The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_beastie]

And this is only natural since the Mormon Church can not be proven false, but it can not also be proven true. Such is faith and doubt mixed together creating a rocky marriage.

This is a great demonstration of Thama’s point. As long as it’s plausible that the massive civilization described in the Book of Mormon disappeared without a recognizable trace, no matter how improbable it is, it hasn’t been “proven false”. As long as it’s plausible that God taught Joseph Smith how to use a seer stone via peep stone treasure hunting, no matter how improbable it is, it hasn’t been “proven false”. As long as it’s plausible that Joseph Smith wasn’t really having sex with his wives, including the young and already-married, no matter how improbable it is, then Joseph Smith hasn’t been shown to be manipulative and willing to abuse power to serve his sexual desires.

I mean, no one has sprouted wings in these scenarios, have they?

The harsh fact is that outsiders – without any dog in the fight – observing these interactions would likely conclude that Mormonism has been proven false. But for believers, as long as it hasn’t been “proven false”, then they “win”. And since it can never be “proven false” by their standards… voila.

Thama really has nailed it – this difference in standards explains the continual frustration, exasperation, and stunned amazement that repeatedly occur between the two sides. It’s like two teams playing volleyball, with each side having entirely different rules for establishing the “winner”. Then, when each side perceives they’ve won by their own rules, they notice in the midst of their celebratory high-fives that the other team apparently believes they’ve won. Each side looks at the other and says “are you delusional??? What in the world is wrong with you???”

I also have my doubts that defenders of the faith use this particular set of rules for anything else in their lives, with rare exceptions. It’s a standard that humans employ when they are extremely emotionally invested in one particular outcome. It’s like the cheated-upon wife who, upon finding lipstick and perfume on her husband’s shirt and a hotel room receipt, will accept his answer that he and a colleague had to rent a room in order to develop a new product, and her lipstick and perfume got on his shirt because she’s clumsy and bumped into him. Ok, it’s not an entirely impossible scenario, just extraordinarily unlikely – but good enough for a wife who is not emotionally able to confront the reality that her husband is cheating on her, and is not ready to face the decisions that will demand. Using this standard makes one vulnerable to manipulation and deception. Hey, invest in this cure for cancer! Sure, sure, the researchers in the field deny it cures cancer, but that’s just because they’re too invested in reinforcing their past beliefs. See? This is plausible, isn’t it? No one has sprouted wings. So hand over ten thousand bucks!!!

[_EAllusion]

whyme -

Nothing can be proven false in the sense you are talking about. Nothing. One can even use some semantic shifting to insulate seemingly logically contradictory statements from falsification. But even if that weren't the case, there is not a single empirical assertion that is coherent that can be strictly falsified in the sense you require. This doesn't reduce all views into equally reasonable ones mind you.

[_beastie]

Nothing can be proven false in the sense you are talking about. Nothing. One can even use some semantic shifting to insulate seemingly logically contradictory statements from falsification. But even if that weren't the case, there is not a single empirical assertion that is coherent that can be strictly falsified in the sense you require. This doesn't reduce all views into equally reasonable ones mind you.

Exactly. It's the "equally reasonable" clause that seems elusive in these conversations. But these same believers could easily recognize the "equally reasonable" clause in evaluating, say, the claims of Scientology.

If it can't be "proven false", using whyme's standard, that Xenu dumped frozen aliens in volcanoes on earth, is it still a reasonable belief?

[_why me]

whyme -

Nothing can be proven false in the sense you are talking about. Nothing. One can even use some semantic shifting to insulate seemingly logically contradictory statements from falsification. But even if that weren't the case, there is not a single empirical assertion that is coherent that can be strictly falsified in the sense you require. This doesn't reduce all views into equally reasonable ones mind you.

I think that it can. For example, the notion that the earth is flat was proven false. The Book of Mormon can be proven false if it is false. For example, a manuscript is found in Sidney's handwriting complete with rough drafts. Or a letter from Joseph claiming that he wrote the Book of Mormon. These items would prove the book false.

