Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_stemelbow]

I don't know, it seems to be that excluding and exempting religion from these rational processes that work so well at helping us make so many discoveries betrays a deep lack of confidence. It's almost like admitting that you know all this religious stuff is imaginary, so please don't scrutinize it too closely.

yeah, except I wouldn't say "excluding and exempting religion" completely. Indeed many elements in religion are worth discussing with that assumption. I'm just saying ultimately religion itself presumes to be something outside the realm of these disciplines. there's no reason to limit religion to the assumptions we have to limit the others. At least not in my mind.

[_DarkHelmet]

Creative State (Death and Evolution) ---> The Garden State (no death) ---> The Fall (death and evolution afterwards).

I've never heard this before. I'm intrigued. So does evolution play out pretty much how evolutionary theory prescribes? Are Adam and Eve two of the descendants of what has evolved into homo-sapiens? What happens to the rest of the world while they are isolated in the garden?

It is an interesting theory. BC Space should write a book. This could be a John Sorensen moment for him. It could be the Limited Garden of Eden Timeline theory. While the rest of us simply see pre-Garden and Post-Garden, he has found a way to shoehorn the events of the Garden of Eden to kinda fit the scientific record of Earth's history. But why do modern homo-sapiens trace their lineage to people who existed before the Garden of Eden was placed on the Earth?

[_Morley]

In the real world, absence of evidence really is evidence of absence - especially when we're talking about ad hoc hypotheses.

Doesn't really match how science treats it. For centuries the city of Troy was thought to be mythical...until they found it. By your logic, Calvert and Schliemann would not have started digging for it because of the absence of evidence.

You love this analogy, but it just doesn't work. And absence of investigation is not the same thing as an absence of evidence. Not checking my pocket for car keys is not the same as checking my pocket and finding that the car keys are not there (or in the case of Schliemann, checking and finding that they are).

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

1. It is irrelevant to the OP whether or not you enjoy the idea that the Book of Mormon happened in Central America somewhere, and for undisclosed reasons Moroni took plates of some material appearing to be gold from Central America to the future home of Joseph Smith.

Well good, I’m glad I didn’t say anything about what I enjoy regarding it all then. But your example was a failure of course, so I pointed that out.

Clearly, an ad hoc hypothesis made up out of thin air with no supporting evidence (that Moroni somehow or other transported the golden plates from Central America to New York) to explain an enormous plot hole in a larger apologetic paradigm for which there is no supporting evidence (that there was a Nephite civilization in various different Central American locales, depending on which apologist is talking)--none of the above being taught by the LDS Church--conclusively prove that I "fail."

The supposition that this journey from Central America to New York is not taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is an ad hoc invention by some apologists attempting to explain a claim that is taught by the LDS Church (that the golden plates were buried by Joseph Smith's house in New York) fitting into the apologist theory---which is not taught by the LDS Church---that the Book of Mormon narrative took place in Central America.

Why are you explaining irrelevancies to me? I fear you have misunderstood and are blaming me. Oh well.

Naturally, your inability to articulate a coherent, consistent statement must be the fault of everyone else.

2. It is irrelevant to the OP whether you personally "reject the premise." A great many internet Mormons and apologists summarily reject any criticism of the Church that they claim not to be official doctrine. However, these same people freely use speculation and "theories" in attempt to explain things that are officially taught by the Church.

I think you are wrong about your claim about “a great many internet Mormons and apologists”. Indeed I doubt you can find any more than a small handful, if any, that fit that description. On top of that, my clarification that I reject the premise was in response to your question. I can’t answer it because the premise you set up is false.

Go look up "official doctrine" on the FAIR wiki. Or read through some publications by the Maxwell Institute where "anti-Mormon" criticisms are rejected on the basis of not being official doctrine.

Then come back and show me the organization comparable to FAIR or the Maxwell Institute that is representative of these vast hordes of internet Mormons and apologists out there who do not subscribe to the "official doctrine" defense.

The OP is asking why, for people who do take the position that criticism based on "not official doctrine" is a priori unnecessary to address, intellectual honesty does not also require such people to limit their responses to criticism of official doctrine to answers from official LDS doctrine. If something a Mormon leader said does not to be addressed because it is not official doctrine, then by the same token an explanation based on speculation and assumptions without proof by a person who has no authority of any kind to speak for the Church should also be summarily rejected on the same basis.

