Book of Mormon apologetic of last resort?

[_mikwut]

Beastie,

All of our cognitive faculties produce contradictory results. I have recently read how you stated eyewitness testimony is problematic - this is because our memory can often produce inconsistencies and inaccuracies. This doesn't mean our memory isn't generally "reliable". We have a faculty that produces in us religious sense, faith, etc. if it isn't reliable in the same sense our other faculties are - then how we determine which ones are and which ones aren't is problematic.

All of our faculties are skill sets, we work at them we develop them. You enjoy working on your reasoning faculty, workshops are given on developing our memory, our sense perception can be developed through various means. This is the same with our spiritual faculties.

Best, mik

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Why not just release a new and improved Book of Mormon? All they need to do is add a few verses that mention Native Americans already being here, and how the Nephites mixed their seed with them. Change horses to horse-like creatures. TAke out the reference to dark skin being evil, and change it to dark countenance or spirit. It woudn't take much editing, just a few new verses here and there and a couple changes. "And we arrived and the promised land and discovered many natives working in the fields. And we befriended them, and I prophecy that these natives will help us build a temple here, but I fearest that many of my people shall mingle their seed amongst the natives so as their blood shall flow through my posterity."

Easy, and the members would eat it up.

[_dartagnan]

Hello. I am curious regarding your post. All positions of thought are ultimately circular in the way you criticize the church.

This is not true. Bu you are doing precisely what one would expect from an apologist, and further validating what I said.

Science itself has many premises that are simply taken for granted for science to proceed. Reasoning itself can't get off the ground without accepting it as trustworthy, nor can any of are other cognitive faculties.

True, but nobody begins with the premise that Mormonism is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet. That premise has to be earned with facts and reasoning. Mormonism isn't interested in that. Instead, it wants to play on the emotions of people and they perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince the person that these constitute valid evidences for truth. Missionaries aren't interested in what investigators think; they are only interested in what the feel. This is why it seems reasonable to send out 19 year old know-nothings to convert the masses. How much real knowledge do they really need? All they really need is a quick lesson in emotional persuasion.

The premise that the Church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet has to be implanted first before the believer becomes immune to all subsequent reasonings to the contrary. People who become ex-Mormons are generally those who had yet to develop a bullet-proof testimony because they refuses to give up all sense of reason. Faithful Mormons do this gladly because they have convinced themselves that this makes them better when they don't really have to think critically. They "feel" less burdened when they throw their hands up and place blind trust in that erroneous premise. Essentially what it all boils down to is this. No amount of evidence can change your mind. I have seen apologists deny that this is what they really think, but others like pacman have been honest enough to say that this is correct.

I think a better way of articulating what your criticizing is rather than just accept Joseph was a prophet, one would say, trust your faculties, including the spirit.

Trust something you cannot identify? Biological science has proved that humans have the ability to convince themselves of whatever it is they want to believe. They are capable of inducing feelings and emotions that easily explain so-called "spiritual" confirmations.

If the spirit testifies to someone of the truthfulness of the Prophet Joseph Smith than by all means proceed. There is nothing anti-reason about this.

Yes there is. Most people who pray about this come away with the opposite conclusion. Does God not love everyone equally? Don't missionaries tell people that God will tell them the truth no matter what? So how do you explain their inability to receive a spiritual "yes" that conforms to the tiny minority of investigators who claim a confirmation?

Most of all, isn't it obvious to you that accepting a faith such as Mormonism is not a purely intellectual exercise and isn't that all your criticism amounts too?

This is another change in the way LDS apologists have approached criticism over the years. In the old days LDS leaders would proudly get up and speak about how they would accept any challenge to prove the Church false. Of course this only makes sense if the Church were falsifiable. But modern LDS thought has rigged the game. It can't be falsifiable.

"If faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."
-George A. Smith, 1871, Journal of Discourses, Vol 14, pg 216.

". . . convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds."

Orson Pratt, from The Seer, pp 15-16, (1853).
"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

[_Enuma Elish]

Well hell Dan, who wouldn't feel "upbeat" when you got people like Bokovoy telling them to change their "paradigm" whenever uncomfortable facts are presented. Did you catch that rant of his last year? He encouraged all discouraged LDS and fence sitters to begin with the premise that the Church is true (at all costs apparently), and then let all the facts be filtered to conform to that premise. If the facts don't support the premise, then just change your paradigm. .

Since when have I ever performed a public rant?

I'm sorry, Kevin, that you appear to have misunderstood my assertions.

Still, hope all is well.

