apolgetic strawman - the Book of Mormon as copy

[_beastie]

As soon as all the critics get on the same page, we will really appreciate not having to address such silly issues.

Good grief. Apologists can't even get on the same page in regards to the translation process of the Book of Mormon.

[_Sethbag]

No, it isn't the same Spirit. If you have experience with both, you know.

Funny, but the folks in Short Creek would say the same thing. Why do you suppose that is?

That's the whole crux of the matter. The test, if you will. Pass. Fail. By their fruits ye shall know them, and all that.

By that measure, Joseph Smith comes up short. By his own fruit of propositioning married women to marry him and have sex with him in farcical secret ceremonies, while not telling their husbands, and by his coercive spiritual and emotional manipulation of teenage girls for the same purpose, and by the fact that he demonstrably invented at least one and probably more like 3 or 4 whole books of "scripture" and passed them off as ancient records and commandments from God, he is demonstrated not to be a true prophet of a God who really exists.

Game, set, and match.

Your "spirit witness" test is a farce, and you can't even articulate a difference between your own spiritual witness and the spiritual witnesses of millions and millions of other people in the world who claim that the spirit has confirmed to them that they're in the right church, or believing the right things, or whatever, without resorting to special pleading. Special pleading, hmm, where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, just about everyone who believes in an exclusive, "only true" religious belief system engages in it.

It goes something like this. You believe that your church is true, and that you actually know enough to make that determination, and that you are correct in making it, and that others are therefore wrong in making the determination that in fact it's their church that's correct and not yours, and that they know enough to make that determination. You can't offer up one good reason why you should be believed and the other claimants for "one true church" status should be disbelieved, that doesn't in the end amount to nothing more than your subjective judgment of the good feelings you've had.

[_charity]

You evidenlty don't understand the process. When the Prophet declares the word of the Lord, the Lord expects us to have Him confirm it to us. If the Lord tells me that what the Prophet said was His will, then, yes, I would obey it.

What if what the Prophet says doesn't seem right to you? You pray to the Lord about it, and it still doesn't feel right? What then? Do you apostatize? Or do you just accept it, and not say anything. It seems the latter option forces you to blindly follow the prophet even when you don't agree with him. The first option of course is not really an option at all for a TBM. Maybe there's a middle ground that many TBMs try to walk.

That would be a problem. But in 46 years it hasn't happened yet.

But just to go along with you, if that were to happen, I would clear my calendar for 3 days, go somewhere I could be alone without interference, take my scriptures, fast and pray. After a day and a half of praying for confirmation, I would reverse fields and pray for confirmation of the opposite side.

I am confident of what would happen, but to answer the question you will undoubtedly ask: If I got nothing either way, I would then go to people I respect and talk with them about their experience.

At that point,I think you can see it isn't a matter of blindly following.

[_ludwigm]

I had a comment on the "Did Joseph Smith marry for love?", an hour before.
I think it fits here, to the

When the Prophet declares the word of the Lord

___ Ludwig from Hungary

[_SatanWasSetUp]

You evidenlty don't understand the process. When the Prophet declares the word of the Lord, the Lord expects us to have Him confirm it to us. If the Lord tells me that what the Prophet said was His will, then, yes, I would obey it.

What if what the Prophet says doesn't seem right to you? You pray to the Lord about it, and it still doesn't feel right? What then? Do you apostatize? Or do you just accept it, and not say anything. It seems the latter option forces you to blindly follow the prophet even when you don't agree with him. The first option of course is not really an option at all for a TBM. Maybe there's a middle ground that many TBMs try to walk.

That would be a problem. But in 46 years it hasn't happened yet.

But just to go along with you, if that were to happen, I would clear my calendar for 3 days, go somewhere I could be alone without interference, take my scriptures, fast and pray. After a day and a half of praying for confirmation, I would reverse fields and pray for confirmation of the opposite side.

I am confident of what would happen, but to answer the question you will undoubtedly ask: If I got nothing either way, I would then go to people I respect and talk with them about their experience.

At that point,I think you can see it isn't a matter of blindly following.