Your logic failed you, DJ. Its not the same token at all. Criticism is trying to prove a negative. Defense is trying to prove possibility. You are comparing apples and oranges to try and win a meaningless point.

Since you assert that all criticism amounts to trying to prove a negative, let's test that with an example.

Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which purports to be a revelation from God to Joseph Smith, states that plural marriage is for the purpose of raising a righteous posterity. The revelation indicates to take additional wives, the putative wife must not be married to anyone else, must be a virgin, and that the consent of the first wife must be sought.

Joseph Smith did not raise up a posterity with his plural wives. He married women who were not virgins, and were already married to other men. He had several occasions where he did not seek Emma's consent before taking additional wives. He systematically violated all of the conditions for plural marriage allegedly revealed to him by God. Either it is a true revelation, and Joseph Smith violated the Lord's commandments and lost his priesthood authority (D&C 121), or it is not a true revelation, and Joseph Smith made it up and even then violated the terms that he had made up. If the scriptures are true, Joseph Smith ceased to be a true prophet. If the scriptures are false, by definition Joseph Smith was not a true prophet. It does not matter which alternative is believed; both indicate that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.

What is the "negative" sought to be proven by this criticism?

3. The LDS Church makes numerous claims of fact that are either contrary to scientific evidence, or which have no empirical evidence to support them. A claim to have had a subjective, personal spiritual experience is not on the same footing as a claim that a vast, thousand-year civilization of Christian Hebrews lived somewhere in the Western Hemisphere prior to Columbus. The latter claim can be tested empirically. A claim of fact is a claim of fact, regardless of who makes it. Simply because the LDS Church makes numerous claims of fact related to its religious precepts does not change the reality that things like the existence of a Nephite civilization in the objective, physical world are claims of fact, not claims of a spiritual nature.

Interesting little unrelated piece, DJ. Yes, the Church has an obligation to prove its truth claims. I don’t doubt that. If it can’t, then that is the Church’s problem, not yours. But that you wish to prove the church untrue is the claim you are beholden to. If you can’t prove your claims then you are up the same creek you complain about here.

Small numbers of Vikings came to North America before Columbus. They did not make permanent settlement and stayed for only a short time, yet archaeological evidence has established that there was a tiny Viking presence in the New World before the rest of Europe discovered America.

The Book of Mormon claims that a vast Nephite civilization existed in the Western Hemisphere for a thousand years. The Nephites built cities that lasted for hundreds of years, had the technology for metallurgy and complex warfare, etc. There is no archaeological evidence at all showing this vast, millenial Nephite civilization, while there IS evidence of tiny, temporary encampments by small numbers of Vikings.

In the real world, fantastical claims of fact for which there is no supporting evidence can, logically and reasonably, be said to be untrue. If the Nephite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon ever really existed, something would be somewhere. The fact that even people who believe in the Book of Mormon cannot agree on where it happened (Mexico, other Central American locales, upstate New York, the "heartland," etc.) confirms that what is claimed to be "evidence" for the Book of Mormon is nothing more than hitting a bull's eye by shooting an arrow and then painting a target around where the arrow landed.

4. Burden of proof requires a person making a claim to provide a reason to believe that claim. Making a naked assertion, with no evidence of any kind to support it, and then insisting that the unsupported claim is true (or at least highly plausible) until proven otherwise is not how coherent, logical thinking works among people with more intelligence than a brain-damaged parakeet.

Then don’t make the claims you make. Possibilities persist in the world when it comes to claims. Just because a claim is unproven does not mean the claim is untrue, per se.

Do you believe that "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" is a true story? Why or why not?

The failure of meeting one's burden of proof is a wholly sufficient reason to reject a claim.

No kidding. I agree with you. I tell people who reject the claims of the Church that I can understand where they are coming from all the time.

It is because of your grade school level understanding of what "evidence" means and how burden of proof works that you continue to assert that criticism of the truth claims of the LDS Church (let alone criticisms about the Church's value judgments and demonstrated priorities) is nothing but trying to prove a negative.

I am not required to "disprove" the idea, invented out of thin air, that Moroni somehow or other carried plates of gold or gold-appearing material from somewhere in Central America to New York. The lack of any evidence whatsoever for this contrived fantasy is the logical, reasonable basis for rejecting the assertion.

