Are Defenders simply incorrigible?

[_sock puppet]

That's one interpretation of the data. But the fact remains that atheists are smarter than believers, on average.

Questionable Cause Fallacy.

Simon, you want to jump in and help the hapless stemelbow by bringing him up to speed on how his religious hero was a common, garden variety charlatan?

[_sock puppet]

Now... back to the OP.

Defenders, how do you expect to be treated with anything less than incredulity in the face of a mountain of evidence (never mind your squeals of delight when perchance a nibble is made in Mormonism's favor)?

To me, defenders and their defenses are beginning to look like the jury in the O J Simpson murder trial of 1995 and the verdict that was rendered there.

[_asbestosman]

The only reason I brought up intelligence at all is because Simon seems to think that its meaningful that some members of the church are very bright.

Is Simon mistaken in stating that?

By that standard, atheism must be truer than theism.

It depends on what Simon meant. You seem to interpret Simon as saying that being a member of the church is the more intelligent choice--much as I interpreted what you were implying about atheists. I have a different take on Simon though. I think the fact that some bright people are members of the church implies that being a member of the church isn't such an obviously foolish decision. Despite SP's laundry list of problems, bright people remain. That doesn't mean that being a member is the more intelligent choice, just that it isn't necessarily an unintelligent decision. I believe that what Simon stated is meaningful in the right context.

I think far more meaningful, however, is the fact that we humans are so fallible--even the intelligent ones. Many smart people believe weird things as Micheal Shermer has written. While this is perhaps because of emotional attachment or something else, I would be cautious of being so certain that your position is right to the point that you have to demonize the other side as blinded by their emotions. After all, isn't that what they're doing to you when they say you're blinded by sin / whatever?

[_asbestosman]

Defenders, how do you expect to be treated with anything less than incredulity in the face of a mountain of evidence (never mind your squeals of delight when perchance a nibble is made in Mormonism's favor)?

I don't expect you or others to agree with me.

What I hope (not necessarily expect), is that you can see things from other perspectives instead of merely writing off the opposition as necessarily blinded by their emotions. I also hope that you might become convinced that some believers actually have thought about the issues and offer some intelligent thoughts on various matters. I won't claim that the mountain of problems have all been addressed in a satisfactory manner for neutral party. Furthermore, I might hope that even if indeed I am wrong in this area, you might recognize your own weaknesses and let that temper your opinion about our overall abilities to have rational thoughts and conversations.

[_sock puppet]

Maybe you could enlighten us by explaining how that same high standard of evidence was met before you chose to board that ship.

It wasn't--I'm BIC.

So you've never made a conscious decision to be Mormon? You are one simply and solely because you were born into a Mormon family?

Please, asbestosman, tell me that there is more to it in your case? Nothing more than it is the 'faith of your fathers'? How very unenlightening that must be, unless you were being disingenuous with your post here.

I would truly like to know what this high standard of evidence is that was cleared by the evidence in support of Mormonism's truth claims that would be the high standard of evidence to which you require contrary evidence. In the law, there are for the most part three standards of evidence.

One is a simple 'preponderance of the evidence', i.e. weighing all the available evidence (pro and con) is the proposition being tested more likely than not true? This is the test that applies in most civil cases, where what is sought is usually a money judgment against a defendant.

The next standard, more difficult (i.e., higher standard of evidence) is 'clear and convincing evidence'? Here the weight of the evidence must not be a mere 51-49% eeking out slightly heavier. For the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be must weightier. Some that have studied this standard think that the evidence must weigh quite heavily in favor of the proposition, for example somewhere in the vacinity of 75% of the weighted evidence favors the proposition. This is a standard used for civil fraud, where the amount of the money judgment might be tripled.

The next highest standard is that which is used in criminal cases. In order to sustain a verdict convicting a defendant of a crime, the evidence that the crime was committed and that the defendant is the perp must be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Again, those that have studied it think that means likely somewhere is in vacinity of 93-94%, or better.

