Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_Jason Bourne]

Again, the same irrelevant observation. How many more instances of this will there be?

They are matters of faith. Why this sends you into an apoplexy fit is beyond me.
Here are the "matters of faith", reconstituted in positive form:

It would be more appropriate to say that they are matters of faith when they are matters of faith, and matters of direct knowledge when they are matters of direct knowledge. Knowledge negates faith in the sense of the term in which faith is understood as an active conviction of something for which there is, at that point, no direct perception.

Define exactly how you use the word knowledge here.

I understand this as well. I have experienced these things in my life on all these points to one extent or another. I also understand that such experiences are subjective and unique to the recipient.

1. Their subjectivity implies nothing, in any necessary sense, about their truth value

Sure they do. This is clear since below you dodge the question I asked about the spiritual witness that Catholics have about the pope. Why does your spiritual witness or mine Trump theirs?

2. The uniqueness is on the periphery; in the manner or means through which the Holy Ghost communicates with us, but the core experience is the same, as is the message, otherwise, we could not be one in Christ, and united as a people, as "Saints", and as a church.

I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.

Over the years I have met others who have claimed spiritual experiences that witness to truths that may conflict with my foundational truths. I am left to conclude that either they or I am wrong or that there is something that maybe should cause us to understand these experiences in a way different than to claim them as knowledge in the way one normally interprets the words "I know."

Here you begin to tergiversate and hedge around the clarity and lucidity of experience that lies at the core of the witness of the Spirit. When others do not do that, it is you who experiences apoplexy.

I see no accusation by me of what you are or your standing in the Church other than the fruits of your knowledge. Yet you do that to me, Harmony and others quite regularly especially if challenged.

Yes, yes I know the cultural pressure the Church puts on us to say I know. But you don't know nor does anyone else really know in the way we think of what the words "I know" means.

The claim of "cultural pressure" is your own personal philosophical or psychological gloss upon both Church doctrine and the experience of others within the Church, and in importing your own subjective perceptions of what the witness of the Spirit actually is, and what the terms "I know' actually mean to others outside of your own subjective thought world, you have at one and the same time contradicted your own argument here, as well as engaged in some of Kimberlyann's ESP into the minds and experiences of others (this seems to be a favorite exercise of Atheists and secularists as well, to claim "I don't know if there is a God and you don't know either...").

It is a cultural thing. I am not sure how it developed. I don't see such testimony giving in early LDS history. When did the practice of saying "I know....." come into play?

I have had what I believe Is as strong and solid a TBM testimony as the next person.

Again the evasive, indecisive, indeterminate language. Have you had the revelations of Jesus Christ that have witnessed to your soul the truth of this Church and its Gospel, or have you not? If you don't know, that, of course, is a valid answer as well. What does "I have had what I believe is" mean?

I can refer specific events that up until maybe three years ago I believed were the witness of the spirit telling me the LDS Church is the only true Church, Joseph Smith is a prophet, Jesus the Christ and so on. However, in my mind and in my heart parts of that testimony have come under question because it was based on incomplete knowledge and undisclosed facts. So I had what I then believed was an "I know" testimony and I have given that testimony thousands of times. It is a great sorrow that some of that testimony is not what it used to be.

As I have dug deeper into the heritage and history of what I claimed to know I have had to modify what I can say I do and do not know.

I engaged in such archeology as well, and I've found my claims to knowledge stronger know than when the digs began.

I think faith is more reasonable and more honest at least for me.

OK...

And as noted on your own OP, you can say you know all the day long and all I have is your word for it which is subjective and cannot be verified in any empirical way. I am slow to trust you or anyone else on this because I feel that those I trusted to give me knowledge about that which I claimed to know were not disclosing the total facts so I could really determine what is was I was testifying about what I knew.

But nothing in this Church teaches us to take anyone's word for anything. We each have the Holy Ghost to verify and confirm that which we are taught. I'm not at all, in any case, persuaded by more appeals to alleged facts, such as regarding polygamy etc., that upon closer inspection turn out to be hypothesis, theories at various levels of plausibility, wishful thinking, and innuendo. I do believe I was immersing myself in anti-Mormon church "history" when you were still a child, and it does not seem to have affected me as it has you. This of course obtains, because I am an witless, uneducated idiot, devoid of rational, critical thinking abilities.

