Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_stemelbow]

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!

Your conclusively qualifier seals it for me. Now why would I go and do something as silly as you require here? I didn’t claim what you think I claimed, it seems.

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?

Are you telling me you don’t know what projection is? Well look it up, young man. I think that will help you far more than me telling you what it is. But to help you along the way, you said, “Naturally, your inability to articulate a coherent, consistent statement must be the fault of everyone else.” Your silly accusation here seems to fit you quite well. You seem to think your inability to articulate, coherently, your own position is somehow my fault.

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.

I’ve told you why that is wrong. The stawman you initially offered here is suggesting that “LDS don’t want to address questions which don’t contain official doctrine”. That’s not true, DJ. They simply find criticisms that don’t deal with what we actually believe, as in unofficial ideas, speculations, or whatever, as not very germane. Who would? You seem to want LDS to deal with every pronouncement ever made by a leader of the Church. Well I find it silly to assume we ought to. On the flip side, to rebut a criticism all it takes is some hypothesis of what could have happened to show the criticism ineffective. Apples and oranges.

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.

Oh settle down. I meant that generally the position of a critic is to prove a negative. Surely you can forgive a simple misstatement, no?

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.

DJ, I get your position. I just disagree. I truly believe there are ways to find truths that do not entail putting our faith in what man has determined as the best way to practice science. As I said, I get that science has to make this assumption because the tools of science are squarely left to our ability to see things. If there was a Nephite civilization and by using science we weren’t able to detect its existence, then putting our faith in the assumption that “If we can’t find it and see it, then it was never there” is misplaced. Of course the possibility exists because so many times in the past when we find new pieces of evidence that tell a different story we’re left to revise our conclusions. That’s just how science ebbs and flows.

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

In no way. But that clearly misses my point, so I don’t see a reason to run down that rabbit trail for you.

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?

Pep pep…you just won’t give up on these rabbit trails huh? Sorry. I gave up.

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.

So? Its also a claim that has yet to be verified. I suppose your faith is that means that the civilization never existed. I disagree with you. I think there is room enough for it to exist. We simply can’t verify enough to know enough, if you will.

[_Chap]

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.

So? Its also a claim that has yet to be verified. I suppose your faith is that means that the civilization never existed. I disagree with you. I think there is room enough for it to exist. We simply can’t verify enough to know enough, if you will.

Let's take that step by step.

"Its also a claim that has yet to be verified."

That is certainly true. No evidence has been found to suggest that the claim is true, despite a rather well developed science of New World archeology having been around for quite some time.

"I suppose your faith is that means that the civilization never existed."

That is a misuse of the word "faith". If someone says there are black shoes in the hallway, and you look all over the hallway and find quite a lot of stuff but no black shoes, then no normal person says "It is my faith that there are no black shoes in the hallway". Instead, one would at least say something like "I've looked, and it seems that there just aren't any black shoes in the hallway." Normal people use the word 'faith' in sentences like "I have faith that Christ will return to judge the world at the last day", and not in sentences about the conclusions about material facts that they draw from direct inspection of evidence in the physical world.

I think you are using the word in this way in order to give the misleading impression that Darth J's suggestion that, based on the physical evidence, it looks like there never was a Nephite civilization has the same status as your purely faith-based claim that there was such a civilization. No fair, stemelbow!

"I disagree with you. I think there is room enough for it to exist."

Where on the American continent is there room for the great, powerful and inevitably distinctive Judeo-Christian civilization described in the Book of Mormon to have existed for a thousand years while still leaving no trace yet detected by archeologists, either in itself or in its effects on its neighbors?

"We simply can’t verify enough to know enough, if you will."

What, never? You mean even if archeologists in a hundred years are still seeing no sign of Nephite civilization in the Americas you would will go on making this claim? I fear that the answer may be "yes".

[_Darth J]

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!

Your conclusively qualifier seals it for me. Now why would I go and do something as silly as you require here? I didn’t claim what you think I claimed, it seems.

I agree that it would be silly to try to find any evidence for this theory. by the way, "that would support a belief" does not equal "conclusively."

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?

Are you telling me you don’t know what projection is? Well look it up, young man. I think that will help you far more than me telling you what it is. But to help you along the way, you said, “Naturally, your inability to articulate a coherent, consistent statement must be the fault of everyone else.” Your silly accusation here seems to fit you quite well. You seem to think your inability to articulate, coherently, your own position is somehow my fault.

