Mormonism and polytheism

[_Joan]

@ Brad Hudson

I don't use standard mopologists as the measure of logic by which to compare the norm. in my opinion neither are logical. They are predictable under the circumstances, but predictability doesn't equate logic. In this way I might go further to differentiate between reasoning and logic.

My use of the word logical in this case entails Tobin's inability to accept anything other than a defense of his "God experience" as a testimony to Joseph Smith. In that way yes I agree that Tobin and mopologists are the same in their predictability and outcome but neither of them entertain much logic. Making excuses in the name of God involves specific reasoning, but not much of a logical perspective as I've seen clever mopologists do it over and over.

For example, basing a testimony/experience on a God given feeling or experience uses specific types of reasoning to arrive there, but it isn't logical from a complex perspective.
Let's say Tobin claims that Joseph Smith is/was a prophet because God gave Tobin an experience saying Joseph Smith was/is a prophet then there is no logic based on other criteria.
Other criteria would consist of, but not limited to:
- the influence of a multitude of elements masquerading as the God experience.

- If God gave a vision or experience that Joseph Smith was true, this makes God a being who upholds lies in the face of the all the Truth concepts which Joseph Smith alleged to. It is not logical to think that God, the omnipotent giver of Truth, would allow or uphold or create a lie in the name of God Truth. It is counter to the very Truth-filled character of God which people worship. Please point out the logic in that. I see none. It's predictable based on the way the psyche acts and reasons with God fear and hope, but how is it logical while including other components?

hey, everybody has has their weird journeys in life, and Tobin is no different, I'm not saying he isn't like many other people, I'm saying it's not logical based on more criteria than the 2 points I've mentioned. That's okay, most people aren't logical. It's not easy to connect things that are logical especially when a person is very easily influenced by airy/fairy feelings and emotional experiences in the name of said God/Truth.

One of the challenges for me is to try recognize logical disconnects, as the absence of that kept me in Mormonism and the development got me out of it.
It's what lures me to these conversations....figuring out the complex stuff behind the belief system and the people who live it. I find it a fascinating study.

[_Res Ipsa]

I warned you it would be heretical. ;-)

After doing a ton of arguing against apologists and watching others do the same, my personal conclusion is that describing what apologists do as bad logic is wrong. Once you nail down their assumptions, the movement from premise to conclusion generally follows the rules of logic. The point of departure is really in the assumptions/presuppositions and applying a reasonable burden of proof. But, that's just me.

[_Tobin]

The key to any logical statement is the assumptions. If the assumptions are bad, then the logical fall-out will be as well. The problem I see with the critics is they aren't willing to analyze their own assumptions. At least I peek at mine from time-to-time.

[_grindael]

The facts don't lie. But people lie to themselves about the facts. For example, when Parley P. Pratt in 1838 prophecied that there would not be an unbelieving Gentile left in the United States in 50 years or sooner, or the Book of Mormon was false, he made himself a false prophet. This undermines the whole integrity of Mormonism. Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, so he also was a false prophet. I can go on and on. These facts show that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. That is a fact. There is no assumption to be made here. Just the facts.