Further Light and Knowledge

You are making a truth claim and calling it true with this faulty logic:

Are X and Y true?

1. X is true because Y says it is true.
2. Y is true because X says it is true.
3 Therefore, X and Y are true.

He is using the logic:

Are X and Y true?

1. X is not true because of ABC
2. Y is not true because of DEF
3. Therefore, X and Y are not true.

If X was the original source for Y, then Y could just as easily be called just as not true as X.
(although I think if it is not true it will most probably fall on it's own face with the facts "DEF".)

The opposite is not true for proving X and Y with sound logic.

_________________
All views expressed by jahedgpeth are the sole property of jahedgpeth inc. and subject to change by edit without notice.

I know these aren't your words jb, but I'm just wondering if you know of the evidence for the statement in bold. Do you know of a copy of this account being told as the first vision?

eta: sorry, posted this before I got to the end of your post. Anyway, if anyone knows or has a link that would be great.

_________________
He never said it would be worth it; He only said it would be easy.

The first time I came across this was in The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Quinn goes over all of the different accounts in chronological order.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

Two problems.

One, I am not claiming anything to be true. I am not claiming X or Y to be true. I don't believe that I have made any claim or assertion for myself, other than I found an interesting book. I am not making the claims of others my own.

What I did say was the claims of others X is a reason for me to experiment to see if Y is true.


Second problem. You can't PROVE religion is false. There is very little you can absolutely prove. That's why the legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. Now you are free to believe the case against Mormonism is beyond all reasonable doubt, but you can't prove it absolutely false. Even Richard Dawkins covers this in the God Delusion. All you can say is ABDCEF make an extremely unlikely case for religion. It may be very improbable, but you can't prove it false.

So he IS using the same circular logic, because he is actually making a claim, whereas I am not.

You know your argument is fucked up if J can dismantle it so easily.

_________________
Fear will keep the local systems in line.

HA!

_________________
All views expressed by jahedgpeth are the sole property of jahedgpeth inc. and subject to change by edit without notice.

Well played sir.

_________________
I'm not sorry, I like to get laid. --Mercury

I took roughly 1/3 of my available vacation for the year to chase 12- and 13-year old boys through the woods. --Mcarp

Double post.

_________________
All views expressed by jahedgpeth are the sole property of jahedgpeth inc. and subject to change by edit without notice.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you made those claims here or not. I could go back through the last 6 or 7 pages but in the end for one to believe in Mormonism one will eventually employ circular reasoning.

The believability of Mormonism begins with the veracity of the Book of Mormon because this is the first (only?) point investigators are prompted to “test”. Once “proven” true, the Book of Mormon is the foundation for accepting the entirety of Mormonism.

Missionaries encourage investigators to pray about the Book of Mormon to see if it is true. A positive confirmation of prayer is a good “feeling” from the Holy Ghost.

The test used to confirm the truth about the book is encouraged to be used because the book itself says to use the test in Moroni 10:4-5:

--If the investigator follows the formula he/she will arrive at the conclusion, based on feelings, that the Book of Mormon is true.
--If the confirmative “good feelings” are not felt, the investigator clearly didn’t “ask with a sincere heart”, didn’t have “real intent” and/or didn’t have “faith in Christ”. The investigator must wash rinse and repeat the test until the desired effects are obtained because the book is true because the book states that the test works.

Right from the start, circular reasoning is used.

1.The Book of Mormon is true because one can use the test in Moroni 10 to know that it is true.
2.The test in Moroni 10 is true because the Book of Mormon is true.
Conclusion: Joseph Smith was a prophet of God because he translated the Book of Mormon and was the founding member of Mormonism. Therefore Mormonism is true.

A prudent “investigator” would ask the question:

“What objective evidence exists to prove that the Book of Mormon is true?”

There are numerous objective evidences against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon but for me, the fact that there isn’t a scrap of archeological evidence supporting the book is reason enough to dismiss the book as a work of fiction. My reasoning is this:

The Book of Mormon claims to be a truthful and historical record of an ancient civilization.

1.Ancient civilizations leave behind archeological record.
2.The archeological record for the Book of Mormon does not exist.*
3.The Book of Mormon is therefore not truthful and not a historical record of an ancient civilization.
(*The truthfulness of the Bible is certainly debatable but at least there is a Jerusalem and an Egypt)

I will grant you, absence of evidence is not evidence. However, it isn’t practical to believe and act on every claim made simply because evidence to the contrary does not exist.

If that were the rule, then I could easily claim that God came to me and told me that Mormonism was false and that I was now the prophet and that all Mormons should send me 10% of their gross income. I could then require that Mormons PROVE that God didn’t come to me as I sit back and count my money.

IMO, it is reasonable for one to require certain objective standards for measuring probability of truth.

I also believe that one can never KNOW truth. I especially believe that one can not KNOW truth from subjective feelings.
Objective standards have been a more reliable means to gauge truthfulness in my life and therefore I strive to utilize that in my search for my own belief of truth. Consider this analogy:

A man is standing on the edge of the roof of a 100 story building holding an egg. He drops the egg and watches it fall 100 stories to the ground. The egg makes a “splat” as its yolk and shell splash on the concrete below. A voice in the man’s head tells him that if he jumps he will fly like a bird and not be harmed.

The man does not KNOW that he will fly and he doesn’t KNOW that he will hit the ground but he does have a decision to make based on both subjective and objective evidences.

