DiscussMormonism.com

A gentleman on Dan's Blog comments on my incomplete comment by Clifford's advice:

Recall the full quote: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”

Since this is an extraordinarily strong universal claim about objective ethics, only the most extraordinarily strong evidence could be sufficient for it.
And that is not, and has never been, forthcoming.

(A few examples where it is wrong to take unjustifiable risks of seriously harming others based on beliefs that fly in the face of compelling evidence, as in his pilot example, are basically irrelevant to most beliefs and utterly insufficient to make such a universal claim.)

Therefore, if you believe Clifford's claim, you must also believe that it is wrong for you to believe it.

Strict evidentialism is self-defeating. There are plenty of more credible takes on epistemology and the ethics of belief out there in the philosophical literature."

I found this link in explaining this concept: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethi ... hBelBriHis

Any experts on epistimology here? Did Skousen and Givens feel there was sufficient evidence that Smith got the interpretations of the facsimiles wrong? Is there sufficient evidence that there is not internal evidence that the Book of Abraham is true given by revelation?

Imagine you’re tasked with restoring the true church of Christ. Would you do it in the manner that Mormonism has gone about it?

The religion looks like a fraud to 99.9 percent of people who look into it. That must be by (incredibly incompetent) design.

I'm not sure I understand clearly enough what "believe" means, in these statements. On the one hand I would agree that if one is taking actions that affect other people, then there is a kind of fiduciary duty to act only in ways that would be least likely to injure them irreparably, as far as anyone can objectively tell. One should not risk others' lives on a hunch. On the other hand I think that weaker meanings of "believe" are possible. If believing something does no harm to others, I think one could believe however one wanted.

Somebody could bet a thousand bucks on the roll of two dice, and win ten thousand bucks. If they can spare that thousand bucks without letting dependents suffer, then I can't see how they would be morally wrong to make that bet. Wise or unwise, perhaps, but righteous or wicked, I don't see. For me, such a bet is the practical meaning of "belief". If "belief" means something other than placing a bet, then I can only ask what exactly "belief" means.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:01 pm

Imagine you’re tasked with restoring the true church of Christ. Would you do it in the manner that Mormonism has gone about it?

The religion looks like a fraud to 99.9 percent of people who look into it. That must be by (incredibly incompetent) design.

Believers and Dan just say....I will still live a longer, happier, and healthier life than non religious people....

drumdude wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:01 pm

Imagine you’re tasked with restoring the true church of Christ. Would you do it in the manner that Mormonism has gone about it?

The religion looks like a fraud to 99.9 percent of people who look into it. That must be by (incredibly incompetent) design.

CFR

Most people have very little if any understanding or knowledge of the church, for one thing. They haven’t even looked into it.

Those that have taken the time to REALLY investigate, I doubt that 99.9 percent would say it’s a fraud.

Where did you get that statistic?

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 5:30 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:01 pm

Imagine you’re tasked with restoring the true church of Christ. Would you do it in the manner that Mormonism has gone about it?

The religion looks like a fraud to 99.9 percent of people who look into it. That must be by (incredibly incompetent) design.

CFR

Most people have very little if any understanding or knowledge of the church, for one thing. They haven’t even looked into it.

Those that have taken the time to REALLY investigate, I doubt that 99.9 percent would say it’s a fraud.

Where did you get that statistic?

Regards,
MG

From the back of the envelope calculation of the number of doors that are closed in the face of Mormon missionaries day after day. They are spreading the word, and the world isn’t buying it. Correlated very strongly with how educated the area is.

You don’t think all those people with access to the internet have a quick look on Google about Mormonism? It’s easier than ever to make a very well informed decision, the missionaries can’t hide any of the difficult issues anymore.

The missionaries are most effective in areas without strong schools and internet access. Where people are the most ignorant about Mormonism.

It took me a hot minute to figure out what this was about, so I thought I’d share it here in the thread. It starts with Daniel’s blog post ‘An infallible formula for never lapsing into inactivity in the Church’ and begins with this story:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:One day, many years ago while I was serving as a missionary in Interlaken, Switzerland, I sat in sacrament meeting. The speaker was a counselor in the mission presidency.

After an unenlightening digression into the demographics of the Francophone Swiss we get to topic at hand:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote: [A]t the beginning of his remarks, he indicated that he was going to share his simple but infallible formula for never going inactive in the Church.