Now, I'm sure, asbestosman, you can give us some idea of what this high standard of evidence is that you'd require before deboarding the ship, and perhaps enlighten us with your having at some point in your life having made a conscious decision to remain Mormon or to follow Mormonism over the course of your remaining life, and impart to us how that high standard of evidence was met in favor of Mormonism so that you remained aboard the ship on which you were born.

[_DrW]

The only reason I brought up intelligence at all is because Simon seems to think that its meaningful that some members of the church are very bright.

Is Simon mistaken in stating that?

Simon seems to think that "many" some LDS Church members ARE Brights. He is certainly mistaken in that.

Any "faithful" LDS member who states that they are a Bright is either lying or needs to have a talk with the Bishop.

[Guest]

I have tried over the past 18 months on this board (before 'sock puppet' as 'nimrod') to consider that those defending the LDS Church and its claims to be reasonable, thinking people not completely given over to irrational, emotive driven behavior. But the more I read here (and when I used to also at MAD), the more I am failing in maintaining this consideration.

Is it really the case, sock, that my posts show me to be so far gone mentally that it's only by an act of unmerited grace that you can believe me a reasonable and thinking person? Or is it, rather, the case that since you don't see how one can hold LDS beliefs in a reasonable and thinking way, I must not be able to either?

Don Bradley, bless his soul, is going to trot out at the FAIR convention this summer some new observations and maybe a new primary source or two about the Kinderhook Plates fiasco for Joseph Smith Jr. With all due respect, that's nibbling on the fringe of a mountain of damning evidence against Joseph Smith Jr and Mormonism.

Well, I can at least thank you for the blessing on my soul. One can never get too many of these. ;-)

"Trot out" is, of course, dismissive, rather than merely descriptive, language. I think you'll find my presentation to be some very sound and detailed research, rather than the silly dog and pony show you imply here.

While I'm not a frequent poster here and no longer given to the kind of online debate you're inviting here, let me offer a several general thoughts:

First, on nearly any complex and controversial question, there is evidence pointing to divergent answers. So, to list evidences pointing to one's own answer and demand that one address these to one's own satisfaction before one can bring in other evidence may not be particularly reasonable or thoughtful.

Think of the Spalding theorists on the board, of which you don't appear to be one. They can marshal considerable evidence for their viewpoint, putting up a stack of evidences, like yours above, that one allegedly "must" account for point by point before proceeding further. But this supposed mountain of irrefutable evidence in practice acts more like a barricade to their own vision, keeping them from seeing the still better positions beyond that limited purview. (My apologies to our resident S-R theory proponents.)

by the way, if you think this is an apologetic dodge, you'll find that search of various message board archives would show me having made the same argument over more than a decade--during most of which I was not a believer.

Second, questioning the rationality of those who disagree with oneself seems to display neither good etiquette nor the kind of openness on which the search for truth is premised.

Third, while I think you've done a good job in some cases in putting your finger on thorny issues, some of the other issues seem to me of doubtful relevance. Take #1, for instance: While there may be a relevant point buried in there, I am at a loss to understand how the legality of glass looking bears on the question of Mormonism's truth.

Fourth, in some other cases your list simply incorporates a claim that, on strictly historical grounds, is dubious. However much play the Greek psalter incident gets among critics, for instance, it seems to be little relied on by historians of Mormonism, be they of whatever faith persuasion.

Fifth, the characterization of the issues in your list is sometimes strongly stilted. Number 3 is a good example. Calling the seer stone a "magic rock" colors the issue from the start. "Magic" is not a category of LDS belief, and increasingly it is not regarded by scholars as a useful category for such folk supernatural practices. I think you may find Steve Fleming's emerging work on this instructive.

Sixth, your post chides Latter-day Saints for allowing subjectivity to color their perceptions of their faith, which strikes me as very curious. I'm not aware of many religionists, of any stripe, who claim their religious belief to be as objective as science, with no place for personal experience or faith. So, it sounds like your criticism is not of Mormon apologists in particular but of religion in general, and that you are asking believers here to address not only your fifteen specific issues but also this enormous question grappled with by humankind. You can't seriously expect anyone to take all this on even if they are perfectly right. The challenge laid down in the OP doesn't seem genuine, but like a big point-scoring effort.