You are only one year older than me so I highly doubt you immersed yourseld in anti Mormon literature when I was a child. I too have wrangled with anti literature for years and years and was a defended to a certain extent. For me a few issues came up that I could not get around any longer. When that happened other issues that I had shelved fell off the shelf.

Well if you know the fruits of it don't show much here in how you interact with those you attempt to persuade.

I have never said a cross or improper word to anyone here who has engaged me in a civil, sincere manner, and who has been up front and honest regarding their motives and perceptions. Never. The people whom I, rightly or wrongly (and I know it is wrong) disdain, impugn, and poke fun at, are those who I perceive are trying to pull the wool over my eyes, defame and slander the Church while pretending to noble motives, and those who attack my intelligence, education, and motives for no other reason than I am defending the Church. Charity, bc, rc, and Wade receive the same treatment here on a continual basis, so I'm not whining.

I honestly think you should review your posts and the way you post if you think you are always civil until someone is not civil with you. Even were I TBM much of your posting here would make me shudder.

I

Nor can I disprove it nor do I care to try. But to use that position as a point of triumph really seems rather stupid. The Pope who is now visiting the USA and the thousands that adore him as their religious conduit to God believe he is the man that speaks for God as much as you do the Thomas Monson is the man. Why is their spiritual witness deficient to yours? The sheer arrogance and hubris of claiming that it is in my opinion is a poor reflection on what happens when one think that they know when what they have is very strong faith.

This is just a soft Korihorism Jason. All claims to knowledge that cannot be seen, observed, and verified empirically must be understood as relative, arbitrary, indeterminate, and contingent. We cannot know of any such being as Christ, or his Gospel, with any certainty. Claims to certainty regarding eternal truths or universal metaphysical principles imply hubris, bigotry, and arrogance. The Church exists to bind men down and repress them. It is the servants of God who are the wicked, not the wicked to whom they are sent with a warning voice and with the good news.

Please explain to me why my question about the Catholic testimony is "korihorism" and then answer why yours Trump's theirs.

[_amantha]

The Mormon faith (as the Catholic faith -- see link below) rely on the premise of infallibility to instantiate their truth claims. In this they automatically falsify their faith, as anything other than pure faith, by claiming that once they have come to "know" truth by supernatural communion with their infallible deity, that they themselves are then infallible with regard to their gnosis. If this were true, why would testimonies need to be reinforced by persistent affirmation? If the gnosis were infallible, such reinforcement would be unnecessary. The necessity of monthly testimony meetings (in the LDS religion) is the physical evidence which falsifies the Mormon Church. The need to shore up a testimony with repetition is indicative of the fallibility of the human being in knowing anything, much less a supernatural claim. If, as it will surely be argued, an infallible entity (God) is able to bypass human fallibility, then no such shoring up is required. Only fallible beings who are not in possession of infallible knowledge must persist in convincing themselves that they "know" something. So the question is resolved and the church is falsified as a rational pursuit other than the rational and reasonable pursuit of comfort.

The Catholics take a whack at this problem in the quote below. Did they succeed? I don't think so. They only convinced me that, ultimately, "assent" is granted to faith before reason. So be it, but don't call your faith reasonable, except for the purposes of comfort, community and moral accountability--all things, by the way, which can be had outside of a faith-based community.

The only way you can claim to "know" the church is true is to claim personal infallibility. You can be certain by reason of your faith, but just call it that. You may not claim personal infallibility by virtue of your reason and continue to call yourself human. You must deify yourself and transcend the realm of us mere mortals, also an unreasonable position. Your god cannot do that for you without removing YOUR PERSONAL fallibility, which would necessarily excise your agency--something which God is not supposed to do? Can't do? So your fallibility, which cannot, by the eternal laws of your faith be removed, is the reasonable proof that your church is false.

