Elric]

]Robert and Elric (and truthsilence again),

My point is that there is no reason to accept the position of critics that to be intelligent or informed is to cease to be a LDS. I had no intention of demeaning college or other dropouts and was quite shocked that a racial thing was linked to anything I said.

Well then you should not have used the argument that you did, if that wasnt your intention.

If you were shocked by the racial issue, then perhaps you should have thought more about the argument you presented and followed it through to its inevitable conclusion.

The argument that you raised does nothing to prove that mormons are more intellegent or less intellegent, it doesnt help to suggest either.

There is no intelligent/informed meter we can hook up to the apostate and faithful masses.

Even IQ test can be questionable, but I think that most people here are going by the “You would have to be stupid to believe the stuff that the LDS church is based on”. They see things like the BoM as obvious fiction and people are being told, and believing, that it is true.

So to them, people who believe this stuff must be stupid or lack intellegence to do so. Personally I think that gullible would be a better fit.

I have been called dishonest and an anomaly on this thread presumably because I am a convert defender of the CoJCoLDS rather than a multi-generational LDS thinker. I BTW have a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering, so I am hardly a scholarly elite (though I do respect insights gained through degree programs, still arguments should be based on their inherent merits not the education of the one arguing).

Thats ok, I have been ignored for presumably asking the wrong questions. Oh and I dont have any degrees.

Now, concerning Mosser and Owen’s paper. It is not hosted on a FARMS site and it was not solicited by FARMS. It was a call to arms for evangelicals who rely upon the likes of James White to do their scholarship. The New Mormon Challenge was a rather direct and very positive result from this.

That being said, Robert, Mosser and Owen specifically decry the type of criticism offered on this thread. They specifically say that these criticisms have been answered by LDS in the pasts. This is why their paper IMO is relevant to this thread.

As I said, it lost me with the BoM as an ancient text bit.