DiscussMormonism.com

There is a recent thread about how the pre-Columbian Native American Hebrew prophet, Moroni, would have been able to get the golden plates from Mexico or Guatemala or El Dorado or wherever to what would eventually become upstate New York---just in case Joseph Smith would happen to live there 14 centuries later.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19948&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=42

Obviously, this question would only be addressed by those of a certain Sorensen-esque persuasion who feel that the Book of Mormon narrative happened in Mexico or Guatemala or El Dorado or wherever down that way. In the course of the cited thread, Simon Belmont, who is well known for his trenchant insights and reasonable explanations of various matters, demands to see "official doctrine" from the LDS Church that the golden plates under discussion were in fact made of gold. His implicit premise is that the plates would have been made of something other than gold, which is 100% apologetic theory and nothing else. In other words, he, like pretty much every stalwart defender of the faith on the internet, insists that people can only ask questions about "official doctrine," since anything not within the rubric of this nebulous "official doctrine" idea is just speculation or "speaking as a man" or whatever.

However, as the many fans of Simon Belmont's well-reasoned and incisive commentary are aware, he invariably uses speculation by those who have no authority whatsoever to speak on behalf of the LDS Church to defend official doctrine. Without fail, Simon Belmont and his fellow internet LDS crusaders will refer to FAIR or the Maxwell Institute in purporting to address issues related in Mormonism, instead of, say, the Ensign or official LDS curriculum.

If we can summarily dismiss things said by Mormon leaders that are not "official doctrine" (whatever apologists find it convenient for that to mean at any given time) because such things are simply speculation or "speaking as a man," then why should we care about explanations about LDS belief that are on their face nothing but speculation and self-appointed yet unauthorized spokespersons speaking as men?

If questions about the LDS Church can only be posed with respect to "official doctrine," and anything else is reflexively dismissed as speculation/"speaking as a man," do Simon Belmont and his fellow LDS knights errant concede the corollary: that answers to questions about LDS belief can only be answered by resorting to "official doctrine," and any explanations outside of "official doctrine" should be rejected on the same basis as questions outside the scope of "official doctrine"?

Why or why not?




Note: I am not conceding that apologists or random Mormons on the internet get to be the arbiters or what is or is not the teaching of the LDS Church. I am simply allowing the term "official doctrine" for the sake of argument.

In other words, he, like pretty much every stalwart defender of the faith on the internet, insists that people can only ask questions about "official doctrine," since anything not within the rubric of this nebulous "official doctrine" idea is just speculation or "speaking as a man" or whatever.

I know this is meant to whine about Simon, but I'll respond nonetheless. By questioning whether the plates were really the metal gold or partially gold has nothing to do with whether one must stick to official doctrine when asking questions. Utter fail, DJ. Gold is not only a metal but a color. Also, metal can be tested to know whether it is purely a certain metal or an alloy. Its possible that the plates could have been called gold but have not really been gold. And its possible the plates could have been partially gold. There's nothing nefarious about offering those possibilities and requiring those who wish to prove the negative (that its impossible the plates were moved from Mesoamerica to NY over the course of years) to actually prove the negative. Its actually reasonable, DJ.

If we can summarily dismiss things said by Mormon leaders that are not "official doctrine" (whatever apologists find it convenient for that to mean at any given time) because such things are simply speculation or "speaking as a man," then why should we care about explanations about LDS belief that are on their face nothing but speculation and self-appointed yet unauthorized spokespersons speaking as men?

Oh one more thing, on this point here. It is the position of critics who prove the failure of the LDS Church, or the wrongness of it. I, personally, am one who defends the claims against effort to disprove those claims. I really only have to leave room for the possibility to meet my burden, but the critics who are trying to disprove have to actually disprove to meet their burden and support their claim. If a critic chooses to quote a leader of the Church to argue the Church is false, then the possibility that the leader is wrong, is, in my eyes a possibility. There is no reason to insist a leader must be infallible, or to insist I, as an LDS, must answer for and accept every leader's pronouncement. in this a critic who takes your view, DJ, is fighting an uphill battle. I personally don't think you can prove the engative. I'm mean I'll continue to be ears, but I don't think you'll accomploish your grand design here.