There you go Coggins. I have provided you with a reasonable falsification of your church.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II

Again, it is said that even those who accept the supernatural viewpoint must ultimately fall back on fallible human reasoning in attempting to prove infallibility; that behind any conclusion that is proposed on so-called infallible authority there always lurks a premise which cannot claim for itself more than a merely human and fallible certainty; and that, since the strength of a conclusion is no greater than that of its weaker premise, the principle of infallibility is a useless as well as an illogical importation into Christian theology. In reply it is to be observed that this argument, if valid, would prove very much more than it is here introduced to prove; that it would indeed undermine the very foundations of Christian faith. For example, on purely rational grounds I have only moral certainty that God Himself is infallible or that Christ was the infallible mediator of a Divine Revelation; yet if I am to give a rational defense of my faith, even in mysteries which I do not comprehend, I must do so by appealing to the infallibility of God and of Christ. But according to the logic of the objection this appeal would be futile and the assent of faith considered as a rational act would be no firmer or more secure than natural human knowledge.

The truth is that the inferential process here and in the case of ecclesiastical infallibility transcends the rule of formal logic that is alleged. Assent is given not to the logical force of the syllogism, but directly to the authority which the inference serves to introduce; and this holds good in a measure even when there is question of mere fallible authority. Once we come to believe in and rely upon authority we can afford to overlook the means by which we were brought to accept it, just as a man who has reached a solid standing place where he wishes to remain no longer relies on the frail ladder by which he mounted. It cannot be said that there is anyessential difference in this respect between Divine and ecclesiastical infallibility. The latter of course is only a means by which we are put under subjection to the former in regard to a body of truth once revealed and to be believed by all men to the end of time, and no one can fairly deny that it is useful, not to say necessary, for that purpose. Its alternative is private judgment, and history has shown to what results this alternative inevitably leads.

[Guest]

l.

[_Gadianton]

Hmmmm. Gad took me to the woodshed years ago on ZLMB for claiming that one cannot prove a negative with respect to the fundamental assertions of Atheism (atheists assert that God does not exist) saying that this is a fallacious attack on atheist thought.

Now Tal and Seth both claim here that one cannot.

The plot thickens...

I don't claim that it's conclusively proven that there is no God. Dawkins doesn't either. What I do claim is, however, that there is nothing which requires a God to be explainable, and no evidence that there actually is a God. There's no evidence of reliable and credible communication between a God who might exist and mankind since we first became human , and therefor no evidence that if there actually is a God, he wants us to know about him. It simply doesn't look like there really is a God. God appears, in the end, to be a figment of mankind's imagination.

Well, it's not just a fallacious attack on atheist thought by Christians, it's a fallacious expression of those who make a big deal about being agnostic rather than atheists. It's usually a more common mistake made by those on my side of the fence. But leave it to Coggins to hold claim on all illogical beliefs everywhere.

[Gadianton]

Hi Beastie,

We seem to be discussing two issues simultaneously, and to avoid confusion it may be wise to separate them.

First, there is the issue of what allegedly makes some unfalsifiable assertions "not good". And second, there is the issue of whether the Book of Mormon is falsifiable or not.

In this post I will pursue the first issue.

As I understand things, you have provided two explanations for why you believe some unfalsifiable assertions (Book of Mormon apologeics in particular) are "not good". Your innitial explanation went essentially and syllogistically like this:

-Some unfalsifiable assertions (like Book of Mormon apologetics) are "not good".
-The reason the Book of Mormon apologetic is "not good" is because it has allegedly been falsified.
-In other words, it is "not good" when an unfalsifiable assertion is allegedly falsified.

This explanation entailed a logical impossibility, and thus doesn't make sense.

You then provided essentially this explanation:

-Some unfalsifiable assertions (like "white crow" Book of Mormon apologetics) are "not good".
-The reason the reason the "white crow" Book of Mormon apologetics is "not good" is because Ben, who is schooled, allegedly believes it is "not good".
-In other words, an unfalsifiable assertion is "not good" when a schooled person allegedly believes it is "not good".

This explains who may believe it is "not good", but it doesn't explain why it is "not good", and thus doesn't answer my question.

