Let's see where we can get with this

[_Themis]

snip

nice try, Themis. We'll see ya later.

You want discussion, but you seem more attracted to the substance-less ones.

[_Darth J]

I’ll explain more, if one wishes to prove the notion that the Church is proven false and in discussion says its false because Joseph Smith married other women and even young gals. The assumption here is that Joseph Smith couldn’t have been a prophet called of God because of what he did with women. But, that is merely assumption. We don’t know if God truly inspired Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith got carried away with women or if Joseph Smith went ahead and did what God had asked and that included sealing himself to these women or not. We simply have assumption.

The reason that your faith is impervious to evidence and reasoned argument is not because there is something special about your faith. The reason is that you don't know what evidence and reasoned argument is. You call conclusions derived from fact and logical reasoning "assumptions."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption

"Joseph Smith was a prophet" is an assumption. "Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet, but here is what he claimed God told him, here is what Joseph Smith actually did, and those two things cannot be reconciled, and under the terms of Joseph Smith's own purported revelations, Joseph Smith would have ceased to be a prophet because of how he acted" is not an assumption. It is a conclusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion

And by the way, if we don't know if God truly inspired Joseph Smith regarding [X], then we cannot assert that he was a prophet, because we don't know.

[_stemelbow]

I think you will find that the position of many if not most critics is not that the distinctive teachings of the CoJCoLDS have been proven not to be true.

In my mind, I think it is most reasonable for critics to take the position you describe above. The problem I’ve had here is the prevailing argument that “if so and so about the Church is untrue, then the Church is proven false”. I think that’s a hard position to maintain. So I bring it up.

That is because, as repeatedly demonstrated on this and other boards, it is more or less impossible to prove in an ineluctable way that a religious position is not true, unlike the way one can prove that a mathematical proposition such as "there is a finite number of prime numbers" is not true. That is because you can nearly always find a possible (even if improbable) way of dodging pretty well any criticism of even a historical claim. let alone a religious one. Examples:

1. Critic: Joseph Smith translated that papyrus wrongly.
Believer: Maybe when he said 'translate' he meant something different from your usage.

2. Critic: Your deity cannot be good because he lets innocent babies die horrible deaths.
Believer: Maybe he does something so nice for them after death that they would gladly have chosen to die like that.

I think we can agree on this.

Critics have a stronger position when they point out that the case made by the CoJCoLDS that its teachings are true is really very unconvincing, so unconvincing that very few people in a position to evaluate it in a well-informed way are likely to adopt it on the basis of those arguments, as opposed to receiving a 'burning in the bosom'. That is a very tenable position, even if it is not logically equivalent to Sethbag's ringing claim that "Mormonism is not only not true, it's obviously not true".

I agree here as well, in fact. In many of the Church’s truth claims, sans faith, there is very little reason to believe. But that is part of the issue I’m raising here.

So far as I can see, the great majority of intelligent people who defend religious positions adopted them because their parents brought them up that way. If little stemelbow had been brought up in Mumbai, he might be now informing us that because Hinduism had not been proved untrue, there was still room for him to continue to believe in it. And so on. That kind of thing is however not an argument in favor of the religion in question being true.

And vice versa. There’s nothing convincing here to say Mormonism is proven false either by such an appeal. There are tons of possibilities of why people maintain belief in various religions. So? that’s not a question of whether the Church is true. That’s a general question and comment on religion in general.

Anyway, thanks. I think you and I are closer to a resolution than this new RV guy and I.

[_stemelbow]

The reason that your faith is impervious to evidence and reasoned argument is not because there is something special about your faith. The reason is that you don't know what evidence and reasoned argument is. You call conclusions derived from fact and logical reasoning "assumptions."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption

"Joseph Smith was a prophet" is an assumption. "Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet, but here is what he claimed God told him, here is what Joseph Smith actually did, and those two things cannot be reconciled, and under the terms of Joseph Smith's own purported revelations, Joseph Smith would have ceased to be a prophet because of how he acted" is not an assumption. It is a conclusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion

And by the way, if we don't know if God truly inspired Joseph Smith regarding [X], then we cannot assert that he was a prophet, because we don't know.

The assumption I am referring to above is “those two things cannot be reconciled”.

[_Molok]

The retard strikes again!

[_Darth J]

The reason that your faith is impervious to evidence and reasoned argument is not because there is something special about your faith. The reason is that you don't know what evidence and reasoned argument is. You call conclusions derived from fact and logical reasoning "assumptions."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption

"Joseph Smith was a prophet" is an assumption. "Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet, but here is what he claimed God told him, here is what Joseph Smith actually did, and those two things cannot be reconciled, and under the terms of Joseph Smith's own purported revelations, Joseph Smith would have ceased to be a prophet because of how he acted" is not an assumption. It is a conclusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion

And by the way, if we don't know if God truly inspired Joseph Smith regarding [X], then we cannot assert that he was a prophet, because we don't know.

The assumption I am referring to above is “those two things cannot be reconciled”.

That is not an assumption, either. That is a conclusion after reading the Doctrine and Covenants and then looking at what Joseph Smith did.

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow:

Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make any claims in its teachings regarding events that happened in the objective, physical world that can be falsified?

___Yes

___No

[_stemelbow]

I must have misunderstood. I do not think there must be infallibility in everything a church does (e.g., spending millions during a recession on genetically engineering trout for a mall). But I do think that everything that is promoted as god-given, god-inspired ideas must be, or else the claimed channel of information from and infallible god must be faulty, and then how to you trust any of it? If you say individual revelation, then that raises the question of why then the need for any church and hierarchy of leadership, just ask god directly.

Why would a church’s existence be superfluous dependent upon my or someone else’s reason as to why we trust it? The reason I trust it is the reason for my faith, SP.

Since all are individual claims, then we're left to evaluate those claims by asking the individual who holds them as beliefs (a) what specifically and in detail was the experience leading to your holding the beliefs, (b) why do you interpret them in the way leading you to those beliefs rather than alternative explanations, and (c) how do you deal with the probabilities posed by contra evidence, historically or scientifically.

Yep. I agree. But as it is, I have yet to see many parameters put up on these discussions. For instance to say Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet because he was sealed to many women isn’t defining parameters. Is that to say a prophet could not have been sealed to many women? Beats me, but it seems to be quite evident to critics.

Busted. You're right. I've even ordered you a blue Snuggie for Xmas this year, so you can have warm fuzzies all winter long. Seriously though, you are right. I care in the sense that I do want fellow men and women that I consider to be under a spell to come out from under it. But, to use a missionary phrase, after trying so long, maybe I've dusted my feet on your doorstep.

I knew it.

]It's more about trying to get people to take a close look at why they believe the religious things they do that make them act and behave the way they do in response to those beliefs. If they can drill down to the nubbin and explain the basis for their faith, they're better equipped to evaluate and assess instructions from the COB, Vatican, or wherever. If self-examination gets more people on the side of disbelieving (which seems to be the results of serious self-examination of faith beliefs), then so be it.

Hmm…one of these days I’ll probably end up questioning whether your stated objective here fits in with what you’re behavior indicates. I ain’t doing that here though.

[_stemelbow]

That is not an assumption, either. That is a conclusion after reading the Doctrine and Covenants and then looking at what Joseph Smith did.

We'll just call it a false conclusion then. I mean the D&C doesn't say Joseph Smith couldn't be a prophet because he was sealed to more than one woman.

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make any claims in its teachings regarding events that happened in the objective, physical world that can be falsified?

___Yes

___No

You betcha. And to boot, the church has made claims that have been falsified.