As strange as it is, the book has not been proven false and this is why we have critics and apologists. At the beginning of the founding of the LDS church, there was ample opportunity to prove the faith false. All the witnesses were alive, Joseph and Sidney were alive as were all of their wives. No one gave a hint that the LDS church and the Book of Mormon were false. And there were critics who tried as they are today critics who are trying to do so.

Critics at the time of Joseph who were claiming that sidney wrote the book or that he got the idea from spaulding or from Ethan Smith, all were around at that time. And yet, the LDS church was not proven false. That in itself was quite amazing. And I am sure that the members heard the rumors too. And I am sure that Joseph Smith and the others were asked the necessary questions about the rumors.

One more thing. In Liberty Jail, when Joseph Smith and Sidney were together with some other leaders I am sure that if the faith were a fraud, both of these guys would be whispering in the corner about all the crap that they have experienced for the faith that they founded and how dumb it all was to spend months in the filthy prison eating slop and craping in a bucket. But...to my knowledge it did not happen. Human nature would dictate so as it would on many other occasions.

[_Thama]

The harsh fact is that outsiders – without any dog in the fight – observing these interactions would likely conclude that Mormonism has been proven false. But for believers, as long as it hasn’t been “proven false”, then they “win”. And since it can never be “proven false” by their standards… voila.

I wouldn't push believers that far, there are limitations at which the evidence becomes not only overwhelming but readily obvious, and the vast majority of reasonable believers will bail (see the Jehovah's Witnesses in the late 1970s). While Mormonism may appear to have crossed that threshold on a number of issues, they are mostly peripheral ones to the modern member.

The believer also has a body of evidence which the general public and the skeptic are unwilling to admit: spiritual experiences. This is not an adjunct for most believers, rather it is the primary source material. As long as non-contradiction can be maintained (no matter how slender the margin) between this spiritual experience and more concrete bodies of evidence, the believer is satisfied and has functionally achieved victory.

[_EAllusion]

I think that it can. For example, the notion that the earth is flat was proven false

No it wasn't. No more than the Book of Mormon being proven false anyway. Any theory can be protected from falsification simply by attaching to it auxiliary ad hoc hypotheses. My favorite catchall one is that that aliens are using mysterious technology to give the appearance of X rather than X being the case. We might say that the earth being flat has been falsified because we consider the proposition the earth is flat extremely unreasonable in light of available information, but in a very technical sense it has not been. The problem of induction alone makes it such that it is always possible there is some unknown information that vindicates a theory waiting to be discovered.

Or a letter from Joseph claiming that he wrote the Book of Mormon. These items would prove the book false.

No it wouldn't. While that is a ridiculously unlikely scenario even if Smith did write the Book of Mormon, if such a letter were to turn up one can simply challenge whether Smith penned that letter, and if he did that his intent was straightforwardly what the letter states rather than, say, sarcasm. In fact, I guarantee the apologists would challenge either point A or B if such a thing were to happen. Falsification avoided through ad hoc reasoning.

[Guest]

This is a great demonstration of Thama’s point. As long as it’s plausible that the massive civilization described in the Book of Mormon disappeared without a recognizable trace, no matter how improbable it is, it hasn’t been “proven false”. As long as it’s plausible that God taught Joseph Smith how to use a seer stone via peep stone treasure hunting, no matter how improbable it is, it hasn’t been “proven false”. As long as it’s plausible that Joseph Smith wasn’t really having sex with his wives, including the young and already-married, no matter how improbable it is, then Joseph Smith hasn’t been shown to be manipulative and willing to abuse power to serve his sexual desires.

I also have my doubts that defenders of the faith use this particular set of rules for anything else in their lives, with rare exceptions.

