subgenius wrote:i enjoy the irony of how you open your apostate journey with a story of a "test" and then close your journey with your own "devised" test.
interesting indeed
The point of this escapes me - and why the scare-quotes, as if the tests were not really tests at all (or at least the first one wasn't), and Shades had not devised the final test in the normal sense of the word, but only purported or feigned to have done so?
Just to save time - this is the first test:
When _____ took over, I was in Meito-Kita, which of course is right next to the [mission home]. I was there often enough to make copies, pick up more Books of Mormon, or whatever, that I got to know President _____ rather well.
Remember how some of us mentioned his "reign of terror" on Facebook? Well, as fate would have it, I was one of the very first ones to see it in action. You see, my second junior companion was a green bean. Elder _____--did you ever know him? He was having a hard time adjusting to Japan and to mission life. I took it in stride, since we all climatize at our own pace. Anyway, due to a mix-up in the mission home, he became my companion a second time (the first time, _____ assigned him to me; the second time, _____ did). This didn't bother me, since we got along well.
Just before I picked him up, though, _____ subjected him to "the test." This was a psychological evaluation where you answer some questions and then the mission president forwards the results to one or more psychologists in the church's employ who then determine whether you should remain on your mission or be brought back stateside, medicated, and reassigned to some place back in the States.
And this is the second:
Of course, there are plenty of ways to rationalize and justify each the things I listed above (and probably the mountain of other things I *didn't* list above). I myself can probably come up with excuses for why any of those items don't prove that Joseph wasn't a prophet. Sure, that works for each item *individually,* but *as a whole* those things are much, much harder to dismiss. Taken all together, the church looks PRECISELY like any other man-made church, either before or since.
Now, if I was to come up with ways to give Joseph Smith a free pass, wouldn't that *exact same* free pass also apply to, say, David Koresh? Or maybe Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church (the "Moonies")? Or L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? To properly evaluate Mormonism's claims, one must NOT cut Joseph Smith ANY MORE SLACK than one would cut any other religious leader for the same moral lapse.
This led me to devise "The Jehovah's Witness Test:" For example, let's say you're seeking to explain away the falsehood of the Book of Abraham in order to salvage Joseph Smith. Now, let's say that the Book of Abraham was the problem of the Jehovah's Witnesses, not the Mormons. Would you be as willing to apply the same excuses for Pastor Russell (the founder of the Watchtower) as you wish to apply to Joseph Smith? Ergo, when evaluating all the "hits" against Joseph Smith, you are NOT ALLOWED to make any more excuses for Joseph Smith than you would for any other leader of any other religion.
Whew! So, that's why I left Mormonism. Any questions? :-)
It seems to me that Shades' Jehovah's Witness Test is a rather good mental discipline for apologists defending any religious leader. What's the problem here?