Stemelbow, if a person takes the position that the LDS Church is not responsible for statements made by Mormon leaders that are not official doctrine, on the basis that such things are merely speculation or personal opinions, then why would a person taking that position be justified in relying on speculation or personal opinion to defend what the Church actually does teach?

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.

I’ve told you why that is wrong. The stawman you initially offered here is suggesting that “LDS don’t want to address questions which don’t contain official doctrine”. That’s not true, DJ. They simply find criticisms that don’t deal with what we actually believe, as in unofficial ideas, speculations, or whatever, as not very germane. Who would? You seem to want LDS to deal with every pronouncement ever made by a leader of the Church. Well I find it silly to assume we ought to. On the flip side, to rebut a criticism all it takes is some hypothesis of what could have happened to show the criticism ineffective. Apples and oranges.

Stemelbow, if a person takes the position that the LDS Church is not responsible for statements made by Mormon leaders that are not official doctrine, on the basis that such things are merely speculation or personal opinions, then why would a person taking that position be justified in relying on speculation or personal opinion to defend what the Church actually does teach?

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.

Oh settle down. I meant that generally the position of a critic is to prove a negative. Surely you can forgive a simple misstatement, no?

Stemelbow, what is the negative sought to be proven in criticism over the way Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage?

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.

DJ, I get your position. I just disagree. I truly believe there are ways to find truths that do not entail putting our faith in what man has determined as the best way to practice science. As I said, I get that science has to make this assumption because the tools of science are squarely left to our ability to see things. If there was a Nephite civilization and by using science we weren’t able to detect its existence, then putting our faith in the assumption that “If we can’t find it and see it, then it was never there” is misplaced. Of course the possibility exists because so many times in the past when we find new pieces of evidence that tell a different story we’re left to revise our conclusions. That’s just how science ebbs and flows.

Stemelbow, if I go in my kitchen, and I don't see any dinosaurs in there, how much additional work do I need to do before I can safely say that there are no dinosaurs in my kitchen?

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

In no way. But that clearly misses my point, so I don’t see a reason to run down that rabbit trail for you.

Your point is special pleading: that claims of fact related to religious belief are somehow distinguishable from claims of fact generally. You have yet to explain why that should be so.

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?

Pep pep…you just won’t give up on these rabbit trails huh? Sorry. I gave up.

How is this any different from what you are saying?

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.

So? Its also a claim that has yet to be verified. I suppose your faith is that means that the civilization never existed. I disagree with you. I think there is room enough for it to exist. We simply can’t verify enough to know enough, if you will.

How is it that we can verify the presence of a small number of Vikings temporarily encamped in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere, but we can't verify enough to know that the vast, technologically advanced Nephite civilization that persisted for a thousand years was never present in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere?

How long, and in how many different places, would we have to look before you would be willing to allow that maybe there never was a Nephite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon?

[_Gadianton]

I personally don't think you can prove the engative

If you ever find yourself before a judge on a DUI charge, you'd better hope he isn't a Mopologist who tells you, "sorry buddy, but I personally don't think you can prove a negative, we're gonna have to convict you."

[_Simon Belmont]

Pray about it.

I see. I should pray for confirmation that the Book of Mormon narrative happened in Central America and that Moroni took the plates from there to New York.

No. You should pray to help you discover whether the Book of Mormon is true or not.

Funny, Rodney Meldrum says he prayed about it, and he believes that the Book of Mormon did not take place in Central America.

Okay?

So, do you just arbitrarily have random faith in these things, or do you feel that there is some evidence to support such faith?

My faith is based on both personal and empirical evidence. For my own existence, as Ren stated, there is empirical evidence. For Moroni's, I have personal evidence, and you can too.

A statement, to be sure. A demand? I don't see an exclamation point. I don't hear any tonal inflections which would indicate such emotion. I just see a statement. But, of course, with your uncanny strawman ability, you may claim that I did or said something I did not, then knock it down.

It is a statement, nothing more.

Generally, people do not hear tonal inflections with typed words on a computer screen. However, whether or not "Show me" is a command is not a matter of opinion.

That's exactly my point. There was no demanding tonal inflection. It was a statement; an imperative statement. It was not a demand. "Imperative," according to Dictionary.com, means "absolutely necessary or required." I made no demand.

Good try though.

There is no official statement by the Church except that the plates were made of gold. Why should I listen to your unofficial speculation when I have the official word from the Church?

The only official statement is that they plates had the appearance of gold.

Now let's get those golden plates and see if they are also some other metal than pure gold.

This is an example (since you asked for one earlier) of your affinity for loaded statements.