But in the realm of discussion…let’s consider a minute. If one take sthe position that its all made up and fantasy, then that claim must be maintained. Certainly you can reject the claims of the Church not believing them to be true all you want. That’s reasonable actually. But to claim you know its all made up, well that’s a claim that has to be supported. How do you know? Because you don’t accept any claimed evidence in favor of the claims? That’s not knowing anything. That’s assuming. That’s putting your faith in the methods you might call the burden of proof—that if a claim is un-verifiable in DJ’s subjective eyes, then that claim is proven untrue. No its not. Its merely claimed by DJ to be untrue, without DJ supplying any evidence to prove his claim.

I hereby claim that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had a homosexual relationship. Until you can exhaust all possibilities and prove a negative (that Joseph and Brigham were not gay lovers), you cannot say that this is untrue.

[Guest]

Creative State (Death and Evolution) ---> The Garden State (no death) ---> The Fall (death and evolution afterwards).

So, one can accept all science on the matter of death and evolution and still truthfully say there was no death before the Fall and more importantly, not be in conflict with LDS doctrine or generally accepted science on evolution and carbon dating etc.

So even though there was death before the Fall, there was no death before the fall.

hmmmm... yeah. Got it.

Can you please provide the doctrinal source which allows for death during the creation period?

Or was this just some sort of intellectual contortion into which you've twisted yourself to allow the luxury of knowing that which is non-refutable (evolution) and simultaneously believing something which clearly denies the possibility evolution?

D&C 77:6–7 . Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)
Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual Section 77 - Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation

Looks to me like Whitney was speaking as a man. Please show me the doctrinal sources from which Whitney garnered this bit of information.

[_Buffalo]

This is pretty genius. They really have no defense against that.

I actually negated it quite thoroughly but you just choose to ignore what you can't gainsay.

Your overestimation of your ability to form a coherent argument let alone negate someone else's is tragically comedic.

[_Buffalo]

I suppose if you reject the Book of Mormon you could also reject a literal Babel.

Except I don't reject the Book of Mormon account of the Flood.

What does that have to do with the Tower of Babel?

The doctrine on D&C 77:6 places the physical creation of the earth outside temporal time.

There is a reason why bcspace never quotes the scriptures he cites - it's because they don't back up his ludicrous, non-doctrinal claims.

6
Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

I don't need to quote the verse because I've quoted the verse in conjunction with the doctrine on it enough times to know that you know of it. The reason you won't quote the doctrine is becuase you're hoping no one will notice:

The actual scripture isn't doctrine now? Interesting. It doesn't back up your claim, though, so I can understand why you want to throw it under the bus.

[_stemelbow]

Clearly, an ad hoc hypothesis made up out of thin air with no supporting evidence (that Moroni somehow or other transported the golden plates from Central America to New York) to explain an enormous plot hole in a larger apologetic paradigm for which there is no supporting evidence (that there was a Nephite civilization in various different Central American locales, depending on which apologist is talking)--none of the above being taught by the LDS Church--conclusively prove that I "fail."

I love your “conclusively” addition. No…its not that there are many hypotheses about Moroni and how things went for him, have nothing to do with your failure. That’s for sure. But perhaps your inability to realize how you fail is where the main problem here, originates. One of these days, DJ, I think it’ll all click for you. Here’s to hopin’, huh?

Naturally, your inability to articulate a coherent, consistent statement must be the fault of everyone else.

Hmmm..naturally? So now you’ve resorted to projecting again, DJ? Let’s just both settle down a little, huh?

Go look up "official doctrine" on the FAIR wiki. Or read through some publications by the Maxwell Institute where "anti-Mormon" criticisms are rejected on the basis of not being official doctrine.

Then come back and show me the organization comparable to FAIR or the Maxwell Institute that is representative of these vast hordes of internet Mormons and apologists out there who do not subscribe to the "official doctrine" defense.

Its clear to me you’ve practiced a bit of equivocation here, DJ. Before you were arguing that LDS folks don’t want to answer questions that don’t address “official doctrine”. Now you wish to revise that to LDS apologists often address critiques by suggesting that critique is arguing against something that is not official doctrine, meaning, that which is being critiqued may not really be the position of the church. Classic cases of strawmen do appear in these arguments, DJ. I’m surprised to see you seem to have missed that.

Since you assert that all criticism amounts to trying to prove a negative, let's test that with an example.

No I didn’t assert that. Indeed, I’ve been commenting on criticisms that are trying to prove negatives.

