Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_Chap]

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.

I should think it is more or less impossible to disprove many of the claims made by religious believers, if by that is meant stating objections in terms that silence the believer totally, since such believers typically reserve the right to erect any ad hoc structures they please in order to avoid difficulties - for example, that, given the wide consensus that there were no horses in the Americas during the relevant period, the word 'horse' in the Book of Mormon may have meant 'tapir'. Or that 'gold plates' may not have meant 'plates made of gold', and so on and so forth.

What one can do, however, is to point to the damage such tactics do to the credibility of the claims made. The committed believer in the religion in question will only in rare cases be worried by this, but it is the uncommitted third party reader who is the target audience that matters.

[_stemelbow]

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?

I didn't make an unsupported assertion, DJ.

here's your question (which I admit I chose not to address, but since you're complaining I do it just for you.):

"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"?"

I reject the premise. I don’t think questions about the church should be reflexively dismissed, per se. I simply don’t think objections to leaders words mean much since I too object to some words by various leaders. As it is, I’m quite fine in the realm of speculation in discussion. That’s afterall where we’ll be in many of these discussions.

[_stemelbow]

I should think it is more or less impossible to disprove many of the claims made by religious believers, if by that is meant stating objections in terms that silence the believer totally, since such believers typically reserve the right to erect any ad hoc structures they please in order to avoid difficulties - for example, that, given the wide consensus that there were no horses in the Americas during the relevant period, the word 'horse' in the Book of Mormon may have meant 'tapir'. Or that 'gold plates' may not have meant 'plates made of gold', and so on and so forth.

Agreed. The burden on those who claim to be able to disprove is quite a heavy one--perhaps impossibly so. But I'll give them room if they wish to attempt a disproof.

What one can do, however, is to point to the damage such tactics do to the credibility of the claims made. The committed believer in the religion in question will only in rare cases be worried by this, but it is the uncommitted third party reader who is the target audience that matters.

Indeed. We can work with evidences and let the chips fall where they may. i readily grant that most people will hear the position of hte Church, search the argument pro and con, and ultimately decide they want no part of the Church.

[_Darth J]

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.

The OP is not asking whether one is "free to speculate and hypothesize." The OP is asking whether "not official doctrine" should be the conversation-ender for such "speculation and hypotheses" attempting to be used to explain "official doctrine."

For example, your ideas about LDS teachings being compatible with evolutionary theory require numerous ad hoc inventions and suppositions that are not found in official LDS teachings. Therefore, official LDS teachings must stand on their own, without such "speculation and hypotheses," to answer the question of whether official LDS teachings are compatible with evolutionary theory.

Right?

"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.

Totally agree. For example, some people try to say that the United Order was de facto socialism or communism. In reality, socialism and communism are definable, coherent economic and ideological concepts, regardless of whether one agrees or not with said ideologies. The United Order, on the other hand, is meaningless patter and drivel that failed because it really isn't anything except the vacuous babbling of Joseph Smith. Therefore, you are completely right to say that LDS Democrats should not claim that official church teachings support socialism or the welfare state.

Similarly, the LDS Church does not officially accept or encourage homosexuality, except when it is expedient for it to do so:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/church- ... iage-votes

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

[_Darth J]

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?

I didn't make an unsupported assertion, DJ.

"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."

What was the factual basis you gave to believe any of these things, which would then shift the burden of proof to someone else who disputes that (a) there was a record of an ancient Christian Hebrew civilization somewhere in Central America made on some kind of metallic material that looked like gold; and (b) that a Central American Hebrew named Moroni, for some undisclosed reason, carried this record for hundreds of miles up to the locale where Joseph Smith would conveniently live 1400 years later?

here's your question (which I admit I chose not to address, but since you're complaining I do it just for you.):

"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"?"

I reject the premise. I don’t think questions about the church should be reflexively dismissed, per se. I simply don’t think objections to leaders words mean much since I too object to some words by various leaders. As it is, I’m quite fine in the realm of speculation in discussion. That’s afterall where we’ll be in many of these discussions.

I take this to mean that you agree that people who were born of black African lineage in this life were born as such because they were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, and that the former teaching has equal weight with the teaching that the priesthood was restored through Joseph Smith.

Because you reject the premise about "official doctrine."

Right?

[_stemelbow]

"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."

