Religious Claims Cannot Be Falsified

[_Darth J]

Oh, then I simply misunderstood. I assumed that you felt that the claims of the LDS Church had superior truth value to the claim that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were gay lovers. What you're really saying is that these claims are on equal footing as far as their respective truth values.

I wonder who was the bottom in the relationship? We all know the point of Mormon priesthood gaining more privileges and perks than your inferiors, so perhaps Joseph was the top. On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine Brigham as anyone's bottom.

Buffalo, it just feels right to me that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had hot, sweaty man-on-man love all the time. Some people will try to dissuade you from your faith by telling you that there is no evidence that this ever happened. Don't you let them tear down your faith.

[_Darth J]

And how do we know that the Bible (as quoted by Alma) is right when it says that faith is evidence?

Why, it's because we have faith in the scriptures!

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo, it just feels right to me that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had hot, sweaty man-on-man love all the time. Some people will try to dissuade you from your faith by telling you that there is no evidence that this ever happened. Don't you let them tear down your faith.

I can see it through the eyes of faith right now. Joseph and Brigham in the barn. A kiss. A sigh. Fumbling for the trouser buttons. One man is grasped by the patriarchal grip. Grunting and moaning as the cows and chickens watch with curiosity. Later, a shared glass of wine and promises for another encounter soon.

[_Buffalo]

And how do we know that the Bible (as quoted by Alma) is right when it says that faith is evidence?

Why, it's because we have faith in the scriptures!

[_sock puppet]

Oh, then I simply misunderstood. I assumed that you felt that the claims of the LDS Church had superior truth value to the claim that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were gay lovers. What you're really saying is that these claims are on equal footing as far as their respective truth values.

I wonder who was the bottom in the relationship? We all know the point of Mormon priesthood gaining more privileges and perks than your inferiors, so perhaps Joseph was the top. On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine Brigham as anyone's bottom.

Buffalo, it just feels right to me that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had hot, sweaty man-on-man love all the time. Some people will try to dissuade you from your faith by telling you that there is no evidence that this ever happened. Don't you let them tear down your faith.

Were JSJr and BY ever sealed to one another, in one of those "Dynasty" ways?

[_stemelbow]

Oh, then I simply misunderstood. I assumed that you felt that the claims of the LDS Church had superior truth value to the claim that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were gay lovers. What you're really saying is that these claims are on equal footing as far as their respective truth values.

Your misunderstanding gets worse. Indeed I did not make any judgments at all as to the value of any propisitions.

Uh huh. Anyway, how is it that one determines whether his "experiences" are being interpreted accurately?

I suppose various people have different ways of going about this.

How does one know, independent of the Church's ipse dixit about what these "experiences" mean, that the Church is right about what those experiences mean?

Knowledge isn't as easily attained as some presume. The experiences are up to personal interpretation. and surely, as such, some people misinterpret. That's not to suggest that any who rely on experiences to guide create faith are somehow wrong though.

"Faith is based on something" is a different proposition than "faith is evidence." If "faith is based on something," then faith is a conclusion based on evidence (evidence being the "something"). But you have also said that faith is evidence. If faith is both evidence and a conclusion, then this is all just circular reasoning.

Faith is many things. It can be both a conclusion and evidence for things. An experience is first hand evidence. Faith, as evidence, is also first hand evidence. Experiences help to create faith, faith helps to support belief. So while evidence (experiences) help create faith, evidence (faith) helps to support belief, or certain propisitions in belief.

So how do you know that when the Church tells you that your "experience" means that there really was a vast pre-Columbian civilization of Christian Hebrews in the western hemisphere, the Church is right about what your experience means?

That question is quite loaded. The Church didn't tell me anything about my experiences.

Trust me, I get it now. What you're saying is that faith is evidence, faith is a conclusion, and faith is the way to interpret faith.

No. you don’t get it. AH well.

I will now stop trying to be charitable and assuming that there must be something other than circular reasoning going on.

Here I’ll help ya out by explaining more. A person sits around in life, living and breathing, eating and laughing, loving and working. Suddenly the person experiences a personal vision that, we’ll say for hypothetical’s sake, brings into view a person who no longer lives—a historical figure—say Paul.

“Who are you?” asks the visionary.
“I am Paul who is known today as the one who wrote in the New Testament”
“wowzer…I’m not really religious, so I don’t know much about you.”
“Aahhh don’t worry about it. I just need you to know that Jesus is the Christ and that people live after this life. You must repent and love others, working hard to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The vision comes to an end. The visionary is left with many thoughts. Was that real? Did I just dream about some guy who no longer lives? What does this mean?

The person then goes on to get him/herself a copy of the New testament and reads along. While reading he/she just feels so obliged to believe the message—the basic story. He/she feels greatly inspired to go and help the poor and to live a virtuous and thoughtful life. And the visionary feels personally compelled to believe the gospel of Christ. His/her faith begins based on experience.

The person lives his/her life. While living he/she feels the need to go and be baptized in the name of Christ. In so doing the confidence in faith grows. Thereby by exercising faith the person gains more reason to believe. More evidence for things he/she can’t see.

That is how faith is both a conclusion and evidence. There is nothing circular there. Its experiential.

[_DarkHelmet]

This thread is hilarious. It started with Darth J doing a Book of Abraham parody and ends with Joseph and Brigham young as gay lovers. Meanwhile, stemelbow is mad because millions of people believe Mormonism so it must be true.

[_stemelbow]

In summary, Stemelbow emerges victorious by announcing that his decision to interpret his experiences the way the Church tells him to is impervious to fact or logic (but the glory of God is intelligence!), then challenges the critics to disprove his a priori beliefs, for which he has already announced it is irrelevant whether the way he interprets his subjective experiences is consistent with external reality.

This is different from schizophrenia.......for some reason.........

That's silly DJ. I don't sugest that my faith is imprenetrable. And while realizing I err in my judgments at times I see no reason to conclude that any attempts to disprove my beleifs, which aren't a priori, as I said I don't interpret my experiences based on what the Church tells me to interpret them, are any more logical and sound then any reason for my belief. They often misunderstand my beliefs and suggest they are something they aren't in order to knock down strawmen. Now that's not to say the truth claims made by teh Church are all supported by evidence. It is just to suggest that any attempts to disprove the claims made by the Church may or may not be successful. The Church stands or falls on certain propisitions but not on all propisitions.

[_Darth J]

Were JSJr and BY ever sealed to one another, in one of those "Dynasty" ways?

It doesn't really matter. I have learned from Stemelbow that everybody sins, so that would not preclude Joseph Smith from continuing to be a prophet. He can do whatever he wants.

Also, I am going to assume without evidence that Joseph Smith got a personal revelation just for himself that he should have gay sex with people. Some revelations were for the whole church, and some were just for Joseph Smith's personal life (I learned that from Stemelbow, too).

[_DarkHelmet]

Were JSJr and BY ever sealed to one another, in one of those "Dynasty" ways?

It doesn't really matter. I have learned from Stemelbow that everybody sins, so that would not preclude Joseph Smith from continuing to be a prophet. He can do whatever he wants.

Also, I am going to assume without evidence that Joseph Smith got a personal revelation just for himself that he should have gay sex with people. Some revelations were for the whole church, and some were just for Joseph Smith's personal life (I learned that from Stemelbow, too).

Makes sense.