[_beastie]

All of our cognitive faculties produce contradictory results. I have recently read how you stated eyewitness testimony is problematic - this is because our memory can often produce inconsistencies and inaccuracies. This doesn't mean our memory isn't generally "reliable". We have a faculty that produces in us religious sense, faith, etc. if it isn't reliable in the same sense our other faculties are - then how we determine which ones are and which ones aren't is problematic.

All of our faculties are skill sets, we work at them we develop them. You enjoy working on your reasoning faculty, workshops are given on developing our memory, our sense perception can be developed through various means. This is the same with our spiritual faculties.

Yes, this is true, all of our cognitive faculties tend to produce problematic results. This is why we need to resort to tools to discipline those our reasoning – rules of logic and scientific reasoning.

But spiritual faculties remain – practically by definition – outside the realm of these applications. One reason is that spirituality is completely internal. What I like to refer to as the “mystical event”, to remove it from a solely LDS sphere, is beyond articulation, and thereby, beyond analysis and comparison. We can’t compare the results to see if they’re reliable – ever – even when we try to apply discipline to this sort of processing.

This old MAD thread may interest you:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=14774

It deals with the ambiguous nature of revelation, and how that impacts authoritative claims. (like the LDS church is the only church with the true priesthood authority of JC)

[_beastie]

I pulled out one of my old posts that helps to illustrate my point:

Maybe this analogy will help me demonstrate my point.

Let's say I need to take some measurements in order to plan a construction project. "Instrument X" is offered to me as a means to obtain the knowledge I want - the lengths of certain plots. However, "instrument X" has a history of producing results that are ambiguous. It is unknown exactly why this occurs, but the history of its use demonstrates quite clearly that, even when used by 'experts', the results are ambiguous. This ambiguity is not a problem with many minor projects, but it would be a problem with the more important projects. When I express concern over the reliability of instrument X due to the past reliability issue, I am told by the folks who are comfortable using instrument X that when the project is important enough, instrument X will no longer produced ambiguous results. I wonder why, when it's the same instrument, used by the same user. What reason would I have to trust that the same instrument is capable of completely clear and accurate results when it has such a long history of ambiguous results? And if it is capable of clear and accurate results for important projects, why would it not simply produce those type of results for all projects?

Now, communication between God and man is instrument X. Although it can be called by various names, for simplicity, I'll call it revelation. Here are some generic groups I've noticed within Mormonism (again, please use common sense and accept that variations exist, and that this is not unique to Mormonism). I'm going to use the terms I've seen used on this board.

Group A: fundamentalist: There is no ambiguity in the results. Any apparent ambiguity is a result of human error in record keeping or clearly understanding the words of the person reporting the results.

Group B: liberal (I'll call them cafeteria liberals) There is some ambiguity to be expected, this is normal and human. But this ambiguity is only a factor in peripheral issues, the foundational issues of the church have no ambiguity.

Group C: full blown liberal: All religion is predicated on a certain degree of ambiguity, and that includes Mormonism. Although there is no way that I can have assurance that I, personally, am not erroneous in my conclusions, and will not be judgmental towards those who have concluded differently, I believe Mormonism is just as valid as any other religious path, and it is the one that I prefer.

Group A is consistent, although they may be challenged in proving their case. Group C is consistent. Group B is inconsistent.

Group B tends to defend their inconsistency by stating, or insinuating, that there are different types of revelation and that some is so clear that there can be no doubt as to the conclusion. Leaving aside the question of why, if that degree of clarity is possible between man and God, why then doesn't God be consistent in his clarity - there remains the problem that, since revelation is inherently subjective and impossible to share, one never knows how "strong" one's own revelation actually is, comparatively speaking. Perhaps the strongest revelation one has ever received is actually quite tepid and weak in comparison to the revelation someone of a different belief system has received. I've seen this argument used to explain how people can receive spiritual assurances about faiths other than the "one true" church, Mormonism, but the knife cuts both ways.

Let's demonstrate:

Born Again EV: I have received assurance that I am saved!!! It was such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.

Mormon: I have received a testimony of the truthfulness of the church!!! It is such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.

??????: I have received a witness of the truth of (faith X). It is such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.

Now, the entire problem is that NONE of these people can ever KNOW what the other experienced, and hence, has absolutely no rational justification for dismissing the others' as less strong or clear. And each person has no way of knowing whether or not an even MORE clear or strong experience could be had in another faith.

The result: ambiguity.

Yes, ambiguity is a part of life, a part of all communications, and, by definition of the experience, an inevitable part of revelation. Either embrace it in its entirety or stop trying to pretend that you do.

[_Tarski]

Now, the entire problem is that NONE of these people can ever KNOW what the other experienced, and hence, has absolutely no rational justification for dismissing the others' as less strong or clear. And each person has no way of knowing whether or not an even MORE clear or strong experience could be had in another faith.

