The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Buffalo]

Subgenius,

You still don't get the scope of my critique.

Yes, it's all about revelation.

But, the question is how do we tell a true revelation from a false one without circularly appealing to a revelations which is presumed to be true?

You've stated that it is possible for a revelation to be self-evident and therefore, the revelation serves as an acceptable starting point from which to reason fallaciously.

The question is not whether a revelation can be self-evident, but how do we tell which are?

Concerning this question, you do reason fallaciously. You can't appeal to any standard of distinction which doesn't presuppose certain revelations are true and others are not, begging this question.

The only way to make sense of any revelation is to blindly presuppose only a some are true, for no better reason than any contrary revelation could be presupposed as true.

It's clear that you're reluctant to address the wider scope of the argument. You know that there's no way to differentiate revelations in a way that meets the Mormon burden of proof if any revelation is in question. You're belief system requires begging the question at every level, including the level at which we determine whether begging the question is valid at all.

Excellent points, Alfredo.

[_Drifting]

But, the question is how do we tell a true revelation from a false one without circularly appealing to a revelations which is presumed to be true?

Easy, you get a happy feeling in your tummy.
Mind you, that can also happen if you get a false revelation...doh!

[_Franktalk]

The only way to make sense of any revelation is to blindly presuppose only a some are true, for no better reason than any contrary revelation could be presupposed as true.

Come now it is all so simple. You just go down and buy a truth-o-meter from Deseret Industries. For only $19.95 you too can discern with the best of them. Or you can take the more personal approach and walk in the spirit.

[_Buffalo]

The only way to make sense of any revelation is to blindly presuppose only a some are true, for no better reason than any contrary revelation could be presupposed as true.

Come now it is all so simple. You just go down and buy a truth-o-meter from Deseret Industries. For only $19.95 you too can discern with the best of them. Or you can take the more personal approach and walk in the spirit.

[_Alfredo]

Subgenius,

You still don't get the scope of my critique.

Yes, it's all about revelation.

But, the question is how do we tell a true revelation from a false one without circularly appealing to a revelations which is presumed to be true?

You've stated that it is possible for a revelation to be self-evident and therefore, the revelation serves as an acceptable starting point from which to reason fallaciously.

The question is not whether a revelation can be self-evident, but how do we tell which are?

Concerning this question, you do reason fallaciously. You can't appeal to any standard of distinction which doesn't presuppose certain revelations are true and others are not, begging this question.

The only way to make sense of any revelation is to blindly presuppose only a some are true, for no better reason than any contrary revelation could be presupposed as true.

It's clear that you're reluctant to address the wider scope of the argument. You know that there's no way to differentiate revelations in a way that meets the Mormon burden of proof if any revelation is in question. You're belief system requires begging the question at every level, including the level at which we determine whether begging the question is valid at all.

Excellent points, Alfredo.

Ha. I thought so, too. In fact, they're some form of the most excellent points to be made concerning Mormonism.

Revelation is the foundation of the entire Mormon religion. More important than any archeological, textual, historical, or pragmatic evidence for Mormonism, by apologists' and the Church's own admission.

The LDS church stands or falls on the epistemic validity of revelation... The most powerful critique is to expose the LDS response as hopelessly self-serving as the next religion, and reject it as a thoroughly unconvincing and blind dismissal of reason, itself.

The next step is to realize that it is precisely because the Mormon paradigm claims to explain everything, of damned course you will never see it has no foundation if you fail to free yourself from endless appeals to its own self-serving interpretations and limited scope. It's a closed system designed to support itself in spite of having no convincing foundation.

You can't question the lenses you're wearing if you unconditionally reject any perspective which doesn't apply them. The Mormon lens is incapable of inspecting itself.

[_Alfredo]

The only way to make sense of any revelation is to blindly presuppose only a some are true, for no better reason than any contrary revelation could be presupposed as true.

Come now it is all so simple. You just go down and buy a truth-o-meter from Deseret Industries. For only $19.95 you too can discern with the best of them. Or you can take the more personal approach and walk in the spirit.

Commendable dodge, Frank.

"Taking a walk in the spirit" presupposes that revelations concerning the "spirit" and "walks" are already true.

It is not evident at all that you can trust a revelation even after you think you've received one.

[_Drifting]

Come now it is all so simple. You just go down and buy a truth-o-meter from Deseret Industries. For only $19.95 you too can discern with the best of them. Or you can take the more personal approach and walk in the spirit.

Commendable dodge, Frank.

"Taking a walk in the spirit" presupposes that revelations concerning the "spirit" and "walks" are already true.

It is not evident at all that you can trust a revelation even after you think you've received one.

Joseph Smith, whilst taking a walk in the spirit as the Prophet, received a revelation from God that he was to sell the copyright for the Book of Mormon in Canada. How did that work out for him?

[_Themis]

"Taking a walk in the spirit" presupposes that revelations concerning the "spirit" and "walks" are already true.

It is not evident at all that you can trust a revelation even after you think you've received one.

They never want to address the possibility that the body can produce the expereince on it's own.

[_subgenius]

So have so many other religions.

so?
then the evidence they have put forth is evaluated against the specific claim being made.
its not a particularly difficult concept.

[_subgenius]

<insert some narrow minded graphic here>

circular reasoning is only a fallacy with regards to simple logic...not reasoning.
logic is limited to linear reasoning....keyword = limited.
that is why notions like religion or even simple ones like coherentism are lost on the simple minded.
That is why logic can not answer the question about which came first...chicken? or egg?