The big reveal is thus:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:The secret that would guarantee never slipping into inactivity, he confided, was to never skip church.

We are treated to some speculation and one more personal anecdote from Daniel’s time as a missionary before being gifted these parting thoughts:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:So the suggestion that inactivity in the Church can be avoided by resolving never to miss church meetings seems a little bit less empty to me, and a little bit wiser, than it did when I first heard it.

Hard hitting analysis, as always.

This prompt a certain “noel” to make this comment:

noel wrote:Maybe they heed W K Cliffords advice "It is wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

The introduction of Clifford’s maxim causes a stir of activity, which leads one person to comment the following:

Michael R. Loveridge, J. D. wrote:Oh, the evidence for the truthfulness of the Church (especially The Book of Mormon) is there, if not the absolute proof, and that evidence adds up to great plausibility that should motivate a sincere seeker of truth to investigate and seek a spiritual confirmation of the Church's claims. Of course, if you're not "somewhat brighter" (as Alex Barclay's witness mentioned) than the average anti-Mormon, additional heaps of evidence will not help you.

Noel responds thusly Michael:

noel wrote:So William Davis, Robert Ritner & Ray Matheny hae not been able to get a "spiritual confirmation" of the churches claims. Royal Skousen and now to some extent Dr Givens believe the interpretations Smith gave to the facsimiles are wrong but the content was inspired. I can use the work of an Egyptologist "somewhar brighter" than me to properly interpret the fascimiles.

[links removed]

Skousen to me in email. "Yes, the facsimiles are shameful “reproductions” and have been so from the 1840s when first published in Times and Seasons. Yes, the engraver took a part from elsewhere on the hypocephalus and used it to fill up the missing part. I myself would like to see the Book of Abraham with the two secondary insertions in the first chapter removed that connect the text with the papyri and, in fact, no facsimiles or any connection with the Kirtland papyri. The actual text of the Book of Abraham has many interesting things, but the whole discussion has been hijacked by the papyri."

Read Visions in a Seer Stone by William Davis on an interesting take on the creation of the Book of Mormon.

Daniel intercedes at this point for a quick flex:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:Dear Threadjacker Noel:

This is not a thread about the Book of Abraham. And this is not your blog. Please show at least a tiny bit of elementary courtesy to your long-suffering host here, who has not, though tempted and though advised by some to do so, shown you the door.

Separately from the back n’ forth between Noel and Michael, a commenter by the name of Prodicus Diplodocus provides this assessment:

Prodicus Diplodocus wrote:Recall the full quote: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”

Since this is an extraordinarily strong universal claim about objective ethics, only the most extraordinarily strong evidence could be sufficient for it.

And that is not, and has never been, forthcoming.

(A few examples where it is wrong to take unjustifiable risks of seriously harming others based on beliefs that fly in the face of compelling evidence, as in his pilot example, are basically irrelevant to most beliefs and utterly insufficient to make such a universal claim.)

Therefore, if you believe Clifford's claim, you must also believe that it is wrong for you to believe it.

Strict evidentialism is self-defeating. There are plenty of more credible takes on epistemology and the ethics of belief out there in the philosophical literature.

There are no “pilots” mentioned in Clifford’s short essay (he died in 1879), but I think Prodicus Diplodocus is referencing the shipowner who sends religious pilgrims out on a ship bound for America even though the owner suspects it might be unfit for the crossing.


That should help contextualize the OP.

to make sure I understand, "the secret that would guarantee never slipping into inactivity" is....
to never be inactive.

Got it.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:51 pm

to make sure I understand, "the secret that would guarantee never slipping into inactivity" is....
to never be inactive.

Got it.

During the years I went through my faith crisis back in the nineties and into the new millennium I kept going to church.

It made a difference.

If I had gone inactive I would have separated myself from the influence of the Spirit and thus the continued motivation to seek truth and understanding.

Regards,
MG

Marcus wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:51 pm

to make sure I understand, "the secret that would guarantee never slipping into inactivity" is....
to never be inactive.

Got it.

Plucked from the infinite set of captain obvious infallible tautologies, which set also includes such wonders as:

1. The infallible secret to never running out of money is to never spend money.
2. The infallible secret to never drowning is to never go in or over water.
3. The infallible secret to never leaving Scientology is to never miss an auditing session.
4. The infallible secret to never losing a race is to never enter a race.
5. The infallible secret to never leaving your unfaithful partner is to never miss a night sleeping with that unfaithful partner.