Small numbers of Vikings came to North America before Columbus. They did not make permanent settlement and stayed for only a short time, yet archaeological evidence has established that there was a tiny Viking presence in the New World before the rest of Europe discovered America.

The Book of Mormon claims that a vast Nephite civilization existed in the Western Hemisphere for a thousand years. The Nephites built cities that lasted for hundreds of years, had the technology for metallurgy and complex warfare, etc. There is no archaeological evidence at all showing this vast, millenial Nephite civilization, while there IS evidence of tiny, temporary encampments by small numbers of Vikings.

In the real world, fantastical claims of fact for which there is no supporting evidence can, logically and reasonably, be said to be untrue. If the Nephite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon ever really existed, something would be somewhere. The fact that even people who believe in the Book of Mormon cannot agree on where it happened (Mexico, other Central American locales, upstate New York, the "heartland," etc.) confirms that what is claimed to be "evidence" for the Book of Mormon is nothing more than hitting a bull's eye by shooting an arrow and then painting a target around where the arrow landed.

I get your faith in the proposition that if there was a civilization, or civilizations like those described in the Book of Mormon, we would have to find clear, readily detected evidence of their existence, afterall in other cases we’ve detected that there were groups of people in different areas. And, in the realm of the hard sciences, and perhaps even the soft sciences you’d have a point. But, that does not prove they did not exist. Why? Because we can’t be sure that our abilities to detect are not proven to be completely reliable. The possibility of the Nephites persist.

Do you believe that "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" is a true story? Why or why not?

Lets not get all orange and apples on each other, DJ. The story you mention is not that which originates a religion.

It is because of your grade school level understanding of what "evidence" means and how burden of proof works that you continue to assert that criticism of the truth claims of the LDS Church (let alone criticisms about the Church's value judgments and demonstrated priorities) is nothing but trying to prove a negative.

Thanks for the grade school level dialogue though. You sure make it all worth it.

I hereby claim that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had a homosexual relationship. Until you can exhaust all possibilities and prove a negative (that Joseph and Brigham were not gay lovers), you cannot say that this is untrue.

You really are missing the boat, DJ. In no way do I suggest any claim that remains a possibility is true because someone can’t disprove it. I maintain that in the realm of faith and religion, we’d expect that some claims are unprovable, because the very claim of faith implies that our secular world cannot detect evidence for the claims. Its just how it is. We’re just too limited.

[_DarkHelmet]

Doesn't really match how science treats it. For centuries the city of Troy was thought to be mythical...until they found it. By your logic, Calvert and Schliemann would not have started digging for it because of the absence of evidence.

But an apologist would make the logical jump from Troy exists to The Illiad is true.

[_Darth J]

Clearly, an ad hoc hypothesis made up out of thin air with no supporting evidence (that Moroni somehow or other transported the golden plates from Central America to New York) to explain an enormous plot hole in a larger apologetic paradigm for which there is no supporting evidence (that there was a Nephite civilization in various different Central American locales, depending on which apologist is talking)--none of the above being taught by the LDS Church--conclusively prove that I "fail."

I love your “conclusively” addition. No…its not that there are many hypotheses about Moroni and how things went for him, have nothing to do with your failure. That’s for sure. But perhaps your inability to realize how you fail is where the main problem here, originates. One of these days, DJ, I think it’ll all click for you. Here’s to hopin’, huh?

Stemelbow:

Find me something that the Church has officially said, or some objective, verifiable fact, that would support a belief that Moroni journeyed from somewhere in Central America to New York with the golden plates.

Ready....set....go!

Naturally, your inability to articulate a coherent, consistent statement must be the fault of everyone else.

Hmmm..naturally? So now you’ve resorted to projecting again, DJ? Let’s just both settle down a little, huh?

Stemelbow, based on your understanding of cognitive psychology, what exactly is "projection"?

Do you feel that "I know you are, but what am I?" is what "projection" means?

Go look up "official doctrine" on the FAIR wiki. Or read through some publications by the Maxwell Institute where "anti-Mormon" criticisms are rejected on the basis of not being official doctrine.

Then come back and show me the organization comparable to FAIR or the Maxwell Institute that is representative of these vast hordes of internet Mormons and apologists out there who do not subscribe to the "official doctrine" defense.