Exactly. Which is why so many people end up here or RfM. They refused to blindly follow and made up their own mind.

[_richardMdBorn]

Sethbag also hits on a point where I think apologetics has become hypocritical. One of their strongest points in the past was that the anti-Mormons always tell their side without providing any apologetic explanations. The Book of Abraham video put out by IRR.org, for example. The best FAIR could come up with was a critique that complained because the video didn’t mention any of the lame apologetic explanations offered by FAIR. When critics fail to tell the apologists’ side they are “deceiving” their readers (I think the video would have been worse for the Church if this video detailed the ridiculous apologetic nonsense offered by Gee and Nibley.)

OK. So why a different standard when apologists and missionaries fail to tell the critical viewpoint? Why are they not obligated to abide by this unspoken rule of disclosure?

This is called integrity in any other context.

Incidentally, I have actually seen some books critical of the LDS faith, provide at least some of the counter-responses by the apologists. I have yet to see an apologetic piece provide any rebuttal arguments from the opposition. Most apologetic books pick a slew of lame anti-Mormon arguments and create other straw men. They then shoot them down and sign off with the author’s testimony.

Kevin has hit on a key point. When arguing, it's important to take on the other side's STRONGEST arguments.

[_charity]

Sethbag also hits on a point where I think apologetics has become hypocritical. One of their strongest points in the past was that the anti-Mormons always tell their side without providing any apologetic explanations. The Book of Abraham video put out by IRR.org, for example. The best FAIR could come up with was a critique that complained because the video didn’t mention any of the lame apologetic explanations offered by FAIR. When critics fail to tell the apologists’ side they are “deceiving” their readers (I think the video would have been worse for the Church if this video detailed the ridiculous apologetic nonsense offered by Gee and Nibley.)

OK. So why a different standard when apologists and missionaries fail to tell the critical viewpoint? Why are they not obligated to abide by this unspoken rule of disclosure?

This is called integrity in any other context.

Incidentally, I have actually seen some books critical of the LDS faith, provide at least some of the counter-responses by the apologists. I have yet to see an apologetic piece provide any rebuttal arguments from the opposition. Most apologetic books pick a slew of lame anti-Mormon arguments and create other straw men. They then shoot them down and sign off with the author’s testimony.

Kevin has hit on a key point. When arguing, it's important to take on the other side's STRONGEST arguments.

This shows a basic misunderstanding with what apologetics is. We take on a claim or challenge and defend against it. So, why would we wander off on something that hasn't been claimed.

Take the lamest of anti-Mormon arguments for isntance. Someone says, "So, the word adieu is French and that doesn't belong in a book which was supposed to be written a thousand years ago." The apologist answers back about how the word was in common use in the early 1800's and that adieu was used in English as far back as 1500. So, now should the apologist say, "well you know you could have asked about the Book of Abraham." That doesn't make much sense.

[_harmony]

I just came from a wedding reception. The young man is a friend of my youngest son, and a convert to the church. He converted in order to marry the girl of his dreams (she looks more like a nightmare to me, but I'm not at all attracted to gorgeous high maintenance women). After attending that, I have couple of comments for this thread, on the pithy side:

Let the buyer beware.

Full disclosure is the hallmark of those with nothing to hide. The lack of full disclosure is the hallmark of those who are hiding something important.

And last but not least: You get what you pay for.
=============================
And a comment pertaining to the polygamy sub-topic of this thread:

If the CK is polygamous, I'm not going. And I'll do whatever I have to in order to make sure no one makes me.

[_charity]

I just came from a wedding reception. The young man is a friend of my youngest son, and a convert to the church. He converted in order to marry the girl of his dreams (she looks more like a nightmare to me, but I'm not at all attracted to gorgeous high maintenance women). After attending that, I have couple of comments for this thread, on the pithy side:

Let the buyer beware.

Full disclosure is the hallmark of those with nothing to hide. The lack of full disclosure is the hallmark of those who are hiding something important.

And last but not least: You get what you pay for. .

First, anyone who converts in order to marry hasn't really converted. He has lied to a bishop to be baptized. So, if she is no prize, neither is he.