What was the factual basis you gave to believe any of these things, which would then shift the burden of proof to someone else who disputes that (a) there was a record of an ancient Christian Hebrew civilization somewhere in Central America made on some kind of metallic material that looked like gold; and (b) that a Central American Hebrew named Moroni, for some undisclosed reason, carried this record for hundreds of miles up to the locale where Joseph Smith would conveniently live 1400 years later?

I only believe the events to the Book of Mormon are true. I know I can’t prove them true. I didn’t say I have a factual basis to believe these things. But if you wish to say they most assuredly didn’t happen then the burden is on you to prove your claim. This of course is way off topic. You mentioned Simon’s idea that the plates might not have been gold, and he might have went so far as to say they weren’t, I don’ tknow. They possibly weren’t gold. So the critique that if they were gold they would be too heavy to carry that far falls a bit flat. The possibility exists.

I take this to mean that you agree that people who were born of black African lineage in this life were born as such because they were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, and that the former teaching has equal weight with the teaching that the priesthood was restored through Joseph Smith.

Because you reject the premise about "official doctrine."

Right?

Wrong. I reject the premise to your question—“If questions about the LDS Church can only be posed with respect to "official doctrine”

I certainly do not think questions about the Church can only be posed with respect to “official doctrine”.

[_Darth J]

Seriously, isn't there anyone here who would like to explain the OP to Stemelbow?

[_stemelbow]

Seriously, isn't there anyone here who would like to explain the OP to Stemelbow?

I'll do it. here goes:

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.

In DJ's desperate attempt to humiliate an LDS poster he has singled out a position by Simon Belmont--namely Simon's position that its possible the plates were either not gold or were an alloy of gold. It was insisted that the plates had to be the metal gold because they were referred to as "gold pates"/"golden plates". But since the "gold plates" reference was not some officially sanctioned phrase, Simon requested, for the sake of proving they were actually gold, for an official declaration. DJ thinks, as he sums up, that must mean that “people” can only ask questions about “official doctrine”.

How silly of DJ, but whatever.

Says DJ:

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.

Here DJ insists that since Simon has suggested its possible the plates could have been something other than actually the metal gold, and requests for official declarations of the Church before he’s willing to accept they were real pure gold, then that must mean it is unfair of Simon to offer defenses against those who criticize by appealing to materials by those who do not speak official declarations of the Church.

DJ continues:

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?

Somehow DJ actually thinks that trying to get the critic to prove his claim—that the plates must have really been gold—means if the LDS defender employs speculation then its only fair or right, I guess, that “we” (or critics) shouldn’t care about LDS explanations.

DJ:

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?

DJ asks if LDS defenders can reject criticisms based on technicalities then should critics reject answers to questions because the answers themselves are not from official doctrine of the Church? A silly question which, I’m confident missed the point of Simon’s own reply.

[_bcspace]

The OP is not asking whether one is "free to speculate and hypothesize."

It's begging the question.

The OP is asking whether "not official doctrine" should be the conversation-ender for such "speculation and hypotheses" attempting to be used to explain "official doctrine."

Only if official doctrine answers the question.

For example, your ideas about LDS teachings being compatible with evolutionary theory require numerous ad hoc inventions and suppositions that are not found in official LDS teachings.

They merely tie doctrine and science together without conflict and make the same type of doctrinal assumptions that have been made elsewhere.

Therefore, official LDS teachings must stand on their own, without such "speculation and hypotheses," to answer the question of whether official LDS teachings are compatible with evolutionary theory.

Right?

They always stand on their own. They just don't answer every question.

Totally agree. For example, some people try to say that the United Order was de facto socialism or communism. In reality, socialism and communism are definable, coherent economic and ideological concepts, regardless of whether one agrees or not with said ideologies. The United Order, on the other hand, is meaningless patter and drivel that failed because it really isn't anything except the vacuous babbling of Joseph Smith.

The U.O. is not an economic system but free market capitalism is certainly required for it to work by doctrinal implication. It's not difficult to see how it would work in the modern world without much change.

Therefore, you are completely right to say that LDS Democrats should not claim that official church teachings support socialism or the welfare state.

Yep

Similarly, the LDS Church does not officially accept or encourage homosexuality, except when it is expedient for it to do so:

Has doctrine defined homosexuality as inborn?

http://newsroom.LDS.org/article/church- ... iage-votes

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

I don't see any acceptance or encouragement of homosexuality here.

[_DarkHelmet]

I think the plates were really light, like aluminum, and just painted gold.