Drilldown #3: TBMs, how do you deal with contra evidence?

[_sock puppet]

This is the third in a three-part query. Here is the introduction and first, and here is the second.

Having had your experience (query #1) and having interpreted it as a spiritual confirmation (query #2), this query #3 asks how you deal with evidence that contradicts the spiritual truths that have been spiritually confirmed to you.

Do you simply ignore anything historical or by way of scientific development that is contrary to the confirmed spiritual truths as false?

Do you postpone the harmonizing explanation of contrary evidences, trusting in your spiritual confirmation and that the harmonizing explanation will be revealed some day?

Do you take each bit of contrary evidence and try to understand it, and try yourself to harmonize it with the confirmed spiritual truths?

Do you look for and read apologetic pieces that try to do the harmonization?

Which specific bits of contrary evidence have you successfully harmonized with your confirmed spiritual truths?

Which, if any, specific bits of contrary evidence have you yet to be able to harmonize with your confirmed spiritual truths?

[_Yahoo Bot]

First, I ask myself, is the person claiming the contrary evidence a real, credentialed person, or a cowardly anonymous poster who claims to be a lawyer yet who knows almost nothing about the basics of constitutional law? (An important thing to know in discussions about the role of religion in the U.S. If you boast about your credentials you'd better know your shift.)

Second, I ask myself, does the person claiming the contrary evidence really know what the hell he is talking about? Like, does he suggest that there is a temple vow against the U.S. government that should be exposed by the press when any student of Mormon history knows damn well what went on in the Reed Smoot Senate hearings? Under such circumstances, I might think to myself that the person claiming contrary evidence is out of his league.

[_malkie]

First, I ask myself, is the person claiming the contrary evidence a real, credentialed person, or a cowardly anonymous poster who claims to be a lawyer yet who knows almost nothing about the basics of constitutional law? (An important thing to know in discussions about the role of religion in the U.S. If you boast about your credentials you'd better know your shift.)

Second, I ask myself, does the person claiming the contrary evidence really know what the hell he is talking about? Like, does he suggest that there is a temple vow against the U.S. government that should be exposed by the press when any student of Mormon history knows damn well what went on in the Reed Smoot Senate hearings? Under such circumstances, I might think to myself that the person claiming contrary evidence is out of his league.

First, do you ever ask yourself if the evidence should be examined, regardless of the credentials of the source?

Second, do you ever ask yourself if there can ever be any good reason not to identify yourself in an online forum? Or does that cowardly anonymous poster bit apply only to non-LDS posters who do not expose their in real life identities? I mean, people like Simon Belmont and stemelbow are obviously fine, brave, upstanding people. Anything that they say is above reproach, right?

OTOH, based on how often you use it, if we took that point away from you I might think to myself (as distinct from thinking to someone else) that there are times when you would be at a total loss for words.

[_why me]

In all things there are opposites. So it would not surprise me if there are contrary hypotheticals out there about Mormonism. Here is the point: there is no conclusive evidence that Mormonism is false or that Joseph Smith was a fraud. And the window of opportunity of proving such a thing has passed. It was certainly tried when all the people were alive. The witnesses were asked repeatedly to give their explanations and no one denied what they saw or felt. And when sidney and Joseph were alive, no one proved the complicity of sidney in the Book of Mormon. But it was tried.

Thus, sidney and the witnesses went to their deathbed verifying their experience. For sidney it was a final denial about writing the book and for many of the witnesses, it was a final testimony.

So what to do?

And then emma never doubted that her husband did not write the book. What to do?

[_Yahoo Bot]

According to my long-established position, anonymous sources are almost always to be mistrusted and ignored, per historical method. Of course, there may be exceptions.

My rule applies particularly to defenders of the Church, as I can't imagine that an anonymous voice is qualified for evangelism.

I particularly condemn lawyers who resort to anonymity, as their written discourse is held to a higher ethical standard internally by their profession.

Professionals who are anonymous run huge risks if they are experts who testify. They are called upon to identify their public utterances. They thus either must lie or expose themselves for the fools they are. That you are.

[_malkie]

According to my long-established position, anonymous sources are almost always to be mistrusted and ignored, per historical method. Of course, there may be exceptions.

My rule applies particularly to defenders of the Church, as I can't imagine that an anonymous voice is qualified for evangelism.

I particularly condemn lawyers who resort to anonymity, as their written discourse is held to a higher ethical standard internally by their profession.

Professionals who are anonymous run huge risks if they are experts who testify. They are called upon to identify their public utterances. They thus either must lie or expose themselves for the fools they are. That you are.

Is "there may be exceptions" a concession to my point that there may be good reason not to identify yourself in an online forum?

My rule applies particularly to defenders of the Church. I wonder how the defenders of the Church on this board, including Simon Belmont and stemelbow, feel about that.

If you intend That you are. to apply to me, I can only say that it is misapplied in several ways. Actually, I'm not sure what you intend the application to be at all.

Let me paraphrase the paragraph to see if I understand what you intend to say: "Professionals who act as expert witnesses must ensure that all of their public utterances are attributed to them. If they do not do so, they are liars or are exposed as fools." Is that what you mean?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

According to my long-established position, anonymous sources are almost always to be mistrusted and ignored, per historical method. Of course, there may be exceptions.

My rule applies particularly to defenders of the Church, as I can't imagine that an anonymous voice is qualified for evangelism.

I particularly condemn lawyers who resort to anonymity, as their written discourse is held to a higher ethical standard internally by their profession.

Professionals who are anonymous run huge risks if they are experts who testify. They are called upon to identify their public utterances. They thus either must lie or expose themselves for the fools they are. That you are.

Who are you again?

[_Buffalo]

According to my long-established position, anonymous sources are almost always to be mistrusted and ignored, per historical method. Of course, there may be exceptions.

My rule applies particularly to defenders of the Church, as I can't imagine that an anonymous voice is qualified for evangelism.

I particularly condemn lawyers who resort to anonymity, as their written discourse is held to a higher ethical standard internally by their profession.

Professionals who are anonymous run huge risks if they are experts who testify. They are called upon to identify their public utterances. They thus either must lie or expose themselves for the fools they are. That you are.

You're not anonymous, and you have no credibility whatsoever. So there goes that theory.

[_Buffalo]

Hey, didn't the early leaders of the church all have secret code names used in correspondence and revelations? Kind of like anonymous user names, huh?

[_Some Schmo]

According to my long-established position, anonymous sources are almost always to be mistrusted and ignored, per historical method. Of course, there may be exceptions.

My rule applies particularly to defenders of the Church, as I can't imagine that an anonymous voice is qualified for evangelism.

I particularly condemn lawyers who resort to anonymity, as their written discourse is held to a higher ethical standard internally by their profession.

Professionals who are anonymous run huge risks if they are experts who testify. They are called upon to identify their public utterances. They thus either must lie or expose themselves for the fools they are. That you are.

You're not anonymous, and you have no credibility whatsoever. So there goes that theory.

+100000