I can't say that a massive civilization disappeared without a trace since massive civilizations existed when Cortez landed on their shores. I think that the Mel Gibson movie is a prime example of what perhaps was going on during that time of discovery. The movie was Apocalypto and it did give the feeling that I was watching Lamanites in action. They were completely warlike and brutal with human sacrifice and ritualistic. Now Mel is not Mormon but he did capture aspects of the Book of Mormon in the movie. Aspects that might not have been known when the Book of Mormon came forth.

To my mind beastie we have no evidence of Christ and his miracles except what is written in the Bible. Now it would be nice to discover a different witness, such from person who was alive at that time who perhaps wrote something down on a scroll. But that hasn't happened either.

At this moment, god has not confirmed his existence through tangible evidence. It would be nice if he did. But so far....he hasn't. It is all up to faith.

[_Some Schmo]

As strange as it is, the book has not been proven false and this is why we have critics and apologists.

LOL... um, no.

The reason we have apologists is that they are emotionally/financially/socially invested in their fantasy religion, and they have to make it plausible for themselves or they'd jump off a cliff.

The reason we have critics is to ensure we can avoid as many new converts as possible (I mean, that's the humane thing to do), because some people enjoy criticizing the church, and because some people like an easy fight.

I'm way beyond debating whether the church is true or not. It's so painfully obvious it's a scam, there's no point to me. I might as well argue for the non-existence of Santa Claus, but I don't see the point. If you believe in Santa Claus (i. e. the church), your issues are bigger than your willingness to believe in the unbelievable. My only interest here is the interaction between believers and non-believers (well, and I enjoy what certain people have to say about their various fields of science). It could be any religion. I just happen to be most familiar with this one.

[_beastie]

One more thing. In Liberty Jail, when Joseph Smith and Sidney were together with some other leaders I am sure that if the faith were a fraud, both of these guys would be whispering in the corner about all the crap that they have experienced for the faith that they founded and how dumb it all was to spend months in the filthy prison eating slop and craping in a bucket. But...to my knowledge it did not happen. Human nature would dictate so as it would on many other occasions.

Dan Vogel's theory of pious fraud explains this phenomenon.

The use of "props" to encourage belief doesn't necessarily indicate that the user of the props doesn't believe in what he/she is proclaiming. But strength of belief does not correlate to legitimacy of said belief.

There are plenty of people in this world who believe in certain things enough to die for them - and they are beliefs you would view as obviously false.

I can't say that a massive civilization disappeared without a trace since massive civilizations existed when Cortez landed on their shores.

I said without a RECOGNIZABLE trace. There is nothing that would link the inhabitants that Cortez met with the Book of Mormon.

This is why apologists insist that we not look for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerrica, but instead look for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. If, as you seem to believe, there are RECOGNIZABLE traces of the civilization, apologists would happily look for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica instead.

[_why me]

Dan Vogel's theory of pious fraud explains this phenomenon.

The use of "props" to encourage belief doesn't necessarily indicate that the user of the props doesn't believe in what he/she is proclaiming. But strength of belief does not correlate to legitimacy of said belief.

There are plenty of people in this world who believe in certain things enough to die for them - and they are beliefs you would view as obviously false.

Now beastie do you actually believe this when it comes to Liberty Jail and other episodes in Mormon history? I cannot believe that you believe such rationalizations.

The men in Liberty Jail faced death by firing squad for treason. They were eating slop and craping in a bucket and sleeping on hay for months in the dark damp basement of the jail. And yet, the main guys, sidney and Joe did not peep a word about the fraud they commited. They just sat there in agony, silent with the others. Human nature would dictated otherwise. In fact Joseph after many months began what would become three sections of the D&C, I believe. But not to peep a word about the fraud in the face of death or torture is quite incredible. In their minds the gig was over unless of course, Joseph Smith had faith that god would not forsake him at that moment. His letters to emma would say so. Why? because he was a pious fraud. Come on, beastie, you can do better than that.