I can also get shipping manifests and other records, as well as talk to witnesses, that the candies originated in one place and then moved to wherever it is I am buying those candies, rather than assuming that the candies magically appeared in the store out of thin air, or fell out of the sky, or were placed there by space aliens.

I wonder how people ever believed anything actually existed or moved from place to place say... in medieval Europe where there were no such amazing marvels as "shipping manifests" and "other records." It really makes you wonder, huh?

Yes, medieval Europe, which is rightfully renowned for its scientific, logical worldview and its rejection of superstition and magical thinking.

Who said it was? You are severely misguided if you think that was my point. Allow me to reiterate my point: if it is required to show shipping manifests or other records to prove to that items did, in fact, move, then how did people ever believe anything moved in times when records were not kept on such things?

]I mean, I just walked from the kitchen to the office, where is my shipping manifest? I guess space aliens transported me, huh?

I see. So for your analogy to work, since you can just speak to your personal experience of making this short walk, all we need to do to prove that Moroni went from Central America to New York is go ask him. But wait! Moroni isn't here!

I need not ask myself whether I just walked from the kitchen to the office, DJ. That is silly. I am pretty sure I did, without any shipping records to prove it.

I'll bet your family and you have a UPS center right in your house, and every time anyone wants to move from one room to another they must print out a shipping label with a tracking number and stick it to their backs.

Just like Rodney Meldrum found out that the Book of Mormon happened in the future United States!

If that's the answer he got, then that's the answer he got. Leave him alone to practice and believe what he wants to. He isn't hurting anyone.

[_Darth J]

I see. I should pray for confirmation that the Book of Mormon narrative happened in Central America and that Moroni took the plates from there to New York.

No. You should pray to help you discover whether the Book of Mormon is true or not.

I have prayed about it, and I have had a very strong spiritual experience confirming to me that the Book of Mormon is fictitious. I am being completely serious about this.

But---and I say this as someone who does believe in spiritual experiences---there is a logical fallacy built into Moroni's promise. Carl Sagan said (or it least, it is sometimes attributed to him) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think that similarly, the nature of the claim is related to the nature of the proof. I don't go to a chemistry lab to find out about the scope and meaning of the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I don't listen to great jazz musicians to learn about impressionist painting. I don't read books on comparative literature to find out about whether birds are the evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs. And I don't pray for a spiritual answer to find out if the ancient Romans really existed.

Archaeology, anthropology, and history cannot tell me if there is a God. They can, however, tell me if there were ever any Nephites with whom God could have interacted. Spiritual experiences may be a valid way (assuming one believes that such things exist) in having some kind of metaphysical connection to the divine whatever. But they are not a valid methodology for determining claims of fact about the tangible, physical world.

Have you ever prayed to know if the Visogoths really existed? (And if you have, you're an idiot.)

Funny, Rodney Meldrum says he prayed about it, and he believes that the Book of Mormon did not take place in Central America.

Okay?

See, the problem is your continuous equivocation. In this instance, I was asking specifically about Moroni's fantastic journey from Guatemala (or wherever) to New York, not the "truthfulness" of the Book of Mormon in general.

So, do you just arbitrarily have random faith in these things, or do you feel that there is some evidence to support such faith?

My faith is based on both personal and empirical evidence. For my own existence, as Ren stated, there is empirical evidence. For Moroni's, I have personal evidence, and you can too.

Damn, if only during my entire life except the last year or so, with all that time going to church, going on a mission, getting married in the temple, listening to General Conference---if only I had ever heard of Moroni's Promise.

I think acting as if former believers have no experience with Mormonism is my favorite presenting behavior of internet Mormons like Simon Belmont.

Generally, people do not hear tonal inflections with typed words on a computer screen. However, whether or not "Show me" is a command is not a matter of opinion.

That's exactly my point. There was no demanding tonal inflection. It was a statement; an imperative statement. It was not a demand. "Imperative," according to Dictionary.com, means "absolutely necessary or required." I made no demand.

Good try though.

Oh, of course! You didn't make a "demand." You made a statement that a certain action was "absolutely necessary or required."

There is no official statement by the Church except that the plates were made of gold. Why should I listen to your unofficial speculation when I have the official word from the Church?

The only official statement is that they plates had the appearance of gold.

Telling you that something that's right in front of your face isn't there is my second favorite presenting behavior of internet Mormons.

http://LDS.org/study/topics/gold-plates ... old+plates

Gold Plates

Plates made of gold upon which the ancient American prophet Mormon abridged the record of his people. Joseph Smith translated the writings on the gold plates into what became the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

Now let's get those golden plates and see if they are also some other metal than pure gold.

