Engaging Mormon Apologetics

[_Themis]

Well I guess we agree that "fundamentalist" is a BAD WORD

Some may view it that way, and then unfortunately use it to attack the messenger instead of the message.

I can say YOU ARE
and you can say YOU ARE all day and all night, but if you want to know what the doctrine of the church is on the subject, here is a link:

http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf

I adhere to what this document says as the definitive pronouncement on evolution. But that's not what this thread is about.

Everything in their does nothing to support evolution, and plenty that disagrees with it, which is exactly what Darth and I have been saying. You may like many members including myself at one time may believe in parts of evolution.

What YOU used to believe is not at all relevant to what I believe, and I am tired of hearing that same old tired argument here.

I doubt you really know what I believed as a member which this thread can attest to. I am sure I don't know all of your religious beliefs, but when we show what the church has or is currently teaching, it's not to tell you what you believe, but what the church teaches.

What words should we define differently?

I meant that we sometimes may define some words differently which is usually the cause of not understanding others positions, so I'm not suggesting any particular word be defined differently, but that we should be aware of this when conversing with others, so that we may ask enough questions to understand what others mean. I think MrStakhanovite and yourself have been trying to some degree, but maybe more is needed.

[_mfbukowski]

That's because you aren't acknowledging that the "stories" are not allegories in Mormonism, but actual events that really happened.

The problem is an epistemological one; it is notoriously difficult to "know" what happened in history thousands of years ago. I believe that these events "actually happened" as I understand them.

But suppose my understanding is not the same as other members of the church who take these events more literally than I do? In the Mormon church, there is no such thing as an "orthodox interpretation" of the scriptures. Even should such a thing exist, the question "Do you accept the (non-existent) Orthodox Interpretation Of The Scriptures?" is not on the temple recommend question list, nor on the baptismal interview and I would counsel you to not hold your breath for either of these things to happen.

Again, what you used to believe is your business, not mine.

I know you want to demonstrate that what you believe in is something other than bastardized apologetic internet Mormonism, but you're not doing a very good job. What I indicated is officially published and taught by the Church:

If I am doing such a bad job, you don't have to comment any more. That is usually what I do when some looney posts something that makes no sense.

But quote mining old Joseph Fielding Smith quotes doesn't really bother me too much.

I believe that there was no "death before the fall" because it is true. The earth was in a state of "innocence" because no sin had been committed.

Let me ask you this: was there "murder" before the fall? Can animals eating each other be classified as "murder"?

If a tiger kills an antelope, is it "murder"? Of course not, but why not? Because animals do not have a value system- they cannot sin- an animal eating another does not "sin"- it is a natural, innocent action. It cannot be condemned as "immoral"

Also, do animals mourn each other when they die?

We cannot know that.

It is outside of human experience- we can only know what humans experience, not what animals experience.

So if there is no "murder" outside of a human understanding of the word, is there "death" outside of a human understanding?

Absolutely not!

So just as Adam defined and put things in a human context- by "naming" things, one of the things he named- or put in a human context was also "death"

So the fall happened by sin coming into the world. The entire context of reality- of human experience- was changed by Adam's sin.

The world was no longer innocent- the human experience of the world was altered drastically, dramatically and forever by Adam's sin.

That is the "fall" as I understand it. So yes, the entire world which is constituted by human experience was changed by sin, and the concept of "death" and "murder" came into the world.

And of course since we cannot know anything about the world outside of human experience, THAT is the only world we CAN know about.

But we also know that somehow it happened in "other worlds" too- but we don't know much about that.

So yes, I agree with the quotes that the world was changed forever by the fall, and that by "sin", "death" came into the world, and that there was no "death" before the "fall".

It is through the savior's healing power that the effects of death and sin are taken away and we are redeemed back into an innocent state.

“When Adam and Eve were placed in Eden they were not subject to the power of death and could have lived, in the state of innocence in which they were, forever had they not violated the law given them in the Garden.

“The earth also was pronounced good, and would have remained in that same state forever had it not been changed to meet Adam’s fallen condition.[/color]

[color=#0000FF]“All things on the face of the earth also would have remained in that same condition, had not Adam transgressed the law.

Yep! I couldn't agree more!

“By partaking of the forbidden fruit, and thus violating the law under which he was placed, his nature was changed, and he became subject to (1) spiritual death, which is banishment from the presence of God; (2) temporal death, which is separation of spirit and body. This death also came to Eve his wife.

“Had Adam and Eve not transgressed the law given in Eden, they would have had no children.

