Further Light and Knowledge

Actually, this isn't true. That's why the ticket was dismissed.

A cop must know what law it is he is attempting to enforce and then have probable cause to believe that you are breaking it.

I completely decimated the prosecution's case against me over this exact principle on a ticket I received after being illegally stopped and detained.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

Sure.

Assuming the restoration happened, an honest examination of the church's history would preclude people from revering the senior leadership the way they do today. While everyone says TCOJCOLDS does not have an infallibility doctrine, EFFECTIVELY there is one.

The idea that "the prophet could never lead you astray" is not doctrinal. It was put forth by a president of the church who was basing keeping his authority on that very idea. Unfortunately, that idea stuck and is so ingrained it will not leave the church. Further, it has been effectively applied to the twelve. And is also implicit to stake presidents and bishops. If the prophet will not lead us astray, he would not call stake presidents/bishops who would.

This has many negative consequences. First, people do not think for themselves. When considering whether they should eat tiramisu or an iced mocha latte (because it is a coffee derivative), they think what has the general authorities said on the matter instead of reasoning it out for themselves. This misplaced reliance on authority on man is not good. Second, we reverence and even worship man. Never a good idea to worship man. Lastly, it is a recipe for self destruction. They are wrong and contradict each other all the time. BRM and BKP say there's no evolution, and people turn their heads off, because they must be right, the Lord would never lead us astray. (Which actually is an inherently problematic theology. In a world where God allows man free agency to the effect of slaughtering millions of people, he would not allow presidents of the church to make mistakes. And if they want to make a mistake God has to kill them to prevent them from leading others astray. Truly bizarre doctrine-even if you believe the rest.) People still get all uptight when you mention evolution, even though BYU teaches evolution. People still talk about a world wide flood and there was no continental drift until "after the days of Palay"-or whatever.

The church looks so screwed up because people keep adhering to every stupid thing a fallible person said. Blood atonement, Adam/God, etc.

" in combination with an honest examination of the church's history"

Assuming the church was restored, the church was never set up to revere man so much. It slowly crept in and grew bigger and bigger until all the children sing "Follow the Prophet...Dont go astray." Hell, if we follow the prophet what do we need the scriptures or Christ for.

Most members do not know that calling the president of the church "prophet" is relatively knew. Brigham Young, Taylor, etc through Joseph F. Smith were called "presidents of the church". Calling the president, "Prophet" has created a cult of personality within the church for the office.

I also am deeply troubled by the correlation committee. I'm tired and don't really want to elaborate on that.

I am not sure if that answers your question. You said, "what you consider 'an honest examination of the church's history'" I also think an honest examination would conclude that even if Brigham Young did not explicitly order the MMM, he harbored the environment where that became possible.

I think an honest examination would conclude EVEN IF plural marriage was originally commanded by God, the church totally abused it.

The blacks should have had the priesthood way before 1978.

An honest examination would likely show that the fullness of the gospel was taken back, assuming of course it was ever received. Even D&C 124 talks about the need to build the Nauvoo temple in order for the keys to be restored. The Nauvoo temple wasn't finished before JS died or the saints left. So when were the keys to the fullness given back to the church?

An HONEST examination would address these issues, and not explain them away or make excuses. "Passing the Heavenly Gift" addresses these, doesn't excuse them. He has been called an apostate by many TBMs. He's not an apologist. If you are baffled on why he would still go to church, well, that was what I thought was interesting about this book.

"who's to say that the baptism by immersion isn't the incorrect way of doing it? I"

Are you kidding me? Simple historical study shows baptism was originally done by immersion, that's why the baptists and most protestants baptize that way.

"Well now you're just mincing words."

Perhaps, but words have meaning. You are trying to equate power and authority and they are not synonyms.
A cop has the authority to cite you for anything. You don't believe that, try and stop him. But he has no power to execute his actions (make you pay) unless the citation is true.

Assuming there is a priesthood, a priest (the cop) may have authority to do many things, but the power in the priesthood comes from heaven (the court). Heaven will not recognize an unrighteous priest, just as the court will not recognize a false citation. You can have authority without power.

An honest examination of LDS church history would demonstrate that it was all built entirely on fraudulent claims, including the First Vision, BoM, PoGP, etc.

Michael Quinn fully explores this in Origins of Power.

An honest examination of LDS church history would demonstrate that JS exploited the superstitious world view that was prevalent in the early-mid 19th century.

Grant Palmer demonstrates this in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.

I'm undeniably biased against Denver's book as as source of history information for several reasons, the primary of which being that, based on what you've described, he starts out with the assumption that the LDS church was, in fact, true, rather than looking at the historical evidence starting from before its inception.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

To put it differently:

I am biased against his book because of the end goal.

A true historian will do the research and attempt to present the material in such a way that the reader will be able make their own conclusion based on the material presented.

Denver's end goal, as you've eloquently stated, is to provide an argument that supports staying in the church, regardless of its past history and/or fallacies.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

It's been awhile since I studied microbiology, but I don't recall learning anything about microorganisms constructing paved roads and holding general elections (maybe I missed a class period?). In any event, my point remains, your attempted misdirection notwithstanding: some assertions are absurd enough on their face to anyone possessing (and willing to employ) basic critical thinking skills that they do not warrant further examination. Why should anyone have to waste their life studying the minutiae of every kooky idea out there? Life is short, and there are a lot of kooky ideas.

Also: "Our navel?" Eww. You can't B. cereus.