The reason I keep asking the same question is because your answers thus far have been either nonsensical or irrelevant.

So, let me ask again: Could you please explain why you believe some unfalsifiable assertions are "not good", while others are otherwise?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I understand that while Ben may consider "white crow"-like counter arguments limiting to falsifiability, he may believe the Book of Mormon to be falsifiable using certain pro arguments (like those presented by Brant).

You do not understand falsifiability. You cannot falsify something using "pro arguments". Sheesh.

You don't understand what I meant. According to Ben, you can falsify a "pro argument" that someone like Brant is using.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Hi Beastie,

Now to the second question: Is the Book of Mormon falsifiable or not?

In other words, what we are attempting to determine is whether the Book of Mormon is a matter of science or pseudo-science. If it is falsifiable, then it is a matter of science, but if it is not falsifiable (or is unfalsifiable), it is a matter of psuedo-science. Nothing more or less.

In order to determine if the Book of Mormon is falsifiable or not, there first needs to be defined what type of falsifiability one has in mind: be it deductive/niave falsification or falsificationism (sophisticated methodological falsification--"The object of this is to arrive at an evolutionary process whereby theories become less bad"), be it falsification in theory or falsification in pactice (testibility); be it falsification at the statement level and/or at the theory level. (see: Falsifiability)

So, Beastie, could you please clarify what type of falsifiability you have in mind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_cinepro]

Hi Beastie,

So, Beastie, could you please clarify what type of falsifiability you have in mind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, Wade, but it really isn't that complicated.

Wikipedia describes it well:

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

For example, "All people are mortal" is an unfalsifiable assertion, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All people are immortal," by contrast, is a falsifiable claim, by the presentation of just one dead man. However, unfalsifiable statements can almost always be put into a falsifiable framework. Thus, the set of unfalsifiable assertions is a union with the set of falsifiable assertions.

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. This is not the same as an assertion which has no falsification, either in theory or practice, such as, "People have souls."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

As I posted previously, there are several claims made by LDS teachings that are scientifically falsifiable. One of the traditional jobs of apologists is to move things from being "falsifiable" to "unfalsifiable" as science advances.

If a claim can't be made "unfalsifiable", then apologists must work to get that claim reconsidered as periphery and unofficial (i.e. "It was only his opinion.")

[_wenglund]

Hi Beastie,

So, Beastie, could you please clarify what type of falsifiability you have in mind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, Wade, but it really isn't that complicated.

Wikipedia describes it well:

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

For example, "All people are mortal" is an unfalsifiable assertion, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All people are immortal," by contrast, is a falsifiable claim, by the presentation of just one dead man. However, unfalsifiable statements can almost always be put into a falsifiable framework. Thus, the set of unfalsifiable assertions is a union with the set of falsifiable assertions.

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. This is not the same as an assertion which has no falsification, either in theory or practice, such as, "People have souls."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

Hi Cinepro,

I appreciate you quoting from the page I linked to as well. However, if you would be so kind as to continue reading further down that page, you will find mention of each of the different meanings of "falsifiable" that I noted above, and perhap you may also get a sense for why it was wise that I asked what I did. I'm not complicating things, I am merely seeking for important clarification.

As I posted previously, there are several claims made by LDS teachings that are scientifically falsifiable. One of the traditional jobs of apologists is to move things from being "falsifiable" to "unfalsifiable" as science advances.

I understand that you, as a critic of the Church, may have a need to stereotype LDS apologists in that way.

The problem is, it falsely projects a heightened concern for the notion of "falsifiable" onto a group that, for the most part, could care less about it except when engaging critics who are overly enamored with it and have little clue as to its insignificance in matters of faith.

If a claim can't be made "unfalsifiable", then apologists must work to get that claim reconsidered as periphery and unofficial (I.e. "It was only his opinion.")

I appreciate you sharing that self-serving opinion. By the way, is that opinion scientifically falsifiable? If so, how? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

This explains who may believe it is "not good", but it doesn't explain why it is "not good", and thus doesn't answer my question.

Once more for old times' sake.

It is "not good" because it indicates the theory has already been falsified.