Its clear to me you’ve practiced a bit of equivocation here, DJ. Before you were arguing that LDS folks don’t want to answer questions that don’t address “official doctrine”. Now you wish to revise that to LDS apologists often address critiques by suggesting that critique is arguing against something that is not official doctrine, meaning, that which is being critiqued may not really be the position of the church. Classic cases of strawmen do appear in these arguments, DJ. I’m surprised to see you seem to have missed that.

I don't think you know what a straw man is. I don't think you know what a straw man is because you have never demonstrated an ability to use the term correctly, and have frequently misused it, as you are doing here.

It is not a straw man to point out a position that someone has actually taken. Many, many internet Mormons and apologists rely on this idea of official doctrine. Logical consistency requires that if things that are not official doctrine are not valid criticisms of the Church because such things are speculation or personal opinions, then speculation or personal opinion is not a valid defense of the Church, either.

Tell me why that is wrong.

Since you assert that all criticism amounts to trying to prove a negative, let's test that with an example.

No I didn’t assert that. Indeed, I’ve been commenting on criticisms that are trying to prove negatives.

Your exact words in this thread were, "Criticism is trying to prove a negative." The plain meaning of your words is that you assert that this is the definition of criticism.

Tell me what "negative" is sought to be proven in the example of how Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage.

Small numbers of Vikings came to North America before Columbus. They did not make permanent settlement and stayed for only a short time, yet archaeological evidence has established that there was a tiny Viking presence in the New World before the rest of Europe discovered America.

The Book of Mormon claims that a vast Nephite civilization existed in the Western Hemisphere for a thousand years. The Nephites built cities that lasted for hundreds of years, had the technology for metallurgy and complex warfare, etc. There is no archaeological evidence at all showing this vast, millenial Nephite civilization, while there IS evidence of tiny, temporary encampments by small numbers of Vikings.

In the real world, fantastical claims of fact for which there is no supporting evidence can, logically and reasonably, be said to be untrue. If the Nephite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon ever really existed, something would be somewhere. The fact that even people who believe in the Book of Mormon cannot agree on where it happened (Mexico, other Central American locales, upstate New York, the "heartland," etc.) confirms that what is claimed to be "evidence" for the Book of Mormon is nothing more than hitting a bull's eye by shooting an arrow and then painting a target around where the arrow landed.

I get your faith in the proposition that if there was a civilization, or civilizations like those described in the Book of Mormon, we would have to find clear, readily detected evidence of their existence, afterall in other cases we’ve detected that there were groups of people in different areas. And, in the realm of the hard sciences, and perhaps even the soft sciences you’d have a point. But, that does not prove they did not exist. Why? Because we can’t be sure that our abilities to detect are not proven to be completely reliable. The possibility of the Nephites persist.

1. The existence of a Nephite civilization is a claim of objective fact.
2. Science is concerned with determining claims of objective fact.
3. "In the realm of the hard sciences, and perhaps even the soft sciences," absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
4. But for some unstated reason, that doesn't apply to claims of fact connected to religious belief.

Either the Nephites existed in the real, physical, objective world, or they did not. The LDS Church says that they did. Things that exist in the real, physical, objective world can be tested and falsified.

Do you believe that "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" is a true story? Why or why not?

Lets not get all orange and apples on each other, DJ. The story you mention is not that which originates a religion.

In what way precisely would basing a religion on "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" be relevant as to whether it is a true story?

It is because of your grade school level understanding of what "evidence" means and how burden of proof works that you continue to assert that criticism of the truth claims of the LDS Church (let alone criticisms about the Church's value judgments and demonstrated priorities) is nothing but trying to prove a negative.

Thanks for the grade school level dialogue though. You sure make it all worth it.

Do you concede, then, that the Book of Mormon is on equal footing with Dianetics, since nobody has conclusively proven that Dianetics is not true?

I hereby claim that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had a homosexual relationship. Until you can exhaust all possibilities and prove a negative (that Joseph and Brigham were not gay lovers), you cannot say that this is untrue.

You really are missing the boat, DJ. In no way do I suggest any claim that remains a possibility is true because someone can’t disprove it. I maintain that in the realm of faith and religion, we’d expect that some claims are unprovable, because the very claim of faith implies that our secular world cannot detect evidence for the claims. Its just how it is. We’re just too limited.

Irrelevant. The existence of a vast civilization that lasted for a thousand years, with huge armies, agriculture, metallurgy, Christianity mingled with the Law of Moses, etc. is not a metaphysical, supernatural claim. It is a claim about the real, tangible, physical world.