Perhaps not. But I'm not sure that "this guy wrote a book and says he totally saw Jeeesus for reals, so I believe him lol!" is going to be winning argument of the year any time soon.

_________________
Apostasy loves company.

If you honestly think that this guy is the first one to claim that the church is in apostasy then you are amazingly ignorant of church history. This has been going on since almost day one.
Read an actual book about it sometime. Hell, you can even learn about some of those people in the correlated books.

_________________
Think Outside the Hat

I thought they were in apostasy as well? Are you saying they're not? How can you even take the bible at face value since it's been cut and pasted together by a bunch of people who're actively apostate? You're just being silly. You silly billy you.



If heaven won't recognize an unrighteous priest then heaven also won't recognize an unrighteous (ie apostate) church... therefore no power and no authority, especially if it's been actively apostate for a long time. Words have meanings... but you keep ignoring them.

_________________
I'm not sorry, I like to get laid. --Mercury

I took roughly 1/3 of my available vacation for the year to chase 12- and 13-year old boys through the woods. --Mcarp

I have to say, I stopped caring about this book and authority awhile ago, but you guys have been fun. I wish members wouldn't think debatediscussion is always "contentious." Or maybe it is and we all have the spirit of the devil.




You're not following the conversation. I said "sprinkling baptism" was evidence that the Catholic church lost authority-they were doing it wrong. I never said, nor is it true, that officiating in something correctly confers authority. Baptists do not claim they have authority to baptize, their argument is that authority is not necessary.

That's emprically false. Citations and arrests from cops who have authority to cite and arrest are routinely tossed out because the cops went about the wrong procedure or the person was innocent. The court is the source of power; the cop, who has authority, does not have the power to imprison or fine. And when a cop does unjustly cite/arrest someone, they do not lose their authority to cite/arrest someone else.

The aposate Isreal did have authority to administer the ordinances of the temple, even Christ did not dispute that. Though they lacked the power (due to apostasy) of the fullness of the priesthood.

That is inherently intellectually dishonest. You are doing the same thing you accuse Denver of doing. Suich closemindedness would never allow the discover nutrinos going faster than the speed of light.



First, that is an assumption. While possibly true, you are completely inadequate to make that assumption/assertion--you have not read the book. Neither myself, nor the author state that that was his intended conclusion. In fact, his logical, orderly approach could easily support the fact that he has researched this for years, noticed the problems and issues, and came to a conclusion after the examination. It could be the other way, but you have no evidence for that other than, "so many others have done it, he must have", to support a rational argument. Intellectually you are better off ignoring it out of lack of interest than arguing it can't possibly add anything new to say.

I do have to say, for all the hate of faith and love of reasoning that is professed here, you are full of logical fallacies (Historian's fallacy, Incomplete comparison, Argumentum ad populum, Reductio ad absurdum, and more) and assumptions.

Yes, it's been a slow work week.

If you believe in the biblical version of christ, which not many in this forum here do, which I think is something you've been failing to grasp since page 1 of this discussion. It's been fun getting you to argue about something I stopped caring about years ago though.



I think you got lost in my metaphor of "church=cops god=court". If there is a god and that god bestows power and authority on certain religions because of "truthiness" that god can remove that invisible power and authority just as easily as a court of law can remove power and authority from the "apostate" cop which then makes everything that cop (the church) has done in the past null and void. Either you've got it or you don't. I know the two aren't synonymous but in the case of a religion such as mormonism (which has preached that they've had the power and authority practically since Moroni caught Joseph whacking off in bed that one night... if you believe in that kinda thing) power can not exist without authority and if you have the authority you must then have the power. Saying anything otherwise is just apologistic tripe IMHO and you'd be better served selling your wares at a certain apologist board that shall not be named. Again it's been fun getting you to argue something that has had very little meaning to me since I left the church. Have fun with it wherever it takes you.

_________________
I'm not sorry, I like to get laid. --Mercury

I took roughly 1/3 of my available vacation for the year to chase 12- and 13-year old boys through the woods. --Mcarp

Why the need to argue over inconsequential details over church history? The fact remains the church clearly has been wrong on multiple issues and stances throughout it's history. In the end the only way to truly believe the church is true (or Jesus, God, Thor) is through faith. The majority of us at FLAK along with millions of people using logic and reason will tell you faith is simply believing without evidence.

_________________
Lead me not into tempation
I can find it myself

I always giggle at stuff like this any more. It's like all the star trek/star wars guys arguing over whether or not various things are "canon" or not. It's just crazy cuz it's all just fiction anyways.

No I did grasp that. Being able to argue a thing does not require that one believe in it or care. Yes, it's been fun arguing. Like I said, I'm an attorney and it's been a slow work week.
____

Lost in YOUR metaphor. Sorry, that was MY metaphor and it's perfect. It perfectly illustrates the point I am making. The fact that you don't believe in heaven based authority/power is completely irrelevant. Based on the principles (assumed as if they existed) the metaphor works and your only argument is that the principles don't exist so the metaphor doesn't work. That argument doesn't fly.

Arguments/discussions can be made all the time without believing in them. But if you are going to argue about a thing, you do have to keep the arguments consistent upon the assumed premises. (If you are going to argue about theological doctrine, you have to accept some basic premises.)

If you are not willing to arguing about something, assuming premises required for the argument, then do something else. (You can't have a theological debate with the premise, it's all a fabrication--it may be, but you then have to pass on the theological discussion.)

Yeah, it's fun to me.

This thread may have just jumped the shark. Have a great weekend.