The strength or percieved clarity of a private experience does not equate with truth.
If someone tells me that the feeling was strong, all I can say is "so what?"

To have a testimony is to be more or less convinced (usually by a purported feeling). But strength of conviction is not the same as truth (thus science was "invented").

The experienced "powerfulness" or "beauty" of an experience is also irrelevant (try some acid and you will either see my point or become convinced of some weird sh*t yourself--probably the latter unfortuantely)

[_beastie]

Excellent point, tarski.

[Guest]

This is not true. But you are doing precisely what one would expect from an apologist, and further validating what I said.

I am not sure what you mean. Is anyone who accepts the Church and dialogues regarding it a professional apologist? I might have been too narrow with the exactness in my initial statement, but presumptions are presumptions, and I don't find presuming that Joseph Smith is a prophet on spiritual witness as radically different than any other ultimate presumption.

True, but nobody begins with the premise that Mormonism is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet. That premise has to be earned with facts and reasoning.

Mormons do. I disagree that the premise isn't earned without facts and reasoning.

Mormonism isn't interested in that. Instead, it wants to play on the emotions of people and they perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince the person that these constitute valid evidences for truth. Missionaries aren't interested in what investigators think; they are only interested in what the feel. This is why it seems reasonable to send out 19 year old know-nothings to convert the masses. How much real knowledge do they really need? All they really need is a quick lesson in emotional persuasion.

I just don't think this is a responsible contextual articulation of all that goes into a conversion. Conversion experiences are deep and complex.

The premise that the Church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet has to be implanted first before the believer becomes immune to all subsequent reasonings to the contrary.

"Implanted?" - I find this emotionally charged. In fact, I find your criticism as emotionally charged as what you are criticizing.

People who become ex-Mormons are generally those who had yet to develop a bullet-proof testimony because they refuses to give up all sense of reason.

This is too simple.

Faithful Mormons do this gladly because they have convinced themselves that this makes them better when they don't really have to think critically.

I consider myself a critical thinker.

They "feel" less burdened when they throw their hands up and place blind trust in that erroneous premise.

I don't think the trust need be "blind".

Essentially what it all boils down to is this. No amount of evidence can change your mind. I have seen apologists deny that this is what they really think, but others like pacman have been honest enough to say that this is correct.

This is simply cliché, I disagree with pacman, I could be convinced by a lot of evidence. Your inner premises are no more or less secure than my own. As is the case with most thoughtful people. I do admit it would be difficult to persuade me because you would be persuading me that my actual experience does not correlate to a reality. My premise is that many ex-mormons, maybe yourself - maybe not, abandon this fact and then afterwards proceed on an intellectual critique of Mormonism.

Trust something you cannot identify? Biological science has proved that humans have the ability to convince themselves of whatever it is they want to believe. They are capable of inducing feelings and emotions that easily explain so-called "spiritual" confirmations.

I am unaware of what studies your specifically referring to but "biological science" has not proved anything like this. If it has you have no ability beyond the Mormons to accept your basic premises - it's simply what you "want" to believe. Sword cuts just as sharp both ways.

Yes there is. Most people who pray about this come away with the opposite conclusion. Does God not love everyone equally? Don't missionaries tell people that God will tell them the truth no matter what? So how do you explain their inability to receive a spiritual "yes" that conforms to the tiny minority of investigators who claim a confirmation?

I don't accept your initial premises.

This is another change in the way LDS apologists have approached criticism over the years. In the old days LDS leaders would proudly get up and speak about how they would accept any challenge to prove the Church false. Of course this only makes sense if the Church were falsifiable. But modern LDS thought has rigged the game. It can't be falsifiable.

I really appreciate your posts and thought Dart but generalizations are the hallmark of a not so completely thought out critique, and that is all this is.

Best - mikwut

[_Sethbag]

I think a better way of articulating what your criticizing is rather than just accept Joseph was a prophet, one would say, trust your faculties, including the spirit. If the spirit testifies to someone of the truthfulness of the Prophet Joseph Smith than by all means proceed. There is nothing anti-reason about this.

Yes there is. There's no good reason to believe that "the Spirit" is in fact a reliable communicator of Truth, and plenty of evidence that it is not. In contrast to that, most of us see things, most of us hear things, most of us taste things, most of us touch things, etc. and our reports on these experiences agree to such a degree of precision that there is very good reason to accept that these senses are real and not self-invented.

You find me a thousand random believers from around the world and find for me the things they think "the Spirit" has told them, and demonstrate anything like the precise agreement that we see with the other (ie: the real) senses, and then we'll talk.