“Because Adam transgressed the law, the Lord changed the earth to suit the mortal condition and all things on the face of the earth became subject to mortality, as did the earth also.

The world as known through human experience was totally changed by the idea of "sin"; Adam and Eve would not have had "children", they might have had cubs or whelps or babies, but they would not have had "children".

We would not project our ideas of "death" upon animals and dinosaurs, and so we now say that animals "died" before the fall which is total presentism. There was not even a concept of "death" to define that- how could they have "died"? That is us looking backward and putting our concepts of reality on whatever was at that "time"- which of course we can in principle know nothing about!

It is pure speculation!

I anxiously await seeing this humanistic value system that posits that watching rated R movies and females failing to remove extra earrings because of prophetic counsel are spiritually destructive.

Well I agree that some of these details get very very grey, but I think a case can be made that affirming the beauty of the human body as it exists is preferable to perforating it, but I suppose some people would like to paint white roses some other color with nail polish and dye.

And R rated movies often glorify violence and sexual values, which if followed, could lead to destruction of the family. I think that anything which treats humans as objects should be avoided, but if you like that, it's your decision I suppose.

[_Themis]

The problem is an epistemological one; it is notoriously difficult to "know" what happened in history thousands of years ago. I believe that these events "actually happened" as I understand them.

Or as you want to understand them. No one is arguing of the difficulty in understanding what happened in the past. All we have done is shown what the church has taught or is teaching about past events.

But suppose my understanding is not the same as other members of the church who take these events more literally than I do? In the Mormon church, there is no such thing as an "orthodox interpretation" of the scriptures.

Ah, another one of those words again. The church provides for a number of interpretations. One is the Adam was the first man, another is the flood was worldwide. Read the jan 1998 ensign and see how you can squirm out of that one.

Even should such a thing exist, the question "Do you accept the (non-existent) Orthodox Interpretation Of The Scriptures?" is not on the temple recommend question list, nor on the baptismal interview and I would counsel you to not hold your breath for either of these things to happen.

There are a number of doctrines in the church that do not require belief in order to get baptized or remain a member in good standing. I may not have believed in a world wide flood, but I was under no delusion that the church didn't teach it.

Again, what you used to believe is your business, not mine.

Again just because one shows you what the church does teach is not necessarily mean that is what they believed.

But quote mining old Joseph Fielding Smith quotes doesn't really bother me too much.

LOL Darth has shown multiples sources, and since you have failed to show the church teaching the opposite i hardly think he can be reasonably accused of quote mining.

I believe that there was no "death before the fall" because it is true. The earth was in a state of "innocence" because no sin had been committed.

Let me ask you this: was there "murder" before the fall? Can animals eating each other be classified as "murder"?

If a tiger kills an antelope, is it "murder"? Of course not, but why not? Because animals do not have a value system- they cannot sin- an animal eating another does not "sin"- it is a natural, innocent action. It cannot be condemned as "immoral"

I think this is the bastardized apologetic internet Mormonism he was talking about. Personally I don't care, I've done the same for this and other issues that the church wouldn't discipline either of us for.

Also, do animals mourn each other when they die?

We cannot know that.

I sometimes wonder if you are inconsistent with your definition of know. We can't know anything for certain, but we can know or have knowledge about things in degrees, and yes we do have some knowledge that some species of animals do mourn.

It is outside of human experience- we can only know what humans experience, not what animals experience.

Sure, but then so is everyone else's experiences, but we can still figure out many things.

So if there is no "murder" outside of a human understanding of the word, is there "death" outside of a human understanding?

Absolutely not!

I disagree. Death is a word used to define an event, murder is a moral description about some death's. Some animals would have a concept of death, and since it is an event you don't need any animal capable of understanding it for the event to occur or exist.

And R rated movies often glorify violence and sexual values, which if followed, could lead to destruction of the family. I think that anything which treats humans as objects should be avoided, but if you like that, it's your decision I suppose.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but WTH did this come from. I would agree that we should not treat humans as objects, and I think we should not glorify violence, although I'm not sure that glorifying violence would lead to destruction of the family. Some societies have probably benefited from glorifying violence making them better warriors and better for survival. Sexual values are a little more complicated and vary from different groups without destroying the family. Polygamy is an example :)

[_mfbukowski]

Themis

Thanks for your post- you have some good points, and though I disagree with many of them, there is nothing there that I would "go to war" about.

As far as ambiguity on my definition of "know"- I am not sure, I don't think so.

I believe that the word is used to express many shades of certainty, and I think the word itself is ambiguous.