Second, that projection of yours may be really wrong. My daughter married a young man who had been baptized just a few months before they were married. His mother kept saying at the reception how he had joined the Church for her. But mom was really wrong. He had been going to Church for over 10 years, (which was 9 years before he met our daughter). His mother had asked him to wait to join the Church until he was 21, and he did, just for mom. So, maybe you don't know as much as you think you do about why he joined the Church.

Full disclosure. This is such a crock. Anyone who joins the Church and says later they didn't know everything that has ever been claimed about the Church has no excuse. Can't they type "Mormon" in their google box? This is too funny for words. You would have us believe that all the former members of the Church who are now whining all over RfM and even here are the stupidest people in the world. Pretty insulting if you ask me. But I guess you know your buddies better than I do.

You get what you pay for. Absolutely. Live a life in obedience to God, and you inherit all that He has. Do something else, get soemthing else entirely.

[_Sethbag]

Full disclosure. This is such a crock. Anyone who joins the Church and says later they didn't know everything that has ever been claimed about the Church has no excuse. Can't they type "Mormon" in their google box? This is too funny for words.

Kinda funny to see Charity advocating that Mormons go search Google to learn more about the church than they're already learning in Sunday School. Hey, fine by me. The more that do this, the better.

You would have us believe that all the former members of the Church who are now whining all over RfM and even here are the stupidest people in the world.

No, they're the ones who looked and found out what the Church wouldn't tell them. The "stupidest people in the world", as you put it, are those in the church who still don't know, and won't, because they won't look, and won't even look if you approach them and tell them there's some things they need to know.

Additionally, the "stupidest people in the world" are those who see all the evidence that Joseph Smith invented the Book of Abraham and simply reject it all, and go hunting for tenuous Nibleyisms instead.

The "stupidest people in the world" are those who read about Joseph Smith sending a man on a mission, and then a few weeks later approaching this man's wife and telling her that she's supposed to marry Joseph and have sex with him while her real husband is gone, and defend this saying hey, Joseph told the woman that God said so, and if God said so, who am I to question him?

The "stupidest people in the world" are those who know that most of the signs and tokens, and a lot of words, phrases, and themes used in the Mormon farcical temple ceremony were ripped off directly from Freemasonry, but defend it arguing that maybe the Freemasons actually had it from the ancient Israelites, and the only reason that Joseph included them in the temple ceremony after having first experienced them in Freemasonry was that they're actually restored by Joseph Smith from ancient times. That's pretty freaking stupid, especially since freemasons themselves have confirmed that the ceremonies and tokens and signs and whatnot only go back a few hundred years.

The "stupidest people in the world" are those who know very well that Joseph Smith was caught having illicit sex with Fanny Alger in the early 1830s, several years before the Sealing Power was supposed to have been restored in Kirtland in 1836, and a full decade before any revelation was written down regarding polygamy, and claim that Fanny Alger must just have been Joseph's "first plural wife". She was more like the first young woman he debauched. At least, that we know of.

Pretty insulting if you ask me. But I guess you know your buddies better than I do.

Nobody hear is calling anyone stupid for not knowing what most in the church won't talk about, and which you will never hear in Sunday School. You're the one bandying the "stupid" word about, and I'm just turning it around on you.

To be honest, "stupid" isn't really the right word either. The mopologists aren't stupid. They're just partisans for their chosen side in the Mormonism debate. They've chosen to defend the church at all costs, and if their defense of a given thing makes them look stupid, then so be it.

Live a life in obedience to God, and you inherit all that He has. Do something else, get something else entirely.

No. Life life in obedience to men who tell you they represent God, and you will go to your grave believing that you'll become a God or a Goddess. But you won't. You'll just die and cease to exist, like everyone else. But hey, at least during your life you had the pleasure of imagining how great it would be to be a God or a Goddess, and help create entire new universes to be populated with your very own little spirit babies. Sure would be nice, wouldn't it? It's a pipe dream, Charity. Wishful thinking, fantasy, fiction, mythology, all wrapped into yet one more manmade, untrue church out of the many thousands of them that have arisen on Earth in the last few thousand years.