This is an example (since you asked for one earlier) of your affinity for loaded statements.

No, it isn't. That's not what a loaded statement is. The above is sarcasm about the absence of evidence.

Yes, medieval Europe, which is rightfully renowned for its scientific, logical worldview and its rejection of superstition and magical thinking.

Who said it was? You are severely misguided if you think that was my point. Allow me to reiterate my point: if it is required to show shipping manifests or other records to prove to that items did, in fact, move, then how did people ever believe anything moved in times when records were not kept on such things?

How's it coming with that factual basis and/or official teaching from the Church supporting a belief that Moroni took the gold plates from somewhere in Central America to New York? Have you found it yet?

I mean, it must be out there somewhere, since this whole "theory" is certainly not an ad hoc contrivance to fill in a huge plot hole in certain apologetic ideas about where the Book of Mormon narrative happened.

I see. So for your analogy to work, since you can just speak to your personal experience of making this short walk, all we need to do to prove that Moroni went from Central America to New York is go ask him. But wait! Moroni isn't here!

I need not ask myself whether I just walked from the kitchen to the office, DJ. That is silly. I am pretty sure I did, without any shipping records to prove it. I'll bet your family and you have a UPS center right in your house, and every time anyone wants to move from one room to another they must print out a shipping label with a tracking number and stick it to their backs.

My third favorite presenting behavior of internet Mormons is deliberate ignorance. For example, giving one example of how one might prove merchandise moved from one place to another (Simon Belmont's original example of candy in a store) is now idiotically being stretched by Simon Belmont into the inference that I am saying that is the only way to prove that anything or any person ever moved anywhere.

Assuming your movement from your office to your kitchen was at issue, you could, from your own personal knowledge, offer your own statement as evidence that it happened. Someone else would then have to decide if that evidence was credible and/or sufficient.

Moroni is not around to ask if he went from the Yucatan or Belize or wherever to New York. Therefore, what besides arguing from ignorance do you have to offer as to why anyone---including a believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon---should believe that this hypothetical journey ever actually happened?

Just like Rodney Meldrum found out that the Book of Mormon happened in the future United States!

If that's the answer he got, then that's the answer he got. Leave him alone to practice and believe what he wants to. He isn't hurting anyone.

Just like the Maxwell Institute is leaving him alone and letting him practice and believe what he wants to! Right?

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=793

[_bcspace]

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.

I have given much thought to it though maybe it's a booklet as I don't think there is enough material for a book.

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.

With the help of 2 Nephi 2:22 and the doctrine on D&C 77:6 and others yes.

But why do modern homo-sapiens trace their lineage to people who existed before the Garden of Eden was placed on the Earth?

By allowing Adam and Eve to be the physical children of preAdamite homo sapiens and by allowing for a local garden with homo sapiens roaming around outside, one could easily see how LDS doctrine can be true alongside the notion of how we all might descend from various groups of homo sapiens extant tens of thousands of years ago.

[_bcspace]

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,

Yes. It's easy to understand and relatively familiar.

but it just doesn't work. And absence of investigation is not the same thing as an absence of evidence.

Thy are directly related. An absence of investigation produces an absence of evidence. In addition, sometimes there are those who, despite a prevailing belief of non-existence due to an absence of evidence, press forward anyway and do the investigation.

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).

Yet in Schliemann's case, there were prior investigations which turned up nothing. So basically we have a scientific example of going on faith; basically evidence of things not seen.

[_bcspace]

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.

Yes. Basic mathematics; numberlines, larger and smaller infinities, etc. In the numberline I gave above one can indeed truthfully say there was no death before the Fall, yet there was death before the garden state.

In similar fashion, using the definition of real numbers (which introduces infinity), we can also truthfully state that God has always been God and yet there was also a time in which God was not God.

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

2 Nephi 2:22 implies a state, prior to the state of no death, for which there are no properties, such as no death, listed. Plus the official doctrine on D&C 77:6 which you mention below. That by the way, is also supported by the creation account in the Book of Abraham.

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?

Nope. It's just tying existing scripture and doctrine together and seeing if the gaps can be filled in with science a noncontradictory way.

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.

Yet the Church saw fit to publish it officially in a manual, which is the Church's standard for official doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

Yet the Church saw fit to publish it officially in a manual, which is the Church's standard for official doctrine.

Which means Adam God was official doctrine. :)