1.He can choose to jump and fly like a bird based on the subjective voice in his head.
2.He can choose to jump and subsequently die based on the objective egg hitting the ground.

There is of course the third option of not jumping but for the sake of this example I’m just going to talk about 1 and 2. He can’t prove 1 or 2 to be the truthful outcome unless he acts and he must make a decision based on the data available to him at the time.

The Objective evidence:
From his experience, men flying like a bird have only been witnessed with the aid of mechanical apparatus, gliders or parachutes.
The man saw the egg hit the ground from this same elevation and break.
The man has studied physics and understands the effects of gravity.
The man has studied human anatomy and understands that the impact with the concrete will inflict sufficient trauma to cause death.
The man has studied Psychology and understands that people diagnosed with Schizophrenia hear voices in their heads and often require medication and treatment.

The subjective evidence:
A voice in his head said that he would fly like a bird.

To me, the best way to predict truth is to give more weight to the objective evidence because subjective evidence is often unreliable and changes depending on the source. This same logic applies to my decision process with regard to Mormonism and have therefore come to the conclusion (unless objective evidence to the contrary pops up in the future) that I believe Mormonism is false. I came to this conclusion of belief despite past "good feelings" that told me it was true.

You have mentioned Dawkins and presumably you already know about his “tea cup” anecdote and so I won’t go into all of that.

_________________
All views expressed by jahedgpeth are the sole property of jahedgpeth inc. and subject to change by edit without notice.

I don't think I disagree with your thinking at all. (Though I did skim.)

The difference is, I am not looking for subjective evidence. Both "The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil" and " Following the Light of Christ into His Presence" lay out a specific, more articulated (than scripture) way to get objective evidence.

So I am willing to engage in an experiment seeking objective evidence.

What objective evidence have you uncovered thus far?

Edit to add:
1. Are you Snuffer?
2. Do you post on another message board under a diff name?

You of course don't have to answer...I'm just curious. Confirmation of 1 and 2 will not invalidate any past or future arguments you make in my mind.

_________________
All views expressed by jahedgpeth are the sole property of jahedgpeth inc. and subject to change by edit without notice.

Around and round and round he goes, where he stops, nobody knows!

This part is not true.



You acknowledge here that you assume the above, ergo, you make a claim for it's truthfulness.

You claimed an honest examination of LDS church history, but you used circular logic in that examination by using LDS-approved scripture as part of that examination, ergo it was not an honest examination of church history. In other words, you used the word you were defining as part of the definition for itself. It just doesn't work.



Now you're just being silly here.

I received a citation 2 1/2 years ago as a result of an illegal stop and a violation of my 4th amendment right. I didn't build a case that was beyond reasonable doubt. I built a defense case where I PROVED that the officer was not within his rights to stop me; PROVED that the law in which he was trying to enforce did NOT apply to me; PROVED that he illegally ran my motor vehicle record; PROVED that he illegally ran my criminal background check and PROVED that I was illegally detained.

When I consulted an attorney regarding my defense case, I was told that all I had to was show reasonable doubt, not build a case that was completely irrefutable. I didn't show reasonable doubt, I PROVED my case and the district attorney agreed and dropped the charges before we even made it to court.

To your point, though, you're right. It's difficult to prove that religion is false. I haven't claimed to have done this. What I've claimed is that I've looked at evidence on both sides of the fence, a lot of it, evaluated it for objectivity and bias, and reached the conclusion that I reached.

The point is that when I finally questioned the truthfulness of the LDS church and its claims, I stepped OUTSIDE of its self-supporting works, like the official church history and its own scripture. Not doing so would have been circular by nature.



Umm ... now you're just being obtuse.

I can't even begin to understand what logic you used to come to this conclusion.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

1. Are you Snuffer?

No, I denied that earlier. I live in Atlanta. He lives in Salt Lake. He's also got 20+ years on me. I studied biology before law, he didn't.

a) if I were, then I think you would be right about everything you have accused him of, because this would be so dishonest. Not just the comments on the thread, but denying what all of his books claim.

b) if you read anything from him, you'd note that he is not shy of his claim and makes it meekly but boldly. And like I said earlier, from what I have gathered is that he does not actively seek attention.

2. Do you post on another message board under a diff name?

I tried to get a discussion going on a few other boards, but they didn't take. I have seen discussions of this on other boards and have followed them.


I told you I haven't discovered objective evidence yet.

A claim has been made, by more than one person, that it is possible to meet Christ if you do A,B,C, etc. I attempt to verify that claim. Only a visit from Christ will satisfy the objective evidence I am looking for.

However, should I not find it. Would I stay active in a church? Maybe. (At least until the kids are grown.) I think there are objective reasons to stay. Social, good values, etc. Objectively speaking, the lives of my religious friends are far more peaceful, successful than my nonreligious friends. (I am not saying you must have religion for peace and prosperity, I'm saying, in my experience there's an objective correlation.)

To GTR's credit, I will verify that he is not Snuffer.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

Damn. Snuffer would be an interesting name to have though, either a really cute and fluffy cartoon character or a sadistic murderous rapist. There is no middle ground with a name like "snuffer".

At the risk of being accused by GTR of not following this discussion I have to admit I haven't been following this discussion as of page 6 or 7, but what little I've skimmed over seems pretty circuitous.

I think I read somewhere that GTR is an attorney though

_________________
I'm not sorry, I like to get laid. --Mercury

I took roughly 1/3 of my available vacation for the year to chase 12- and 13-year old boys through the woods. --Mcarp