Stemelbow:

The possibility that the "golden" plates were something other than actual, Periodic Table gold is irrelevant to the question raised in the OP.

Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of reading comprehension in the course of telling me about an "utter fail."

Lusting after your body,
--Darth J

stemelbow wrote:

If we can summarily dismiss things said by Mormon leaders that are not "official doctrine" (whatever apologists find it convenient for that to mean at any given time) because such things are simply speculation or "speaking as a man," then why should we care about explanations about LDS belief that are on their face nothing but speculation and self-appointed yet unauthorized spokespersons speaking as men?

Oh one more thing, on this point here. It is the position of critics who prove the failure of the LDS Church, or the wrongness of it. I, personally, am one who defends the claims against effort to disprove those claims. I really only have to leave room for the possibility to meet my burden, but the critics who are trying to disprove have to actually disprove to meet their burden and support their claim. If a critic chooses to quote a leader of the Church to argue the Church is false, then the possibility that the leader is wrong, is, in my eyes a possibility. There is no reason to insist a leader must be infallible, or to insist I, as an LDS, must answer for and accept every leader's pronouncement. in this a critic who takes your view, DJ, is fighting an uphill battle. I personally don't think you can prove the engative. I'm mean I'll continue to be ears, but I don't think you'll accomploish your grand design here.

If there has ever been a more masterful show of someone understanding the concept of "burden of proof," I have never seen it.

Thinking of you naked,
--Darth J

stemelbow wrote: There's nothing nefarious about offering those possibilities and requiring those who wish to prove the negative (that its impossible the plates were moved from Mesoamerica to NY over the course of years) to actually prove the negative. Its actually reasonable, DJ.

I stand corrected. You have here surpassed even yourself in teaching us all a valuable lesson about the logical concept of "burden of proof."

I've got a donkey punch with your name on it,
--Darth J

Darth J wrote:Stemelbow:

The possibility that the "golden" plates were something other than actual, Periodic Table gold is irrelevant to the question raised in the OP.

Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of reading comprehension in the course of telling me about an "utter fail."

Lusting after your body,
--Darth J

Hey DJ...its a joy to have your Pahoran like responses back. My first post was in some sense defending the point made by Simon whom you had hoped to mock. Its not my fault you offered it in your OP as some grand example to humiliate him. You simply failed in my book. Not to worry though, I'm sure plenty here will jump on board with you and continue the mockery. its what makes your participation here worthwhile, I'm sure.

Darth J wrote:If there has ever been a more masterful show of someone understanding the concept of "burden of proof," I have never seen it.

Thinking of you naked,
--Darth J

I'll just repeat, in essence then. I'm not here to prove the claims of my Church. I admit that. But if someone is here to disprove the claims of my church, then they carry with them the burden of actually doing the disproving. When their arguments fail, its because there persists possibilities that they did not consider or address.

Would someone like to explain to Stemelbow what the OP is asking?

Or, failing that, would anyone like to tell Stemelbow that making an unsupported assertion and then demanding it be falsified is not how burden of proof works?

If questions about the LDS Church can only be posed with respect to "official doctrine," and anything else is reflexively dismissed as speculation/"speaking as a man," do Simon Belmont and his fellow LDS knights errant concede the corollary: that answers to questions about LDS belief can only be answered by resorting to "official doctrine,"

Yes. Self evident and common sense. If one wants to know what an organization believes and teaches, then one will look to that organization for guidance.

and any explanations outside of "official doctrine" should be rejected on the same basis as questions outside the scope of "official doctrine"?

Yes. Same reason.

In cases where there is no doctrine or doctrine gives no details, one is of course free to speculate and hypothesize, but it hsould be identfied as such to avoid attribution to the Church of non existent doctrine.

"LDS beliefs" could be spoken of in a sense of what the membership believes whether or not it's in harmony with official doctrine, but such should also be similarly identified. For example, LDS Democrats accept and encourage socialism and the welfare state, homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles contrary to their Church's official doctrine.