I usually use it to express a fairly high degree of what Dewey would call "warranted assertability"; but I think there are things we can be absolutely certain about.

I am absolutely certain for instance that I exist, and that someone is out there who calls himself "Themis", with whom I am trading posts.

But perhaps that is more a quibble over words than anything substantive.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You seem to contradict yourself again.

I'm glad you see the contradiction, because that was the point.

All knowledge comes from our perceptions.

Our percetion is limited.

Our knowledge is then limited.

If our knowledge is limited, then there is X outside our knowledge.

Showing there is X outside our knowledge was done a priori.

Therefore, not all knowledge comes from perception.

This is what I an driving at.

Hope you enjoyed Church today! :)

[_mfbukowski]

You seem to contradict yourself again.

I'm glad you see the contradiction, because that was the point.

All knowledge comes from our perceptions.

Our percetion is limited.

Our knowledge is then limited.

If our knowledge is limited, then there is X outside our knowledge.

Showing there is X outside our knowledge was done a priori.

Therefore, not all knowledge comes from perception.

This is what I an driving at.

Hope you enjoyed Church today! :)

I did.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about, and if anyone can explain it to me, I wish you would.

"Showing there is X outside our knowledge was done a priori" ?

No clue at all.

[_MrStakhanovite]

X represents whatever is outside our perception. The admission that our perception is limited (thus limiting all real and possible knowlege) is also an admission that there is something (anything) outside our perception (knowledge). Therefore, all knowledge does not come from perception.

To get to this conclusion required no perception on my part.

To defeat this, you could somehow show that we are able to perceive the limits of our perception, but that would be tricky to do without already supposeing something beyond our perception.

[_mfbukowski]

X represents whatever is outside our perception. The admission that our perception is limited (thus limiting all real and possible knowlege) is also an admission that there is something (anything) outside our perception (knowledge). Therefore, all knowledge does not come from perception.

To get to this conclusion required no perception on my part.

To defeat this, you could somehow show that we are able to perceive the limits of our perception, but that would be tricky to do without already supposeing something beyond our perception.

It is not tricky at all. I have already said that the limits of our perceptions are illusions- mirages, hallucinations etc. The fact that there are illusions does not suppose there are some THING "beyond our perception" unless you are ready to say that mirages and hallucinations are "things".

The existence of illusions does not prove anything about something "beyond perception"- it just says that people sometimes see things wrong.

You are turning "things we can't see" into a class of "things", thereby "proving" there are "things we can't see." It is circular- it begs the question.

It's right in your first premise "X= Whatever is outside our perception", and then you go on to "prove" that there IS "something" outside our perception.

To get to this conclusion required no perception on my part.

You can say that again.

It also didn't require any logic.

I'm about done.

[_MrStakhanovite]

It is not tricky at all. I have already said that the limits of our perceptions are illusions- mirages, hallucinations etc. The fact that there are illusions does not suppose there are some THING "beyond our perception" unless you are ready to say that mirages and hallucinations are "things".

I think this is the stumbleing block. When I speak of the limits of perception, I'm talking about the limits of our biology, not just cognitive errors. If there are 11 dimensions in this universe, we will never be able to perceive them because we are just not built to see things beyond 3D. That is the kind of limit I'm speaking of.

You are turning "things we can't see" into a class of "things", thereby "proving" there are "things we can't see." It is circular- it begs the question.

Actually, I used a contradiction to obtain the negation of "All knowledge comes from perception."

[_mfbukowski]

I think this is the stumbleing block. When I speak of the limits of perception, I'm talking about the limits of our biology, not just cognitive errors. If there are 11 dimensions in this universe, we will never be able to perceive them because we are just not built to see things beyond 3D. That is the kind of limit I'm speaking of.

We already "know" things "beyond the limits of our biology". (microscopes, telescopes, oscilloscopes, MRI's, x-rays, etc)

Again, not sure what you are saying.

Are you saying that "no experiment can confirm the existence of 11 dimensions"?

Then it cannot be said that "there are 11 dimensions". I could postulate that there were 287 dimensions and my evidence would be just as good as yours- ie: no evidence at all.

If there is evidence it can be experienced in one way or another.

The fact that our senses are limited is irrelevant. We cannot see radio waves, but we have radio telescopes that in effect enable us to "see radio waves".

"But what about the discovery of gonzowaves which ultimately permit us to transport ourselves to distant galaxies, just like star trek?"

What about them? We have no evidence of them. There literally are "no such things"