Seventh, you may want to take a minute to consider the believers here for whom you have the most respect, and see if your charge of thoughtless irrationality seems to apply to them. Does it, for instance, apply to Kevin Barney, David Bokovoy, and Nevo? If so, perhaps you have idiosyncratic definitions of the terms "reasonable" and "thinking" that you should share before the discussion proceeds any further.

Eighth, individual issues and questions are always examined in the light of a larger perspective, and it is this larger perspective that makes the biggest difference in the meaning and weight they are given. Some issues that are, under one perspective, insoluble, were, under another, never in need of solving in the first place. Einstein once said something like, "The considerable problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking at which they were created." So it is with the world's problems; and so it very often is, I would argue, when it comes to faith. Which perspectives are the best? As we widen our perspective and grow in wisdom, which questions become more important--and less important? These are questions we hopefully all address in our searchings.

Best of fortune in yours,

Don

[_sock puppet]

Defenders, how do you expect to be treated with anything less than incredulity in the face of a mountain of evidence (never mind your squeals of delight when perchance a nibble is made in Mormonism's favor)?

I don't expect you or others to agree with me.

No, but that isn't what I was asking, was it?

What I hope (not necessarily expect), is that you can see things from other perspectives instead of merely writing off the opposition as necessarily blinded by their emotions.

Do you write off as mere superstitious the concerns of the people and authorities in Salem regarding the which trials of 1692? Or have you tried to gain their perspective? I see no more evidence of Mormonism's truth claims than I do of those people that were hanged having been witches.

I also hope that you might become convinced that some believers actually have thought about the issues and offer some intelligent thoughts on various matters.

That's the problem, asbestosman, I've studied this quite closely, for no other reason than Mormonism is for me, as it is for you, the 'faith of my fathers'. And while I see the rational explanations score a point or two, intelligently, here and there, in the defense of Mormonism, there is an avalanche of evidence that has long since buried Mormonism's truth claims. Step back, take a look at the whole and it become rather silly and cultish. Inside, or very close up, you might not recognize this. So I am asking for defenders to explain the whole of Mormonism--you accept it, one big enchilada. So defend it, with reason, against this mountain of damning evidence.

I won't claim that the mountain of problems have all been addressed in a satisfactory manner for neutral party.

Then are you admitting that accepting Mormonism takes a preconceived bias in its favor?

Furthermore, I might hope that even if indeed I am wrong in this area, you might recognize your own weaknesses and let that temper your opinion about our overall abilities to have rational thoughts and conversations.

I do not question your overall abilities to have rational thoughts and conversations. There are many topics on which I imagine you are sublimely rational. Religion just doesn't happen to be one.

[_asbestosman]

Simon seems to think that "many" some LDS Church members ARE Brights. He is certainly mistaken in that.

Any "faithful" LDS member who states that they are a Bright is either lying or needs to have a talk with the Bishop.

I think he meant "bright" as in "intelligent", not the group of atheists with a silly label.

[_asbestosman]

So you've never made a conscious decision to be Mormon? You are one simply and solely because you were born into a Mormon family?

Please, asbestosman, tell me that there is more to it in your case? Nothing more than it is the 'faith of your fathers'? How very unenlightening that must be, unless you were being disingenuous with your post here.

If I were not born into it, I probably would not have joined. I did make a conscious decision to remain Mormon.

I would truly like to know what this high standard of evidence is that was cleared by the evidence in support of Mormonism's truth claims that would be the high standard of evidence to which you require contrary evidence. In the law, there are for the most part three standards of evidence.

It is not a legal standard of evidence. I believe I explained my standard. I look at the consequences for being right and compare it to the consequences of being wrong. It is a modified version of Pascal's wager, but one that is used in engineering for many applications and is quite rational when used properly.